JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Court No. 3, Ajmer passed on June 25, 1982. 2. Brief facts leading to this revision petition are that a complaint on April 10, 1978 was lodged by the non-petitioner, Ram Sahai, that he was engaged in the business of selling chillies and for that he had taken loan from Central Bank of India. He was regularly paying the instalments but committed default in the payment of last four monthly instalments. It was further alleged that about 10 days prior to the filing of the complaint, the accused along with three or four office associates came at the house of the complainant in the night at 10 p. m. The accused threatened the complainant to make the payment of instalments immediately otherwise his goods will be attached. The accused told that he was auditor of the Bank and on this the complainant paid Rs. 510/- towards his instalments to the accused but the accused did not give any receipt inspite of the same being demanded by the complainant. As the complainant did not get any receipt from the Bank till April 5, 1978 as such he went to the Manager of the Bank and demanded receipt for the aforesaid amount. The Manager told that no such amount had been deposited in the Bank and the Bank was not responsible in this regard. The complainant then lodged an F. I. R. in the police station but the police submitted a final report on April 30, 1978. Matter was again investigated but this time also a final report was submitted. The complainant than filed an objection before the learned Magistrate against the Final Report and the learned Magistrate made an enquiry on the original complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. and recorded the statement of the complainant, Ram Sahai, Chhaganlal and Ram Prassad and thereafter took cognizance of the case under Section 420 I. P. C. on May 19, 1979. The accused was thereafter summoned and appeared in the Court on July 16, 1979. The accused filed an application on December 4, 1981, that in the absence of an order under Section 203 Cr. The accused was thereafter summoned and appeared in the Court on July 16, 1979. The accused filed an application on December 4, 1981, that in the absence of an order under Section 203 Cr. P. C. no cognizance could have been taken and it was further submitted that the accused was a public servant and was acting in the discharge of his official duty and as such cognizance could not have been taken without sanction of the appointing authority. The learned Magistrate, by his order, dated June 25, 1982, rejected both the objections raised by the accused. The accused in these circumstances, aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate, has filed this revision petition. 3. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the accused, vehemently contended that no case is held established for offence under Section 420 I. P. C. in as much as the complainant himself has not said a single word that any fraud was on him at the time when he gave Rs. 510/- to the accused as alleged by him. It was also submitted that it was highly unnatural that the accused being an auditor of the Bank would go at the house of the complainant at 10 p. m. and would threaten him for attaching his goods. It was also submitted that the complaint has been filed at the instigation of the staff of the Bank against whom, the petitioner was giving adverse reports in the capacity of an auditor of the Bank. 4. So far as taking cognizance of the case is concerned, it was taken by the learned Magistrate as early as May 19, 1979 and the record of the trial court shows that though the accused had appeared on July 16, 1979, but an objection in this regard was taken for the first time by moving an application as late as December 4, 1981. In my view the accused petitioner is not entitled to challenge the order, dated May 19, 1979 by which cognizance was taken against him after such a long lapse of time. That apart, learned Magistrate in his order, dated May 19, 1979, has clearly mentioned that the complainant had raised an objection against the final report submitted by the police and thereafter the learned Magistrate had recorded the statements of the complainant and two of his witnesses, Chhagan Lal and Ram Prasad. That apart, learned Magistrate in his order, dated May 19, 1979, has clearly mentioned that the complainant had raised an objection against the final report submitted by the police and thereafter the learned Magistrate had recorded the statements of the complainant and two of his witnesses, Chhagan Lal and Ram Prasad. The learned Magistrate then observed that after going through the statements of these witnesses he was satisfied that there was sufficient material for taking cognizance and proceeding against the accused. In these circumstances it cannot be said that there was no material before the learned Magistrate for taking cognizance in the case. The question whether any offence is made out or not under Section 420 I. P. C. but is made out under some other section, cannot be decided by this Court. It would be decided by the trial court at the time of framing charge whether any offence under Section 420 I. P. C. has been out in the case or that no of made out No interference, therefore, can be made in the order of the trial court so far as taking cognizance in the case is concerned. 5. It was next by Mr. Dave that the petitioner was a public servant and no cognizance of any case could have been taken against him without the section of the appointing authority. It was submitted that under Section 46A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 an auditor of a Banking Company shall be deemed to be a public servant. It is thus submitted that further proceedings in the case cannot be continued in the absence of proper sanction given by the appointing authority. I see no force in this contention. It was submitted that under Section 46A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 an auditor of a Banking Company shall be deemed to be a public servant. It is thus submitted that further proceedings in the case cannot be continued in the absence of proper sanction given by the appointing authority. I see no force in this contention. Section 64A reads as under:- "Every Chairman, Director, Auditor, Liquidator, Manager and any other employee of a Banking Company shall be deemed to be a public servant for the purposes of Chapter IX of the I. P. C." The above provision clearly provides that the auditor of a Banking Company shall be deemed to be a public servant for the purposes of offences mentioned in Chapter IX of the I. P. C. Section 420 I. P. C. under which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner, does not fall under Chapter IX of the I. P. C. Even offence under Section 406 I. P. C. does not fall under Chapter IX of the I. P. C. In view of these circumstance, there is no necessity for obtaining any sanction in the present case before taking cognizance. 6. In the result, I find no force in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. It is further made clear that none of the observations made in this case will come in the way of the petitioner for arguing his case at the time of framing charge. *******