JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this Criminal Misc. Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner-complainant Chouth Mal Kumawat has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 8th April 2003 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar (Camp Srimadhopur) in criminal revision No.39/2002 which upheld the order dated 14th July, 1999 taking cognizance of the offences. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the impugned order dated 8th April, 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, No.2 Sikar (Camp Srimadhopur) is totally arbitrary and against the provisions of law. It is unequivocally observed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srimadhopur in his order dated 14th July, 1999 that the accused non-petitioner Jagdish Prasad Arya while discharging the duty of a Tehsildar, intentionally caught hold the collar of petitioner and slapped him two or three times in Tehsil, when he went to obtain the certified copy of an order. He further argued that catching hold the petitioner by his collar, registering two or three slaps and asking him to go out of the Tehsil premises cannot be said to be a part of official duty. Since beating the petitioner was not a part in discharging of official duty of non-petitioner No.2, there was no need to obtain sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. to prosecute him. He cited one judgment of Ram Singh @ Ranveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in WLC (Raj.) 1994 (1) 171 in support thereof. Hence, the impugned order of Additional Sessions Judge deserves to be set aside. 4. E converso, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No.2 defended the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper and the same did not call any intervention. 5. In the case of Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1973 SC 2591 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus: "the Post Master General gave a kick to a Clerk, it was held that the act of the public servant so alleged could not be said to have been done in purporting exercise of his duty and to such a case, section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure per se could not be attracted. However, it reaffirmed that fact subsequently to light during the course of the trial may establish the necessity for sanction and whether or not the sanction is necessary will depend from stage to stage. 6. In the case of State (Delhi Administration) v. Sube Singh, reported in 1985 CLJ 1190 the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court observed as under: The simple fact that he was in uniform and he was in possession of a warrant would not confer a licence upon him to behave in any manner he likes. We cannot take wooden attitude in such matters and it can never be said that police officer is at liberty to abuse and use indecent language and behave in a disorderly manner while he is supposed to be on duty. If that view of the matter is taken it would only amount to giving them a licence for commission of offences and that would be an end of rule of law. To our mind, the accused in the present case cannot take shelter behind section 197, C.P.C. 7. Similarly the Hon'ble Apex Court in umpteen cases has consistently held that an accused cannot seek shelter behind Section 197 of Cr.P.C. if his action constituting an offence is not in discharge of his official duty. 8. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srimadhopur is found to have appreciated the facts in right perspective. He has rightly observed that the act of non-petitioner No.2 Tehsildar Jagdish Prasad Arya could not be said to have been done in purporting exercise of his official duty at the relevant point of time and to such a case the provisions of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. were not attracted. 9. E contra, the learned Additional Sessions Judge sans entering into the merits of the case is found to have arbitrarily held that the provisions of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. were attracted in the instant case. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 8th April, 2003 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar (Camp Srimadhopur), is found to be arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable and the same deserves to be set aside. 10. In view of the above, the criminal misc. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 8th April, 2003 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar (Camp Srimadhopur), is found to be arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable and the same deserves to be set aside. 10. In view of the above, the criminal misc. petition filed by the complainant-petitioner Chouth Mal Kumawat is allowed and the impugned order dated 8th April, 2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Sikar, (Camp Srimadhopur) stands set aside.Writ Petition Allowed - Impugned Order Set Aside. *******