R. K. PATRA, J. ( 1 ) ORDER dated 22-3-1994 of the Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kalahandi Nuapada at Bhawani Patna taking cognizance of offence under Sub-section (1) (v) (x) (xv) of Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 punishable under Subsection (2) (vii) thereof read with Sections. 294,506 (11)134, I. P. C. , Sections 500/323/354, IPC in I. C. C. No. 1 of 1994 and the subsequent order dated 26-9-1994 directing issue of summons to the petitioners and the subject-matter of: challenge in this application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 2 ) THERE are two petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 - Debaraj Mishra was the Tahasildar, Dharamgarh and Petitioner No. 2 - Maheswari Prasad alias Maheswari Daswas the Executive Officer, Junagarh Notified Area Council, Junagarh at the relevant time. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are the complainants in the aforesaid I. C. C. No. 1 of 1994 which was not only filed against the petitioners but also against the Sub-Collector. Dharamgarh. The learned Special Judge did not take cognizance and did not issue process against the Sub-Collector. ( 3 ) THE gist of the complaint is that the petitioners and the Sub-Collector. Dharamgarh struck a reign of terror in Junagarh by illegally demolishing houses on the plea to widen and improve the roads. On 29-8-1994 at about 9 A. M. the accused persons (meaning the petitioners and the Sub- Collector) without any notice started demolishing number of houses in the area and after reaching the residence of opposite parties started demolishing its structures. The opposite parties tried to persuade them not to demolish their residential house as they had constructed the same long back and acquired right title and interest over the land by way of adverse possessions. The accused persons did not pay any heed to such request and instead, insulted them by abusing in filthy languages. The petitioners even inflicted kicks to the opp. patty No. 2 and defamed her by stating that you all belong to Domba by caste and had no prestige in the society. ( 4 ) BY order dated 22-9-1994, on perusal of the complaint, the learned Special Judge took cognizance of offences referred to above. On 26-9-1994 he recorded the initial statement of opposite party No. 1. patty No. 2 and defamed her by stating that you all belong to Domba by caste and had no prestige in the society. ( 4 ) BY order dated 22-9-1994, on perusal of the complaint, the learned Special Judge took cognizance of offences referred to above. On 26-9-1994 he recorded the initial statement of opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 2 and two other witnesses were also examined under Section 202, Cr. P. C. The learned Special Judge further observed in his order dated 26-9-1994 as follows: Now the Tahasildar and the Executive Officer, N. A. C. . Junagarh who are implicated as accused persons in this case are public servants. The above allegations made while according to the complaint when they were discharging their duties as such. But public servant while discharging their duties in that capacity is not expected to use unparliamentary words or abusive words like Sala, Domba etc. assisted by the P. Ws. , as alleged in the complaint petition and such act is not expected to be breathed by the Tahasildar or the Executive Officer. So far other officers are concerned the sanction of the State Government is necessary for taking cognizance against them. Therefore the evidence led by the complainant during inquiry under Section 202, Cr. P. C. having made out a case under Section 294, IFC R/w Sec. 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Hence, issue process i. e. summons against Shri Debaraj Mishra, Tahasildar, Dharamgarh and Maheswari Das, Executive Officer, Junagarh N. A. C. fixing 27-10-1994 for appearance ( 5 ) ON perusal of the aforesaid findings, it would appear that the learned Special Judge lost sight of the fact that petitioner No. 1 - Debaraj Mishra belongs to Orissa Administrative Service, Class-Il anti petitioner No. 2 - Maheswari Das belongs to the Orissa Subordinate Finance Service. Both of them are public servants not removable from their office save by or with the sanction of the State Government. If the Sub-Collector could get protection under Section 197, Cr. P. C. the petitioners being similarly placed as that of the Sub-Collector, are also entitled to the umbrella of protection available under the aforesaid provision. It is now fairly settled that before the provision of Section 197. Cr. If the Sub-Collector could get protection under Section 197, Cr. P. C. the petitioners being similarly placed as that of the Sub-Collector, are also entitled to the umbrella of protection available under the aforesaid provision. It is now fairly settled that before the provision of Section 197. Cr. P. C. is invoked, two conditions must be first fulfilled: (i) the public servant is not removable from his office except by or with the sanction of the State Government or the Central Government, as the case may be, and (ii) he is accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him. After the aforesaid two pre-conditions are satisfied, a further enquiry is necessary to be made as to whether the alleged offence was committed by the public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. The expression purporting to act in discharge of his official dutyt is neither to be too narrowly interpreted nor too widely. That is why a middle line is struck by adopting that it is not every offence committed by a public servant in course of performance of his official duty is entitled to the protection under Section 197, Cr. P. C. What comes under the protective umbrella is an act constituting an offence, which directly or reasonably connects with his official duty. What has to be found out is whether the act and the official duty are so interlaced, that one can reasonably hold that it was do not by the accused in the performance of the official duty, though possibly, in excess of the needs and requirements of the situation. ( 6 ) EACH case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances peculiar to it. In the back-drop of the aforesaid legal position, let me examine whether the petitioners can get the protection under Section 197, Cr. P. C. The learned Special Judge in his order dated 26-9-1994 held that the allegations were made when the accused persons were discharging their duties as such. It is an admitted case in the complaint that the accused persons (meaning the petitioners and the Sub- Collector) were engaged in demolition of houses on the plea that there had been encroachment on the Government land. It means that they were engaged in executing the order of eviction passed in eviction cases. They were, thus performing their official duty. It is an admitted case in the complaint that the accused persons (meaning the petitioners and the Sub- Collector) were engaged in demolition of houses on the plea that there had been encroachment on the Government land. It means that they were engaged in executing the order of eviction passed in eviction cases. They were, thus performing their official duty. In course of performance of official duty if any of them uttered any abusive words or language it can reasonably be regarded that such utterances were in excess of their official duty. For the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to hold that the petitioners are entitled to protection under Section 197, Cr. P. C. In absence of sanction from the State Government taking cognizance and issue of summons to the petitioners cannot be sustained in law. ( 7 ) IN the result, the impugned orders dated 22-9-1994 and 26-9-1914 passed in I. C. C. No. 1 of 1994 are set aside. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed. Petition allowed.