JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. By this order, I propose to decide two connected Criminal Revisions bearing [CASE NUMBER] as both these revisions are directed against the similar orders.
2. The bare minimum facts that need a necessary mention have, however, been ex-, traded from [CASE NUMBER].
3. In a pending complaint under [SECTION] read with [SECTION] of the [ACT], two out of four accused, namely, Shri [ENTITY], Vice President of the Municipal Committee and Shri [ENTITY], President of Municipal Committee, made an application praying therein that the complaint against them be dismissed for want of sanction as required under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. It was, inter alia, pleaded by them that they are public servants, not removable except by the State Government and, therefore, prosecution against them could not be launched without sanction as required under [SECTION] of the [ACT] and further that offences alleged against them were in respect of acts done or purporting to have been done in the discharge of their official duties.
4. As before the trial Court so also before me, it is not disputed that the applicants were accused of the offences while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties. This non-denial had been referred to by the learned Magistrate in his orderdated September 29, 1989 on the last page of the said order. The application filed by Shri [ENTITY] and Shri [ENTITY] was contested by the petitioner-[ENTITY] for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution, but vide impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate dated September 29, 1989 the same was accepted. The operative part of the impugned order reads thus :-
"The complaint launched against the applicants being without sanction of the State Government as required by [SECTION] [ACT] no cognizance can be taken against them and, therefore, the application of Shri [ENTITY], Vice President and Shri [ENTITY], Puri, President of the Committee is bad in the eyes of law and they are, therefore, discharged for want of sanction under [SECTION] [ACT]"
5. While coming to the conclusion aforesaid, the learned Magistrate, besides relying upon the provisions of [SECTION] of the [ACT] also relied upon [SECTION] of the [ACT] as also th* judgment given by Rajasthan High Court in [PRECEDENT], another judgment of Patna High Court in [PRECEDENT], and the judgment of Saurashtra High Court in [PRECEDENT].
6. All that has been contended by Mr. [ENTITY], the learned Senior Advocate, is that inasmuch as the President and the Vice President of the Municipal Committee are removable by virtue of no-confidence motion, they cannot be called public servants as also that they are not covered by [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Both the points referred to above have been threadbare discussed by the learned Magistrate vide his impugned order dated September 29, 1989. No arguments have been addressed that may detract from the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate based upon the provisions of law as mentioned above as also three judgments of various High Courts, a reference whereof has also been given above. Mr. [ENTITY] is also unable to distinguish the judgments mentioned above.
7. Mr. [ENTITY] has cited before me a judgment of this Court in [PRECEDENT], to support the impugned order.
8. Finding no merit in these revisions, I dismiss the same.
9. Revisions dismissed.