S. D. KHARE, J. :- In both these criminal revisions, which have come before us for disposal on a reference made by a learned single Judge, it has to be considered whether the bar of Section 197 Cr. P.C. will apply in the case of a Lekhpal in Uttar Pradesh and he cannot be prosecuted for having committed an offence under Section 218 I.P.C. without first obtaining the sanction of the Governor. Such sanction would be necessary if he is a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government and the offence alleged to have been committed by him had been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. The learned single Judge allowed this plea to be raised for the first time at the stage of revision because it affects the question of jurisdiction.

2. In both these cases the previous sanction of the Governor had not been obtained before launching the prosecution.

3. The prosecution story in Criminal Revision No. 1623 of 1964, briefly stated, was that the complainant Rampat was the tenant of plot No. 769, measuring 35 decimals, situate in village Kharawan, district Varanasi. He had become its bhumidhar in the year 1949, and had continued to remain in the possession in the years 1367 and 1368 Fasli and even thereafter. The accused, who was a Lekhpal, colluded with Sheojog (since dead) a brother of Rampat, and, in order to cause wrongful loss or injury to the complainant and wrongful gain to Sheojog and his son Chandrabhushan, made an entry in the Khasra that Sheojog was in actual possession of that plot during the years 1367 and 1368 Fasli. The charge against the applicant in Criminal Revision No. 36 of 1963 was that sometime between 17-2-1963 and 15-6-1963 he had wrongfully framed the Khasra for the year 1370 Fasli of village Sanehua, within police circle Qasimabad, district Ghazipur, by adding the words "sir Kharif" after the entry of possession existing in favour of complainants Bechan Rai and Jeot Rai against plots Nos. 2378, 2380 and 2381 of that village and that he did so with intent to cause wrongful loss to them and wrongful gain to Theguni Nonia of that village.

4. In both the cases the courts below have held that the complainants were in possession of the plots in question and the Lekhpal had knowingly made incorrect entries in order to cause wrongful loss to them and wrongful gain to other party.

5. It is the duty of the Lekhpal, who is admittedly a public servant, to make partal and, on the basis of the Partal to make entries in the Khasra regarding the names of persons actually found to be in possession of the various plots. The Lekhpal, therefore, could - and in fact did - in reply to the charge plead that the entries made by him in the revenue records were genuine and in regular discharge of his public duties. It is, however, contended that the duty of the Lekhpal was to make correct entries in the revenue records and not to make incorrect entries in them knowingly so as to cause wrongful gain to one party and wrongful loss to the other.

6. The law on the point is very clear. No question of sanction arises under Sec. 197 Cr. P.C. unless the act complained of is an offence. The point that has to be determined in each case is whether the offence was committed in the discharge of official duty. Thus there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. If the acts complained of are so integrally connected with the duties attaching to the office as to be inseparable from them, then the sanction under Sec. 197(1) Cr. P.C. would be necessary. However, if there was no necessary connection between them and the performance of those duties and the official status furnished only the occasion or opportunity for the acts, no sanction would be required.

7. It was held in the case of H.H.B. Gill v. The King, AIR 1948 PC 128 that -

"A public servant can only be said to act or to purport to act in the discharge of his official