1 S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.730/2007 Satyanarayan v. State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 3rd December, 2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Sandeep Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr. V.R.Mehta, Public Prosecutor. .... This petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. is preferred to assail validity, propriety and correctness of the order dated 13.7.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Pali Headquarter Jaitaran, setting aside the order dated 12.7.2006 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran discharging the petitioner for the offences under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 420 IPC. In brief, facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged on 1.1.1997 alleging inter alia that as per letter dated 24.12.1996 containing the report of inquiry, the petitioner, an Ex. Sarpanch, during his tenure misappropriated an amount of Rs.24,831/- while getting certain rooms constructed. On basis of the first information report referred above, a criminal case was lodged and the police report was filed against the petitioner for 2 the offences under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran after hearing the parties by order dated 12.7.2006 discharged the petitioner on the ground that no sanction as per provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. was taken and also on the count that no sufficient material was available to presume that any offence was committed by the petitioner. The State Government being aggrieved by the order dated 12.7.2006 preferred a revision petition before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Pali and that came to be accepted by order dated 13.7.2007. Learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. were wrongly applied by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as the alleged offence was not committed by the petitioner during the course of his official duties. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also discussed and found that adequate material was available to frame charge against the petitioner. While assailing validity of the order dated 13.7.2007 the only contention of counsel for the petitioner is that at the relevant time the petitioner was holding the office of Sarpanch and, therefore, any lapse in payment of money was part of his official duty and as such the sanction from the State Government as per provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. was necessary. 3 On examination of record I do not find any substance in the contention so made. The petitioner was certainly holding the office of Sarpanch at the relevant time but merely that fact is not sufficient to get sanction as per provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. In the instant matter the incident regarding to which cognizance was taken did not take place during the course of official duty. In view of it, I do not find any error in the order impugned, thus, the revision petition is having no force and the same, therefore, is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.