Sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC is not required to prosecute a public servant for offences that are not intimately connected with their official duties.

C. A. RAHIM, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia delivered on 1-12-1992. By the aforesaid judgment and order he allowed the said revision and set aside the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia dated 16-4-1992 and the case was remanded back with direction to proceed according to law. The learned Judge has also directed both the parties to appear before the said Court for taking part in further proceeding.

( 2 ) THE complainant filed a case in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia against the revisionists for prosecuting them under Ss. 161, 167, 217, 218, 409, 467, 468 and 500, I. P. C. On 24-12-1991 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia ordered to register the case and proceeded to examine the complainant and his witnesses under Ss. 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. After examining the two witnesses he transferred the case to the Court of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia on 14-2-1992 for disposal. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate heard on the point of maintainability of the said complaint in view of S. 197, Cr. P. C. and after hearing he dismissed the complaint under S. 203, Cr. P. C. on 16-4-1992 against which a revision was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Ballia.

( 3 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia heard the revision and disposed it of with the finding that the offence complained of is intimately connected with official duty of the opposite party (before him) and that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has no power to hear, suo motu, about the maintainability of the petition complaint when the Chief Judicial Magistrate has already took cognizance and transferred it to him for disposal. He has held that it was obligatory on the part of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to summon the opposite parties and if at subsequent stage the opposite parties raises any objection as regards bar of S. 197, Cr. P. C. , then the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate could decide the said matter.

( 4 ) SRI B. N. Tiwari, appearing for the revisionists has submitted that on both the points lower revisional Court erred in giving finding in favour of the other side. According to him the offence complained of is intimately connected with the duty to be discharged by him in official capacity. He has admitted that the revisionists are public servants not removable from their office except with the sanction of the Government. He has submitted that it is necessary to see that the offence alleged must have been committed by the revisionists while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. He has referred the case of State of Maharashtra v. Dr. B. Subbarao, 1993 SCc (Cri) 901. Amonst the various documents which were seized in that case were the Identity Card of the Indian Armed Forced bearing his photograph and name, eight files containing different types of maps of India, diagrams and computer information, certain books, project report etc. Most of the documents which can be said to be sensitive which were recovered from the accused were admittedly either the books written by him or the papers read by him. Even the thesis written by the accused on which he was awarded Ph. D. by the Bhabha Institute of Technology was seized by the prosecution. On the basis of the documents seized and the interrogation, a complaint was filed against him under S. 3 read with Ss. 9, 6 (2) and (b) of the Official Secret Act and S. 24 (1) (d) read with Ss. 18 (2) and 24 (2) read with S. 19 (b) of the Atomic Energy Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate, who being prima facie satisfied of the offences and their gravity, committed the accused to stand trial before the Court of Sessions. It was challenged by the opposite parties but the Supreme Court held that the conditions of applicability of S. 197, Cr. P. C. are (i) act of omission must have been done by a public serva