K. Harilal, J.

The revision petitioner is the complainant and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crl.M.P. No. 3797/2008 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ottapalam. The 2nd respondent is a public servant working as the Sub Inspector of Police. The above complaint was filed alleging the offences punishable under Sections 384 and 389 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The revision petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 368/08 of Shornur Police Station. The above crime was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the 3rd respondent herein alleging the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. He is the complainant in another Crime No. 459/2008 registered against the 3rd respondent herein. In connection with that case, on 21.9.2008 at 9.00 a.m., when the revision petitioner went to the police station, the 2nd respondent had arrested him in Crime No. 368/08, which was registered against him on the complaint of the 3rd respondent. After the arrest, he was not produced before the court on that day. When his relatives questioned, the 2nd respondent said that there was 24 hours time to produce the revision petitioner before the court. That night, the 2nd respondent had come to the police station at 8 p.m. and talked with the revision petitioner for about half an hour. After that, the 2nd respondent asked the revision petitioner to sign on a paper and write that the revision petitioner had omitted to repay the loan allegedly due to the 3rd respondent owing to his financial difficulties and had obtained HP termination letter promising to obtain finance from some other finance company to repay the amount. When the revision petitioner had refused to sign in it, the 2nd respondent threatened to book the revision petitioner in an arrack case. At last, the revision petitioner was forced to write and sign as directed by the 2nd respondent. On the basis of the above incident, the revision petitioner had filed Crl.M.P.No.3797/08 against the 2nd respondent alleging the offences punishable under Sections 384 and 389 r/w 34 of the IPC.

4. The revision petitioner was examined himself as C.W.1 and a witness was examined as C.W.2. After considering the complainant's evidence, the court below found that the first accused is a public servant and the offence is alleged to have been committed by him, while acting in discharge of his official duty and prior sanction of the Government under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is required to prosecute him as he had taken action of arresting the revision petitioner in discharge of his official duty. But, the complainant had not obtained and produced sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the 2nd respondent. On that premise, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. This order is under challenge in this Revision Petition.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate erroneously found that sanction, as provided under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., is required for prosecuting the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent was holding the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. As such, there is no need for prior sanction as contemplated under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. According to the revision petitioner, for removal of an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police from his office, sanction by or with the Government is not required; and the order passed by the Inspector General of Police is sufficient for the same as per the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958. Similarly, the offence alleged to have been committed by him was not done while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty. Therefore, sanction is not required for prosecuting the 2nd respondent.

6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor advanced arguments to justify the impugned order under challenge. The learned P