( 1 ) THE revision petitioner assails the order dated 5. 3. 1999 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, guntur, in Crl. R. P. No. 158 of 1998.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the de facto complainant. The Sub-Inspector of Police. Lalapet Lando P. S. , Guntur, laid the charge sheet against the first respondent herein under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code ( the IPC for brevity) alleging inter alia that on 30. 9. 1997 at 11. 00 a. m. , the accused came to M/s. Sita Ratna Rice and Flour Mill of the de facto complainant situated at etukuru Road, Guntur, accompanied by three others; and that he took the telephone key forcibly and threatened the de facto complainant that he would call the Vigilance people and get the Mill seized by the commercial Tax Officer; and that the staff of the accused were harassing the de facto complainant by asking mamoolu for the last some days; and that, therefore, the complainant having not been able to bear the same, poured kerosene upon himself and tried to self-immolate; and that on a report given by the de facto complainant at 8. 15 p. m. , on that day, a case was registered against the accused in Crime No. 224 of 1997 and eventually, after investigation the charge sheet was laid.

( 3 ) THE accused, pursuant to the summons issued by the Court, appeared and then filed the petition in Crl. M. P. No. 4454 of 1998 under Section 37 of the A. P. General sales Tax Act ( the Act for brevity) and under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal procedure ( the Cr. PC for brevity) seeking discharge. It is averred inter alia in that petition that the petitioner is an officer working as Special A. C. T. O. of Patnam bazaar Office, Guntur, at the time of alleged incident and, therefore, he is a public servant and he is protected under Section 37 of the Act and under Section 197 of the cr. PC. As he was performing his official duties in good faith in protecting the revenues of the Government, it requires sanction to prosecute him. While the petitioner reached the Rice Mill along with his staff for the purpose of collecting tax due, he was wrongfully confined along with the staff in a room, thereby preventing him from discharging his official duties for about nearly 8 hours; and that some police officers saved the petitioner and his staff; and that on a report given by him a case in Cr. No. 225 of 1997 was registered against the de facto complainant and the same is pending; and that, therefore, the case of the complainant is totally false.

( 4 ) THE learned IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, by his order dated 16. 11. 1998 dismissed the said petition on the premise that it was not proper to hold that the accused visited the Mill for the purpose of collecting the revenue and the same should be decided only after a full- fledged trial and, therefore, the sanction as envisaged under Section 37 of the Act and under Section 197 of the Cr. PC was not required. Having been aggrieved by the said order, the accused carried the matter in revision to the Sessions Court and under the impugned order, as aforesaid, the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, allowed the revision petition. Inter alia, in his order the learned Sessions Judge observed that the accused went to the shop of the de facto complainant for collecting dues and in the process it would appear that he administered threats to the de facto complainant and, therefore, such threats even if true would fall part of the official duty of the petitioner. As aforesaid, the de facto complainant is assailing the said order.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that there is no nexus between the act complained of and the official functions inasmuch as the threats hurled could never be in discharge of his official duties.

( 6 ) THE points that fall for my determination in this revision case are as to whether the allegations levelled against the revision petitioner attract the offence of criminal intimidation, and