( 1 ) ACCUSED No. 1 in C. C. No. 286/1998 on the file of the learned VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings therein against him.

( 2 ) 1st respondent lodged a private complaint against the petitioner and others, numbered as C. C. No. 286/1998, on the file of the learned VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, alleging that when the petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Chebrolu Police Station, he arrested the 1st respondent in execution of non-bailable warrant issued by the learned VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, in C. C. No. 196/1995, on 1-7-1997, but detained the 1st respondent illegally and beat him in the police station and produced him in the Court on 7-7-1997. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 343 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Later, petitioner filed Crl. M. P. No. 1161/2000 before the lower Court to discharge him on the ground that there was no previous sanction from the State Government. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on 21-7-2000 holding that the illegal detention of and the assault made against the 1st respondent was not part of the official duty of the petitioner and as such there was no necessity to obtain prior sanction under S. 197, Cr. P. C.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the dismissal of his petition, A1 filed the present petition to quash the proceedings against him on the ground that no sanction order, as required under Section 197, Cr. P. C. , was obtained to prosecute him and that the allegations, at best, may amount to excess discharge of public duty.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that it is the case of the 1st respondent that the petitioner arrested him on 1-7-1997 but produced before the learned Magistrate only on 7-7-1997 and this allegation may at best amount to excess discharge of public duty by the petitioner and hence sanction as required by Section 197 Cr. P. C. is necessary to prosecute the petitioner.

( 5 ) THERE is no dispute that when a public servant is to be prosecuted in respect of the official acts of such public servant, sanction to prosecute him is necessary. The object of Section 197, Cr. P. C. is to protect public servants against irresponsible, frivolous or vexatious proceedings for acts done in discharge of official duty, and to see that no prosecution is started unless there is some foundation for the charge brought. The immunity from prosecution without sanction extends only to acts which can be shown to be done in discharge of official duty or to purport to be done in such discharge, but an offence arising out of abuse of official position by an act not purporting to be official does not require any sanction.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh v. Jammal Patel, AIR 2001 SC 2198 wherein it is held as under :"the real test to be applied to attract the applicability of Section 197 (3) is whether the act which is done by a public officer and is alleged to constitute an offence was done by the public officer whilst acting in the official capacity though what he did was neither his duty nor his right to do as such public officer. The act complained of may be in exercise of the duty or in the absence of such duty or in dereliction of the duty, if the act complained of is done while acting as a public officer and in the course of the same transaction in which the official duty was performed or purports to be performed, the public officer would be protected. "

( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon another decision of the Apex Court in P. K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim, AIR 2001 SC 2547 wherein their Lordships have held as follows :"thus, from a conspectus of the aforesaid decisions, it will be clear that for claiming protection under Section 197 of the Code, it has to be shown by the accused that there is reasonabl