Prior sanction for prosecution protects inspection officers when alleged acts arise from statutory duty and bear reasonable connection to official functions.

Previous State Government sanction was required before prosecuting sales tax officers for acts alleged during inspection under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The officers were acting under statutory powers to enter and inspect premises, and the complaint itself linked the incident to a prolonged inspection performed in discharge of official duties. Applying the test of reasonable connection between the complained-of act and official duty, and noting that even excessive force may still fall within the protective ambit where the act is connected to duty and done in good faith, the prosecution could not continue without prior sanction.

---

---

Issues: Whether previous sanction of the State Government was necessary before prosecuting officers for acts alleged to have been done during inspection under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: The officers were empowered under section 28 to enter and inspect the dealer's premises. The complaint itself alleged that the incident occurred during the course of a prolonged inspection carried out in discharge of statutory duties. Section 37 bars prosecution for any act done or purporting to be done under the Act without prior sanction, and also protects officers from civil or criminal liability where the act was done in good faith in the course of execution of duties entrusted under the Act. Applying the test of reasonable connection between the act complained of and official duty, and considering that some use of force, even if excessive, may still fall within the protective ambit of the provision, the complaint could not proceed without sanction.

Conclusion: Previous sanction of the State Government was necessary, and the prosecution was not maintainable without such sanction.

---