JUDGMENT

C.D. Parekh, J. - This revision has been preferred against the order dated 20th November, 196), paned by Shri I. N. Misra, Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, upholding the order of the A.D.M. (J), Mainpuri, discharging the accused opposite-parties of the charge under sections 147, 323, 355 and 388 I.P.C. by his order dated 30th December, 1967.

2. The prosecution was started on the complaint of Roshan Singh. It has been stated in the complaint that on 1st of October, 1966, at about 8 or 9 A. M. Mahesh Chandra Sharma, ;.I., II, P. S. Eka, district Mainpuri, along with the police constables and two other police- men came to the house of the applicant. They arrested the applicant, beat him with Dandas and took him under arrest towards Kheria. They had also arrest- ed Nem Singh and Amirat Singh at Kheria.. The complainant tried to get himself released. Ram Naraitt and Ram Singh met him near village Sunari. Both requested the Sub-Inspector to release the complainant but he told that he would implicate the applicant in the dacoity of P. S. Awagarh and after a good deal of request he agreed to release him on payment of Rs. 500/-. It has further been alleged that a sum of Rs. 250/- was given to him and then the complainant could be released. The applicant-complainant got his injuries examined and sent application to the authorities concerned and filed the complaint.

3. The Magistrate discussed the evidence and held that the complaint was filed in a court having no jurisdiction. According to the Magistrate the complaint was hit by S. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the court of the District and Sessions judge was the pro- per court where the complaint could have been entertained. He has also held that Ram Kripal Singh, S.O. of P.S. Awagarh, has not been made an accused in the complaint which goes to show that the statement of Ram Kripal Singh is based on the record and supported by the record. It has also been held that the witnesses of the prosecution are not independent and they have got bias against the police. Considering there facts and circumstances the Magistrate held that there was no scope for commit- ting the case to the court of sessions as there was no prima faeie case. The applicant.complainant preferred revision A-2n before the Sessions Court, and the Sessions Judge instead of deciding the revision application on merit dismissed the same on technical grounds. He has held that from the facts and circumstances of the case the main allegation was that Mahesh Chandra Sharma, S. I. had taken money from Roshan Singh and in this view of the matter the Magistrate had come to the correct conclusion that he had no jurisdiction. He has, therefore, held that there was no force in the revision and rejected the same.

4. At the outset it may be observed that the learned Sessions judge has not dealt with any point involved in the case which were raised before him. He has only decided the revision on a technical matter which in my opinion is not correct. In each case the sanction as contemplated by S. 1'o7 (1) Cr.P.C. is not required. If' the public servant has nut committed offence while he is cog aged in the performance of his official duty and if the act complained of is not directly concerned with the official duties and is not done by virtue of his office, sanction. would not be necessary. It has to be found as a fact that in proper dis- charge of his duties the public servant has taken resort to the act complained of and that would be a matter of evidence on merits which would have to be investigated by the court. The view as ex pressed by me has consistently been taken by the Supreme Court and two of the cases decided by the Supreme Court may be cited with confidence. In AIR 1955 SC 309 it has been held that "if the acts complained of are so integrally connected with the duties attaching to the office as to be inseparable from them, then sanction under section 197 t1) would be necessary ; but if there was no necessary conne