S.M. ALI MOHAMED, J.

( 1 ) CRI. O. P. No. 8117 of 1992, under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is to call for the records and quash the private complaint in C. C. No. 56 of 1991, on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was charged under Sections 426, 451 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, in the private complaint filed by the respondent. It is alleged that the petitioner who was at the material time, the Sub Inspector of Police, Rajakkamangalam Police Station, Kanyakumari District, trespassed into the residence of the respondent and smashed some bottles containing an ayurvedic medicine called, Kanyakavasam drug and in respect of this incident, a private complaint was, filed by the respondent on 31/5/1991.

( 3 ) CR1. O. P. No. 8118 of 1992, under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , is to call for the records and quash the private complaint in C. C. No. 97 of 1991 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

( 4 ) THE Petitioner was charged under Sections 323, 166 and 342 of Indian Penal Code, in the private complaint filed by the respondent. It is alleged that on 25/6/1991, at 8.00 a.m. , the petitioner herein dragged the respondent from his house with his hands tied in the back and put him in the van, threatening that he would beat the respondent unless he withdrew the private complaint against the petitioner. It was further alleged that the petitioner on the way, beat the respondent on his body several times and threatened him that unless he withdrew the private complaint, he would not leave him. It is alleged that the petitioner herein registered a case in Crime No. 165 of 1991 against the respondent for offences under Rule-10 of Tamil Nadu Spirituous Preparations (control) Rules 1984, read with Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. It was further alleged that the, respondent was beaten in the police station by the petitioner on 26. 1991. It is stated further that the learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the respondent had issued process against the petitioner without taking into account the legal issues that stood in the way of taking cognizance of the case.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Magistrate, ought not to have taken cognizance of the private complaint without any sanction as contemplated under Section 197 Cr. P. C. which should be obtained before institution of the complaint as the offence was alleged to have been committed during the course of duty of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was authorised to exercise the power under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act 1937 as per Section 25-B of the Act and as such, he was a public servant entitled to protection under Section 197 Cr. P. C.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Suthanthiram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code will not be attracted to the case of the petitioner, as the petitioner is not removable from his office by the State Government.

( 7 ) IN support of the above submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following two cases, which are as follows:i) In R. R. Chari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, it was held as follows:it is clear that the first part of Section 197 (1) provides a special protection, inter alia, to public servants who are not removable from their offices save by or with the sanction of the State Government or the Central Government where they are charged with having committed offences while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties; and the form which this protection has taken is that before a criminal court can take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by such public servants, a sanction should have been accorded to the said prosecution by the appropriate authorities. In other words, the appropriate authorities must be satisfied that there is