( 1 ) IN this Criminal Revision Application the petitioner P. I. S. Prabhudas Pandav, who at all the material times was working as the P. I. S. , mehlav Police Station, challenges the orders pronounced by the learned J. M. F. C. , petlad below application Ex. 33 in Criminal Case No. 1672 of 197 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure is not a condition precedent for the prosecution against him for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Secs. 325, 323, 342, 504 and 506 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 2 ) THE facts and circumstances under which the present Criminal Revision application arises may be noticed thus : one Faidmiya Kadari, a practising Advocate stationed at Nadiad, had filed the above said private complaint against P. S. I. Pandav and other four Police constables for the alleged commission of the above said offences. The case of the complainant Advocate in brief is that he had filed Special Civil Suit no. 176 of 1981 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nadiad for the plaintiff-Lallubhai Solanki and certain ad interim orders were contained therein. According to the complainant, the Clerk of the Court was appointed as a Commissioner for preparing the panchnama of the standing Paddy crop on the land under dispute. The plaintiff had realised that the defendant was trying to take away the standing Paddy crop on or about 4-11-1981 and therefore the plaintiff had gone to Mehlav Police Station but his complaint was not recorded. Later on, with the help of one Sureshbhai Patel the D. S. P. , kheda, was intimated and thereafter the plaintiff, in company of the complainant advocate, had gone to Petlad and later on had reached Mehlav Police Station at about 6-45 p. m. The case of the complainant Advocate further, is that when he had approached the accused persons, including the present petitioner, he was abused and assaulted and was chased out of the Police Station and was again assaulted, and later on was put in the lock-up and could be released only after mid-night at the intervention of a leading Advocate of Nadiad. It appears that before the above said private complaint could be decided and disposed of on merits, the application at Ex. 33 was submitted, on behalf of the present petitioner, saying that the above said offences are alleged to have been committed while he was discharging his official duty as a Police officer and that, therefore the sanction of the State Government would be necessary under Sec. 197 (1) (b) of the Code of Cri. Pro. , 1973. After hearing both the sides the learned J. M. F. C. , Petlad had reached the conclusion that, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the sanction was not necessary. The above said orders dated 3-1-1984 are being challenged by the petitioner by filing the present Cri. Revision Application.

( 3 ) MR. D. D. Vyas the learned Advocate appears on behalf of the petitioner while the opponent No. 1 the original complainant has been represented by the learned Advocate Mr. K. J. Sethna. The opponent No. 2, the State have been represented by the learned A. P. P. Mr. K. C. Shah.

( 4 ) MR. Vyas the learned Advocate who appears on behalf of the petitioneraccused, has urged that the alleged offences are said to have been committed by the petitioner-accused while he was discharging his duty as a public servant and therefore the sanction of the State Government under Sec. 197 (1) (b) of the Code of Cri. Procedure, 1973 would be a condition precedent and that the learned trial Magistrate has erred in not recognising this position. But mr. Sethna the learned Advocate who appears on behalf of the opponent no. 1 the original complainant has urged that, the facts and circumstances would go to show very clearly that it cannot be said that the accused-petitioner was acting in discharge of his official duty and therefore no sanction would be necessary. Mr. Shah the learned A. P. P. who appears on behalf of the opponent No. 2-State has urge