ORDER : 1. This petition is filed by petitioner/accused No.7 challenging the order dated 19.10.2017 passed by the learned VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Chikodi passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.556/2016 confirming the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Nipani in C.C.No.790/2016 to the extent of orders for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner and others have been prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 466, 488, 471, 420 of IPC on the private complaint filed in P.C.No.220/2013 by the Municipal Commissioner, C.M.C., Nipani. The said complaint was referred to the concerned Police Station. After investigation, the Nipani Town Police have filed the charge sheet and criminal case came to be registered in C.C.No.790/2016. 3. The petitioner contends that, taking of cognizance of the alleged offences by the Trial Court and registering the criminal case against the accused are illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice. The Trial Court has not rightly considered the case of the petitioner before which he had asked for discharge. Even the Revisional Court also has failed to appreciate that, there was no prima facie case against the accused warranting to issue process against him. 4. The prosecution has not placed any evidence on record to show that the petitioner has committed any mistake while discharging his duty as a Government Servant. The trial Court could not have ordered for issue of process against the petitioner, as he done, as alleged to have been done in the course of employment in a Public Government Department. On these grounds, he has prayed to al low the petition. 5. It is contended that there is no al legations against the petitioner. In the charge sheet no specific of fence is alleged against the accused No.7. The other accused Nos.6, 8 and 9 have not filed any such petition. The role of accused No.7 has not at all being made out in the charge sheet. Accused No.7 is a public servant. If the act complained of is said to be done in discharging of his duty, then sanction is required to prosecute the case. The Trial Court has not considered the Government Order dated 11.03.2002. On these grounds he prayed to al low the petition. 6. Accused No.7 is a public servant. If the act complained of is said to be done in discharging of his duty, then sanction is required to prosecute the case. The Trial Court has not considered the Government Order dated 11.03.2002. On these grounds he prayed to al low the petition. 6. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that in view of the material placed against the accused the sanction issue can be gone into by the Trial Court at the time of evidence. Unless it is proved that the act done by accused is in discharging of his official function, he cannot be discharged at this stage. The learned Additional Government Advocate has relied on following authorities. (i) (2001) 6 (Supreme Court Cases 704 - (P.K. Pradhan Vs. State of Sikkim represented by the Central Bureau of Investigation.) (ii) 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 41 – (Ashok Sahu Vs. Gokul Saikia and another) (iii) (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 543 – Raj Kishor Roy Vs. Kamleshwar Pandey and another. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the following authorities. (i) LAWS(KAR) 2013 5 10 (M.K. Aiyappa Vs. State of Karnataka, by Lokayukta Police) 8. It is necessary to refer the brief facts of this case in nutshell. The private complaint has been filed by the Municipal Commissioner, CMC, Nippani in P.C.No.220/2013 against the petitioner and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 466, 488, 471, 420 of IPC. The Trial Court referred the same to the Nippani Town Police Station for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Nippani Town Police, after investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioner and the same came to be registered in C.C.No.790/2016. 9. The trail Court, on going through the available records took the cognizance for the aforesaid for the offences punishable under Section 466, 488, 471, 420, 166, 167 R/w Section 35 of IPC and directed the off ice to register the case against the petitioner and others for the aforesaid of fences. 10. The petitioner preferred revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. in Cr.R.P.No.556/2016 before the learned VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Chikodi questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Trial Court in CC.No.790/2016. On the basis of the above said al legations, the VII Addl. 10. The petitioner preferred revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. in Cr.R.P.No.556/2016 before the learned VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Chikodi questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Trial Court in CC.No.790/2016. On the basis of the above said al legations, the VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi had dismissed the revision petition by confirming the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC Nippani in C.C.No.790/2016. 11. The petitioner has been prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 466, 488, 471, 420 of IPC. Therefore implication of Section 195 of Cr.P.C., alone is required to be considered. 12. On perusal of the authority in M.K. Aiyappa’s case, that was rendered in a case where the accused was prosecuted for the of fences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act apart from IPC offences. Under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, there is a mandatory condition imposed on the prosecution to obtain prior sanction to prosecute the accused person for the offences punishable under the provisions of Preventions of Corruption Act. 13. In this case of fences alleged against the accused are coming under the IPC. Therefore, Section 197 (1) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is to be considered. In the authority reported in (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 704, the Hon’ble Supreme court held that, Test to determine whether Section 197(1) of Cr.P.C., is attracted are not. The following facts have to be taken into consideration. Therefore, Section 197 (1) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is to be considered. In the authority reported in (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 704, the Hon’ble Supreme court held that, Test to determine whether Section 197(1) of Cr.P.C., is attracted are not. The following facts have to be taken into consideration. “The act complained of (1) must be an offence, and (2) must be done in discharge of official duty – There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty – It does not matter that the act exceeds what is strictly necessary for the discharge of the official duty, since that question would arise only later when the trial proceeds – But no sanction is required where there is no such connection and the official status furnishes only the occasion or opportunity for the acts – The claim of the accused that that the act alleged was done reasonably and not in pretended course of his official duty can be examined during the trial by giving an opportunity to the defence to prove it – In such cases the question of sanction should be left open to be decided in the main judgment after conclusion of trial. B. Criminal procedure Code, 1973 – S.197 – Question of requirement of sanction for prosecution can be raised at any time after cognizance of the offence is taken, may be even at the time of conclusion of trial or after conviction. 14. In the decision reported in 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 41 – (Ashok Sahu Vs. Gokul Saikia and another), the Hon’ le Supreme Court held that where the material on record is insufficient that it would be proper to consider the question of necessity of sanction after recording some evidence. The Court then in a better position to coming to a conclusion whether on facts or prima facie sanction under Section 197 is necessary or not. 15. In the decision reported in (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 543 – Raj Kishor Roy Vs. Kamleshwar Pandey and another the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the question whether the accused acted in the course of performance of his duties and/or whether the defence are pretended or fanciful could only be examined during the course of trial after giving an opportunity to both the parties to establish their case. Kamleshwar Pandey and another the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the question whether the accused acted in the course of performance of his duties and/or whether the defence are pretended or fanciful could only be examined during the course of trial after giving an opportunity to both the parties to establish their case. Therefore it was held that the question of sanction in the instance case was left open to be decided even at the time of conclusion of trial. Therefore on perusal of the above said authorities I find that, in this case whether the acts complained of against the accused were committed were in discharge of his official duty or not is a fact to be decided. Therefore solely on this ground I find that the proceedings cannot be quashed. 16. As regards whether there are grounds to frame charge against the accused or not, the accused is at liberty to urge all the grounds before the trial Court. Now this court does not embark into that aspect and the same is not seriously urged before this Court. Therefore, keeping open the right of the accused to seek for discharge before the trial Court, this petition is liable to be disposed of. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.