This revision application has been filed under section 397/404 CrPC against the judgment and older of the Addl Sessions Judge (II) of Manipur passed on 29.6.85 in Sessions Trial Case No. 64 (20) of 1983 and 14 of 1983. 2. This application has been filed by the Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organisation, Manipur, a registered society. The allegation is that on 30.10.82 in the morning at about 7.30 AM when a political class of the local inhabitant was arranged by the Communist Party of India at the house of one Sri Nahakpam Kripa Singh, the opposite party Nos. 1 to 7 along'with other armed personnels of the Manipur Police and the SSB stormed in the place of meeting and assaulted the persons attending the said class and in that process a boy named Khaidem Maimu Singh was chased and later on he was shot down in the kitchen of one Tombimacha Devi. After that, the OP No. 3, the Police Officer lodged a report in the ImpTial Police Station at 8 AM on 30.10.82 after coming back from the place of occurrence. That report stated that hard-core members of the PLA were present at the meeting and the police got information and raided the place and three of the persons in the meeting stalled running helter and skelter and opened fire towards the police and the said Khaidem Maimu Singh was one of those three persons opening fire towards the police and he received bullet injuries when the police returned the fire and the boy died on the spot. It was reported in the report that the said Khaidem Maimu Singh was the member of the PLA unit. A police case under FIR No.773(X)82, Imphal Police Station under section 1217121 A/307 IPC, 25 (1) (a) Arms Act and section 13 of the UFA Act was registered. The Govt of Manipur also issued a press release admitting the encounter between the police personnel and the PLA members in the morning of that day resulting a the death of a PLA hard-core member one Khaidem Maimu Singh. Because of the persistent demand by the public a Magisterial enquiry was instituted on 2.11.82 and the same'was concluded in the month of January, 1983. The Magisterial report was not accepted by the authority and no action was taken on the basis of that report. Because of the persistent demand by the public a Magisterial enquiry was instituted on 2.11.82 and the same'was concluded in the month of January, 1983. The Magisterial report was not accepted by the authority and no action was taken on the basis of that report. Thereafter on 28.4.83 the petitioner herein lodged a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (Central), Manipur at Imphal. That complaint is quoted in its entirety to appreciate the contentions of the parties. In the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Central), Imphal Criminal Original Jurisdiction Criminal (Complaint) Case No. 347 of 1983. The General Secretary, Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organisation, Prajatantra Building, Thangal Bazar, Imphal. Complainant Versus 1. Shri Thoudam Norendra (alias Noren) Singh, S/o Ibomcha Singh, Rifleman of 2nd Bn Manipur Rifles, resident of Singjamei Mekha Mayangbarn Laikai, Imphal, C/ o Commandant, 2nd Bn. Manipur Rifles, Imphal. 2. Shri Nighthoujam Raghumani Singh, S/o late Meino Singh, Rifleman of 2nd, Bn Manipur Rifles, resident of Pangantabi Village, PS Sugnu, C/o Commandant, 2nd Bn. Manipur Rifles, Imphal. 3. Shri Namoijam Shyamkishore Singh, S/o late Arnuba Singh, resident of Khagempalli, Imphal, Dy. SP of Manipur Police, C/o IGP, Manipur, Imphal. 4. Shri Ymnam Lalmohan Singh, S/o Late Angou Singh, resident of Sapam Village Mayai Leikai, Sepoy in SSB, C/o Commandant, Group Centre, SSB, Imphal. 5. Shri Balbir Singh Choudhury, Deputy Commandant, Group Circle, SSB, Imphal. 6. Shri Kishori Lal Datyal, S/o late Lakshman, Area Organiser, VVF, Imphal. 7. Shri Babu Prasad Kashyap alias GP Kashyap, Area Organiser, VVF, Imphal. Accuseds Complaint under section 190 CrPC 1973 for taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 302, 120B, 148, 449, 452 and 352, IPC read with Section 149 IPC. Most Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That on 30.10.62 at about 6.30 AM, there was a political class held at the house of Nahakpam Kripa Singh at Yumnam Leikai (Moirangkhom Makha), Imphal, as arranged by the Singjamei Local Council of the Communist Party of India. The Police Department and other concerned authorities of the State Govt had been duly notified about the programme of political class taken up by the political party. Shri Khaidem Maimu Singh alias Imocha Singh, son of Bihari Singh, resident of Yumnam Leikai, Imphal, also attended the class only for the sake of learning. 2. The Police Department and other concerned authorities of the State Govt had been duly notified about the programme of political class taken up by the political party. Shri Khaidem Maimu Singh alias Imocha Singh, son of Bihari Singh, resident of Yumnam Leikai, Imphal, also attended the class only for the sake of learning. 2. That Shri Maimu Singh was then a student reading in Class X in Yumjao Lairembi High School, Yumnam Leikai, Imphal. He was aged about 18 (years) and was good football player and also a theatrical artist. During his lifetime he never joined any organisation which was declared unlawful and never participated in any acts or activities of the so-called extremists or insurgents. 3. That at about 7.30 AM on 30.10.82 while the aforesaid class was going on, the accused persons above named along with about 60 other armed personnel of the Commando of the Manipur Police and of the SSB who were all armed with fire arms of one category or another made an unlawful assembly for committing riot with the common object of attacking and assaulting those persons attending the class. These accused persons also were parties to and/or made a criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of some of those persons whom the accused persons suspected to be members of the Peoples Liberation Army (PL A for short) which was declared by the Govt to be an unlawful organisation. These accused persons and about 60 others stormed in the place of meeting by committing house-trespass, and by making thunderous hue and cry they assaulted the persons attending the said class. 4. That a panicky situation was created by the surprise attack and assaulted by the accused and their companions. To avoid the serious commotion, several persons assembled there rushed out of the place in different directions. Shri Maimu Singh also fled the place towards the house of Smti Akoijam Ongbi Tombimacha Devi of Yumnam Leikai, Imphal. He was hotly pursued by the accused Nos 1 and 2 in particular followed by others of their party. In the kitchen of the said Tombimacha Devi, there two accused persons fired at Maimu Singh several times and caused his death at the spot, in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly of the accused. 5. That the accused No. 1 and 2 also committed house-trespass in order to the commission of murder of Maimu Singh. In the kitchen of the said Tombimacha Devi, there two accused persons fired at Maimu Singh several times and caused his death at the spot, in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly of the accused. 5. That the accused No. 1 and 2 also committed house-trespass in order to the commission of murder of Maimu Singh. Both of them committed directly the offences punishable under sections 302 and 449IPC. All the accused persons named above (and their companions whose names and other particulars are not known to the complainant) committed the offences punishable under sections 302, 449, 120B, 148, 452 and 352 IPC read with section 149 IPC. 6. That the accused persons are all public servants; but the offences were committed by them not while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty. As such no previous sanction of the Govt concerned is necessary within the purview of Section 197 CrPC, 1973. 7. That the full names and particulars of these accused persons could not be ascertained earlier before the Magisterial Inquiry held and concluded in the recent past as ordered by the Govt of Manipur in connection with the death of Maimu Singh. These particulars came to light only in the course of the Magisterial Inquiry which concluded only in March, 1983. There is thus some delay in lodging this complaint in the circumstances of the case. However for fear of retaliation and reprisal, nobody dared earlier to make such a complaint as is made herein by and on behalf of the Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organisation, Manipur, after a careful and thorough investigation about the facts and constituting the offences. The complainant humbly prays that Your Honour may graciously be please (a) to take cognizance of the offences above stated against the accused persons. (b) to issue warrants of arrest against them to secure their punctual attendance in Court to stand their trial, and (c) to commit the case to the Sessions Court after necessary enquiry so that the accused may be tried there and punished according to law, for the ends of justice. And the complainant, as in duty bound, shall ever pray. Sd/- (Y Gouridas Singh) General Secretary, Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organisation, Manipur. Dated, Imphal the 28th of April, 1983. Enclo: List of witnesses for prosecution, complainant” 3. And the complainant, as in duty bound, shall ever pray. Sd/- (Y Gouridas Singh) General Secretary, Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organisation, Manipur. Dated, Imphal the 28th of April, 1983. Enclo: List of witnesses for prosecution, complainant” 3. Thereafter, the Chief Judicial Magistrate examined the complainant and he further examined the other witnesses as many as 16 in number out of 25 witnesses listed in the complaint petition and also examined the other documents produced by the complainant. Thereafter, the CJM committed the case under section 209 CrPC to the Sessions Court against the accused persons under section 302/120(B)/148/449/452 and 352 IPC, read with section 149 IPC for their trial. The case was posted before the Sessions Judge, Manipur on 22.12.83 for consideration and on 22.12.83 the accused persons filed two separate petitions urging that the Court cannot proceed with the case and take cognizance of the case in the absence of sanction. 4. The FIR filed by the police reads as follows : “To The OC, Imphal Police Station. Today i.e., 30.10.82 at about 7.45 AM a credible information was received that hard-core members of PLA are having a meeting in the house of Nahakpam Kripa Singh of Yumnam Leikai. A Police party led by me assisted by OC Imphal PS raided the house. While the Police party started to condone the area, all of them who were present in the meeting started to run shelter and skelter, Police party chased them. Three of them who did not stop in spite of repeated warning to stop by the Police, d opened fire toward police and Police also returned fire. One of them received bullet injuries and he died on the spot. He was later o,n identified as Khaidem Maimu Singh S/o Kh. Bihari Singh of Yumnam Leikai. The others managed to escape through the built up villages. The deceased Khaidem Maunu Singh is a member of PLA Unit No. 3 according to the documents seized by the Army from the extremists at Kodompokpi operation. Please take necessary action according to law. Sd/- N. Shyarnkishore Singh Sub-Divisional Police Officer Singjamei. Treated as OE of FIR No. 778(10)82 P5 under section 121/121-A/307 IPC 25 (1) (a) A Act & 13 UAP Act. Sd/- L. Chandrakishore Singh, OC Imphal PS, 30.10.82.” 5. Please take necessary action according to law. Sd/- N. Shyarnkishore Singh Sub-Divisional Police Officer Singjamei. Treated as OE of FIR No. 778(10)82 P5 under section 121/121-A/307 IPC 25 (1) (a) A Act & 13 UAP Act. Sd/- L. Chandrakishore Singh, OC Imphal PS, 30.10.82.” 5. The applications filed by the accused Nosx4 to 7 and accused Nos 1, 2 and 3 are quoted below: “In the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Manipur, at Imphal. ST No. 64 of 1983/20/83/14/83 Cril. (C) Case No. 347 of 1983 Ref: Crl (C) Case No. 347 of 1983 General Secretary, Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organisation. Complainant. Versus Thoudam Norendra Singh & 6 others Accused. Application by the accused Nos 4 to 7, namely (1) Balbir Singh Choudhury, Deputy Commandant, Group Circle, SSB Imphal, (2) Kishorilal Datyal, Area Organiser, VVF Imphal, (3) GP Kashyap Area Organiser, VVF, Imphal and (4) Yumnam Lalmohan Singh, a sepoy of SSB Imphal in the matter of discharge of the accuseds mentioned above from the above case under section 227 CrPC for the prosecution of the accuseds persons being barred under the provisions of section 197 CrPC. Most Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the above named accuseds are public servants and they are the officer of the Central Govt having working under the Director General of Security, Cabinet Secretariat, Central Govt. 2. That the above said accused persons are also member of the Arms Forces of the Union of India. They are governed and raised under the Central Reserve Police Force Act and under the provision of section 3 (1) of the said Act, the accuseds are the members of the arms forces of the Union. Further the VVF and SSB are deemed to be armed forces within the meaning of Armed Forces (Assam & Manipur) Special Power Act, 1958. That vide notification No. F/17/1/67-P-IV dated 21.6.1969 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Govt declared and specified the SSB and VVF personnels as Arm Forces under the Arms Act, 1959. 3. Further the VVF and SSB are deemed to be armed forces within the meaning of Armed Forces (Assam & Manipur) Special Power Act, 1958. That vide notification No. F/17/1/67-P-IV dated 21.6.1969 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Govt declared and specified the SSB and VVF personnels as Arm Forces under the Arms Act, 1959. 3. That the above said accused persons being public servants of the Central Govt being not removable from their office save by or with the sanction of the Central Govt and also being members of Armed Forces, cannot be prosecuted and/or no Court can take cognizance of offence alleged to have been committed by them while acting or purporting to act in discharge of their official duty without valid sanction. 4. That as per the allegations or otherwise made in the above referred complaint case, the prosecution sanction is a must and as there is no prosecutions sanction, the prosecution or trial of the above said accuseds is barred by section 197 CrPC. 5. That it may be mentioned here that there is a civil suit being Judl Misc Case No. 52 of 1983 had been lying pending in Court of Sub Judge No. 2, Manipur, concerning the same subject matter and/or the same allegations or offence/offences as alleged in the above complaint case and said case is now lying pending in this honourable Court being JM No. 52/83/34/83 transfer. The said civil suit is filed by one Smti Khaidem Ongbi Laiyon Devi of Yumnam Leikai Moirangkhom Makha, Imphal who is the mother of the deceased Kh Maimu Singh whose death is the subject matter of the both the cases. Said Smti Laiyon Devi alleged in the said civil suit that all the defendants in that suit who are accused Nos 1 to 7 in the above complaint case and 60 other armed personnel of the Commando of Manipur Rifles were involved in the alleged incidents of offence while acting or purporting to act in discharge of their official duties since they being the public servant. 6. 6. That the due to the reason mentioned above, the prosecution of the above named accused persons in the above case is hit by section 197 (1) and 197 (2) CrPC in want of prosecution sanction and as such cognizance, taken by the learned CJM (C) Manipur in the above case ie, in Cril (C) Case No. 347 of 1983 is without jurisdiction and the'prosecution and trial is barred by section 197 CrPC or otherwise. It is therefore prayed that your honour would be pleased to stop/drop the above referred proceeding and the accused persons mentioned above be discharged accordingly under section 227 CrPC for the ends of justice.” “In the Court of the Addl Sessions Judge (Dr. Singh), Manipur ST No 14 of 1983 State of Manipur/General Secretary, Civil Right & Human Rights Organisation. Versus Thoudam Narendra Singh alias Noren Singh & others Accuseds In the matter of an application of the accused Nos 1, 2 and 3 praying for considering the question of sanction at the time of charge consideration and also for discharging them for want of sanction of the State Govt under section 197 (2) of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the above case. Most Respectfully Sheweth: “1. That the above accused Nos 1 and 2 are the Riflemen of 2nd Bn Manipur Rifles and the accused No. 3 is Deputy Superintendent of Manipur Police not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Govt. 2. That the Governor of Manipur by notification No. 7/20/67 Pol I Imphal the 30th May, 1978 declared the whole area of Manipur South District, the whole area of Jiribam Sub Division in the Manipur Central District and whole area in Tengnoupal District as disturbed area in exercise of the power conferred by section 3 of the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Power Act and by notification No. II 20/67 Pol. I (Pt), Imphal the 8th Sept, 1980 the Governor of Manipur also declared the entire Manipur Central District except the Jiribam Sub-Division as disturbed area in view of unprecedented increase in the commission of crimes such as killing of innocent persons, robbery, dacoity, arson and etc. 3. I (Pt), Imphal the 8th Sept, 1980 the Governor of Manipur also declared the entire Manipur Central District except the Jiribam Sub-Division as disturbed area in view of unprecedented increase in the commission of crimes such as killing of innocent persons, robbery, dacoity, arson and etc. 3. That the Governor of Manipur in exercise of the power conferred by sub­ section (3) of section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was pleased to direct that the provisions of section (2) of section 197 of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply to the members of forces charged with maintenance of public order namely the Manipur Police, the Manipur Rifles, the Home Guards of Manipur and the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary by notification No. 7/20/ 67-Pol 11(4), Imphal, the 3rd November, 1980. 4. That assuming but not admitting that Shri Maimu Singh who attended the political class held at the house of Nahakpam Kripa Singh at Yumnam Leikaj on 30.10,82 was killed by the party of the armed personnel of the Commando of Manipur Police and of SSB as the said party suspected the said Maimu Singh as a member of the Peoples Liberation Army who joined in the said political class, the accused Nos 1, 2 and 3 beg to state that the said party being public officers or Govt servants charged with the maintenance of public order acted the said acts in the discharge of their official duties. The accused Nos 1, 2 and 3 also state that the said party acted in exercise of sovereign power as they are discharging their duties connected with the affairs of the State. 5. That the cognizance of the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused should not be taken unless the previous sanction of the Govt of Manipur for prosecution of the accused Nos 1,2 and 3 is obtained by the complainant under section 197 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 inasmuch as the occurrence took place as mentioned in para No.4 above. 6. That as submitted in the foregoing paras the above case cannot proceed against the accused Nos 1,2 and 3 for want of prosecution sanction and the accused Nos 1, 2 and 3 have to be discharged accordingly. 6. That as submitted in the foregoing paras the above case cannot proceed against the accused Nos 1,2 and 3 for want of prosecution sanction and the accused Nos 1, 2 and 3 have to be discharged accordingly. It is therefore prayed that your honour be please to consider the question of sanction at the time of charge consideration of theabove case and also for discharging the accused No. 1, 2 and 3 for the ends of justice. The accused as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 6. On 3rd of November, 1980 by Gazette notification, the Governor of Manipur in exercise of the power under sub-section (3) of section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directed that the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply to all the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order and wherever they may be serving in the State of Manipur and these are : (i) The Manipur Police; (ii) The Manipur Rifles; (iii) The Home Guards, Manipur and (iv) The Rajasthan Armed Constituency. 7. On 8th September, 1980 the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 was brought into force in Manipur and the Governor of Manipur declared the present area of the incident to be disturbed areas with immediate effect until further order. Further it is seen that the Go vt of India, Director General of Security on 10th July, 1979 declared that the WF is deemed to be a Armed forces within the meaning of the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Power Act, 1958 and it was furthei declared that they shall be entitled to protection against prosecution for Acts done in the discharge of the official duties as provided therein. Section 6 of the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958 provides as foliows : “No prosecution, suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central Govt, against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act.” 8. Section 6 of the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958 provides as foliows : “No prosecution, suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central Govt, against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act.” 8. The learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment by considering the decisions in AIR 1964 SC 269 , AIR 1979 SC 1841 , AIR 1948 PC 128 and AIR 1955 SC 309 came to the following findings-: (i) The complaint petition itself states that the police stormed the place suspecting those persons to be PLA members. (ii) Even if it is proved that the accused persons committed the alleged act in excess of the duty even then for their prosecution sanction is necessary under the law. (iii) The complaint petition cannot be taken into cognizance and the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed for want of sanction. Accordingly, complaint petition shall stand dismissed because of absence of sanction. Hence this revision application. 9.1 have heard Mr. A. Nilamani, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. RM Nath, learned Advocate for the opposite party. Mr. A. Nilamani, learned Advocate for the petitioner makes the same submission- which was made 8 before the learned Sessions Judge and in addition to it he makes a further submission that as of now some of the officers have retired from the service and they are no longer public servants and as such no sanction is necessary to proceed against them. 10. The complaint petition can be quashed where it suffers from fundamental legal defects such as-want of sanction. The question of fact depending on the situation and object of sanction affords protection to public servants from harassment resulting from vexatious prosecution to the extent of their necessity in the public interest. There should be reasonable nexus between the act and the complaint and the official duty and if that is shown sanction is the necessary. Once it is found that act falls within the scope of official duty of the public servant sanction is the requirement. The protection given to the public servant is essentially a question of fact to be determined by appreciating all the circumstances of the case. Once it is found that act falls within the scope of official duty of the public servant sanction is the requirement. The protection given to the public servant is essentially a question of fact to be determined by appreciating all the circumstances of the case. Sanction is necessary if acts complaint of public servant are so integrally connected with the duties of the office as to be inseparable from them. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in AIR 1969 SC 686 (Pravakar vs. Shankar) the act and the official duty should be so inter-related that it can be reasonably postulated that the act was done in performance of official duty though possibly in excess of the needs and requirements of the situation. To the same effect is the law laid down in AIR 1970 SC 1661 (BP Srivastava vs. NP Mishra) where it was pointed out that as an act can be performed both in the discharge of official duty as well as in dereliction of it, one must see that there is a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty it is also the law that no Court can take cognizance of an offence, committed by the public servant in the public interest without sanction. Order of sanction is necessary to give jurisdiction to the Court for taking cognizance of the offence but the question of cognizance can be examined without sanction. The accused cannot be summoned or evidence as against him cannot be taken without sanction. 11. Let us examine the case cited at the Bar by the learned Advocate for both the sides in the background of this law. 12. Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner places reliance on the following decisions: (i) AIR 1983 SC 64 (BS Sambhu vs. TS Krishnaswamy). That was a case where an Advocate filed a transfer petition. The District Judge asked for comment from the Magistrate. The concerned Magistrate called the Advocate as 'Rowdy', 'a big gambler' and 'a mischievous element and it was in that back ground that the Supreme Court said that in that particular case, no sanction is necessary. The Supreme Court in paragraph 4 relying on AIR 1956 SC 44 (Matajog Dubey vs. HC Bhari) quoted paragraph 19 of the judgment. The concerned Magistrate called the Advocate as 'Rowdy', 'a big gambler' and 'a mischievous element and it was in that back ground that the Supreme Court said that in that particular case, no sanction is necessary. The Supreme Court in paragraph 4 relying on AIR 1956 SC 44 (Matajog Dubey vs. HC Bhari) quoted paragraph 19 of the judgment. That is quoted below: (ii) There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty; the act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable, but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the course of the performance of his duty.” The question is that whether in this particular case the claim which made is a pretended one or fanciful claim. The learned District Judge on consideration of materials on record came to the finding that it is not a pretended one and fanciful. So, this case does not help the petitioner. (ii) AIR 1973 SC 2591 (Pukhraj vs. State of Rajasthan & another) That was a case where a complaint was filed by the clerk of the Head Post Office where it was alleged that at the time of arrival for inspection the Post Master General kicked the complainant and abused him when the complainant was submitting his representation for cancellation of his transfer and the Supreme Court in the facts of that case held that the acts of the public servant so alleged could not be said to have been done in purported exercise of its duty. The Supreme Court after discussing the law in detail has laid down the law as follows : “What is necessary is that the offence must be in respect of an act done or purported to be done in the discharge of an official duty. It does not apply to acts done purely in a private capacity by a public servant. Expressions such as the 'capacity in which the act is performed', 'cloak of office' and 'professed exercise of office' may not always be appropriate to describe or delimit the scope of the section. An act merely because it was done negligently does not cease to be one done or purporting to be done in execution of a duty. Expressions such as the 'capacity in which the act is performed', 'cloak of office' and 'professed exercise of office' may not always be appropriate to describe or delimit the scope of the section. An act merely because it was done negligently does not cease to be one done or purporting to be done in execution of a duty. In Hori Ram Singh's case (supra) Sulaiman, J. observed: “The section cannot be confined to only such acts as are done by a public servant directly in pursuance of his public office, though in excess of the duty or under a mistaken belief as to the existence of such duty. Nor it is necessary to go to the length of saying that the act constituting the offence should be so inseparably connected with the official duty as to form part and parcel of the same transaction.” In the same case Varadachariar, J. observed "there must be something in the nature of the act complained of that attaches it to the official character of the person doing it. In affirming this view, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council observed in Gill's case, 75 Ind App 41 :(AIR 1948 PC 128): “A public servant can only be said to act or purported to act in the discharge of his official duty, it his act is such as to lie within the scope of his official duty..... The test may well be whether the public servant, if challenged, can reasonably claim that, what he does, he does in virtue of his office.” In Matajog Dobey vs. HC Bhari, (1955) 2 SCR 925 : ( AIR 1956 SC 44 ) the Court was of the view that the test laid down that it must be established that the act complained of was an official act unduly narrowed down the scope of the protection afforded by section 197. After referring to the earlier cases the Court summed up the. results as follows: “There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty; the act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable, but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the course of the performance of his duty.” This case instead of helping the petitioner helps the opposite party. (iii) AIR 1979 SC 1841 (SB Saha & others vs. MS Kochar). (iii) AIR 1979 SC 1841 (SB Saha & others vs. MS Kochar). This case answers four questions. That is quoted below: “(i) The question of sanction under section 197 can be raised and considered at any stage of the proceedings. In considering the question whether or not sanction for prosecution was required, it is not necessary for the Court to confine itself to the allegations in the complaint. It can take into account all the materials on the record at the time when the question is raised and falls for consideration. (ii) The sine qua non for the applicability of section 197 is that the offence charged, be it one of commission or omission, must be one of commission or omission, must be one which has been committed by the public servant either in his official capacity or under colour of the office held by him. (iii) The right approach to the import of these words lies between these two extremes. While on the one hand, it is not every offence committed by a public servant while engaged in the performance of his official duty, which is entitled to the protection of section 197(1), an act constituting an offence, directly and reasonably connected with his official duty will require sanction for prosecution under the said provision. It is the quality of the act that is important, and if it falls within the scope and range of his official duties, the protection contemplated by section 197 will be attracted. (iv) The question whether an offence was committed in the course of official duty or under colour of office depends on the facts of each case. One broad test for this purpose is whether the public servant, if challenged, can reasonably claim, that what he does, he does in virtue of his office. AIR 1948 PC 128, Foil.” So, this case also does not help the petitioner but it helps the opposite party in the facts and circumstances of this case. (iv) AIR 1983 SC 610 (Manohar Nath Kaul vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir). AIR 1948 PC 128, Foil.” So, this case also does not help the petitioner but it helps the opposite party in the facts and circumstances of this case. (iv) AIR 1983 SC 610 (Manohar Nath Kaul vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir). That was a case where a public servant commits the offence of cheating or abets another so to cheat, the Supreme Court came to the finding that the offence committed by him is not one acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, as such offence has no necessary connection between it and the performance of the duties of the public servant. The Supreme Court considering the earlier judgment in AIR 1979 SC 1841 (supra) reiterated the same law. (v) (1986) 2 GLR 497 (Gokul Saikia vs. Ashok Sahu). That was a case where the Superintendent of Police assaulted the complainant with pistol and lathi and the Court found that there was no direct reasonable connection between the act complained and discharge of official duty and it was in that context that the judgment of the Magistrate held -that there was no need of sanction. (vi) (1994) 1 GLR 319 (Mohendra Nath Saikia vs. Nuruddin Ahmed, Additional Superintendent of Police, Morigaon) (1994 (1) GLJ 61). That was a case where the petitioner parked his bus on the road instead of the bus stand. The Addl SP came to the spot and without any rhyme and reason beaten the petitioner and compelled to kneel down on the road by catching hold of his ears and made him to write down in the blank papers and the Court came to the finding that the acts are absolutely not connected with official duty and as such the Court came to the finding that there was no need of sanction. 13. The next contention of Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner is that as some of the persons have already retired the question of sanction in their cases has become irrelevant. This contention of Mr. 13. The next contention of Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner is that as some of the persons have already retired the question of sanction in their cases has become irrelevant. This contention of Mr. Nilamani Singh cannot be accepted inasmuch as the protection given by the section applies not only to a person who was a public servant at the time when prosecution was launched but extends also to a person who was no longer a public servant at that time, was in the office when the offences charged was said to have been .committed. The protection is necessary after retirement also its inasmuch as a private person harbouring the grievance against the public official may wait until he retires from service and then lodge a complaint. If the ultimate object is to see that there are no vexatious proceedings for things done in exercise of official duty then protection should be accorded equally to those who have retired. In the old Code the protection did not extend after the public servant cases to hold the office though the offence was committed while in office. So, no sanction was necessary for prosecution after resignation, retirement or removal and that was the law as decided by the Supreme Court in AIR 1961 SC 1935 (Keshablal), AIR 1958 SC 107 (Venkataraman). But in the present Code by addition of the words in clause (a) and (b) of sub-section (1), the officer is protected even after retirement or resignation or removal, if the offence is committed while in office. Sanction is necessary for prosecution for committing offence in the discharge of duties while the accused was or is in Govt service. So, this contention of Mr. Nilamani Singh has no force. 14. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the opposite party Mr. M. Nath places reliance on the following cases : (i) AIR 1984 SC 684 (supra). (ii) AIR 1968 SC 1292 (Sailendranath Boss vs. The State of Bihar). That is the case with regard to the Prevention of Corruption Acts and under section 6 (1) of that Acts previous sanction'of the authority is necessary. (iii) 1995 (3) GLT 60 (Rongpur Co-operative Society Ltd & others vs. State of Assam). (iv) (1991) 2 GLR 336 (B. Purchiba Ao vs. RK Atoshe Sema & others) (1991 (2)GLJ113). That is the case with regard to the Prevention of Corruption Acts and under section 6 (1) of that Acts previous sanction'of the authority is necessary. (iii) 1995 (3) GLT 60 (Rongpur Co-operative Society Ltd & others vs. State of Assam). (iv) (1991) 2 GLR 336 (B. Purchiba Ao vs. RK Atoshe Sema & others) (1991 (2)GLJ113). (v) (1988) 1 GLR 235 (Shri Abedur Rahman vs. Shri Banamali Choudhury) (1988(1)GLJNOC6). It is not necessary to discuss all those cases referred as I have discussed the cases settling the law by the Apex Court. 15. That being the position, there is no merit in this revision application and the same is dismissed. 16. It is rather a pity that this revision is pending before this Court for the last 14 years. The matter was heard earlier but judgment was not delivered. Be that as it may, by this judgment the long pending revision shall stand disposed of as rejected.