Prior government sanction protected recovery actions by a tax officer, and prosecution without it was not maintainable.

Previous sanction of the State Government was required before prosecuting a Government officer for acts done in recovering entertainments tax arrears. Entry into the theatre and seizure of articles were treated as acts performed in discharge of statutory duties, so the protection under section 17(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act applied to prosecution for acts done or purported to be done under the Act. Recovery under the Revenue Recovery Act remained an official function even after suspension of the trial court's order, and continuation of the criminal case without sanction was treated as abuse of process.

---

---

Issues: Whether previous sanction of the State Government was necessary before prosecuting a Government officer for acts done in the course of recovering entertainments tax arrears.

Analysis: The officer's entry into the theatre and seizure of articles were treated as acts done in discharge of statutory duties connected with recovery of arrears. The statutory bar under section 17(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act applied to prosecution for acts done or purporting to be done under the Act without previous sanction. The Court also held that recovery proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act did not cease to be an official function merely because the assessee had obtained suspension of the trial court's order, and that continuation of prosecution in such circumstances would amount to abuse of the process of court.

Conclusion: Previous sanction was required, and in its absence the criminal proceedings could not be sustained.

---