The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of sanction under S. 197, Cr. P. C. for prosecution of public servants and the protection provided to public officers from vexatious proceedings.

P. K. TRIPATHY, J.

( 1 ) HEARD further argument. Hearing is concluded and judgment is as follows :-

( 2 ) THIS application u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the order of cognizance passed on 2-1-2001 in I. C. C. No. 44 of 2000 by learned S. D. J. M. Bhubaneswar. It reveals from the complaint that allegation has been made against the petitioners complaining of the offence of looting the properties from the house which includes sized woods, wooden furniture, cash and the machinaries for carpentary and sawing and in that process exhibiting indecent conduct to the complainant who is the wife of the owner of that premises. After receipt of the complaint, learned Magistrate directed for investigation under S. 202, Cr. P. C. by the local Police and after receipt of the report which went against the petitioner, he conducted an inquiry by himself, examined the complainant's witnesses and on 2-1-2001 passed the impugned order taking cogniznce of the offence under Ss. 451, 380, 506/34, I. P. C. Accordingly, learned S. D. J. M. issued process against the petitioners under S. 204, Cr. P. C. Resisting to that action of learned S. D. J. M. , Bhudaneswar, petitioners claim protection under S. 197, Cr. P. C. on the ground that they were the two Forest Range officers and their lawful act of conducting raid, search and seizure of illegal timbers, sawn woods and implements for sawing and carpentery has resulted in institution of the aforesaid false complaint with a view to malign and harass them.

( 3 ) CERTAIN facts which are not in dispute at the Bar is that on 15-1-2000 i. e. , the date of occurrence these two officials along with police force and the Magistrate had conducted a raid and seized woods and sawing materials, implements etc. and at that stage they suffered stiff opposition and violent conduct from the people of that locality and because of that the FIR lodged by petitioner No. 2 was registered as G. R. Case No. 147 of 2000 and a charge-sheet under Sections 148, 149, 387, 427, 336/294, I. P. C. has been filed against some of the co-villagers of the complainant who is the opposite party in this case. It is also not in dispute that both the petitioners, being the Range Officers, appointed and working under the State Government and they are removable from service with the sanction of the State Government.

( 4 ) IN course of hearing some doubt was entertained by opposite party regarding registration of any case under S. 56 of the Orissa Forest Act relating to confiscation of the seized articles with respect to the seizure which was made on 15-1-2000 resulting in the alleged occurrence. Mr. Misra, learned Addl. Government Advocate, in that respect has obtained the relevant records and instruction and referring to that he states that a P. R. has been registered as O. R. No. 36 of 2002-03 under Saw Mill and Saw Pits Control Act, 1991 so also a proceeding under S. 56 of the Forest Act by the D. F. O. Chandaka Wild Life Division for confiscation of those seized articles.

( 5 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid facts scenario while learned counsel for the petitioners argues for grant of protection to the petitioners by extending the benefit under S. 197, Cr. P. C. and quashing the impugned order of cognizance because of want of sanction from the State of Orissa, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite party argues that the act complained against the petitioners having no connection with the duty assigned to be discharged they are not entitled to the protection under S. 197, Cr. P. C. at this stage of the criminal proceeding. He further argues that at the stage of trial if the petitioners would be able to substantiate their plea then the question of want of sanction may be appropriately adjudicated by the trial Court with due reference to the evidence on record. Petitioners refer to and rely on the cases of Abdul Wahab Ansari v. State of Bihar , AIR 2000 SC 3187, Gauri Shankar Prasad v. State