The necessity of prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is affirmed for public servants when their alleged offences are connected to the discharge of their official duties.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 17.05.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.,Rayagada in I.C.C. Case No.04 of 2018.

3. The background facts of the case are that the Petitioner, being the Complainant, initiated a complaint case before the learned S.D.J.M., Rayagada, registered as I.C.C. No.04 of 2018 against Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3. It was alleged that the Petitioner, acting as attorney on behalf of his client, visited the Office of the Tahasildar between 11.30 a.m. and 12.00 noon to ascertain the progress in Mutation Case No.0185 of 2017. According to the Petitioner, though he had filed his Vakalatnama in the said case, upon verification he discovered that the same was not available in the case record. When the grievance was brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.2, the then Tahasildar, Gunupur, she became annoyed and allegedly misbehaved with the Petitioner. It is stated that the Petitioner politely reiterated that the Vakalatnama had been duly filed along with the Mutation Case, but the same was missing from the record. Opposite Party No.2 thereafter called Opposite Party No.3, the dealing assistant, to verify the position and, being further annoyed, threatened to call the police against the Petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by such conduct of the Tahasildar and the staff, the Petitioner instituted the said complaint. The learned S.D.J.M., Gunupur, after following due procedure and examining witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., passed the impugned order directing the Petitioner to obtain sanction on the ground that the allegations prima facie appeared to have a reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duties by the accused persons. The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned S.D.J.M., Gunupur, has impugned the same in the present application.

4. Mr. Riaz, learned counsel for the Petitioner, inter alia, contended that the necessity of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is a matter to be examined during the course of trial. According to him, the burden lies on the Complainant to establish that the accused persons acted in discharge of their official duties and that there existed no nexus between the alleged acts and such official duties. It was thus urged that at the very threshold, while taking cognizance of the offences, the learned court ought not to have insisted upon production of sanction. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision in the matter of Inspector of Police and Another vs. Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam and another , reported in (2015) 13 Supreme Court Cases 87.

5. Per contra, Mr. G. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, submitted that the impugned order does not warrant interference. It was contended that even on the Petitioner’s own showing, the grievance arose in the context of the Tahasildar and her staff acting in the course of their official functions. The Petitioner’s allegation that the Vakalatnama filed in the Mutation Case was not found in the record could have been addressed through appropriate official channels rather than by directly questioning the Tahasildar. As is evident from the pleadings, the Tahasildar, upon receiving the grievance, called upon the dealing assistant to verify the record and thus acted strictly within the scope of her official duties. Therefore, the actions complained of bear