Sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required only when the alleged acts of a public servant are directly connected to and arise from their official duties.

ORDER :

1 This criminal revision case is filed challenging the Order dated 18.7.2023 passed in Crl.R.P.No.1 of 2023 by the learned Sessions Judge, Khammam, wherein and whereby the learned Sessions Judge set aside the Order dated 30.11.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.766 of 2022 in C.C.No.2650 of 2022 by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, discharging the revision petitioner / A.42 from the proceedings in C.C.No.2650, for the offence punishable under Section 166 IPC.

2 Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State-1^st respondent and Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the record.

3 Succinctly the factual matrix is that the petitioner herein was arrayed as accused No.42 in C.C.No.2650 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam, registered for the offences punishable under Section 166 IPC, on the complaint lodged by the second respondent herein. The second respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner / A.42 along with 41 accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 149, 166, 294 (b), 323, 324, 427, 447 and 506 r/ w 34 and 109 IPC. The trial Court took cognizance of the said offences and issued process to all the accused. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.766 of 2022 in C.C.No.2650 of 2022 seeking to discharge him on the ground that he is a public servant and sanction is required to prosecute him. That petition was opposed by the second respondent herein stating that the petitioner failed to discharge his duty as a public servant and facilitated the other accused in commission of the alleged offences by maintaining stoic silence without initiating any proceedings against them and as such no sanction is required to prosecute the petitioner and there is evidence in abundance to connect the petitioner with the crime. The second respondent further contended that if at all such sanction is required, it can be obtained at any stage during the course of trial.

4 The trial Court, upon perusing the material available on record and hearing both sides, allowed the petition i.e. Crl.M.P.No.766 of 2022 filed by the petitioner and discharged him from the proceedings, by order dated 30.11.2022 on the ground that no previous sanction as envisaged under Section 197 Cr.P.C was obtained to proceed against the petitioner. Aggrieved, the second respondent filed Crl.R.P.No.1 of 2023 before the learned Sessions Judge, Khammam, who set aside the order passed by the trial Court and directed the trial Court to proceed against the petitioner / A.42 in accordance with law, by order dated 18.7.2023. As stated supra, feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner / A.2 filed this criminal revision case.

5 Now the point for consideration is whether or not the petitioner can be discharged from the offence punishable under Section 166 of IPC in C.C.No.2650 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam?

6 Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. states that nothing in this Section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless.

7 Section 197 Cr.P.C states that:

(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction.

8 In the order impugned, the learned Sessions Judge, while allowing the Criminal Revision Case filed by the second respondent herein, observed as follows:

The acts of the petitioner / A.42 cannot be said to