( 1 ) THROUGH the present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. the applicants had prayed for quashing a criminal case No. 1561 of 1998, pending in the court of C. J. M. Bareilly, (State V. Rampal) under sections 302, 307/34, I. P. C. It is stated the applicants were public servants protected under Section 197, Cr. P. C. and cognizance was taken upon a charge-sheet dated 20-12-1992 along with a sanction dated 29-12-1991 and the sanction was bad in law as the sanctioning authority did not take into consideration all the relevant papers. An objection to this effect was taken before the court below, but the same was disallowed on 6. 8. 1998. ( 2 ) THE prosecution against the two applicants was launched through case Crime No. 164-A of 1995 for an incident that took place on 5. 6. 1995 at about 9. 00 A. M. The report was lodged on the next day at about 7. 10 P. M. Informant was one Lochan Singh. It was stated in the F. I. R. that on the date of occurrence while Ram Kishore and others were proceeding on a Bus towards their village home and the Bust reached Deochara crossing, the Sub-Inspector of Police, ram Pal Singh, and his security guard Constable Gopal Singh dragged these persons out of the Bus. It was alleged further that Ram pal Singh used his service Revolver and Gopal used his Machinegun and opened fire on the aforesaid Ram Kishore and others, as a result of which these persons suffered serious injuries. The incident was seen by several persons, who are named in the F. I. R. In consequence of the injuries Ram Kishore died and Amar Singh was in a critical condition. A report was sought to be made at Bhamaura Police station to which these officials were attached, but no report was accepted. Accordingly, the complalnt was made to the superintendent of Police (Rural), Bareilly, and the case was started. A report was sought to be made at Bhamaura Police station to which these officials were attached, but no report was accepted. Accordingly, the complalnt was made to the superintendent of Police (Rural), Bareilly, and the case was started. It was stated on behalf of the present applicants that an F. I. R. was lodged by Ram Pal Singh at Bhamaura Police Station and three cases were instituted upon that F. I. R. Case Crime No. 164 of 1995 was instituted for offences under Sections 147/148/149/307/393/224/225/332/330, I. P. C. against Ram Kishore and others, Case Crime No. 165 of 1995 was registered under sections 4/25 of the Arms Act against Amar Singh only, and case crime No. 166 of 1995 was recorded under Section 25 of the Arms act against Ram Kishore alone. This report was lodged on 5. 6. 1995 at 1. 45 P. M. for an incident that had allegedly taken place in deochara at about 9. 15 A. M. In this case the Police Officers had alleged that they had received source information that certain persons were travelling in the Bus with illegal arms. Accordingly, the Bus was intercepted at Deochara crossing. When these police officials stood near the Bus, Ram Kishore, Amar Singh and others jumped off the Bus and tried to escape. On suspicion, these persons were apprehended and a search was made in presence of Ram Vir Singh, s. O. , and certain others. Amar was allegedly carrying a knife, Ram kishore was having a 315 bore Tamancha with live cartridges therein. At that point of time Heera Lal, Kanshi Ram and others assembled there and wanted that the apprehended persons should be released. When the police party was taking the arrested persons towards Police Station, Heera Lal and others stopped them and those persons assaulted the police officials and caused serious injury on the head of Ram Pal and only then he used his service Revolver in self defence. Gopal was also injured. ( 3 ) RAM Pal was examined by a Doctor on the same day. The paper in Annexure 2 indicates that he suffered multiple injuries on the second and third left metacarpe bone. He had injuries on the head as well and other parts of his body. The injury report of Gopal indicates contusions on the shoulder, left elbow joint and lower part of back. All were simple injuries. The paper in Annexure 2 indicates that he suffered multiple injuries on the second and third left metacarpe bone. He had injuries on the head as well and other parts of his body. The injury report of Gopal indicates contusions on the shoulder, left elbow joint and lower part of back. All were simple injuries. He was examined at about 11. 30 a. M. at the hospital. It may be mentioned that the injuries of Ram pal also indicated as simple ones. At the time of his admission in the hospital, he was fully conscious. It is stated that a Magisterial enquiry was conducted into the matter and the Magistrate had found that the police officials had to resort to firing in self defence. ( 4 ) THE sanction in question was given by the Secretary Home (Police) under the orders of the Governor of U. P. on 29. 11. 1997/8. 12. 1997. A copy of the sanction order is at Annexure 5 to this application. It appears from a reading of the sanction order that the prosecution case was fully brought to the knowledge of the sanctioning authority and the materials gathered in investigation and the statements of the witnesses were also perused by the sanctioning authority. A prima facie case was made out. Accordingly, the governor thought it proper to accord the required sanction. As stated above, this sanction order was challenged in the court below and the copy of the order of the court below dated 6. 8. 1998 is at Annexure 9 to this application. The prayer for recalling the cognizance order was made on 17. 7. 1998 by Ram Pal singh and Gopal Singh. It was alleged before the Magistrate that these two persons were police officials but the Government had not examined the case fully and seriously and had accorded sanction mechanically. The Magistrate opined that a perusal of the records indicate that the matter was investigated into by the C. B. C. I. D. and only thereafter charge-sheet was submitted after obtaining the sanction. The Magistrate was of the view that whether the sanction was proper or not could be determined only after taking evidence and as such it was not possible to accept the defence version at that stage. Under Section 197 (1), Cr. The Magistrate was of the view that whether the sanction was proper or not could be determined only after taking evidence and as such it was not possible to accept the defence version at that stage. Under Section 197 (1), Cr. P. C. sanction is necessary before cognizance by a court for an offence committed by a public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. This privilege, however, may be clalmed by only such public servants who are not removable from office save by or with the sanction of the Government. The Sub-Inspector of Police or a constable are police officials, who may not enjoy this privilege under Section 197 (1), Cr. P. C. as they are not public servants of that status who could be removed from office only by or with the sanction of the Government. These persons are removable by officers lower in rank. However, in view of the notification of the state Government under Section 197 (3) of the Code of Criminal procedure the provisions of Section 197 (2), Cr. P. C. have been made applicable to the police personnel in Uttar Pradesh and as such it is open for them to agitate a plea of absence of sanction as Section 197 (2), Cr. P. C. also requires a previous sanction by the State government before cognizance of any offence allegedly committed by a police personnel while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. Sri S. V. Goswami appearing for the petitioners relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Singh V. State of Punjab as reported in A. I. R. 1958 S. C. 124. It was a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and the law required previous sanction before the prosecution. The Supreme Court observed that sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act is not intended to be nor is an automatic formality and it is essential that the provision in regard to sanction should be observed with complete strictness. It was explalned that the object of the provision for sanctions is that the authority giving the sanction should be able to consider for itself the evidence before it comes to a conclusion that the prosecution in the circumstances be sanctioned or forbidden. It was explalned that the object of the provision for sanctions is that the authority giving the sanction should be able to consider for itself the evidence before it comes to a conclusion that the prosecution in the circumstances be sanctioned or forbidden. It was contended that the evidence included the materials that the defence could rely on and in the instant case the findings of the magisterial enquiry neither placed before the sanctioning authority nor considered. ( 5 ) RELIANCE was also placed on a recent decision of the Supreme court in the case of Suresh Kumar Bhikam Chand Jain V. Pandey ajay Bhushan and others as reported in A. I. R. 1998 S. C. 1524. It was also a case on the question of sanction under Section 197, cr. P. C. and it was held by the Supreme Court that the accused had a right to produce relevant material to establish necessary ingredients for invoking the provisions of Section 197, Cr. P. C. In answer to these submissions, the learned A. G. A. placed before me the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of bakhshish Singh Brar V. Smt. Gurmej Kaur and another as reported in A. I. R. 1988 S. C. 257. Here also a question of accord of sanction was raised in a complalnt against police officers for causing death of the victim. Cognizance was taken for offences under Sections 323/149/302, I. P. C. The trial court had held that it could decide necessity of sanction only after gathering materials and evidence. That order of the trial court was challenged before the High Court of punjab in a proceeding under Section 482, Cr. P. C. and the High court refused to interfere. The Supreme Court observed that the order of the trial court was absolutely legal and the order of the High court in refusing to interfere with a criminal proceeding was also proper. A very relevant comment was made by the Supreme Court in this regard. "it is necessary to protect the public servants in the discharge of their duties. They must be made immune from being harassed in Criminal proceedings and prosecution, that is the rational behind Section 196 and Section 197. But it is equally important to emphasise that rights of the citizens should be protected and no excesses should be permitted. Encounter death has become too common. They must be made immune from being harassed in Criminal proceedings and prosecution, that is the rational behind Section 196 and Section 197. But it is equally important to emphasise that rights of the citizens should be protected and no excesses should be permitted. Encounter death has become too common. In the facts and circumstances of each case protection of public officers and public servants functioning in discharge of official duties and protection of private citizens have to be balanced by finding out as to what extent and how far is a public servant working in discharge of his duties or purported discharge of his duties, and whether the public servant has exceeded his limit. " In the instant case there is no dispute that there was some incident at Deochara crossing within Bhamaura Police Station in which the deceased and the present two accused stood involved. One version of the incident came through the report of the Police Officer on which three separate cases were drawn up against the deceased and others. The counter version came in the counter case lodged on the second day and reasons were cited why a report was to be made to the Superintendent of Police. The matter has been investigated into. For according sanction, the sanctioning authority was to look to the materials those were collected during investigation. The sanction order indicates that not only the prosecution Case was known to the sanctioning authority but it had looked to the materials collected during investigation. If the defence version was not considered, the sanction order may not be bad on that score alone as to accept the defence version at this initial stage would be sealing the fate of the prosecution version in this case at the out set which perhaps is not the intention of law. When two versions of the same incident are coming, it is desirable that the trial court, after taking evidence, would determine which version is acceptable. The law is now clear that when a case and counter are lodged, the two cases should be tried by the same court side by side. ( 6 ) THE facts in Bakhshish Singh Brars case (supra) fit in with the facts of the instant case, almost in toto. Here also an alleged miscreant has been killed by a Police Officer and it is stated that it was done in self defence. ( 6 ) THE facts in Bakhshish Singh Brars case (supra) fit in with the facts of the instant case, almost in toto. Here also an alleged miscreant has been killed by a Police Officer and it is stated that it was done in self defence. The court below had observed that it could be determined only after trial. It is, therefore, not necessary to interfere with this order of the trial court in a proceeding under section 482, Cr. P. C. as the right decision has been taken by the trial court in this regard, as was observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bakshish Singh (supra ). In view of above, the present application stands dismissed. Application Dismissed. .