ORDER : Bibek Chaudhuri, J. 1. This is an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by one Shri Pushparaju praying for quashing of the FIR No. 463 of 2014 dated 21.10.2014 under Sections 120B/167/409/464/465/471 of the Indian Penal Code and corresponding charge sheet No. 219 of 2018 dated 12.08.2018 and connected GR Case No. 1554 of 2014 pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Port Blair. 2. The petitioner is the Executive Engineer under the Andaman Public Works Department (APWD) presently under suspension. 3. One K. Amose, Head Draughtsman under the Road construction Division, APWD lodged a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 16 October, 2014 against the petitioner, and three other high officials of APWD before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Port Blair alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner along with the other accused persons committed criminal conspiracy and uploaded 4 numbers construction works fraudulently using unique ID numbers of Port Blair Municipal Council, Andaman and Nicobar Police Department and other fictitious unique ID numbers. It is also alleged that the accused persons along with Superintendent Engineer have created forged and false documents and used them as genuine for further process of uploading the four different tender notices in wrong ID numbers to conceal them from website of the APWD in order to deprive the innocent contractors from taking part in the tender process and to issue the work order to the men of their choice. The complainant has also made out a specific case of illegal disbursement of money to some persons by the accused. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate forwarded the said written complaint to the Station House Officer, Police Station CCS directing him to treat the same as FIR and start investigation against the petitioner. On the basis of the said order, police registered a case being No. 463 of 2014 dated 21.10.2014 against the accused persons including the petitioner under Sections 120B/167/409/464/465/471 of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and other three accused persons. 5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took contingence of the offence against the accused persons on the basis of the charge sheet filed by police against them. 6. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and other three accused persons. 5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took contingence of the offence against the accused persons on the basis of the charge sheet filed by police against them. 6. Main grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had acted illegally with material irregularity by taking cognizance of offence against the accused persons without due sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. It is contended by Mr. G.B. Kumar that the learned Magistrate, while exercising his power under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot act in a mechanical or casual manner and go on with the complaint after getting the report. He further submits that prior to exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3), the Magistrate is required to apply his mind and he cannot refer the matter under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind of the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant will not be sufficient. 8. It is further submitted by Mr. Binnu Kumar, learned advocate for the petitioner that so far as the public servants are concerned, the cognizance of any offence by any Court is barred by Section 197 of the Code unless sanction is obtained from the appropriate authority, if the offence alleged to have been committed, was in charge of the official duty. The Section not only specifies the persons to whom the protection is afforded but it also specifies the conditions and the circumstances in which it shall be available and the effect in law, if the conditions are not satisfied. The mandatory character of the protection afforded to a public servant is brought out by the expression, 'no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction'. Use of the words 'no' and 'shall' makes it abundantly clear that the bar on the exercise of power of the Court to take cognizance of any offence is absolute and complete. The Court cannot take notice of the complaint or exercising jurisdiction if it is in respect of a public servant who is accused of an offence alleged to have been committed during the discharge of his official duty. 9. The Court cannot take notice of the complaint or exercising jurisdiction if it is in respect of a public servant who is accused of an offence alleged to have been committed during the discharge of his official duty. 9. In support of his contention Mr. Binnu Kumar refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar and others v. M.K. Aiyappa and another reported in 2013 AIR SCW 5570. Mr. Binnu Kumar, further refers to another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 458 of 2020 arising out of SLP (CRL) No. 1882 of 2018 dated 18 June, 2020 ( AIR 2020 SC 3292 )]. In the aforesaid case it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- "72. The language and tenor of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act makes it absolutely clear that sanction is required not only for acts done in discharge of official duty, it is also required for an act purported to be done in discharge of official duty and/or act done under colour of or in excess of such duty or authority." 10. In paragraph 73 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, inter aha,- "73. To decide whether sanction is necessary, the test is whether the act is totally unconnected with official duty or whether there is a reasonable connection with the official duty. In the case of an act of a policeman or any other public servant unconnected with the official duty there can be no question of sanction. However, if the act alleged against a policeman is reasonably connected with discharge of his official duty, it does not matter if the policeman has exceeded the scope of his powers and/or acted beyond the four corners of law." 11. Mr. Krishna Rao, learned advocate for the prosecution/opposite party, on the other hand, submits that section 197 is in statute to give protection to the public servant from facing vexatious, frivolous and malicious prosecution for the act committed by the public servant in discharge of their official duties. He further submits that there must be direct connection between the act done by the public servant and his official duty which is entrusted to him for his performance. 12. He further submits that there must be direct connection between the act done by the public servant and his official duty which is entrusted to him for his performance. 12. In the instant case, the petitioner is one of the Executive Engineers of Andaman Public Works Department. He along with other accused persons are responsible to issue public notices of tender for different works undertaken by the APWD to facilitate the empanelled contractors to participate in the tender. If in course of such act, the petitioner commits act in excess of his duty or improperly performs his official duty without any culpable intention, he is entitled to get protection under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. With this introduction, he refers to the following findings in the charge sheet. (i) On the basis of above complaint FIR No. 463/14 dt. 21/10/2014 was chalked out at PS CCS and initial investigation of the case was assigned to SI Usman Ali of PS CCS. During the course of investigation, IO recorded statement of complaint Shri. K. Amose. Further, obtained certified copies of tender documents uploaded on NIC website from project coordinator Smti. Nahida Nasreen of NIC for the alleged unique numbers 17339, 19409, 16078 and 16075 and noticed that the alleged unique numbers were related with tender and quotation notice uploaded by PBMC, A and N Police, APWD and PBMC respectively, which corroborate the version of complainant. (ii) Further perusal of documents for the work "Addition, alteration and renovation of 44 nos. type-III quarters at Satellite Township at Prothrapur" shows that the unique number mentioned in the Tender Notice of Tender Information System was "19409" which is actually a unique number obtained by A and N Police, for their work "Tender for repairing/servicing of CPUs" which corroborate the version of complaint. (iii) IO further recorded statement of accused 1) Shri. Newaziz Ali, Superintending Engineer (Pig), Chief Engineer's office, APWD, Port Blair, 2) Shri. Pushparaju, Executive Engineer (Pig), APWD, port Blair and 3) Shri. Sheikh Paduman, Executive Engineer, Port Blair, South Division, APWD, Port Blair. (iii) IO further recorded statement of accused 1) Shri. Newaziz Ali, Superintending Engineer (Pig), Chief Engineer's office, APWD, Port Blair, 2) Shri. Pushparaju, Executive Engineer (Pig), APWD, port Blair and 3) Shri. Sheikh Paduman, Executive Engineer, Port Blair, South Division, APWD, Port Blair. (iv) IO further received reply from EO to CE, APWD, A and N Administration, Port Blair stating therein that the tendering process for execution of work is done as per the provisions of CPWD work manual, published by Director General, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi and during the alleged period CPWD Work Manual 2012 was enforced, also provided certified copy of the relevant section of CPWD Work Manual 2012 for reference. (v) Whereas perusal of point (2) of section 17.1 regarding "Wide Publicity" revels that "notices for all work, irrespective of their value, shall be posted in the CPWD website. Proof thereof in the form of a printout of NIT details and Tender ID number from the web page shall be kept on record." Further, perusal of Section 17.6 point (4) speaks that work with estimated cost upto 05 lakhs may not be inserted in press but NIT must necessarily be uploaded on website. Whereas all the 05 nos. alleged work are estimated above 05 lakhs rupees and must have been advertised in newspapers. (vi) IO further received letter from EE (E and M) (Plg), APWD stating therein that their office did not received any requisition from CD-II, Prothrapur and RCD, Wimberlygunj to upload tender notice on NIC web portal in the alleged period except one notice which was received from CD-II, Prothrapur on 19/04/11,. which was dually uploaded and the generated unique number was "12923" for the work namely "Addition, alteration and renovation of 44 nos. Type-Ill quarters at Satellite Township at Prothrapur. SW: Renovation of 13 Nos. Type III Qtr at Satellite Township at Prothrapur (Qtr. No. 66, 67, 68, 57, 58, 63, 64, 59, 60, 127;,128, 129, 130)", dtd. 19/04/11. (vii) Also perusal of work document "Addition, alteration and renovation of 44 Nos. Type-III Qtrs at Satellite Township at Prothrapur in the year 2011, i) Renovation of 15 Nos. Type-III Qtrs at Satellite Township at Prothrapur, ii) Renovation of 13 Nos. No. 66, 67, 68, 57, 58, 63, 64, 59, 60, 127;,128, 129, 130)", dtd. 19/04/11. (vii) Also perusal of work document "Addition, alteration and renovation of 44 Nos. Type-III Qtrs at Satellite Township at Prothrapur in the year 2011, i) Renovation of 15 Nos. Type-III Qtrs at Satellite Township at Prothrapur, ii) Renovation of 13 Nos. Type-III Qtrs at Satellite Township at Prothrapur" disclosed that unique number for the said work was obtained by accused Sheik Uduman, EE, CD-II, Prothrapur which is "12923" but have used unique number "14573" to process the work. Also, it is learned from the documents supplied that above work were published on 28 August 2011 in the Newspaper Daily Telegram. (viii) Also from the documents supplied by EE, CD-II, Prothrapur it is learned that for the work "Renovation of existing 02 Nos. POL store and 01 No additional room at Hangar in the year 2012", 06 numbers of contractor have purchased tender document. And for the work Addition, alteration and renovation of 44 Nos. Type-III Qtrs at Satellite Township at Prothrapur in the year 2011", 32 numbers and 33 numbers of contractor have purchased tender document. (ix) On transfer of IO, SI Zainuddin case file was handed over to SI P.K. Shivhare of PS CCS for further investigation. IO further recorded statement of Shri. V.K. Kunjaymoo. S/o. V.K. Kutty, 51 years, Head Draftsman CD-I, CE Office, Port Blair and Shri. Gopal Mallick, S/o. Late Anil Mallick, 53 years, Assistant Engineer (PLG), CE Office. IO further received certified copies of tender notice uploaded on Tender Information System of NIC. Perusal of which shows that Unique ID mentioned for the work "Construction of fencing around the newly constructed office cum residence for Junior Engineer water supply at Bamboo flat" was 16075 which is a unique id actually obtained by PBMC, Port Blair which corroborate the version of complaint. Also unique id mentioned for the work "Special repair to school building under RCD Wimberlygunj" is 16078 which is a unique number obtained by APWD, CD-II, Prathrapur, this also corroborate the version of complaint. IO further received forwarding letter from Smti. Nahid, NIC confirming that the unique id 16076 was actually obtained by EE, CD-II, Prothrapur for their work. Also unique id mentioned for the work "Special repair to school building under RCD Wimberlygunj" is 16078 which is a unique number obtained by APWD, CD-II, Prathrapur, this also corroborate the version of complaint. IO further received forwarding letter from Smti. Nahid, NIC confirming that the unique id 16076 was actually obtained by EE, CD-II, Prothrapur for their work. (x) The two office i.e. RCD, Wimberlygunj and CD-II, Prothrapur have also failed to provide any material evidence of placing the alleged work on their notice board as per the provision of CPWD manual 2012. Which is concluded as that if the NIT/NIQ for alleged work have not been uploaded on NIC website, neither it is published on printed media except for one work of CD-II, Prothrapur "ADDITION, ALTERATION AND RENOVATION OF 44 NOS. TYPE-III QUARTERS AT SATELLITE TOWNSHIP AT PROTHRAPUR", nor the work was displayed on notice board, wide publicity of the work has not been achieved by the two accused Executive Engineer and Superintendent Engineer. It is also there by established that the two accused Executive Engineer have been in conspiracy with Superintendent Engineer, accused Niwazis Ali and contractor have awarded the works in partial manner then by breaching trust being a public servant. 14. Upon collecting the above material evidence, the Investigating Officer came to the following findings. "In view of the above it is established beyond doubt that accused Shri Newaziz Ali, Superintending Engineer (Plg), Chief Engineer's office, APWD, Port Blair, in conspiracy with accused Shri Pushparaju, Executive Engineer (Plg), Port Blair and accused Shri Sheikh Puduman, Executive Engineer, Port Blair, South Division, APWD, Port Blair have created forged and false tender documents by way of using unique ids obtained by other departments and created false document to be used as genuine one there by avoiding mass publicity of the work and awarding work in partial manner their by breaching trust as government servant and also causing financial loss to Government Exchequer and hence committing offence U/S. 167/409/464/465/471/120(B) IPC. Further, it is to say that no evidence was found against Shri. Aftab Alam against the allegation of complainant U/S. 167/409/464/465/471/120(B)IPC. 15. Thus, the sum and substance of the allegations against the petitioner and other accused person is that they up-loaded the tender notices in the unique I.Ds of various departments other than using the unique I.D. of the APWD. According to Mr. 15. Thus, the sum and substance of the allegations against the petitioner and other accused person is that they up-loaded the tender notices in the unique I.Ds of various departments other than using the unique I.D. of the APWD. According to Mr. Rao, the official duty of the petitioner and the other accused persons was to upload the data in the website of the APWD by using proper unique I.D. They did not upload the tender notices purposefully using their official unique I.D. in the website. In this way, they prevented the contractors to take part in the tender process and allotted the works to the contractors of their own choice. 16. It is submitted by Mr. Rao, that no sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was necessary to prosecute the petitioner and other accused persons. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the instant revisional application. 17. It is no longer res Integra that the public servant is entitled to protection under section 197 not only in respect to an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting as public servant but also an offence alleged to have been committed by him while purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. 18. In Om Prakash and others v. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Home, Ranchi I and another reported in (2012) 12 SCC 72 : (AIROnline 2012 SC 604), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with the scope of section 197. In paragraph 32 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- "32. The true test as to whether a public servant was acting or purporting to act in discharge of his duties would be whether the act complained of was directly connected with his official duties or it was done in the discharge of his official duties or it was so integrally connected with or attached to his office as to be inseparable from it. (K. Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 266 ). The protection given under Section 197 of the Code has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. (K. Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 266 ). The protection given under Section 197 of the Code has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the 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 the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant of the protection. (State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew. (2004) 8 SCC 40 : ( AIR 2004 SC 2179 )). If the above tests are applied to the facts of the present case, the police must get protection given under Section 197 of the Code because the acts complained of are so integrally connected with or attached to their office as to be inseparable from it. It is not possible for us to come to a conclusion that the protection granted under Section 197 of the Code is used by the police personnel in this case as a cloak for killing the deceased in cold blood. 19. In paragraph 34 of the above mentioned judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:- 34. In Matajog Dobey vs. H.C. Bhari, AIR 1956 SC 44 , the Constitution Bench of this court was considering what is the scope and meaning of a somewhat similar expression "any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty" occurring in Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (5 of 1898). The Constitution Bench observed that no question of sanction can arise under Section 197 unless the act complained of is an offence; the only point to determine is whether it was committed in the discharge of official duty. On the question as to which act falls within the ambit of abovequoted expression, the Constitution Bench concluded that there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty; the act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable, but not a pretended or fanciful claim that he did it in the course of performance of his duty. While dealing with the question whether the need for sanction has to be considered as soon as the complaint is lodged and on the allegations contained therein, the Constitution Bench referred to Hori Ram Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1939 FC 43 and observed that at first sight, it seems as though there is some support for this view in Hori Ram Singh because Sulaiman, J. has observed in the said judgment that as the prohibition is against the institution itself, its applicability must be judged in the first instance at the earliest stage of institution and Varadachariar, J. has also stated that: (Matajog Dobey Case, AIR p.49, para 20). "20. ... the question must be determined with reference to the nature of the allegations made against the public servant in the criminal proceeding." It is pertinent to note that the Constitution Bench has further observed that a careful perusal of the later parts of the judgment however show that the learned Judges did not intend to lay down any such proposition. The Constitution Bench quoted the said later parts of the judgment as under Matajog Dobey case, AIR p.49-50, para 20). "20. ... Sulaiman, J. refers to the prosecution case as disclosed by the complaint or the 'police report' and he winds up the discussion in these words: (Hori Ram Singh Case, AIR p.52: FCR p.179) '...Of course, if the case as put forward fails, or the defence establishes that the act purported to be done [is] in execution of duty, the proceedings will have to be dropped and the complaint dismissed on that ground.' The other learned Judge also states: (Hori Ram Singh case, AIR p.55: FCR, p.185) '... At this stage, we have only to see whether the case alleged against the appellant or sought to be proved against him relates to acts done or purporting to be done by him in the execution of his duty.' It must be so. The question may arise at any stage of the proceedings. The complaint may not disclose that the act constituting the offence was done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty; but facts subsequently coming to light on a police or judicial inquiry or even in the course of the prosecution evidence at the trial, may establish the necessity for sanction. The complaint may not disclose that the act constituting the offence was done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty; but facts subsequently coming to light on a police or judicial inquiry or even in the course of the prosecution evidence at the trial, may establish the necessity for sanction. Whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage. The necessity may reveal itself in the course of the progress of the case." The legal position is thus settled by the Constitution Bench in the above paragraph. Whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage. If, at the outset, the defence establishes that the act purported to be done is in execution of official duty, the complaint will have to be dismissed on that ground. 20. In Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v. N.P. Mishra reported in 1970 (2) SCC 56 : AIR 1970 SC 1661 , the scope of section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is discussed in the following words: "4. The object and purpose underlying this is to afford protection to public servants against frivolous, vexatious or false prosecution for offences alleged to have been committed by them while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty. The larger interest of efficiency of State administration demands that public servants should be free to perform their official duty fearlessly and undeterred by apprehension of their possible prosecution at the instance of private parties to whom annoyance or injury may have been caused by their legitimate acts done in the discharge of their official duty. This section is designed to facilitate an effective and unhampered performance of their official duty by public servants by providing for scrutiny, into the allegations of commission of offence by them by their superior authorities and prior sanction for their prosecution as a condition precedent to the cognizance of the cases against them by the courts. It is neither to be too narrowly construed nor too widely. Too narrow and pedantic construction may render it otiose for it is no part of an official duty-and never can be-to commit an offence. It is neither to be too narrowly construed nor too widely. Too narrow and pedantic construction may render it otiose for it is no part of an official duty-and never can be-to commit an offence. In our view, it is not the "duty" which requires examination so much as the "act" because the official act can be performed both in the discharge of the official duty as well as in dereliction of it. One must also guard against too wide a construction because in our Constitutional set up the idea of legal equality or of universal subjection of all citizens to one law administered by the ordinary courts has been pushed to its utmost limits by enshrining equality before the law in our fundamental principles. Broadly speaking, with us no man, whatever his rank or condition is above the law and every official from the highest down to the lowest is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen. In construing Section 197, Cr.P.C., therefore, a line has to be drawn between the narrow inner circle of strict official duties and acts outside the scope of official duties. According to the decision of this Court in Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari cited by Shri Sarjoo Prasad on behalf of the appellant there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty; the act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable claim, but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the course of the performance of his duty. In Amrik Singh v. The State of Pepsu ( AIR 1955 SC 309 ) this Court said: "It is not every offence committed by a public servant that requires sanction for prosecution under Section 197 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; nor even every act done by him while he is actually engaged in the performance of his official duties; but if the act complained of is directly concerned with his official duties so that, if questioned, it could 'be claimed to have been done by virtue of the office, then sanction would be necessary; and that would be so, irrespective of whether it was, in fact, a proper discharge of his duties, because that would really be a matter of defence on the merits, which would have to be investigated at the trial, and could not arise at the stage of the grant of sanction, which must precede the institution of the prosecution." Recently in Baijnath Gupta v. State of M.P. ( AIR 1966 SC 220 ) this Court further explained that it is the quality of the act that is important and if it falls within the scope and range of the official duties of the public servant concerned the protection contemplated by Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code will be attracted." 21. In Choudhury Parveen Sultana v. State of West Bengal and another reported in (2009) 3 SCC 398: ( AIR 2009 SC 1404 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the object, nature and scope of section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure held as hereunder:- "18. The direction which had been given by this Court, as far back as in 1971 in Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava case holds good even today. All acts done by a public servant in the purported discharge of his official duties cannot as a matter of course be brought under the protective umbrella of Section 197 CrPC. On the other hand, there can be cases of misuse and/or abuse of powers vested in a public servant which can never be said to be a part of the official duties required to be performed by him. On the other hand, there can be cases of misuse and/or abuse of powers vested in a public servant which can never be said to be a part of the official duties required to be performed by him. As mentioned in Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava case, the underlying object of Section 197 CrPC is to enable the authorities to scrutinize the allegations made against a public servant to shield him/her against frivolous, vexatious or false prosecution initiated with the main object of causing embarrassment and harassment to the said official. However, as indicated hereinabove, if the authority vested in a public servant is misused for doing things which are not otherwise permitted under the law, such acts cannot claim the protection of Section 197 CrPC and have to be considered de hors the duties which a public servant is required to discharge or perform. Hence, in respect of prosecution for such excesses or misuse of authority, no protection can be demanded by the public servant concerned. 22. Thus, the test to determine as to whether sanction under section 197 is required before taking cognizance of an offence allegedly committed by the public servant are (i) the act complained of must be an offence and (2) it 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 the 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 act. The claim of the accused 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 case, the question of sanction should be left open to be decided in the main judgment after conclusion of trial. 23. The above view is laid down in three Judges decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim represented by the Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2001) 6 SCC 704 : ( AIR 2001 SC 2547 ). 23. The above view is laid down in three Judges decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim represented by the Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2001) 6 SCC 704 : ( AIR 2001 SC 2547 ). In the said judgment, it is further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the 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. 24. There is no departure of the legal principle relating to the object, scope and application of section 197 in the case of D. Devaraja (utsupra) and Anil Kumar and others (utsupra) relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner. 25. Official duty of the petitioner and other accused was to upload the tender notices in question in the official website of the APWD. They surreptitiously and purposefully did not upload the said notices in the website of the APWD. On the contrary, the said notices were uploaded in the websites of Port Blair Municipal Council and other departments. The petitioner and other accused persons could have claimed protection under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the tender notices were uploaded in the official website of APWD and in that process some offence was found to have been committed. Uploading of tender notices surreptitiously in the website of other departments is not an act or inadvertent omission in the discharge of official duty by the petitioner and other accused persons. It is prima facie an act of forgery. The act of forgery and its abetment and entering into criminal conspiracy in order to achieve nefarious object does not fall under the category of offence requiring protection under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hence prior sanction would not be necessary for any such offence under which charge sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer as also its abetment under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 26. The above observations of this Court may be illustrated by citing the follow examples: 27. The Investigating Officer has the official duty to examine witnesses and the accused in course of investigation. But he cannot indulge third decree method compelling the accused to record confession. 26. The above observations of this Court may be illustrated by citing the follow examples: 27. The Investigating Officer has the official duty to examine witnesses and the accused in course of investigation. But he cannot indulge third decree method compelling the accused to record confession. The police cannot torture the accused while he is in police custody for the purpose of investigation. If such acts are not done by the police, it would be beyond the scope of his official duty. Similarly, if the public servant who is entrusted to upload tender notices in his official website committed some unintentional error in uploading the same, as per example by not uploading the entire notices or by not uploading the signed copy of the notice etc, he is entitled to get protection under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But it is not within the scope of the official duty of the petitioner to purposefully upload as many as four tender notices in the official website of other departments collecting their unique I.D. numbers. If such was a solitary instance, it might have been held that the petitioner in association of other persons committed mistake while discharging official duty and therefore was entitled to get protection under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 28. In the instant case, however, the act and conduct of the petitioner in association of other accused persons, prima facie establish that in series of tender notices, mischief of suppression of fact and forgery was made by uploading the same in different websites using unique I.D. numbers of various departments other than APWD. Such act, in my considered view was purposeful, nefarious, intentional and malicious and these are not in discharge of official duty. 29. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the instant revision. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rightly took cognizance of offence on the basis of the materials available to him in the charge sheet. 30. Accordingly, the instant revision is dismissed on contest, however, without costs.