JUDGMENT : B.S. Walia, J. 1. Revision has been filed by the State of Jammu and Kashmir against order dated 31st July, 2014 passed by the Court of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramban in case titled "State v. Rattan Singh and Anr." vide which the respondents were discharged of the offence u/s. 304 RPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the accused chased the deceased in a careless and negligent manner whereupon the deceased fell into a gorge and lost their lives and on the basis of enquiry conducted u/s. 174 Cr.P.C., FIR for offence u/s. 304-A, RPC was registered and investigation started. Learned counsel contended that in the circumstances the order of discharge was not justified as it was on the basis of investigation, that the Investigating Agency had concluded that the accused being experienced police officials were aware of the topography of the area as being prone to landslide as also of a number of human lives already having been lost in the said area but still the accused chased the deceased on the intervening night of 1st December, 2011, as a result whereof, deceased being frightened on seeing the police officials and being unaware of the topography of the said area fell into the gorge. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 2nd December, 2011, Police Station Ramsoo received a telephonic message from army ROP that two human dead bodies were lying downhill at the National Highway, Panthal. On receipt of information, inquest proceedings u/s. 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated and the deceased identified as Basharat Hussain S/o. Abdul Rashid and Rizwan Ullah Khan S/o. Abdul Gafar Khan. 3. On investigation, it came to light that the deceased had stolen a motorcycle bearing Registration No. 5694-PB57/A of one Amrik Singh and were seen riding the same towards Ramsoo/Ramban, that Amrik Singh, owner of the motorcycle had on the intervening night of 1st December, 2011, flashed a telephonic message to Constable Ravinder Singh No. 578/IRP regarding theft of his motorcycle whereupon the said constable along with Constable Gurvinder No. 469/IR 9th Bn. and Mushtaq Ahmed No. 413/SPO laid a Naka in front of Ramsoo Police Station on the Highway. After some time, both the deceased riding on the motorcycle went towards Meagerkote but escaped the Naka Party. and Mushtaq Ahmed No. 413/SPO laid a Naka in front of Ramsoo Police Station on the Highway. After some time, both the deceased riding on the motorcycle went towards Meagerkote but escaped the Naka Party. Police officials went towards Meagerkote and found the motorcycle lying on the road side of the National highway. Police officials returned to the Police Station along with the motorcycle and informed the Moharar of the Police Station namely Rattan Singh Sgct. 399/Rbn. After some time a hotelier namely Abdul Qayoom telephonically informed Rattan Singh Sgct. about deceased roaming in that area. On receipt of information, accused Rattan Singh No. 314/Rbn. went towards Meagerkote in the official Gypsy from where, along with Abdul Qayoom Hotelier accused went towards Panthal. At Panthal, Sgct. Rattan Singh asked driver Balbir Singh SPO/314 to stop the vehicle as two persons were moving on foot towards Ramban. On seeing the police officials alighting from the vehicle, the deceased ran towards Meagerkote. Accused chased both the deceased, who while trying to avoid being apprehended by the police on National Highway-IA fell into a gorge. After some time, accused returned to their official vehicle and told the driver not to disclose the incident to anybody and returned to the Police Station. Subsequently, on 2nd December, 2011, accused Sgct. Rattan Singh without any proceedings or information to his Senior Officers released the motorcycle in favour of Amrik Singh. 4. A perusal of order dated 31st July, 2014 reveals that the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramban came to the conclusion that the unfortunate incident was accidental, for which the accused could not be held responsible since the deceased, being habitual offenders and having stolen a motorcycle, were in the area under the jurisdiction of the accused who as police officials were duty bound under law to swing into action and nab them. However, as evident from the prosecution case, apparently, the deceased on seeing the police party alighting from their official gypsy, in a bid to dodge the police, sped away, and in doing so unfortunately fell into a gorge and lost their lives. 5. Allegation against the accused is that the accused had intentionally chased the deceased despite knowledge that to chase a person in area prone to landslide could be dangerous. Accordingly final report was filed against the accused for offence u/s. 304 RPC. 6. 5. Allegation against the accused is that the accused had intentionally chased the deceased despite knowledge that to chase a person in area prone to landslide could be dangerous. Accordingly final report was filed against the accused for offence u/s. 304 RPC. 6. A criminal offence stands committed only when an act forbidden by law is done voluntarily. Mens rea is an essential ingredient in a criminal offence. Mensrea and act of the accused must concur to constitute an offence but if an act or omission is covered by any of the general exceptions under the RPC, then the same would not constitute an offence. Accused as police officials, in trying to nab the deceased - transgressors/violators of law on receipt of information were duty bound to take action under law, therefore acted in the discharge of their official duties to nab the deceased. Accordingly, the finding of the Principal Sessions Judge dismissing the challan and discharging the accused on the ground that the alleged act was not an offence as it was done by the accused, being bound by law to do so within the meaning of Section 76 RPC/being justified by law in doing it within the meaning of Section 79 RPC, and the accused while performing their official duty neither having the intention nor could have had the knowledge that their act was likely to cause death or bodily injury to the deceased and all that could be said about the death of the deceased was that it was an unfortunate accident and that no case was made out against the accused u/s. 304 RPC, is in accordance with law. 7. Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramban also came to the conclusion that the accused, while chasing the deceased were purportedly acting in the discharge of their official duties, thus were entitled to protection u/s. 197 Cr.P.C., and that despite cognizance of the offence already having been taken by the Magistrate, sanction being a condition precedent for taking cognizance of the offence, it was open to the accused to question maintainability of the prosecution, therefore in the circumstances, the Court lacked jurisdiction to prosecute the accused for want of previous sanction of the Competent Authority u/s. 197 Cr.P.C. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Although plea of non availability of protection u/s. 197 Cr.P.C. has neither been pleaded nor argued, yet the said protection is not available to the accused in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Section 197 Cr.P.C. clearly stipulates that previous sanction is required for prosecuting public servants who are removable with the sanction of the Government. In the instant case, as per Rule 335 of the Jammu & Kashmir Police Rules, 1960, the authority competent to impose punishment of removal in the case of police officials upto the rank of Head Constable is the D.I.G. No sanction of the State Government for prosecution of the respondents was necessary even if the accused had committed the alleged offence while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty. Thus the bar against proceeding against the accused without the sanction of the State Government would not be attracted. 9. Reference in this connection can be made to the decision in Fakhruzamma v. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 15 SCC 552 wherein while interpreting the scope of Section 197 Cr.P.C. in the light of the Jharkhand Police Manual, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the provision clearly indicates that previous sanction was required for prosecuting only such public servants who could be removed by sanction of the Government. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below: "8. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in Nagraj case, wherein this Court was called upon to examine the scope of Section 197 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 4(c), 8, 26(1) and 3 of the Mysore Police Act, 1908. Interpreting the abovementioned provisions, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that an Inspector General of Police can dismiss a Sub-Inspector and, therefore, no sanction of the State Government for prosecution of the appellant was necessary even if he had committed the offences alleged while acting or purporting to act in discharge of this official duty." 10. In view of the position as noted above, the finding of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramban that the Court had no jurisdiction to prosecute the accused for want of previous sanction of the Competent Authority as envisaged u/s. 197 Cr.P.C. is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. 11. In view of the position as noted above, the finding of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramban that the Court had no jurisdiction to prosecute the accused for want of previous sanction of the Competent Authority as envisaged u/s. 197 Cr.P.C. is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. 11. Regarding whether the discharge of the accused was sustainable, it would be relevant to refer to the decision in L. Krishna Reddy v. State, (2014) 14 SCC 401 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 376 : 2013 SCC On Line SC 957, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while taking note of the decision in Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad case held as under: "14. In fact, Section 227, itself contains enough guidelines as to the scope of enquiry for the purpose of discharging an accused. It provides that 'the Judge shall discharge when he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused'. The 'ground' in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial. It is in the trial, the guilt or the innocence of the accused will be determined and not at the time of framing of charge. The court, therefore, need not undertake an elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing the material. Nor is it necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the court has to consider is whether the evidentiary material on record if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. No more need be enquired into." 12. Reference can also be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Noorul Huda Maqbool Ahmed v. Ram Deo Tyagi, (2011) 7 SCC 95 against the order passed by the Bombay High Court confirming the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay allowing the discharge application preferred by the accused. Relevant extract of the same is reproduced hereunder: "36. The High Court also referred to the scope of revisional jurisdiction as also the scope of Section 227 Cr.P.C. The High Court relied on State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj and the observations made in para 8 to the following effect: (SCC p. 397) "8. Relevant extract of the same is reproduced hereunder: "36. The High Court also referred to the scope of revisional jurisdiction as also the scope of Section 227 Cr.P.C. The High Court relied on State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj and the observations made in para 8 to the following effect: (SCC p. 397) "8. The law on the subject is now well settled, as pointed out in Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya that at Sections 227 and 228 stage the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. Therefore, at the stage of framing of the charge the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction." 13. From the facts of the case, it is apparent that the accused had acted in the discharge of their official duties to nab the deceased, who were transgressors of law. The accused as Police Officials on receipt of information were duty bound to take action under law to apprehend the deceased transgressors. The deceased escaped the Naka where after the motorcycle was taken to the police station. Thereafter, it was on the telephonic message of a hotelier namely Abdul Qayoom to Rattan Singh Sgct. about deceased roaming in that area that the accused went towards Meagerkote in the official Gypsy from where they along with Abdul Qayoom Hotelier went towards Panthal where Sgct. Rattan Singh asked driver Balbir Singh SPO/314 to stop the vehicle as two persons were moving on foot towards Ramban. However, on seeing the Police officials alighting from the vehicle, the deceased ran towards Meagerkote. In such a situation the police could not be expected to remain a mute spectator. Rattan Singh asked driver Balbir Singh SPO/314 to stop the vehicle as two persons were moving on foot towards Ramban. However, on seeing the Police officials alighting from the vehicle, the deceased ran towards Meagerkote. In such a situation the police could not be expected to remain a mute spectator. Accused chased the deceased, who in their attempt to escape being apprehended fell into a deep gorge from the National Highway. 14. Incident leading to the death of the deceased is nothing except an unfortunate happening. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramban on evaluating the material and documents on record came to the finding that there was nothing to connect the accused with the alleged offence u/s. 304 RPC. Even otherwise the case as set up against the accused belies common sense. Nothing to the contrary to connect the accused with the offence has been shown by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances, no case is made out so as to persuade this Court to interfere with the order discharging the accused respondents. For the reasons recorded above, while setting aside the finding on the point of the Court lacking jurisdiction on account of absence of sanction u/s. 197 Cr.P.C., the order discharging the accused in view of no case being made out against them u/s. 304 RPC is upheld. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed.