A public servant is entitled to protection from prosecution under S. 197(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code only if the acts complained of have a reasonable connection with the discharge or purported discharge of his official duty.

1. The order of refusal to discharge the petitioner in a sessions trial under Ss. 302, 302/109, Penal Code, and under S. 27, Arms Act, has been challenged by way of this Criminal Miscellaneous application for want of sanction under S. 197 Criminal P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code).

2. The matter seems to have arisen in the following circumstances. On 17-3-1984 at about 6 p.m. Parmeshwar Sah of village Mungo appeared at Nawadih Police Station and lodged the first information report against the petitioner and two armed constables, for the occurrence, which had taken place the same day at 4.30 P.M. when he was sitting in his shop in the village along with his son Sheo Narayan and his servant Kunwar Singh. It appears that at that very time the petitioner, who is a Block Development Officer of Nawadih came there along with armed force in a jeep, got down from the jeep and went to the verandah of the shop of the informant, Parmeshwar Sah and told him that there was a warrant of arrest against his son Sheo Narayan. On hearing this the informant Parmeshwar Sah requested the petitioner to defer the execution of the warrant of arrest till Holi festival, on which, the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs, 5,000.00 from the informant. The informant offered to pay a sum of Rs. 500/-to which the petitioner, B. D.O., did not agree. Thereafter the Havildar and the constables who were sitting in the jeep came and started dragging the son of the informant, namely, Sheo Narayan, on the order of the petitioner, in a bid to put him in the jeep. This was objected to by the informant, his son Sheo Narayan and his servant Kunwar Singh. The informant and other person who were sitting there resisted the taking away of Sheo Narayan to jeep. Thereupon the petitioner ordered for firing and on his order firing was resorted as a result of which Sheo Narayan, the son of the informant and his servant Kunwar Singh both received gun shot injuries. Kunwar Singh died on the spot and Sheo Narayan died on way while he was being taken to the hospital. After the occurrence the petitioner and the constables who were accompanying him left the place of the occurrence in the jeep.

3. On the statement of the informant, Parmeshwar Sah, a case under Ss. 302, 307, 324/34, 342 and 161, Penal Code, and under S, 27, Arms Act as also under the Prevention of Corruption Act was instituted and the police started investigation.

4. After completing investigation the police submitted charge-sheet on 3-4-1984 under S. 302/34, Penal Code, and under S. 27, Arms Act. After receipt of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session on 25-7-1984.

5. On 29-9-1984 the date fixed for hearing on charge matter, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner with a prayer to discharge him under S. 227 of the Code.

6. The Sessions Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor rejected the prayer to discharge the petitioner under S. 227 of the Code. Against this rejection order the petitioner has come up before this Court.

7. The record of the case indicates that on the 13th Nov. 1984, charge under S. 302/109, Penal Code, was framed against the petitioner and charge under S. 302, Penal Code, and under S. 27, Arms Act, was framed against another accused Nand Lal Rai.

8. The case of the petitioner is that on the date of the occurrence he was on deputation for maintaining law and order and was the officer reserved for Nawadih Police Station to keep watch over the entire area of the police station for the period from 14-3-1984 to 19-4-1984 and it was his duty to maintain law and order at any cost during the period in question. The petitioner received a written report from the Mukhiya of Tarnari Gram Panchayat regarding the likelihood of the breach of peace in that village for which a request was made to the petitioner to visit the village immediately and to ensure the maintenance of law and order duri