ORDER 1. The respondent, Shri B. L. Verma was at the relevant time, serving as Director (Enforcement) with the Government of India. A case was registered against Mr. Chandraswamy and others for commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 195, 469, 471 and Section 500 IPC. The charge-sheet in the case, known as St. Kitts case, was filed by the CBI before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 26-9-1996. The court took cognizance of the offence against the respondent and others and issued non-bailable warrants. Subsequently, it appears that the court partly modified the order of taking cognizance and deleted Section 500 IPC insofar as the respondent is concerned and issued fresh non-bailable warrants on 5-10-1996. 2. The respondent had approached this Court, on refusal of grant of anticipatory bail and on 13-10-1996, this Court, while passing orders in special leave petitions SLPs (Crl.) Nos. 3278 and 3276 of 1996] filed by the respondent, directed that till the question of sanction was decided by the High Court, where a criminal writ petition challenging the taking of cognizance had been filed by the respondent, the proceedings in the trial court should remain stayed. 3. After notice to the petitioner and others, a learned Single Judge of the High Court decided Writ Petition No. 683 of 1996 by its order dated 4-12-1996 holding that sanction under Section 197(1) CrPC was a sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence against the respondent, and since no sanction had been obtained the trial court could not have taken cognizance of the offence against him and directed the dropping of the proceedings pending against the respondent. The CBI is aggrieved with this order. Hence this SLP. 4. The High Court has traced the history of the case and advanced cogent reasons for directing the dropping of the proceedings pending against the respondent. The learned Single Judge has held : "I am, therefore, of the opinion that the alleged acts of the petitioner were directly and reasonably connected with his official duties or in any case in the purported exercise of his official duties as an officer of the Directorate of Enforcement and, in my view, the same would attract the protection of Section 197(1) of the Code." 5. We agree with the reasons given by the High Court and are of the opinion that in the established facts and circumstances of the case as noticed by the High Court the allegations made against the respondent who was a public servant at the time of the commission of the alleged offence, no cognizance of the offence could have been taken against him in the absence a of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. It is not disputed that the actions alleged against him lay within the scope of his official duties or at any event were allegedly committed in the purported discharge of his duties as Director of Enforcement, though it is canvassed that he had abused his official position while discharging his official duties. The High Court has rightly found that that would not oust the necessity of sanction under Section 197 CrPC to take cognizance of the offence. The expression no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction" occurring in Section 197 CrPC unmistakably shows that the bar on the exercise of powers by the court to take cognizance is mandatory and the previous sanction from the competent authority for prosecution of the public servant, who is accused of having committed an offence either in the execution of his duties or in the purported execution of his duties is essential to take congizance. Thus in the absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC the court of the Chief Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence against the respondent and the High court, therefore, committed no error in directing the dropping of proceedings against him, in the absence of such a sanction. 6. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court dated 4-12-1996. 7. 6. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court dated 4-12-1996. 7. However, before parting with this order, we would like to clarify, lest there be any ambiguity, that the direction of the High Court to drop the proceedings against the respondent was on account of want of sanction under Section 197(1) CrPC, and should the competent authority hereafter grant sanction under Section 197 CrPC, it will be perfectly valid and open to the petitioner herein to activate the prosecution against the respondent and the order of the High Court dated 4-12-1996 or this order shall not come in the way of the court to take cognizance nor shall the orders come in the way of the competent authority to grant sanction under Section 197 CrPC, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case if the CBI applies for obtaining sanction. Nothing said hereinabove shall, however, be construed as any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and the competent authority of the court as the case may be, shall decide the matter on its own merits. 8. With the above clarification, the special leave petition is dismissed. No costs.