JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanty, J. - This is an application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the complainant against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ranpur dated 13.8.98 dismissing the complaint u/s 203, Code of Criminal Procedure for want of necessary sanction u/s 197, Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The brief fact of the case bereft of unnecessary details is that on 7.7.98 at about 7.00 P.M., the accused-petitioner, who is a Police Officer, went to the house of the complainant situated in village Katunisila when the complainant was absent in his house and under suspension in a gold-chain theft case, brought P.W.1 with him by his motor-cycle from his house to Rajsunakhala outpost for interrogation. At Rajsunakhala out-post, P.W.I was kept in confinement by putting him inside the police lick-up by the accused-opposite party. Without giving any importance to the request of the complainant, the police officer abused P.W.I in filthy languages and assaulted him causing injury. On 8.7.98 at about 4.00 p.m., he was left from the police custody. On account of injuries in the person of P.W.I, the complainant took him to the Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar for his treatment and come back on 19.7.98.. On 20.7.98 the complaint has been filed. The accused is working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in Rajasunakhala outpost. The learned Magistrate held that the Police Officer is entitled to got the protection u/s 197, Code of Criminal Procedure and in absence of sanction, the complaint is not maintainable. Accordingly, the petition has been dismissed the aforesaid order is under challenge. 3. The order is assailed on two grounds by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. It is submitted that the A.S.I. is not a public servant removable from his office without sanction of the Government and as such, the protection available u/s 197, Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable to him. Secondly, it is contended that even assuming that the protection u/s 197, Code of Criminal Procedure is available to the accused-police office, the act complained of to have been committed by him cannot be construed to be an act in discharge of his official duty, since abusing and assaulting a person in police custody is not an act authorised under law in due discharge of his official duty. 4. 4. Sri D.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the opposite party however controverts the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and submits that the Petitioner is a public servant notified as such by the Government in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure and thus, a sanction for his prosecution u/s 197, Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecution, no court could take cognizance of any offence it is further submitted that not only the allegation of abuse and assault is in blue but even assuming that there is any truth in such allegation, the act complained of being in due discharge of his public duty may be in excess, the same;being not extricable from the purported discharge of duty, a sanction is necessary. 5. Now let us consider the first contention of the learned Counsel, as to whether the accused-opposite party, a Police A.S.I. is an officer coming within the scope and ambit of Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure requiring sanction for any prosecution against him. The learned Counsel for the opp.party has referred to a decision of this Court in Anadi Charan Jena v. Bijaya Kumar Mohanty : 10 ( 1990) CLT 201, to contend that, true it is that an A.S.I. is not removable from office by order of the Government, but by virtue of the Notification No. 60 16 dated 24.12.81 issued by the Home Department, Government of Orissa, it was necessary to obtain sanction before a cognizance can be taken against the Officer. In the aforesaid judgment, it is held that in view of the notification of the State Government in Home Department, read with Section 197 of the Code, sanction of the State Government was necessary before taking cognizance of the offences against any police officers of all rank. Thus, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police being covered under the Notification of the State Government dated 24th December, 1991 (supra), a sanction of the State Government was required before the Court could proceed to take cognizance. 6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner thus contended that the Act complained of being not within the scope of the official duty and not being connected here with, a sanction was absolutely not called for in terms of Section 197 of the Code. 6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner thus contended that the Act complained of being not within the scope of the official duty and not being connected here with, a sanction was absolutely not called for in terms of Section 197 of the Code. The learned Counsel has submitted that the act complained of has no connection with his official duty nor can it be said that the offence committed by the opposite party was done while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty, since it cannot be said that it is a part of the duty of a police officer to abuse or assault an-accused inside the police luck up. The allegation is that the accused-opposite party abused the sone of the complainant (P.W.I) in filthy languages and assaulted him on his joints with the batton causing injuries on 8.7.98 and because of the injuries, the complainant immediately took him to the Capital Hospital for treatment and he came back from the Hospital on 19.7.98 and filed the complaint on the next date i.e. on 20.7.98. 7. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has referred to several decisions of this Court, which shall be considered at the appropriate time. 8. The Learned Counsel has referred to some decisions in Abani Ch. Biswal Vs. State of Orissa and Another Premjit Mohananda v. Mohapani Karus and Anr. : (1995) 8 OCR 594, Sri Biswaranjan Das and Anr. v. Sarat Kumar Nath : (1995) 16 OCR 586 in support of his contention that a sanction in the facts and circumstances of the case was absolutely not necessary and as such, the order is bad in law. In Abani Ch. Biswal's case (supra), a bench of this Court considered the applicability of Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure In that case, the Court observed that whether an offence was committed in the course of official duty or not will depend upon the facts of each case and the test may well be as to whether the public servant can reasonably claim or challenge that what he did was by virtue of his official duty, but all the same he cannot claim blanket privilege for all the acts and uncalled for overdoing while discharging any public duty. The fact that the complainants were abused when had already been lodged in the police hazat, the Court observed that the police officer had no business to abuse the complainant in discharge of his duty. This Court in Kailash Chandra Mohanta v. Ganeswar Amanta : 1990 (I) OLR 432, found that there was no material to show that the alleged act was in purported exercise of the official duty of the accused and as that stage had not come, the court set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge and observed that it was open to the accused to place material on record at a later stage of the proceeding. In Trilochan Barik v. Raghunath Bal : 72(1991) CLT 215, this Court upheld the taking of cognizance without a sanction, having found that the alleged act that the complainant was abused by the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station at his shop in filthy language and assaulted him whereafter he took him to the Police Station. The Court in that case found that the Police Officer had no business at the relevant point of time to abuse the complainant in his shop and assault him so as to attract the protection u/s 197, Code of Criminal Procedure for a sanction to prosecute him. The learned Counsel has further referred to a recent decision in Sri Biswaranjan 's case (supra). This case relates to a Range Officer, who was alleged to have arrested the complainant in connection with a forest offence case and he was assaulted in the office of the accused persons. It was observed that the accused persons could not show that in due discharge of their official duty the assault was made and that there may be some amount of excess which a public servant may commit while discharging the duty and in such instances only the court is to consider the question of necessity of obtaining of a sanction before taking cognizance, but the same is not relevant for the purpose of the present case. 9. In Premjit's case (supra), this Court considered the necessity of a sanction and held that the sanction was necessary. In that context several decisions of this Court were considered in extenso and it is held that protection can be claimed only when it is either within the scope of the official duty or in excess of it. 9. In Premjit's case (supra), this Court considered the necessity of a sanction and held that the sanction was necessary. In that context several decisions of this Court were considered in extenso and it is held that protection can be claimed only when it is either within the scope of the official duty or in excess of it. The allegation in the aforesaid case was that the Police Officer arrested and detained in Police hazat in connection with a gambling case and the request of the Petitioner to allow him to go on bail was not allowed and the Police Officer got annoyed and directed the Gama Rakhi to assault the Petitioner. Petitioner's request not to assault him former enraged the accused, he rushed towards the Petitioner and assaulted him and rebuked him in fulthy language. The learned Judge observed that it is to be borne in mind that all those things, if they were all true, happened following the arrest of the Petitioner in connection with the gambling case. No-release of the Petitioner on bail followed by assault and rebuke might be in excess of the performance of the official duty but they cannot be said to be totally unconnected with the official duty or cannot be held to be not in course of performance of official duty. Accordingly, it was held that the Police Officer was entitled to protection u/s 197, Code of Criminal Procedure and the sanction for prosecution having not been obtained, cognizance was quashed. In T.P. Reddy v. Devraj Panigrahi :1991(11) OLR 253, while considering the necessity of a sanction in a case where it was alleged that the police officer went to the village, arrested the person hand-cuffed him an paraded that person on the road and hurled abusive words. But it was found that these acts are covered under the discharge of purporting to discharge of official duty and sanction was held to be necessary. A reference has been made to the decision in Bishnu Prasad Mohapatra Vs. Ramesh Sahu Matajog Dobey Vs. H.C. Bhari, and Pukharaj v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. : AIR 1973 SC 259. 10. But it was found that these acts are covered under the discharge of purporting to discharge of official duty and sanction was held to be necessary. A reference has been made to the decision in Bishnu Prasad Mohapatra Vs. Ramesh Sahu Matajog Dobey Vs. H.C. Bhari, and Pukharaj v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. : AIR 1973 SC 259. 10. The conceptious of the aforesaid decision leads me to conclude that where an offending act is so integrally connected with the discharge of the duties and not fanciful or pretended inasmuch as the act complained of is directly and inextricably connected with the official duty, though it was done negligently or in dereliction of duty or in excess thereof, Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure would operate as a protection against malicious, vexatious or frivolous accusation or prosecution at the hands of the aggrieved persons. 11. In the case at hand, the allegation in the complaint is that the police officer brought P. WI, who is the son of the informant, to the outpost from ?1 is house in his motor-cycle for interrogation in connection with the theft of a gold chain of the same village and kept him in police lock-up. Request of the complainant to release him went unheeded and in addition, P. W I was allegedly abused in filthy language and was assaulted by a botton on different joints of the body, it is to be borne in mind that all these things if taken as true it occurred during investigation of a theft case when out of suspicion P.W.1 was brought to the out-post for interrogation. The action of the Police Officer in bringing P.W.1 to the out-post, keeping him in lock-up, squarely comes within the due discharge and performance of his official duty. The abuses and assault following that if proved may be in excess of performance of official duty or in dereliction there of but it cannot be extricated totally from the official act in due course of performance of official duty and as such, the Police Officer was entitled to protection u/s 197, Code of Criminal Procedure and the sanction for prosecution having not been obtained the learned Magistrate rightly dismissed the complaint refusing to take cognizance. 12. In the result, I do not find 'any merit in the application and accordingly, it is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed