C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) ON 25-08-1999 the Mandal Revenue officer-cum-Mandal Executive Officer, narasapur, gave a report to the Station House officer, Narasapur (T) Police Station, alleging that when he, on the instructions of the revenue Divisional Officer, Narasapur, accompanied by the Assistant Engineer, housing Board and others went to madhavaipalem to settle a land dispute with regard to the pathway in an approved lay out in which pattas for house sites were granted to some Yanadi caste people and started taking measurements, petitioner, who happens to be the Vice-chairperson of narsapur Municipality. Narasapur, came there and enquired as to why he was there and when gave a reply, petitioner became furious and abused him in a filthy and foul language in a loud voice staring. and create fear in his and the minds of the other officials that were present there. The said complaint was registered as FIR and after investigation the police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner for offences under sections 353 and 506 (2) IPC which was taken on file by the learned Additional Judicial first Class Magistrate, Narasapur, as C. C. No. 123 of 2000. ( 2 ) ALLEGING that since he went to the scene, where the alleged offence took place, only on the instructions of the Chairperson of the narasapur Municipality in his official capacity and since no sanction to prosecute him was obtained in view of Section 375 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, prosecution against him is unsustainable, petitioner filed this petition to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 123/2000. ( 3 ) SECTION 375 of the Andhra Pradesh municipalities Act, 1965 (the Act) reads:"when the Chairperson, any member, the Commissioner or Municipal Health officer or any other Officer 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 cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the government. " ( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner, who is the Vice-Chairperson of the municipality went to the scene only on the instructions of the Chairperson, it is clear that he was at the scene in his official capacity, as the Vice-Chairperson and also the nominee of the Chairperson and so he cannot be prosecuted without the prior sanction of the government and had the de facto complainant or the investigating Officer sought permission to prosecute the petitioner, government would have caused an enquiry into and would have decided whether to sanction or not to sanction the permission for prosecution, the prosecution against the petitioner is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. He placed strong reliance on abdul Wahab Ansariv. State of Biharand another in support of his said contention. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. ( 5 ) IN order to find out whether sanction to prosecute under Section 375 of the Act is necessary, it has to be seen whether the act complained of is integrally connected with or has reasonable nexus to the discharge of the duty of the Officers of the municipality. If the act complained of has nothing to do with the official duty, or when it has no reasonable nexus to the discharge of official duty of the Officers of the municipality mentioned in Section 375 of the Act, no sanction from government would be necessary. ( 6 ) THE powers and functions of the chairperson are found in Section 47 to 50 of the Act. Section 50 of the Act empowers the chairperson delegating his functions to the vice-Chairperson. No provision in the Act empowers or authorizes either the chairperson or any of the Officers of the municipality hurling abuses or intimidating any citizen or Officer of the other department in discharge of their duty under the provisions of the Act. In fact the object of section 375 of the Act is to enable the chairperson and other officers mentioned therein to discharge their duties under the act fearlessly. So, only when the act complained of is an integral part of the duties specified in the Act, and is inseparably attached or correlated with the execution of such duty, would the sanction under section 375 be required for prosecuting such officer. So, only when the act complained of is an integral part of the duties specified in the Act, and is inseparably attached or correlated with the execution of such duty, would the sanction under section 375 be required for prosecuting such officer. Obstructing a public servant from discharging his duty and intimating him is not one of the duties or powers conferred either as the Chairperson or Vice Chairperson of Municipality by the Act. Since the Mandal 1. 2001 (1) ALT (Crl.) 7 (SC ). Revenue Officer complained that petitioner criminally intimidated and prevented him from discharging his official duties, no sanction under Section 375 of the Act is required to prosecute the petitioner. ( 7 ) THE facts in Abdul wahab Ansari case (supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are entirely different from the facts of this case. In that case when the Sub- divisional Magistrate asked for an explanation from the appellant before the supreme Court (who is a Public Servant), as to why encroachments, notwithstanding the directions of the Supreme Court, were not removed, he visited the encroached site and requested the encroachers to remove the encroachments, and was successful in getting some of the encroachments removed and reported that fact to his senior officer. On the next day, when he, along with the armed force, reached the site of encroachment, several miscreants, armed with weapons, started hurling stones. As the situation went out of control, appellant before the Supreme court, after giving due warning, issued orders for opening fire and dispersed the mob. On account of such firing, one of the persons died and two others were injured. Appellant sent a report about that incident to his senior Officer. Son of the person who died due to the opening of fire filed a complaint against the appellant before the supreme Court, with court of the Chief judicial Magistrate, for offences under sections 302, 307, 380, 427, 504, 147, 148 and 149 IPC as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. It was taken on file and non-bailable warrants were issued against the appellant before the supreme Court. That order of the Chief judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences alleged and ordering issuance of non-bailable warrants was questioned before the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. Without-going into merits the High Court dismissed that petition. It was taken on file and non-bailable warrants were issued against the appellant before the supreme Court. That order of the Chief judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences alleged and ordering issuance of non-bailable warrants was questioned before the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. Without-going into merits the High Court dismissed that petition. The order of dismissal was challenged before the Supreme court. The Supreme Court held that since the appellant before it was discharging his official duty,hecannotbeprosecuted without prior sanction of the government as per section 197 Cr. P. C. In this case the allegation against the petitioner is when the Mandal revenue Officer was discharging the duty entrusted to him by the Revenue Divisional officer, he (petitioner) went there and caused obstruction by criminally intimidating Mm (the Mandal Revenue Officer ). By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the petitioner was acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty when he went to the place where the Mandal Revenue Officer was performing his official duty and caused obstruction to his official duty by criminally intimidating him. Therefore, no permission of the Government is necessary under section 375 of the Act to prosecute the petitioner. Hence, I find no merits in this petition. ( 8 ) WHETHER the incident as alleged took place or not has to be decided on he basis of the evidence adduced. So, the complaint against the petitioner cannot be quashed. ( 9 ) IN the result, the petition is dismissed.