Public servants are protected from prosecution under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code if they are acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties, even if they act in excess of their authority, provided there is a reasonable connection between the impugned acts and the performance of their official duties.

ORDER

The question involved in this revision petition is whether under S. 197, Criminal P.C., sanction of the State Government is necessary for the prosecution of the opposite parties for offences under Ss. 448 and 352, Indian Penal Code alleged to have been committed by them. In March, 1958, Government granted a loan of Rs. 40,000/- to the petitioner under the Bihar and Orissa State Aid to Industries Act, 1923 on the condition that he would repay the same in twenty half-yearly instalments, the first instalment being payable one year after the date of the receipt of the loan with interest as stipulated in the bond. In accordance with the terms of repayment, the petitioner repaid the instalments due on 30-3-1959, 30-9-59 and 31-3-1960 - Rs. 6,000/- towards principal and Rs. 2,310/- towards interest. As he defaulted to pay the instalments which subsequently fell due, the Director of Industries filed a certificate case on 16-2-62 in the Court of the Certificate Officer, Cuttack for recovery of the balance amount of Rs. 34,000/- towards principal and Rs. 2,020/- towards interest due up on 31-1-1962. From the order sheet of the certificate Case it is seen, that the notice of institution of the case was issued by the Court and was served on the petitioner by 27-10-1962. But as no payment was made, distress warrant was issued. On the first occasion when such a warrant was issued the petitioner paid Rs. 2,000/- to the process-server. Distress warrant was issued a second time and only a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was collected. On 12-12-1964, distress warrant and also a warrant of arrest were issued against him. The petitioner was produced in Court, and on his application, Rs. 2,000/- which he offered immediately, was accepted and he was given time to pay the balance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month. Obviously no further payment was made as agreed and therefore by order dated 18-4-1964 a warrant of arrest was issued against him. On this occasion he paid Rs. 500/-. Arrest warrants and distress warrants were issued thereafter against him, but they could not be executed because the petitioner was found absent from his house. This went on till 9-3-1966 on which day, opposite party No. 1, the Certificate Officer accompanied by opposite party No. 2, the Assistant Director of Industries personally went to the house of the petitioner to realise the balance dues from him. The order recorded on that day by the Certificate Officer shows that the petitioner was absent from his house and therefore they had to wait for two hours there and when he came back the amount due from him was demanded. But he expressed his inability to pay the same and hence he was brought to Court under arrest. After he was brought to Court, he submitted a petition through his Advocate to give him three month's time to pay the dues and he was released from detention. A few days thereafter that is, on 22-3-1966, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner praying for cancellation of the certificate on the ground that notice of the institution of the case had never been served on him, and that in any case, the State aid given to him having not been terminated by the State Government, no certificate case could be instituted against him. On 4-4-1966, the Certificate Officer set aside the certificate on the ground that the State Aid had not been terminated under S. 19A of the Bihar and Orissa State Aid to Industries Act and as such the certificate filed is not regular.

2. On 14-7-1966, the petitioner filed a complaint petition in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Cuttack alleging that on 9-3-1966, the two opposite parties had trespassed into his house at a time when the petitioner was not there, that they abused his mother and threatened to attach his moveables, and that when the petitioner returned home, they demanded payment of the loan amount. When he pointed out the illegality of the initiation of the certificate case and expressed his inability to pay the amo