( 1 ) ALL these seven criminal revision petitions are filed by the respective revision petitioners under S. 397 Cr. P. C. against the orders dated 12-6-2001, 7-7-2001, 26-5-2001, 26-5-2001, 7-7-2001, 7-7-2001 and 5-7-2001 passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Ranebenur in Private Complaint Nos. 25/95, 30/95, 31/95, 28/95, 27/95, 29/95 and 32/95, respectively, whereby the Court below returned the complaints on the ground that the respective complainants have not obtained the prior sanction as per the provisions of S. 197 of Cr. P. C. and S. 170 of the Karnataka Police Act to take cognizance of the case.

( 2 ) SINCE the respondent in all these cases are common and common question of fact and law are involved, all of them are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

( 3 ) THE brief facts that are to be noted are as follows :- on 1-4-1995 at about 11. 20 p. m. when the respective petitioners were in their house, at Sunkalbidari village of Rane-bennur Taluk/the respondent accused took them forcibly by saying that he wants to take their statement and get medical treatment, even though the complainants were suffering with pain on account of the grievous injuries sustained by them. Thereafter, they were produced before the Medical Officer, General Hospital, Ranebennur and then took them to the Police Station and illegally confined them in the Police station from 1-4-1995 to 3-4-1995, without allowing them to go out and then produced them before the Court on the evening of 3-4-1995. Even though, the respondent/accused was aware that his act was illegal and out of purview of his duty, the petitioners/complainants were wrongfully confined in the Police Station and that the respondent/accused threatened them. Further case of the petitioners is that they came to know that they were produced before the Magistrate in Crime No. 50/95 and at that time all the petitioners in the aforesaid cases, brought to the notice of the Court that by saying that they were illegally confined from the night of 1-4-1995 till 3-4-1995 and their say has been recorded by the learned Magistrate and advised them to file a complaint and then they undergone treatment. The illegal act of the respondent has been witnessed by their respective family members.

( 4 ) IN this behalf, learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that in order to file a complaint against a public servant, no prior permission or sanction from the appointing authority to prosecute the respondent is necessary, if the illegal act of the respondent does not require any prior sanction to prosecute him. Therefore, returning of the complaints by the Magistrate before the issuance of summons to the accused is perverse, illegal and uncalled for and therefore, the perverse finding recorded by the learned Magistrate is only on the ground that prior sanction is necessary to take cognizance of the case. In support of the aforesaid contention he has relied on a decision reported in (1973)1 Mad LJ 94 in the case of G. Govindaraju v. Babu Poojary wherein it was held thus :"the Sub-Inspector was not entitled to the protection conferred by S. 170 (1) of the Mysore Police Act and no previous sanction of the Government was, therefore, necessary for prosecuting him. Ss. 161 and 163 Cr. P. C. prohibit police officers from beating and confining persons with a view to induce them to make statements. In view of this statutory prohibition, it cannot be said that the acts complained of by the complainant were acts done by the accused under the colour of his duty or authority. The alleged acts of beating and confinement fell completely outside the scope of the duties of the Police Officer. "

( 5 ) ON the other hand, Sri V. M. Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent accused submitted that since the respondent is a public servant, in order to prosecute him, a prior sanction is required from the appointing authority. Therefore, in the instant case a