JUDGMENT : Janak Raj Kotwal, J. 1. On a complaint lodged by the petitioner against GVPR Engineers Limited and Others before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, FIR No. 55/2012 under sections 420, 406, 409 and 120-B RPC was registered with Police Station, Gandhi Nagar on 01.03.2012. In the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer, the then SHO Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, vide his Letter No. 839/5-1, dated 04.05.2012 (Annexure P-4) directed the Branch Head, J&K Bank Limited, Branch, Banjara Hills, J.N. Road, Hyderabad to seize the operation of Bank Account No. 0317010100000592 of the GVPR Engineers Limited as regards withdrawals/debit transfer with effect from 04.05.2012 and directed 'also that the account shall not be mortgaged or pledged in any manner as the same was case property of the ongoing investigation in the matter. 2. On 27.10.2012 the SDPO, Gandhi Nagar, herein respondent No. 1, transferred the investigation of the case to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by herein respondent No. 2. The SIT on investigation of the case found that the dispute between the parties was of civil nature and commission of the offence of cheating or breach of trust was not proved and therefore, closed the case as not admitted. The report of the SIT was approved by the SHO, Police Station, Gandhi Nagar and the Superintendent of Police, South, Jammu and final report was filed in the court of the Judicial Magistrate (3rd Additional Munsiff), Jammu on 08.01.2013. Pursuant to the closing of the investigation, the respondent No. 1 vide his letter dated 28.11.2012 defreezed the aforementioned account of GVPR Engineers Limited (Annexure P-7). 3. The petitioner (complainant) moved a protest petition before the learned Magistrate. The Magistrate on consideration of the record produced before him, by virtue of his order dated 10.03.2013 (Annexure P-9), was of the view that investigation was not carried out in accordance with law and therefore, directed the Senior Superintendent of Police to get the case further investigated by some independent officer, not below the rank of Dy. S.P. 4. On 23.09.2014 petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents in the court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Passenger Tax), Jammu for commission of offences under section 217 read with Section 166-A(b) RPC by them during investigation in FIR No. 55/2012. S.P. 4. On 23.09.2014 petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents in the court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Passenger Tax), Jammu for commission of offences under section 217 read with Section 166-A(b) RPC by them during investigation in FIR No. 55/2012. It was alleged in that complaint that the act of the respondents in defreezing the bank account of GVPR Engineers Limited vide letter dated 28.11.2012 of respondent No. 1 without obtaining any order from the Magistrate was illegal as they were not authorized under law to act in such a manner and therefore, they in discharge of their public duty, disobeyed direction of law, which makes them liable for action under law. 5. Learned Special Mobile Magistrate vide his order dated 11.10.2014 dismissed the complaint taking the view that the respondents were public servants so complaint against them without valid sanction cannot be entertained as the alleged offence is said to have been committed by them in discharge of their official duty. Learned Magistrate in taking such a view relied upon a Supreme Court judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Paras Nath Singh, (2009) 6 SCC 372 . 6. Petitioner challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate in a revision petition before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. Learned revisional court dismissed the revision petition, taking the view that the attachment and the release of the bank account was done in exercise of jurisdiction of the investigating officer and the property was not the one about which offence was committed nor was used for the commission of offence. Learned revisional court held also that respondents had not exceeded their power and the act was done by them in discharge of their official duty so sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was sine qua non for prosecuting them. 7. In this petition, petitioner invokes the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Section 104 of the State Constitution to seek quashing of the order dated 11.10.2014 passed by the learned Special Mobile Magistrate and the order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the learned revisional court. 8. 7. In this petition, petitioner invokes the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Section 104 of the State Constitution to seek quashing of the order dated 11.10.2014 passed by the learned Special Mobile Magistrate and the order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the learned revisional court. 8. The bottom line of the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner at bar was that even in spite of closing the case as not proved, the respondent No. 2, who was head of the SIT and respondent No. 1, who had constituted the SIT, were not competent to release without an order from a competent Magistrate the bank account of GVPR Engineers Limited, which had been seized during investigation. Learned counsel Mr. Vikram Rathore would say that for releasing the seized account, the law required obtaining of an order from a competent Magistrate and by releasing the bank account without any such order, the respondents committed offence punishable under sections 217 and 166-A(b) RPC. Learned counsel would say also that the release of the seized bank account was made by the respondents in misuse of their official position and protection under section 197 Cr.P.C. was not available to them. Learned counsel relied upon Rakesh Kumar Mishra vs. State of Bihar, (2006) 1 SCC 557 and Rajib Ranjan and Others vs. R. Vijaykumar, (2015) 1 SCC 513 . 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Lawanya Sharma, argued that the respondents were sought to be prosecuted for an act admittedly done by them pursuant to the completion of investigations in the case in discharge of their official duty so prosecution cannot be launched without sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel relied upon Raj Kishore Roy vs. Kamleshwar Pandey and Another, 2002 (6) SCC 543 . 10. It is noticed that by virtue of his letter dated 04.05.2012, the SHO, Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, who at that time was the Investigating Officer in FIR No. 55/2012, had directed the Branch Head of aforementioned Bank to seize operation of the bank account of the respondents to the extent of allowing withdrawals/debit transfer from the said account and not to allow the said account to be mortgaged or pledged in any manner. No offence having been proved against the accused therein on completion of the investigation, the seizure so imposed was released (defreezed). No offence having been proved against the accused therein on completion of the investigation, the seizure so imposed was released (defreezed). In releasing the bank account the respondents certainly had acted as public servants in discharge of their official duties. 11. The question, thus, raised is, as to whether respondents are entitled to protection under section 197 Cr.P.C. if, for their act of having released the bank account of the GVPR Engineers Limited without an order from the Magistrate, they are to be prosecuted for having committed offences under Sections 166-A(b) RPC or 217 RPC. 12. Protection under section 197 Cr.P.C. is not available if the act is done in misuse of official duty or has no connection with the discharge of the official duty. In Rakesh Kumar Mishra's case (supra) Supreme Court has held that "this protection has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with, discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing 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 official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant from the protection." It is further held in this case that the act must fall within the scope and range of the official duties of the public servant concerned. It also needs to be kept in mind that a public servant is not liable for prosecution for doing an act in discharge of his official duties contrary to the procedure or direction under law. The prosecution of a public servant may be attracted if an act committed in discharge (or misuse) of his official duties amounts to commission of an offence and in that case question would arise, whether he is entitled to protection under section 197 Cr.P.C. against his prosecution. 13. The prosecution of a public servant may be attracted if an act committed in discharge (or misuse) of his official duties amounts to commission of an offence and in that case question would arise, whether he is entitled to protection under section 197 Cr.P.C. against his prosecution. 13. Contextually, it is important to note that an offence under Section 166-A(b) RPC is committed if a public servant "knowingly disobeys" any direction of the law regulating the manner in which he shall conduct investigation "to the prejudice of any person." Likewise offence Section 217 RPC in relation to any property is committed when a public servant "knowingly disobeys" any direction of law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant "with the intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or any charge to which it is liable by law." 14. Once the commission of offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust was not proved after investigation of the case, respondents, in particular respondent No. 1, cannot be said to have acted unreasonably or objectionably in releasing the bank account, which had been seized during investigation of the case. This act of the respondents prima facie cannot be said to have been done in misuse of their official duties or not to have any connection with the discharge of such a duty. Question, however, would be different if there is reasonable ground to show that the bank account was released with a criminal intention or knowledge amounting to commission of an offence. The commission of offence by the account holder having not been proved and investigation having been closed as not admitted, there would be no reasonable ground for taking a prima facie view that release of the bank account was done with the criminal intention or knowledge as contemplated under Sections 166-A(b) and 217 RPC. The commission of offence by the account holder having not been proved and investigation having been closed as not admitted, there would be no reasonable ground for taking a prima facie view that release of the bank account was done with the criminal intention or knowledge as contemplated under Sections 166-A(b) and 217 RPC. Whether order of a Magistrate for releasing the bank account after the investigation was closed as not admitted was at all required and whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the release of the bank account by the respondents without such an order would amount to commission of the offences, as alleged by the petitioner, are the questions, which might arise for consideration of the court after cognizance in the complaint is taken, but once it is not disputed that the said act was done by the respondents in discharge of their official duties, protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. cannot be denied to them. 15. For the aforementioned, the orders passed by the courts below do not suffer from any defect or illegality to call for any indulgence by this Court. This petition, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed.