K.N. Keshavanarayana, J: This appeal by the State filed under Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.02.2005 passed by the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in Criminal Case No.16500/1996, acquitting the respondent - accused for the offences punishable under Sections 332, 355 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C.), for want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The Police Sub• Inspector, Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, filed charge sheet against the respondent - accused for the aforesaid offences, interalia alleging that the respondent - accused working as a Bill Distributor in Bangalore Water Supply and Sanitary Sub-Division, annoyed by the order transferring him from the post of Bill Distributor as Telephone Operator at the instance of P.W. 1 - Basavarajaiah, working as Junior Assistant, abused P.W. 1 in filthy language at about 04.00 p.m. on 10.04.1996 and threatened him with injury to his life by holding a knife and after about five minutes, the accused came back to the Office and assaulted P.W. 1 with chappals on the head, cheek, shoulder and other parts of the body and thereby caused simple injuries to P.W. 1 and thus, deterred P.W. 1, a public servant from discharging his duty.

3. The respondent-accused pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against him. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges, examined P.Ws. 1 to 7 and relied on documentary evidence, marked as Ex.P-1 to EX.P-5 and also M.O. 1. The accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence. His defence was one of the total denial and that of false implication. The learned Magistrate on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, though held that the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt established that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 332 and 355 of I.P.C., acquitted the accused on the ground that the sanction for prosecuting the respondent - accused, a public servant, as required by Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was necessary and since no such sanction had been obtained, the prosecution launched is without jurisdiction. Consequently, the learned Magistrate ordered acquittal of the accused. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the State is in appeal.

4. I have heard both sides and perused the judgment under appeal.

5. The short questions for consideration is:-

"1. Whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the sanction for prosecution as required by Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was necessary?

2. Whether the learned Magistrate is justified in acquitting the respondent - accused?"

6. As per Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a public servant who cannot be removed from his Office, except by sanction of the Government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the protection given under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for the offences alleged to have committed by them, whether acting or purporting to act as public servants. However, before Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked, the alleged acts by the public servant must have reasonable connection with the discharge of his official duties.

7. The Apex Court in the case of Center for Public Interest Litigation and Another Vs. Union of India and Another reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 4413, has held thus, in paragraphs 9 and 10

"9. The protectio