JUDGMENT R.N. BISWAL, J. — This CRLMC has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 19.1.2007 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri in Criminal Revision No.19/58 of 06/05 confirming the order of rejection of the petition filed under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner (Accused) in G.R. Case No.922 of 1995. 2. The laconic fact giving rise to the present CRLMC is that Fakir Mohan Panda had let out his house on rent to Charan Jena @ Sahoo in the year 1983 but as no rent was paid for years together, he filed H.R.C. case No.17 of 1986 before the Court of S.D.J.M., Puri and won the case. The appeal preferred by Charan Jena having been dismissed, he filed a writ petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, in which, this Court ordered for his eviction from the house in question. Thereafter Fakir Mohan Panda filed Execution case No.37 of 1987 before the Court of Munsif, Puri praying for delivery of possession of the house in question through the police. The order was passed in his favour on 16.7.1993 and delivery of possession of the house was given to him by police assistance. After possession was deliv¬ered, on 20.7.1993 the present petitioner, Aruna Chandra Tripa¬thy, who was working as A.S.I. of Town Police Station, Puri demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- from Fakir Mohan Panda and when he did not yield to such illegal demand, he threatened to book him in a false case. Fakir Mohan Panda reported it in writing to Superintendent of Police, Puri on 24.7.1993, who assured him to look into the matter. When the matter stood thus, on 30.9.1993 at about 1.30 P.M. Arun Chandra Tripathy (petitioner) along with B.P. Mohanty O.I.C., P.K. Mishra, S.I., J.N. Mantri, A.S.I. and B.B. Pattnaik, Havildar all of Town Police Station, Puri broke open the disputed house and gave possession of it to Charan Sahoo. When Fakir Mohan Panda, knew about it, he immediately ran to the spot, with the order of Executive Magistrate restraining Charan Sahoo from entering into the said house and served the said order to the police personnel, but to no avail. When Fakir Mohan Panda, knew about it, he immediately ran to the spot, with the order of Executive Magistrate restraining Charan Sahoo from entering into the said house and served the said order to the police personnel, but to no avail. As he pro¬tested the unlawful act of the police personnel, A.S.I. J.N. Mantri abused him in filthy language and beat him and all other police personnel joined him and thereafter when he was being taken to the Police Station, on the way, they all assaulted him black and blue by means of stick and iron rod causing bleeding injuries. They took him to the hospital and after treatment, again took him to the Police Station and forwarded him under hand cuff to the Court of S.D.J.M., Puri where he was released on bail. On 12.10.1993 Fakir Mohan Panda sent a complaint against those police personnel by Registered post to the Superintendent of Police, Puri but no action was taken thereon. So, on 6.11.1993 he intimated the fact to the Director General of Police (Crimes) who on 7.7.1995 directed the O.I.C., Town Police Station, Puri to register a case on the basis of the complaint made by Shri Fakir Mohan Panda against those police personnel and the City Dy. S.P. was directed to supervise the case. Pursuant to that direction a case was registered under Sections 448 / 506 / 294 / 454 / 380 /341/342/323/34 of I.P.C. against the petitioner Arun Chandra Tripathy and other police officials. After conclusion of inves¬tigation; Charge Sheet was submitted under Sections 452/506/294/454/380/341/342/323/34 of I.P.C. where under cogni¬zance was taken by the learned S.D.J.M. Puri on 6.12.1996 in G.R. case No.922 of 1995. 3. On 29.8.2001, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. before the S.D.J.M., Puri for recalling the order of cognizance on the ground that without sanction for launching prosecution, the order of taking cognizance against him was bad in law. 3. On 29.8.2001, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. before the S.D.J.M., Puri for recalling the order of cognizance on the ground that without sanction for launching prosecution, the order of taking cognizance against him was bad in law. Learned S.D.J.M., Puri rejected the petition on the sole ground that once the order of taking cognizance is passed, it cannot be recalled in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court and our own High Court Being aggrieved with the said order, petitioner filed criminal Revision No.19/58 of 06/05 wherein the Revisional Court held that the petitioner was not on official duty by the time the alleged occurrence took place, because the Command Certificate, which he filed before the Court revealed that on 30.9.1993 at 12.10 P.M. it was issued to the petitioner with a direction to maintain law and order at Sidhaba¬kula Math and Bali Sahi and in reverse side of it, it was found that he complied that direction. No reference was made therein that the petitioner was deputed to the place of occurrence for performance of official duty. Accordingly, the Revisional Court dismissed the criminal revision vide order dated 19.1.2007, which is under challenge before this Court as noted earlier. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding of the Revisional Court that the petitioner was not commanded to the place of occurrence to maintain law and order is absolutely wrong. As per the supervision report of the Dy. S.P. Puri, the Executive Magistrate Puri (Shri P.C. Jogadia) restrained Fakir Mohan Panda from entering into the disputed house in Misc. Case No.570 of 1993. Pursuant to that order and being directed by S.I. B.P. Mohanty, OIC Town P.S. Puri, A.S.I. J.N. Mantri alongwith H.C. Braja Kishore Patnaik and H.C. Abdul Gani went to the spot to execute the said order. The order could not be executed since Fakir Mohan Panda and his two sons namely Kuna and Muna Panda manhandled Charan Sahoo @ Jena and the aforesaid police personnel. On getting the said information, S.I. S.K. Baliarsingh made S.D.E. No.894 dated 30.9.1993 at 12.00 noon and S.I. B.P. Mohanty, S.I. P.K. Mishra, A.S.I. A.C. Tripathy (petitioner) left for the spot and arrested Fakir Mohan Panda in Puri Town P.S. case No.239 of dated 30.9.1993 for the offence under Sections 332/307/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. It is also found from the supervision report that the house in question situates at Bali Sahi. The petitioner had been commanded vide Annexure-2 to go to that place to assist S.I. B.P. Mohanty in maintaining law and order there. So, it cannot be said, as held by Revisional Court that petitioner was not de¬ployed to maintain law and order near the disputed house. I am one with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that B.P. Mohanty, the then O.I.C. of Town Police Station Puri (co-accused) challenged the order of taking cognizance passed against him by the S.D.J.M., Puri in G.R. case No.922 of 1995 on the ground that sanction as required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. having not been taken before launching prosecution against him, the order of taking cognizance is bad in law. The petition being rejected vide order dated 28.5.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Puri the petitioner challenged it before the Sessions Judge, Puri in Criminal Revision No.50 of 2001 which on being allowed, the order of cognizance was quashed under Annexure-3. According to learned counsel for the appellant, when the order of cognizance was quashed against the O.I.C. who was the head and shoulder of the police personnel deployed to the spot, learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Puri ought not have dismissed the revision of the present petitioner. 6. On perusal of Annexure-3 it is found that on 30.9.1993 when the alleged occurrence was stated to have taken place, Fakir Mohan Panda was apprehended in connection with Town Police Sta¬tion case No.239 of 1993 on the allegation that he along with others committed offence under Sections 332/307/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 27 of Arms Act. So it was held that valid sanction was required for launching prosecution against the S.I. Shri B.P. Mohanty. Since no such sanction order had been obtained, the learned District Judge quashed the order of cognizance taken against him. With regard to the present petitioner, as stated earlier he along with the O.I.C. B.P. Mohanty and others proceed¬ed to the spot, when they came to know that the police personnel deputed earlier to maintain law and order and Charan Sahoo @ Jena were manhandled and threatened by Fakir Mohan Panda and his two sons. With regard to the present petitioner, as stated earlier he along with the O.I.C. B.P. Mohanty and others proceed¬ed to the spot, when they came to know that the police personnel deputed earlier to maintain law and order and Charan Sahoo @ Jena were manhandled and threatened by Fakir Mohan Panda and his two sons. They could be able to arrest said Fakir Mohan Panda, but the other two miscreants fled away. It is alleged that when Fakir Mohan Panda was being carried to the P.S. on a police vehicle, he was assaulted by the petitioner and others. There is no spe¬cific allegation of assault against the petitioner so also against B.P. Mohanty. Both of them stand in similar footing. However, if the order of cognizance taken against B.P. Mohanty has been illegally quashed, the petitioner cannot claim parity with him. 7. For invoking Section 197 Cr.P.C., two conditions must co-exist (a) the accused was a public servant removable from his office only with the sanction order of the State Government or the Central Government and (b) he must be accused of an offence alleged to have committed by him while acting or purporting to act in due discharge of his official duty. It is not every of¬fence committed by a public servant, which requires sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., nor even every act done by him while he is actually engaged in performance of his offi¬cial duty. If, on facts, it is prima facie found that the act or omission for which the accused was charged had reasonable connec¬tion with the discharge of his duty, then it must be held to be official to which Section 197 of Cr.P.C. must apply, even if there are some lapses. 8. It was argued on behalf of the State that sanction of the State or Central Government is not required for removal of the petitioner. As such the protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. cannot be extended to him. No doubt an A.S.I. of Police is not removable from his office by the order of Government, but in view of the notification No.6016 dated 24.12.1981 issued by the Government of Orissa in Home Department in terms of Section 197(3) of Cr.P.C., sanction of the State Government is necessary before cognizance is taken against an A.S.I. of Police. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not harp much upon that aspect. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not harp much upon that aspect. 9. The next question is whether the petitioner committed the alleged offences while acting or purporting to act in due discharge of official duty. As noted earlier,. the petitioner had been deployed to maintain law and order at Bali Sahi at the relevant point of time as found from the Command Certificate (Annexure-2) and the supervision report of Dy. S.P. The petition¬er and others including S.I. B.P. Mohanty arrested Fakir Mohan Panda in Puri Town Police Station Case No.239 of 1993 under Sec¬tions 307/332/34 of I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. It is alleged that while he was being carried in a police vehicle to the P.S., the police personnel including the petitioner and S.I. B.P. Mohanty assaulted him. So, it can not be said that the alleged offences were not committed while discharging official duty. The object of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is to give protection to the public servant from unnecessary harassment on the basis of frivolous allegation. Such protection can be given to a public servant even if there are some lapses on his part while discharg¬ing his official duty. Even if the public servant exceeded his limit, still then sanction is required for launching prosecution against him. Admittedly, sanction order has not been obtained to launch prosecution against S.I. , B.P. Mohanty. So, the Revision¬al Court rightly quashed the order of taking cognizance passed against him. No sanction order for launching prosecution against the petitioner has also been obtained. In absence of such sanc¬tion order, the impugned order including the order of taking cognizance against the petitioner deserve to be quashed. More¬over, S.I., B.P. Mohanty and the present petitioner stand in similar footing. When the order of cognizance passed against B.P. Mohanty was quashed, it would be unjust not to do the same in case of the petitioner. 10. Under such premises, the CRLMC is allowed and the order of the Revisional Court dated 19.1.2007 as well as the order dated 6.6.2005 and 6.12.1996 of the learned S.D.J.M., Puri passed in G.R. Case No.922 of 1995 are hereby quashed. CRLMC allowed.