The accused cannot participate in the proceedings before the process is issued, the question of sanction can be taken at any stage of the proceedings after the process is issued, and there is no nexus between the alleged acts and the official duty if the allegations in the complaint do not attract the protection of Section 197 or Section 132, Cr. P.C.

1. These two criminal revisions Nos. 147 of 1981 and 234 of 1981, will be decided together by this common judgement as these arise out of the same incident and the same order of the trial Court.

2. The facts giving rise to these petitions are as follows :-

Budhi Parkash Yadav and Om Prakash, complainants, are both Advocates practising at Rewari. They filed separate complaints under Sections 323, 324, 342, 504, 506, 147, 148, 149 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code, which are pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul. It is alleged that on 20th of February, 1980, Surat Ram Girdawar was caught red handed while taking bribe from the persons who had come to get their mutation sanctioned within the premises of the tehsil through Shri Om Parkash Advocate and a case was registered against the Girdawar. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) had interfered illegally; that when the complainant Om Prakash asked the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) to allow the law to take its own course; and that the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) misbehaved with them and threatened them to take them in custody and he got a false case registered against the complainants.

3 On February 20, 1980, the Advocates decided not to appear in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) for an indefinite period as a result of which he became more enraged and after instigation joined with him Patwari union and the Deputy Commissioner, that on February 23, 1980, at about 4 p.m., on the invitation of the Deputy Commissioner, the complainants and other advocate." reached P.W.D. Rest House and found that the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) along with Naib Tehsildar and 60/70 persons were already present there ill addition to the police in large number along with Superintendent of Police.

4. The complainants and other Advocates who were 25 in number asked the Deputy Commissioner that all that was done had been done according to his instructions but instead a false case had been registered against them as a reward; that the Deputy Commissioner in a loud voice said that they were speaking lie in order to defame the department and that he was not prepared to listen to their Advocate type talks and that they would have to face consequences for their nefarious act; that the complainants and their colleagues with folded hands replied that such talks would not be desirable from the mouth of such a high officer as a result of which all the respondents attacked Om Parkash Advocate and gave beating to him with fists and slaps and tore his black coat and treated him like animal; that Rajinder Parsad Sethi uprooted the hair of the head of Om Parkash; that Shri K.C. Sharma, Deputy Commissioner gave danda blow on the left hip of Om Parkash and Satbir Singh Sub Inspector gave a danda blow on the left eye and Bishambhar Nath Bakshi gave danda blow on the joint of thumb of his right foot and Mohinder Parkash Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) gave him kick blow with shoe on his right foot after giving abuses by mother; that all the accused gave joint beating to Om Prakash with fists, slaps and dandas and Kishen Chand Sharma, Deputy Commissioner, stated that fire should be opened and that he would see to the consequences that how many Advocates had been set right by him; that Budhi Parkash Yadav was also beaten by the respondents. Respondent No. 1, also gave beating to Rao Nihal Singh, President, Bar Association and abused him and Lachhman Dass Narwal, Superintendent of Police and Mohinder Parkash Bidlan Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) also gave him and his colleagues filthy abuses by mother and sister. Thereafter, Lachhman Dass asked his subordinate officers that the women-folk and daughters of complainants and their colleagues should be brought by the evening as otherwise their services would not remain any more and that Ram Singh, Dharampal and other Advocates and their clerks who were present at the spot witnessed the occurrence.

5. It was further alleged that the complainant a