JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. — By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the legality of the order of cognizance dated 18.8.1998 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in ICC No. 149 of 1998 on the ground that the said order of cognizance suffers from want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and impinges upon the right and liberty of the petitioners guaranteed by the Constitution of India. 2. According to the petitioners one Sangram Keshari Mohan¬ty lodged a report before the Balianta Police Station on 28.3.1998 against Manmohan Mohanty alleging that the said Manmohan Mohanty abused him in obscene language, assaulted him with lathi and threatened to kill him. Basing on such report F.I.R. No. 43 of 1998 was registered in Balianta Police Station and in connec¬tion with the investigation of the said case, Manmohan Mohanty was arrested on 30.3.1998 and released on bail. After being released, Manmohan Mohanty filed a complaint case bearing ICC Case No. 149 of 1998 before the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhuba¬neswar on 6.4.1998 alleging that on 28.3.1998 the petitioners forcibly dragged him to Balakati Police Out-post, assaulted him with kicks and fist blows and then illegally confined him in Balianta Police Station till 30.3.1998. The petitioners allege that the learned S.D.J.M. without making proper enquiry and without considering the fact that the petitioners are protected under Section 197(1), Cr.P.C. took cognizance of the offences under Sections 342/384/34, IPC and issued process. According to the petitioners, they filed several applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court for quashing the order of cogni¬zance alleging want of proper sanction, but this Court, instead of deciding the issue of necessity of sanction before taking cognizance, left the matter to the lower Court, as a result of which they are now being harassed by issuance of N.B.W. and proc¬ess under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. by the trial Court. It is claimed by the petitioners that the acts alleged in the complaint petition are intricately connected with their official duties and so sanction under Section 197(1), Cr.P.C. is mandatory before passing the order of cognizance, for want of which the impugned order of cognizance needs to be quashed. 3. Dr. It is claimed by the petitioners that the acts alleged in the complaint petition are intricately connected with their official duties and so sanction under Section 197(1), Cr.P.C. is mandatory before passing the order of cognizance, for want of which the impugned order of cognizance needs to be quashed. 3. Dr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners arrested and detained the complain¬ant Manmohan Mohanty in due discharge of their official duties as public officers an so, the necessity of sanction contemplated under Section 197, Cr.P.C. should have been considered before passing the order of cognizance. According to him when the act is done or purported to have been done by a public servant in due discharge of his duties, the matter of sanction becomes a condi¬tion precedent to the taking of cognizance and it cannot be de¬ferred to a later stage of the case. He submits that since this issue was not answered by this Court in any of the Criminal Misc. Cases earlier filed by the petitioners under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the same needs to be answered in the present writ petition. 4. Mr. G. K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate and Mr. Biswajit Nayak, learned counsel for the intervenors, on the other hand, submit that the issue of sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. was raised by the petitioners before this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 16585 of 1999, 3699 of 2002, 5790 of 2002, 343 of 2001 and Misc. Case No. 66 of 2003 and this Court having already decided the said matter the same issue cannot be re-agi¬tated in the present writ petition. They also submit that the question of necessity of sanction under Section 197 (1), Cr.P.C. can be considered by the trial Court at any stage of the case and so the order of cognizance is not to be quashed simply because the matter of sanction was not decided at the threshold. Case laws were cited by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective submissions. 5. From the submissions of the learned counsel for respec¬tive parties, two issues emerge for consideration. (i) Whether the present writ petition is maintainable in view of the earlier orders of this Court in previous Crl. Misc. Cases ? Case laws were cited by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective submissions. 5. From the submissions of the learned counsel for respec¬tive parties, two issues emerge for consideration. (i) Whether the present writ petition is maintainable in view of the earlier orders of this Court in previous Crl. Misc. Cases ? (ii) Whether it is mandatory for the trial Court to decide the issue of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. before passing the order of cognizance ? 6. For deciding the issues, it is essential to note the proceedings of the complaint case in ICC Case No. 149 of 1998 and the Criminal Misc. Cases filed in connection with that case. In ICC Case No. 149 of 1998, the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar recorded the initial statement of the complainant, conducted enquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. and by order dated 18.8.1998 took cognizance of the offence under Sections 342, 384/34, IPC. The petitioners filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 1685 of 1999 before this Court to quash the aforesaid order of cognizance,but this Court by order dated 21.5.1999 rejected the said prayer of the petitioners. In the meantime, since the petitioners avoided to attend the Court despite issuance of process and took time on several occasions, the Magistrate passed orders on 23.3.1999 to issue N.B.W. against them. Challenging that order, the petition¬ers filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 343 of 2002 under Section 482, Cr.P.C. In that Crl. Misc. Case this Court by order dated 11.3.2002 observed as follows : “x x x As it appears even if the petitioner No. 1 is posted at Bhubaneswar, he took no steps to appear before the trial Court. The aforesaid conduct of the police officer in my view is a deliberate attempt to avoid appearance before the Court, and both the police officers are bent upon to flout the order of the Court for which no leniency can be shown to them. Any leniency to such recalcitrant shall demoralize the law abiding officers. The prayer of the petitioners to direct the lower Court to release them on bail is rejected. It is open for the accused-petitioners to surrender before the trial Court by 25th March, 2002 and in the event they surrender and move for bail, by the aforesaid date, their applications for bail shall be considered on its own merit by the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. It is open for the accused-petitioners to surrender before the trial Court by 25th March, 2002 and in the event they surrender and move for bail, by the aforesaid date, their applications for bail shall be considered on its own merit by the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. If they fail to surrender before the Court below by the date fixed, the S.P., Jharsuguda and S.P., Bhubaneswar shall cause their production before the trial Court without fail. That apart, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed under the provisions of Sections 82 and 83, Cr.P.C. x x x” Despite the aforesaid order of this Court the petitioners did not surrender and accordingly the learned S.D.J.M. issued process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Misc. Case No. 1112 of 2002 in the said Crl. Misc Case No. 343 of 2002 for modification of the order dated 11.3.2002. This Court by order dated 25.4.2002 re-fixed the date of surrender of the petitioners before the trial Court to 10.5.2002. On the same date. i.e. on 25.4.2002, the petitioners' application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. i.e., Crl. Misc Case No. 3699 of 2002 filed against the order dated 6.3.202 passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the prayer to dispense with personal appearance of the petitioners was heard and disposed of with the following observa¬tions. “x x x Be that as it may, I do not find any irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned S.D.J.M. rejecting the application under Section 205, Cr.P.C. But the fact of rejection of the application under Section 205, Cr.P.C. could have some bear¬ing on my order dated 11.3.2002 if the same was brought to my notice on that date. However, when I have already refixed the date of surrender while modifying the order dated 11.3.2002 passed in Crl.Misc. Case No. 343 of 2002, I direct that the learned S.D.J.M. shall consider the bail applications of the petitioners on its own merits and shall deal with the same inde¬pendently without being influenced by the observation made in my order dated 11.3.2002 or in my previous order passed in Crl. Misc. Case No. 343 of 2002. The observation made by me should not be construed as an expression of my opinion on the merit of the bail applications. Misc. Case No. 343 of 2002. The observation made by me should not be construed as an expression of my opinion on the merit of the bail applications. The S.D.J.M. shall also keep in mind that the petitioners may be entitled to the protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and the fact that this is a complaint case x x x”. 7. The petitioners thereafter moved an application for surrender with a prayer for bail before the trial Court on 10.5.2002, but remained absent on the ground of illness. The trial Court rejected the petition for bail and also the prayer for dispensing with the personal attendance of the petitioners. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 5790 of 2002 under Section 482, Cr.P.C. before this Court with a prayer to quash the said order dated 10.5.2002 and to direct that the petitioners are entitled to be protected under Section 197, Cr.P.C. and also that the complaint case is liable to be dropped. This Court after a thorough scrutiny of the mate¬rials available on record passed order on 7.3.2002, the operative portion of which reads as follows : “After taking note of the conspectus of litigations and the above noted contentions of the parties, this Court finds that when the issue relating to protection under Section 197, Cr.P.C. has already been considered and rejected as per the order dated 21.5.1999 in Crl. Misc. Case No. 1685 of 1999, therefore, it is not open to this Court to review that order because of the fresh application, which the petitioners have filed at present. The order of cognizance was already there when the petitioners filed Crl. Misc. Case No 1685 of 1999. Therefore, after disposal of that case simply because petitioners moved an appli¬cation under Section 197, Cr.P.C. in the Court below that circum¬stance did not improve the situation. Any order which shall now be passed relating to protection under Section 197, Cr.P.C., will amount to review of the order of rejection passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1685 of 1999 and under the given facts and circum¬stances, there is no justification for the same.However, it is observed that petitioners are not precluded, if so legally ad¬vised, to pursue that plea in course of the proceeding of the said Criminal Cases. Case No. 1685 of 1999 and under the given facts and circum¬stances, there is no justification for the same.However, it is observed that petitioners are not precluded, if so legally ad¬vised, to pursue that plea in course of the proceeding of the said Criminal Cases. If the petitioners shall advance any such plea that be considered by the Court below in accordance with law and without being influenced by the previous orders passed by this Court or the present order inasmuch as such orders have been passed to refuse grant of protection at the threshold of the proceeding and the Court below is to consider the same after recording of evidence. It may also be noted here that this Court has not expressed any opinion, which shall amount to non-avail¬ability of protection to the petitioners under Section 197, Cr.P.C. All that has been intended by this Court while rejecting the applications under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is to the effect that at the threshold of the proceeding,this Court has declined to consider absence of sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. is a ground to quash the order of cognizance. For the reasons indicated above, the application under Sec¬tion 482, Cr.P.C. stands rejected and the Criminal Case is dis¬missed. If the petitioners have not yet surrendered and if shall be so advised,then they may move appropriate application either in Criminal Misc. Case No. 3699 of 2002 or Criminal Misc. Case No. 343 of 2001, as the case may be”. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Misc. Case No. 66 of 2003 in Crl. Misc. Case No. 3699 of 2002 with a prayer to re-fix the date of their surrender. The learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 1.5.2003 observed as follows : "I am satisfied that these police officers are taking them¬selves to be above the law as they have adopted all measures to avoid appearance before the Court. It is aghast to note that the proclaimed offenders against whom processes have been issued and publication has been made in terms of Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. are continuing in a Force, which is claimed to be disci¬plined one, openly without the knowledge of their higher authori¬ties as well as the concerned Superintendents of Police, who are supposed to execute the warrants against the accused persons. Now allowing the application for extension of time of their surrender will only give a premium to the proclaimed offenders who deserve no sympathy. Accordingly, the application is reject¬ed. As the question of giving protection under Section 197, Cr.P.C. has already been decided by this Court in C.R.M.C. No. 5790 of 2002, it is not obligatory on the part of the S.D.J.M. to consider the aspect of protection under Section 197, Cr.P.C. while dealing with the application praying for bail of the peti¬tioners in the event of their surrender. XX XX XX" 8. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 1.5.2003, the petitioners moved the Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) No. 3441 of 2003 and the Supreme Court by order dated 12.9.2003 rejected the Special Leave Petition with the observation that if the petition¬ers move for bail their claim would be considered in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation contained in the order dated 1.5.2003. 9. In the above noted background, the petitioners have now filed the present writ petition praying for quashing the order of cognizance passed by the learned S.D.J.M., basically on the plea that the order of cognizance dated 18.8.1998 is a non est in the absence of prior sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. 10. As has been indicated above, the issue of sanction was raised in the earlier, Crl. Misc. Cases and this Court has al¬ready ruled that necessity of sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. would be considered by the trial Court at the proper stage and that cognizance taken against the petitioners need not be quashed at the moment, for want of proper sanction. Now, reopening the issue in the present writ petition would amount to sitting on revision on the earlier orders, which is not permissible under the law. 11. Dr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that no clear finding is available in the earlier orders on the issue at hand and that the question as to whether sanction was necessary before taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioners needs to be answered by this Court. We find that the question raised by Dr. Tripathy has already been answered in earlier orders particularly in the order passed in Crl. Misc. Case No. 5790 of 2002 though in a summary manner. However, to set the matter at rest, we would like to elaborately deal with the contentions or Dr. Tripathy. We find that the question raised by Dr. Tripathy has already been answered in earlier orders particularly in the order passed in Crl. Misc. Case No. 5790 of 2002 though in a summary manner. However, to set the matter at rest, we would like to elaborately deal with the contentions or Dr. Tripathy. 12. According to Dr. Tripathy, the question of sanction must be considered before taking cognizance as otherwise, it takes away the protection guaranteed to public officers under the Statute. In support of his contention, he cites several case laws, the relevant of them being (2001) 20 OCR (SC 1 (Abdul Wahab Ansari v. State of Bihar and another), (2004) 27 OCR (SC) 315 *(State of H.P. v. M. P. Gupta), and (2003) 26 OCR 636 , **(Nirupama Dey v. Chaitanya Dalua and another). In the above noted cases, it was basically said that the provisions of Section 197, Cr.P.C. is meant to protect the public servants from frivolous prosecutions and so sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. is necessary where the act alleged is committed in discharge of official duty or pur¬ported to be in discharge of official duty. It was also stated that the essential requirement is reasonable connection between the act and official duty and it does not matter if the act ex¬ceeds what is strictly necessary for discharge of the duty. In none of these cases, it was said that the issue of sanction must be decided before passing the order of cognizance. 13. On the contrary, in P. K. Pradhan v. State of Sikim, AIR 2001 S.C. 2547 , it was clearly held that the question of sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. can be raised any time after cognizance, may be immediately after cognizance or framing of charge or even at the time of conclusion of the trial and after conviction as well. It was further observed that the claim of the accused that the act alleged was committed in course of perform¬ance of his duty, was reasonable one and neither pretended nor fanciful can be examined during the course of trial by giving opportunity to the defence to establish it and in such eventuali¬ty the question of sanction should be left open to be decided in the main judgment which may be delivered upon conclusion of the trial. This view was reiterated in Raj Kishor Roy v. Kamleshwar Pandey and another, AIR 2002 SC 2861 . In that case the complain¬ant alleged that the police officer had falsely implicated him and had also falsely shown recovery of illegal weapon from him. While considering the prayer for quashing the order of cogni¬zance, it was observed that in such cases, the question whether the accused officer had acted in course of official duty or not and whether sanction is necessary or not should be left open to be decided in the main judgment, which may be delivered upon conclusion of trial. This Court in Bishnu Prasad Mohapatra v. Harihar Patnaik* 73 (1992) CLT 537 and a number of other deci¬sions has also taken the same view. So the settled position of law is that when it is apparent from the complaint petition itself that the act complained of was done by a public officer in due discharge of his duty as a public officer, sanction is to be demanded at the time of taking cognizance. If there is any doubt or if any enquiry is necessary as to whether the act complained of had nexus with the performance of official duty, then the matter is to be left to be decided at a later stage of the case. 14. The complainant has alleged that the petitioners abused, assaulted and confined him illegally. As these are not prima facie part of any official duty, enquiry is necessary to determine whether the acts complained of were done in performance of official duty or was fanciful. In such an event, the learned S.D.J.M. was not duty bond to decide the question of sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. before taking cognizance. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the legal propositions as enumerated above, we do not find any illegality in the order of cognizance passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in ICC Case No. 149 of 1998 and we see no justification for quashing the said order. 16. In the result, the writ petition is devoid of any merit, and is dismissed accordingly. A. K. PATNAIK, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.