JUDGMENT (1) The order dated 18-3-2005, passed by the Additional District and Sessions judge-cum-Special Judge, Kodemna is under challenge in this revision application whereby the learned Additional Special judge rejected the petition for discharge filed by the petitioner. (2) The relevant facts in short giving rise to this application are that the opposite party no. 2 i. e. the informant lodged a written report on 22-6-2002 to the Superintendent of police, Koderma alleging therein that while he was posted and working as District superintendent of Education at Koderma, the petitioner Aparajita Jha was posted there as District Education Officer. The informant alleged that the petitioner was only the inspecting/supervising authority whereas the rest of the official work was to be performed by him on the instructions and directions of the Deputy Commissioner. Smt. Jha was also member of the District Education Establishment committee, Koderma under the chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner and she was authorized to raise the matter regarding service conditions of teachers in the meeting of the said Committee but she used to interfere in the official functioning of the informant and thereby she used to harass him. By doing so, she used to send the teachers on deputation, she used to stop the salary of teachers and she also used to put them under suspension etc. which caused harassment to the informant. He also alleged that she also used to harass the informant by misleading the superior officers against the informant. The informant cited ten such instances of his harassment and humiliation at the hands of the petitioner. The first instance was relating to occurrence of the year 1998. The informant alleged that in the meeting of the Establishment committee dated 20-12-1998/31-12-1998, resolution was taken to transfer the primary Teachers but Smt. Jha misled the deputy Commissioner, Kodemna Shri Ram narayan Prasad by complaining that the informant had realized and collected illegal money from the teachers and a lot of bungling was done by him. On such report, the deputy Commissioner very badly chided and insulted the informant. Smt. Jha was also made enquiry officer to enquire the allegations. She submitted her enquiry report against the informant and thereby put him under mental torture and insult. The Deputy commissioner, on her asked for a show cause from the informant and thereafter, the informant on the instruction of the Deputy commissioner stayed the transfer of teachers. Smt. Jha was also made enquiry officer to enquire the allegations. She submitted her enquiry report against the informant and thereby put him under mental torture and insult. The Deputy commissioner, on her asked for a show cause from the informant and thereafter, the informant on the instruction of the Deputy commissioner stayed the transfer of teachers. Subsequently, Shri Ram Narayan prasad, Deputy Commissioner was transferred and in his place, Smt. Vandana Kini joined as Deputy Commissioner. Smt. Jha (petitioner) made complaint to Smt. Kini also against the informant and she made several false complaints against him. (3) On 29-7-1999, the new Deputy Commissioner called for an explanation from the informant to which the informant submitted his reply. The informant alleged that because of such action taken by the Deputy commissioner against the informant, his mental equilibrium was lost because Smt. Vandana Kini used to chide/rebuke him regularly due to which the petitioner felt insulted and tortured mentally. He also alleged that if Smt. Kini would not have been transferred, he may have become a mental patient. (4) The second incident cited in the F. I. R. was of April, 1999. The informant alleged that the C. B. I, was inquiring with regard to the appointment of teachers made after year 1980 and the informant was directed to submit relevant records to the C. B. I, concerning the appointment of those teachers for which the District Education Officer was to constitute a Committee but the District education Officer Smt. Jha did not co-operate and she left all the work regarding collection of relevant records on the informant. She also started giving reminders after reminders and thereby harassed him. She also used to say that 'adivasi' people do not have the capacity, and the informant was a bogus officer and they are only capable of being servant and mazdoors but they have been made officers and if she would have the power, she would have thrown them out. It was further alleged that Smt. Jha used to put derogatory remarks against the aboriginals in presence of others. The third instance cited in the F. I. R. was of July 1999 wherein, the informant alleged that the salary of the teachers were not being paid in absence of allotment and in spite of several requests, Smt. Jha was not releasing the allotment due to which the teachers started agitation. The third instance cited in the F. I. R. was of July 1999 wherein, the informant alleged that the salary of the teachers were not being paid in absence of allotment and in spite of several requests, Smt. Jha was not releasing the allotment due to which the teachers started agitation. Smt. Jha made a false complaint to the Deputy Commissioner smt. Vandana Kini against the informant due to which, Smt. Kini became strong against the informant. He also alleged that the Deputy Commissioner Mrs. Kini started rebuking the informant without any fault on his part and the Deputy Commissioner told him that he was a bogus and dull officer and asked him to leave the place. She also commented as to who has made him the d. S. E. . The informant alleged that at the instance of Smt. Jha, he was insulted by the Deputy Commissioner. He further alleged that at her instance, primary teachers submitted several complaints against the informant to his superior officers. (5) The fourth instance cited in the F. I. R. was that on 10-12-1999, one transferred teacher namely Ram Krishna Singh entered in his office and thereafter he misbehaved with him using abusive language and thereby insulted him. For such occurrence, he also lodged information to the Police but smt. Jha did not allow the Police to arrest shri Singh and thereby, she gave protection to a teacher who misbehaved with the informant. On such complaint made by Shri singh, a notice to show cause was also served on the informant by the Director, primary Education on 22-6-2001 and thereby, he was mentally tortured by the petitioner. (6) The fifth instance was that on 4-4-2001, the Director, Primary Education shri Jai Shanker Tiwari made surprise inspection of his office. In order to defame the informant the petitioner allegedly got a news item published in a News Paper that the director, Primary Education had recommended for action against the informant. He alleged that the said news item was published in the News Paper 'prabhat Khabar' at the instance of two persons namely Umakant Jha and Shrikant Jha who were related to the petitioner. The informant was also asked to show cause by the Director, primary Education in contemplation of the departmental enquiry against him which caused him mental torture. He alleged that the said news item was published in the News Paper 'prabhat Khabar' at the instance of two persons namely Umakant Jha and Shrikant Jha who were related to the petitioner. The informant was also asked to show cause by the Director, primary Education in contemplation of the departmental enquiry against him which caused him mental torture. The sixth instance cited in the F. I. R. by the informant was that Smt. Jha revoked the suspension of one Bhim Ram, Assistant teacher which was not within her jurisdiction but the same was done only to show her superiority in order to demoralize and insult the informant. (7) The seventh instance cited was that smt. Jha was made the enquiry officer to conduct inquiry against two suspended teachers namely Sadanand Pandey and Ram balak Thakur and she, in her inquiry report, made certain adverse remarks against the informant in order to mislead the Deputy commissioner only with a view to harass and humiliate the informant. (8) The eighth instance cited in the F. I. R was of one Kuber Pandey, the Incharge Head master of Barkacho who was illegally absenting from his duty of school. The inquiry was ordered to be conducted against him and Smt. Jha was made the inquiry officer. In her inquiry report, she made certain remarks against the informant, holding him responsible. This was allegedly done in order to protect Shri Pandey who was of the same caste. The ninth instance alleged by the informant was that on 12-2-2001, Smt. Jha sent a letter to the Joint Secretary, Human resources Department, Government of jharkhand wherein, several false complaints and allegations were made against the informant due to which the informant was asked to show-cause to which he replied and thereby, Smt. Jha got him insulted. (9) The last instance cited by the informant was that Smt. Jha falsely lodged a criminal complaint against him in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma. (10) Citing the above examples, the informant alleged that the petitioner did commit the offence punishable under the Indian penal Code as well as under the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. (10) Citing the above examples, the informant alleged that the petitioner did commit the offence punishable under the Indian penal Code as well as under the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On the basis of said written report, the Police registered Koderma P. S. Case No. 244/02 under Sections 323, 504 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 (x) and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and the scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 against the petitioner. (11) The petitioner moved this Court for quashing of the aforesaid F. I. R. in W. P. (Cr.)No. 214 of 2002, which was dismissed on 1-10-2002. However, on the request of the counsel for the petitioner, this Court granted two months time to the petitioner to move the Supreme Court against the said order and passed interim order to the effect that for a period of two months, she shall not be arrested. (12) The Police, after completion of investigation, submitted chargesheet against the petitioner under Sections 3 (1) (viii) (ix) and (x) and Section 3 (2) (vii) of the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 only and on the basis of which, cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioner for the said offences. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application before the Trial Court under section 227, Cr. P. C. for her discharge which has been rejected by the Special Judge by the impugned order which is under challenge in this application. (13) Ms. Anjana Prakash, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that all the ten alleged episodes/instances mentioned in the F. I. R. were for the periods in between 1993 to 2002 and in none of the episodes, there is any allegation against the petitioner that she committed any offence in her personal capacity rather all the episode/instances cited in the F. I. R. showed the action taken by the petitioner in discharge of her official capacity as the district Education Officer, Koderma. She further submitted that according to the allegations made in the F. I. R., whenever the petitioner submitted, report against the informant (opposite party No. 2 herein), he was asked to show-cause or explanation by the superior or the higher authority and in that way, she used to torture him. She further submitted that according to the allegations made in the F. I. R., whenever the petitioner submitted, report against the informant (opposite party No. 2 herein), he was asked to show-cause or explanation by the superior or the higher authority and in that way, she used to torture him. In the F. I. R it is also alleged that at the instance of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner, koderma Ram Narayan Prasad very badly humiliated and rebuked the informant. Similar allegations have also been made against the Deputy Commissioner Smt. Vandana Kini, who came after the transfer of Deputy Commissioner namely Ram narayan Prasad. It is submitted that both the Deputy Commissioners have not been made accused in the F. I. R. by the informant though more serious allegations have been made by him against them also. Therefore, it is apparent that launching of the prosecution against the petitioner is wholly malicious. (14) Ms. Anjana Prakash further submitted that the informant alleged that the petitioner smt. Jha used to call him a bogus officer and further that the tribals are incapable and they are bogus officers, but in the case Diary, not a single witness has come forward to support such allegations made by the informant in the F. I. R. Therefore, no case for any offence under the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 is made out against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the offence under Scheduled Castes and the scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 is at all not made out in view of the fact that it is not alleged in the F. I. R. nor there is any material in the Case Diary to show that the petitioner, in any way, insulted or humiliated the informant within the public view and therefore, no offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out. She further submitted that even if the allegations made in the F. I. R. are taken to be true in its entirety, the same cannot by any stretch of imagination be said that the same was committed by the petitioner in her personal capacity. At best it can be said that the same was done in discharge of her official duty as a district Education Officer, Koderma. At best it can be said that the same was done in discharge of her official duty as a district Education Officer, Koderma. (15) It is submitted that admittedly no sanction, as envisaged under Section 197, cr. P. C. has been taken against the petitioner for her prosecution and therefore, the whole prosecution against her is absolutely bad in law and is liable to be quashed. Lastly, it is submitted that the Special Judge, while rejecting the prayer for discharge of the petitioner, did not apply his mind at all and no reason has been assigned for refusing the prayer for discharge. (16) On the other hand, Mr. Sohail Anwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the informant-opposite party No. 2 submitted that no detailed reason is required to be recorded by the Trial Court if he chooses to reject an application for discharge. According to him, only in case where the Court is going to discharge the accused then he has to assign the reason and not otherwise. He further submitted that no case for discharge is made out and the materials in the Case diary disclose the commission of the offence alleged and therefore, the application filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. Having heard the parties and having gone through the materials in the Case diary, which has also been called for by this court, I find that whatever allegations have been made against the petitioner, those are when the petitioner was functioning as the then District Education Officer and she was a superior officer to the informant and all actions taken by her were all in discharge of her official duty. Nowhere it is alleged that the petitioner, in her personal capacity or that she was on inimical term with the informant-opposite party No. 2. It appears from the allegations made in the F. I. R. as well as from the materials in the Case Diary that the informant was not pulling on well with the petitioner and he was not happy with the official functioning of the petitioner. It also appears that the petitioner took several action against the informant in discharge of her official duty. (17) Section 197, Cr. It also appears that the petitioner took several action against the informant in discharge of her official duty. (17) Section 197, Cr. P. C. has been engrafted to protect a public servant against institution of vexacious criminal prosecution for the offence alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty as a public servant. (18) The Supreme Court, while dealing the ambit and scope of Section 197, Cr. P. C. in the case of State of Orissa through Kumar raghvendra Singh and others v. Ganesh chandra Jew, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 40 , has held as follows :- "the protection given under Section 197 is to protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants. The policy of the legislature is to afford adequate protection to public servants to ensure that they are not prosecuted for anything done by them in the discharge of their official duties without reasonable cause, and if sanction is granted, to confer on the Government, if they choose to exercise it, complete control of the prosecution. The said protection has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. If in doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant of the protection. The question is not as to the nature of the offence such as whether the alleged offence contained an element necessarily dependent upon the offender being a public servant but whether it was committed by a public servant acting or purporting to act as such in the discharge of his official capacity. Before section 197 can be invoked, it must be shown that the official concerned was accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. Before section 197 can be invoked, it must be shown that the official concerned was accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. "official", according to the dictionary, means pertaining to an office, and official act or official duty means an act or duty done by an officer in his official capacity. Thus, use of the expression "official duty" in Section 197 implies that the act or omission must have been done by the public servant in the course of his service and that it should have been in discharge of his duty. The Section does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission done by a public servant in service but restricts its scope of operation to only those acts or omissions which are done by a public servant in discharge of official duty. " Admittedly, in the present case, no sanction as envisaged under Section 197, Cr. P. C. for prosecution of the petitioner and cognizance was taken without any valid sanction by the competent authority as envisaged under Section 197, Cr. P. C. Therefore, in my view, the order taking cognizance as well as the entire criminal prosecution against the petitioner is bad in law. Further, I find that the learned Special Judge, while refusing to discharge the petitioner, has passed the impugned order in a very cryptic manner by only saying that "on perusal of the record and case diary, it appears that all the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and there is sufficient material to frame charge". The order does not show that in fact the Special Judge has applied his judicial mind at all on the allegation made or on the points raised by the petitioner in support of her prayer for discharge. The order must show that while refusing to discharge, the Court applied its mind. (19) Having gone through the allegations made in the F. I. R. as well as the entire Case diary, I find that the materials collected during investigation were not sufficient for framing of charge of the offence under sections 3 (1) (viii) (ix) and (x) and Section 3 (2) (vii)of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The whole prosecution appears to have been launched because of personal vengeance and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner is held to be malicious. The cognizance taken by the learned Special Judge without sanction under Section 197, Cr. P. C. against the petitioner cannot be sustained. (20) In view of the discussions and findings above, this application is allowed, the impugned order refusing the discharge of the petitioner is hereby set aside and the petitioner stands discharged for the offence under Sections 3 (1) (viii) (ix) and (x) and section 3 (2) (vii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Application allowed.