JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition, the petitioner has prayed to the court that he is serving as doctor and it was during course of his performance of Government duties, the alleged operation was performed. The alleged act has thus been performed during the Government duty and therefore the petitioner is entitled to protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. 2. An application in this regard was moved before the trial court. The trial court after considering the application has observed that operation was performed by the petitioner without taking consent of the parents of the deceased child. Therefore, this was an unauthorised act and as such no protection as claimed by the petitioner is available to him. 3. Learned counsel for the the petitioner urged that the deceased was examined by another doctor prior a day of the incident and thereafter opinion of the petitioner was sought. The petitioner after examining the documents belonging to patient fixed the next day for undertaking operation. Since patient was brought next day as instructed by the petitioner, therefore, it is a case of tacit consent by the parents of patient those who brought to him. In this background, it cannot be said that there was no consent of the parents of the patient. It has also been claimed by the petitioner that certain prescriptions written by the petitioner have also been given to the attendants of the deceased and the medicines were brought. All this shows that they were consenting party in the operation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Supreme Court decision reported in AIR 1956 SC 44 , (Mata Jog Dubey v. H.C. Bihari) wherein it has been observed that if some one exceeds what he is required to do in discharge of his duty he is entitled to the protection under section 197 Cr.P.C. To the same preposition iearned counsel places reliance on Supreme Court decision reported in AIR 1955 SC 309 , (Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu) . Learned counsel has also relied on a Supreme Court decision reported in (2000)5 SCC 15 (Gauri Shanker Pd. v. State of Bihar) where the Honble Supreme Court has held that if the alleged act falls within the petitioners official duty, then order of taking cognizance is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel has also relied on a Supreme Court decision reported in (2000)5 SCC 15 (Gauri Shanker Pd. v. State of Bihar) where the Honble Supreme Court has held that if the alleged act falls within the petitioners official duty, then order of taking cognizance is liable to be quashed. The petitioner has also placed reliance on a decision reported in AIR 1957 Orissa 69, (Baluni Devi v. State) where a Govt. doctor mishandled the patient in front of his wife where as Govt. doctor mishandled the patient in front of his wife whereas he was found entitled to protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. 5. I have considered the arguments of the petitioner and perused the case law cited at the Bar. 6. Performance of operation is not an official act of the doctor. This is his professional duty. The Government provides for medical attendance to the public at large but providence of such medical facilities by itself does not become a State act. Protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is basically granted where a Government employee discharges the State act, In the instant case, the doctor has undertaken the operation without taking customary consent from the parents of deceased patient. He has not followed the procedure before a patient is taken to operation theatre. That being the position, the trial court cannot be said to have been faulted in rejecting the application under Section 197 Cr.P.C. In this background, the order impugned suffers from no illegality. No interference is called for under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The misc. petition having no force is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******