AGRAWAL, C. J.

( 1 ) THE only question involved in this Criminal Revision which has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court is as to whether the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner Abani Chandra Biswal, Officer-in-Charge, Komna Police Station in the district of Kalahandi belonging to the Orissa Police Force is competent in the absence of prior sanction of the appropriate authority as required by S. 197 (3), Cr. P. C. ("the Code" ).

( 2 ) BHOGA Bag, opposite party No. 2, filed a complaint against the petitioner in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawapara alleging that on 22-6-82 the petitioner along with one Police Constable had gone to his village and asked him to come along with his father to Komna Police Station since they were witnesses in a criminal case. It is said that both of them went to the police station and were asked by the petitioner to wait in the verandah of the police station and not to go away. Both of them were then detained in the Police Hifzat for 3 days, i. e. up to 24-6-82 without any food etc. and were ill-treated so much so that on 24-6-82 the petitioner abused them in filthy language calling them 'sala, Chora' and 'badmash' stating that they had forcibly sowed paddy in the field of Chandrabhan and that they would be sent to jail under handcuffs. The petitioner also refused them to be released on bail. Opposite party No. 2 and his father were forwarded to the Court on 25-6-82 in connection with G. R. Case No. 382/82. The present complaint was, however, filed on 26-6-82 in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nawapara who by his order dt. 23-10-82 took cognizance of an offence under S. 504,i. P. C. against the petitioner.

( 3 ) SUB-SECTION (1)OF S. 197 of the Code is an exception to the general rule laid down in S. 190 that cognizance of any offence may be taken by a Magistrate. This provision provides for special protection from vexatious proceedings to a certain class of public servants charged with having committed offence while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty without previous sanction of the Government. Sub-sec. (3) of this section further provides that the State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub-sec. (2) shall apply to such class or category of members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order, as may be specified in the said order, and upon such notification being made, the provisions of sub-sec. (2) shall apply to such category of members of the Forces.

( 4 ) IN the order of reference made by the learned single Judge, it has been stated that the petitioner is a police officer in respect of whom a notification has been made under S. 197 (3 ). We therefore, proceed to examine the case on this assumption.

( 5 ) THE question arising for our consideration has fallen times without number before various High Courts including this Court as well as the Supreme Court. Let me first examine the two decisions of this Court, namely, (1) Prahallad Dora v. Kishore Chandra Das, (1985) 2 Orissa LR 103 and (2) Bishnu Prasad Mohapatra v. Ramesh Sahu, (1985) 60 Cut LT 164. In Bishnu Prasad Mohapatra's case, the petitioner was a Deputy Superintendent of Police posted at Bolangir. In the petition of complaint, it was alleged that on 12-11-80 the said police officer was taking active part in , the maintenance of law and order in the town when some public agitation was going on and in course of the same, several persons were arrested for breaking prohibitory order issued under S. 144, Cr. P. C. It was further alleged that while the arrested persons were in the police lock-up, the complainant wanted to get the signatures of the arrested persons on the Vakalatnama. But the police officer did not allow them to take the signatures and when this was protested by one student leader, the Deputy Superintendent forced him into the jeep and refused to release the detenus. Ev