TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (4) TMI 848
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded in a meeting of the officers of the departments concerned. In course of the drive undertaken for removal of encroachments on roadside lands the respondent was asked to remove a portion of the boundary wall which according to the measurements made by the officials of the PWD had encroached upon roadside land. When the appellant and the other officials tried to remove the encroachments on 12.8.1996, the respondent objected/ protested against such action and filed a complaint in the Court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Naugachia which was registered as compliant No. 129 of 1996. The averments made in the complaint which are material for the present purpose are as follows : "That the residential-cum-clinic of the complainant and his wife is situated over cadestral Plot No. 2074 and 2072 constructed in or about the year 1973 to 1975 surrounding with boundary walls and the public road possesses through just In the side of the boundary wall of aforesaid residence of the complaint. That it is also fit to be submitted that previously the accused maliciously took steps for cancellation of Arms Dealer's License in the name of the son of the complainant but the accu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plaint in loss of Rs. 50,000." The learned ACJM by the order dated 22.5.98 took cognizance of the offence under sections 323, 504 and 452 of the IPC against the appellant. Thereafter the appellant filed the petition before the High Court seeking quashing of the cognizance order dated 22.5.98 on the ground of want of sanction of the competent authority as required under section 197 Cr.P.C., which was registered as Cr. Misc No. 23755/98. The High Court in the impugned Judgment dismissed the petition holding, inter alia, that the allegations constituting the offence against the appellant are not directly or reasonably connected with his official duty. The High Court observed: "Even assuming for the sake agreement that the petitioner had gone to discharge his official duty of removing encroachment but in performance of such duty he did not face any resistance from either of the family members of the complainant or the complainant himself. In these circumstances in my view, there was no reason for the petitioner to enter the chamber of the complainant and to use filthy languages and order for dragging out the complainant out of his chamber. Moreover, what led him to take ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equired to be discharged by such public servant. More than four decades ago, this Court speaking through Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J. in Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari, AIR 1956 SC 44 succinctly stated the principle of law in these words: "The offence alleged to have been committed must have something to do, or must be related in some manner, with the discharge of official duty. No question of sanction can arise under S. 197, unless the act complained of is an offence, the only point to determine is whether it was committed in the discharge of official duty. There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. It does not matter ever, 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. What we must find out is whether the act and the official duty are so inter-related that one can postulated reasonably that it was done by the accused in the performance of the official duty, though possibly in excess of the needs and requirements of the situation." This Court in Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. PandeyAjay Bhushan and others, [1998] 1 SC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o is accused of having committed an offence either in the execution of his duties or in the purported execution of his duties is essential to take cognizance. This Court confirmed the order of the High Court directing the dropping of proceedings against the public servant, in the absence of such a sanction. In the case of N.K. Ogle v. Sanwaldas Alias Sanwalmal Ahuja, [1999] 3 SCC 284, in which the appellant at the relevant time was the Tehsildar and the District Collector had passed an order for collecting the lease money of Rs. 4653 from the respondent and on the basis of such order of the District Collector, the appellant registered the matter in his Court and ordered for issuance of the demand letter and a demand letter had been served on the respondent and yet the respondent had not made the payment and, therefore, an attachment warrant was issued and a few days thereafter when the respondent was available with the Scooter in the Tehsil Office, the said Scooter was seized and such seizure and retention of the Scooter of the respondent was the gravamen of the allegation of offence under Section 379 in the complaint case, this Court took the view that such action of the Tehsil....