KAILASH DAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter is called twice, no one appears for the petitioner.

(2.) HEARD learned Public Prosecutor and counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. I have carefully gone through the memo of revision petition and the order impugned dated 3. 3. 2003 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar (for short `the Trial Court' hereinafter) whereby the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences u/ss. 166, 167 & 204 IPC against the petitioner and issued the process. Aggrieved by the order taking cognizance and issuing process, the petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision petition u/s. 397/401 IPC.

(3.) IN P. K. Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim, RLW 2002 (1) SC 27, it has been held by the Apex Court that for claiming protection u/s. 197 of the Code, it has to be shown by the accused that there is reasonable connection between the act complained of and the discharge of official duty. An official act can be performed in the discharge of official duty as well as in dereliction of it. For invoking protection u/s. 197 of the Code, the acts of the accused complained of must be such that the same cannot be separated from the discharge of official duty, but if there was no reasonable connection between them and the performance of those duties, the official status furnishes only the occasion for opportunity for the acts, then no sanction would be required.