Criminal Revision No. 2647 of 2004 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2647 of 2004 Date of decision: January 8, 2008 Hari Ram Sharma .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Jagram Singh Cooner, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S.Sullar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent no. 1. RAJESH BINDAL, J. The challenge in the present revision is to the orders dated September 30, 2000 and July 10, 2004 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri respectively whereby petitioner alongwith other accused was convicted under Sections 342, 323 and 504 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri while upholding the conviction of the petitioner modified the order of sentence and released the petitioner on probation for good conduct and behaviour for a period of two years. He was further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- in cash as fine to the complainant. Primary issue sought to be raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that sanction of the competent authority was required before prosecuting the petitioner, he being a Government servant. However, this contention has no legs to stand as the action of the petitioner, which was under consideration before the Courts below in complaint filed by respondent no.2 was not something done by him in his official capacity. No law permits any Government official to exceed its authority and jurisdiction Criminal Revision No. 2647 of 2004 -2- *** therein. If any act is done by a Government servant which is not within his jurisdiction, he can very well be prosecuted. As far as merits of the case are concerned, both the Courts below concurrently found, on appreciation of evidence brought on record, that commission of offence against the petitioner under Sections 342, 323 and 504 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC was clearly made out. Accordingly, his conviction was ordered. Learned counsel for the petitioner though made extraneous efforts but was not able to convince this Court that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse in any manner. In revisional jurisdiction this Court is not to re-appraise the evidence. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present revision and the same is dismissed. January 08, 2008 (Rajesh Bindal) Pka Judge