JUDGEMENT - V.H. BHAIRAVIA, J.:---Heard the learned Counsel Mr. Shah for the petitioner. Though the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are served, they have not chosen to appear in this Court. They are Police Officers and it seems that they have no respect for Court. Hence this order in their absence. 2.This application is preferred against the order of discharge passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhiwandi, dated 21-11-1989. The complaint was lodged against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the Police Officers disclosing offence punishable under sections 342, 324, 504, 506(2) r/w. 34 I.P.C. in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwandi. The accused persons took an objection against the cognizance taken by the Court on the ground that as they being Government servants, they are protected under section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code and before taking cognizance of the offence, sanction is required under section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code from the Government. 3.Having gone through the record and proceedings of this case, the objection raised by the accused persons is not available to them. The Supreme Court in (Bakhshish Singh Brar v. Smt. Gurmej Kaur another)1, reported in A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 257 has observed thus:- "This Court in the aforesaid decision had occasion to consider this aspect. The case is instructive and illustrative how a balance has to be struck between the need for speedier trial of criminal offenders and at the same time protecting public servants or police officials in the discharge of their duties without obstructions. There the appellant had filed a complaint against his superior officer, in the Postal Department under sections 323 and 502 of I.P.C. alleging that when the appellant went with a certain complaint to the second respondent, the said respondent kicked him in his abdomen and abused him by saying "Sale, gunde, badmash...". The said respondent filed an application under section 197 Cr.P.C. praying that the Court should not take cognizance of the offence without the sanction of the Government, as required by section 197 Cr.P.C. It was further contended that the alleged acts, if at all done by the accused were done while discharging his duties as a public servant. The trial Magistrate dismissed the application. The High Court allowed the revision application of the said respondent. This Court on appeal held that at that stage, the Court was concerned only with one point, viz. The trial Magistrate dismissed the application. The High Court allowed the revision application of the said respondent. This Court on appeal held that at that stage, the Court was concerned only with one point, viz. whether on facts alleged in the complaint, it could be said that the acts were done in purported exercise of his duties. Applying the test laid down in the decisions of the Federal Court and this Court to acts complained of, viz. kicking the complainant and abusing, could not be said to have been done in the course of the performance of the duty by the said respondent. The facts subsequently coming to light during the course of the judicial enquiry or during the course of the prosecution evidence at the trial might establish the necessity for sanction, it was observed. This Court noted that it might be possible for the said respondent to place materials on record during the course of the trial for showing what his duties were and also that the acts complained of were so inter-related with his official duty, so as to attract the protection afforded by section 197 Cr.P.C. This Court reiterated that the question whether sanction was necessary or not might have to depend upon from stage to stage having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. This Court allowed the appeal and allowed the trial to proceed without the sanction! 4.This Court also observed in (Mrs. Mary Kutty Thomas v. Mr. Pawar, D.C.P.-Zone-IV another)2, reported in 1983 Cri.L.J. 1654 thus:--- "Held that the Police Officer was not entitled to get protection under section 197. The said public servant can never dare even to suggest that causing voluntary hurt or levelling serious threat to the life of a citizen formed part of his duty. This would be notwithstanding that the person concerned, who accused the public servant, might have been arrested by the said public servant in his official capacity. The alleged acts were not covered even remotely by any provisions whatsoever including the Police Manual, the Bombay Police Act and the Procedural Law vesting certain powers in the police agency in the matter of investigation. They were wholly unconnected and had not even a semblance or any nexus with the official act or the duty of the Police Officer!" 5.In view of the above observations, this application is allowed. They were wholly unconnected and had not even a semblance or any nexus with the official act or the duty of the Police Officer!" 5.In view of the above observations, this application is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhiwandi for trial. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhiwandi is directed to hear the matter afresh on merits expeditiously. Rule is made absolute. Revision application allowed. *****