statement, it is evident that, the defacto complainant was in custody of the police consequent to the arrest made in Crime Nos.7/2015 and 8/2015 registered by the Kavaratti Police. Annexures E and D are the sworn statements of the Cws2 and 3, and both of them have clearly stated that no incident as alleged in the statement of the defacto complainant, has taken place. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the decisions reported in S.B Saha and others v.M.S Kochar AIR 1979 SCC 1841 and Moosa Vallikkadan v.State of Kerala 2010 (3) KLT 447 . It is a well settled position of law that when a public servant is being prosecuted for an offence allegedly committed by him in connection with the duty assigned to him, he is entitled for special protection and the stipulations contained in Section 197 Cr.P.C is providing the same. Therefore, if the proceedings are initiated without the sanction as contemplated in the said provision, it has to be interfered with, as the lack of sanction vitiates the entire proceedings. Thus, for the purpose of interfering in such proceedings, the only question to be considered is whether the act allegedly committed by the petitioner was in
