Order.-This Criminal Revision Petition under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Chincholi made in C.C. No. 52/3 of 1975 discharging the respondents under section 245 (2), Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The facts leading up to the petition are these: 3. Respondent-1 was a Circle Inspector of Police attached to the Vigilance Cell at Tandur in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Rcspondcnt-2 was the driver of his jeep. A transport vehicle belonging to the son of the petitioner when found transporting some bags of foodgrains was intercepted by respondent-1. The food grains were seized and produced before the District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad (‘D.R.O.‘) for taking action to confiscate them under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The District Revenue Officer after notice to the parties including to the driver of the vehicle held that the seized grains were transported within the territorial jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh State and in contravention of the Order made under, the Essential Commodities Act. Ho accordignly made an order to confiscate the same. The validity of the said order was challenged by the driver of the lorry in an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned Sessions Judge agreed with the view taken by the District Revenue Officer and dismissed the appeal. The matter was then taken before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Crl.R.P. No. 717 of 1975, which was also dismissed. In the meantime, the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents stating that the vehicle was engaged in transporting rice within the territory of Karnataka State and the respondents without authority detained the vehicle and committed offences punishable under sections 379, 383, 386, 387, 341 and 342 read with section 34 of. the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Chincholi. The said complaint was referred to the Circle Inspector of Police,Chincholi, under section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for investigation and report. After investigation, the Circle Inspector submitted a final report stating that an offence was committed by the respondents. the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Chincholi. The said complaint was referred to the Circle Inspector of Police,Chincholi, under section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for investigation and report. After investigation, the Circle Inspector submitted a final report stating that an offence was committed by the respondents. Thereupon the respondents filed an application under section 245 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for an order of discharge stating that no sanction as required under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code was obtained by the complainant for prosecuting them. The learned Magistrate dismissed that application by his order, dated 19th June, 1975. Aggrieved by that order, respondents preferred Cr.R.P. No. 210 of 1975 before this Court. This Court allowed the revision, petition and set aside the order complained of with a direction to the Magistrate to hear the matter afresh and decide the applicability of section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code and section 15 of the Essential Commodities Act. Pursuant to that direction the Magistrate again heard the parties and made an order discharging the respondents on the ground among others that: the vehicle was intercepted and the foodgrains were seized within the territorial jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh and the seizure was valid, since the foodgrains were proved to have been illegally transported in the said vehicle. He also held that the complaint filed by the petitioner was not maintainable, as admittedly no sanction under section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code was obtained. 4. These findings are challenged before me in this revision petition. 5. Mr. Appa Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that notwithstanding the finding recorded in the proceedings connected with the order of confiscation of the foodgrains, that the offence was committed inside the State of Andhra Pradesh, the right of the petitioner to establish to the contrary in his complaint against the respondent cannot be taken away or deprived of. He also said that if the offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Karnataka State, then, respondent-1 being not a police officer of this State had no authority to seize the foodgrains and, therefore, no sanction under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code was necessary to prosecute him for the offences complained of. 6. I do not think that I can concede to the contention, urged for the petitioner. 6. I do not think that I can concede to the contention, urged for the petitioner. In the proceedings for confiscation of the foodgrains, the District Revenue Officer, the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh have all observed that the foodgrains were illegally transported from Tandur to Gulbarga and were seized by the respondents at a place inside the State of Andhra Pradesh. This finding recorded in the judicial proceedings of one State, must be respected by another State by giving full faith and credit to it. Article 261 of the Constitution of India exactly provides for such procedure. Article 261 reads: “261. (1) Full faith and credit shall be given throughout the territory of India to public acts, records and judicial proceedings of the Union and of. every State.” (2) and (3) omitted. 7. Therefore, the place where the offence was committed or where the foodgrains were seized cannot be permitted to be disputed by the petitioner and 1 must take it that it was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Andhra Pradesh. 8. The respondents are public servants. The petitioner cannot prosecute them without a sanction under section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 9. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed.