Order.- This is a petition by the first accused in C.C. No. 1046 of 1964 to revise the order of the Sub-Magistrate, Tirur, rejecting the preliminary objection raised by him that he being the President of the Vallikunnu Panchayat the charge laid against him under sections 323 and 324, Indian Penal Code, by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tirurangadi, cannot be taken cognisance of without the requisite sanction of the Government as provided in section 122 of the Kerala Panchayat Act. Section 122 is in the following terms: “(1) When the President, Executive Authority or any member is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognisance of such offence except with the previous sanction of Government. * * * * * .” The allegation in the complaint is that on 29th April, 1964, when in the course of the Panchayat meeting the complainant raised a point of order, the petitioner and the second accused in the case assaulted him. Learned Magistrate held that the assault could never be said to have been caused in the discharge of his duties as the President of the Panchayat and ordered that no sanction was necessary and that the case would proceed. In order that the section might apply it must be held that the act done bears such a relation to the official duties of the person concerned that he can lay a reasonable and not merely a pretended or fanciful claim that the act complained of was done by him in the course of the performance of his official duties. Section 122 cannot be invoked merely because it is his official status which furnished him an occasion or the opportunity for the commission of the offence complained of. The question of necessity of sanction has to be decided on the materials available on record at the time cognisance is taken. Even though the complaint or the charge sheet may not disclose that the act constituting the offence was done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty, facts subsequently coming to light in the course of the enquiry when the prosecution evidence is adduced may establish the necessity for sanction. Even though the complaint or the charge sheet may not disclose that the act constituting the offence was done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty, facts subsequently coming to light in the course of the enquiry when the prosecution evidence is adduced may establish the necessity for sanction. As was held in Matajog Dobey and others v. Bhari1 whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage. The mere fact that the petitioner is the Panchayat President would not by itself be sufficient to bring the case within the inhibition of section 122. The revision petition is dismissed. M.C.M. ----- Petition dismissed.