ORDER :- These two connected revisions are directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, upholding an order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint filed by the applicants on the ground that sanction to prosecute the accused under section 197 Cr. P. C. had not been obtained.

2. There was an incident on the 19th October, 1963 in the town of Jaunpur in the course of which some students and members of the staff of a local college raided the railway station, looted it and damaged its property. In that connection several students, teachers and other persons were arrested on 20-10-1963 and taken to police station for interrogation. It was alleged that the applicants were arrested on the 20th October 1963 and were kept under detention at the police station till 8 p.m. During this period the Station Officer asked them to make a statement against the Principal of the College which they refused to do. Then at 2 p.m. on 21-10-1963 the Deputy Superintendent of Police arrived there and enquired whether the applicants had made a statement. When he was informed that they were unwilling to do so the Dy. S. P. assaulted them with fists and kicks, as well as with a gupti (sharp-edged weapon). The applicants were threatened and told that if they did not agree to make a statement they would be dealt with severely. On account of fear induced by the said threats and assault committed on them they were coerced to make a statement before a Magistrate Ist Class of Jaunpur who recorded their statements under S. 164 at 5 p.m on 21-10-1963.

3. On these allegations two complaints were filed, one by Ram Nath and the other by Jagai Ram, against the opposite party Sri Salig Ram Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur under sections 323, 330, 342, 194, 195 and 196 I.P.C. The Magistrate entertained the complaint and recorded the statement of the complainant and his witnesses. At this stage an application was moved on behalf of the opposite party contending that the complaints were barred under section 197 on the ground that the sanction of the State Government had not been obtained against the opposite party in respect of acts done or purporting to be done by him in the discharge of his official duty. This objection was upheld by the Magistrate who dismissed the complaint on the short ground that the opposite party was a public servant and the offence alleged to have been committed by him being an act done or purported to have been done in discharge of official duty, the complaint lodged against him without the sanction of the State Government was liable to be dismissed.

4. In dismissing the complaints the Magistrate placed reliance on Matajog Dobey v. H. C. Bhari, AIR 1956 SC 44. In that case the Supreme Court was considering the meaning of the words 'any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty occurring in section 197 Cr.P.C. It was observed that in order that an act of a public servant may fall within the ambit of his official duty it must be shown that "it was committed in the discharge of his official duty. There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. It does not matter even if the act exceeds what is strictly necessary for the discharge of the duty, as this question will arise only at a later stage when the trial proceeds on the merits'.

5. On the fads alleged in the complaints under consideration the acts attributed to the opposite party could not have any relation to his official duty as a police officer. It is no part of the duty of a police officer to assault a witness or an accused in order to obtain a statement from him. It is equally no part of a police officer's duty to put a person under unlawful restraint in order to extort a confession from him. None of these acts could be said to have any connection with the official duty of the opposite party.

6. In Nagwant Sahay v. D. W. Ife, AIR 1946 Pat. 432, certai