Short Note : 1. The facts giving rise to this revision are that the petitioner is Vice-president of the Municipal Committee, Karera. He was also authorised by the Chairman, Municipality, Karera to discharge all administrative functions. It is alleged that while the petitioner was discharging his duty as a public servant a quarrel arose between him and Shri Omprakash Shrivastava. Omprakash Shrivastava is also a servant of the Municipality. It is alleged that at that time, the petitioner abused him and caused interruption in the discharge of his official duty. The Police filed a challan against the present petitioner under section 358, 186, 294 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code. An application was filed by the petitioner under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that as the Police has not taken sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. of the Government, the case cannot proceed. This application was contested and this objection was rejected by the learned trial Magistrate and so also by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri. Against this, this revision is filed. Held: The only point before me that is urged is that under section 352 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961, the applicant will be a public servant. Section 352 of M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 defines Public Servants as under: "352 Public Servants : – Every Councilor and every Officer or servant employed by a Council, every Contractor or agent appointed by it for the collection of any tax, every person employed by such contractor or agent for collection of such tax shall be deemed to be public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)." 2. Therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that the petitioner is a public servant under Section 352 of the Municipalities Act, 1961. Section 197 Cr.P. C. requires sanction from the State Government for prosecution of a public servant. This point was considered by this Court in J.M. pendse v. Chandra Gopal ( 1972 MPLJ 166 ). I am in complete agreement with the proposition laid down in the said judgment. Section 197 Cr.P. C. requires sanction from the State Government for prosecution of a public servant. This point was considered by this Court in J.M. pendse v. Chandra Gopal ( 1972 MPLJ 166 ). I am in complete agreement with the proposition laid down in the said judgment. It lays down – "Though a President is removable by a vote of no confidence, if he is also a councilor he cannot be removed as a Councilor except by the State Government under section 41 of M. P. Municipalities Act and sanction under section 197, Criminal Procedure, Code would be necessary to prosecute him in the case of a complaint against him in the discharge of his duties as a public servant." 3. It was faintly submitted before me that the incident regarding which the prosecution is launched, is of a personal nature between the petitioner and the other person. Therefore, no sanction is essential under section 197 Cr.P.C. Suffice it to say that the incident took place in the building of the Municipality in the working hours and while the parties were discharging duties as Vice-President and an employee of the Municipality. Therefore the submission that this incident is of a personal nature between the parties cannot be accepted. 1972 MPLJ 166 relied on. Revision allowed.