Cr.R.No.159/2002 15.11.2011 I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the State. A criminal complaint was filed against the applicant alleging demand of illicit gratification and assault etc. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was no sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The complainant preferred a revision which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 7.11.2001. The lower revisional Court, placing reliance upon AIR 2001 SC 2547 (P. K. Pradhan Vs. The State of Sikkim), has held that at that stage the accused had not appeared and there was no defence about lack of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge has, therefore, held that unless it is a clear case of acting in discharge or purported discharge of official duty, this lack of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. could not have been examined at that stage by the Magistrate. Accordingly, the case has been remitted to the Magistrate for further inquiry under Section 398 of Cr.P.C. The allegations of demand of illicit gratification and assault etc normally and prima facie do not fall within the discharge or even purported discharge of official duty of the revisionist. In these circumstances, I find myself unable to disagree the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge. However, those observations are confined to that stage of proceedings and the question remains open at subsequent stages. Although a ground has been urged in this revision that the lower revisional Court could not have disposed of the matter at the primary stage without giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused-applicant. While it is theoretically correct that this was not permissible specially when the revisional Court has reversed the Magistrate’s order dismissing the complaint which was an order, rightly or wrongly, in favour of the accused- applicant. However, in ground No.-B, it has been mentioned that a counsel had been engage by the revisionist before the lower revisional Court who had filed Vakalatnama also. In these circumstances I do not think that this ground of lack of opportunity has much force, because the counsel for the accused having appeared, no further notice to the accused was necessary. In view of what has been stated above, I am not inclined to interfere in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed. (Sushil Harkauli) Acting Chief Justice snb/-