Judgment U.P.Singh, J. 1. The petitioner, Deputy Superintendent of Latehar Sub divisional Hospital, has challenged the order taking cognizance under Sec. 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The allegation made in the complaint petition was that the petitioner was on duty at B-30 a. m., when the complainant brought his ailing wife to the Hospital. On reaching the Hospital, he went to call the petitioner from his residence but was informed that the Doctor was in the bath-room. When the petitioner arrived at the Hospital at 10 a.m., he examined the patient but she was dead. The complainant thereafter submitted a report to the Police and Sanha was recorded. Thereafter, he filed a complaint petition in the Court after a long delay of about twenty days and the learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for an offence under Sec. 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears from Paragraph 8 of the petition that the facts were not correctly presented before the learned Magistrate. The Sub-divisional Officer had himself enquired, into this matter and found that the petitioner arrived in the Hospital immediately after receiving the information. He gave two injections to the patient and made all efforts to save her, but she could not survive. The report of the Sub-divisional Officer is based upon the written statement of the complainant duly signed by him, wherein, the complainant had stated that he brought the patient to the Hospital but did not inform the Doctor, who resides in the Hospital Campus. The Doctor came to the Hospital at 10 a.m. checked the patient and applied injections, but after sometime, the wife of the complainant died. It is further stated that the prosecution of the petitioner was politically motivated and was lodged at the instance of the rival Doctors in order to lower his reputation in the estimation of the public. 4. It appears that before the Magistrate, the question regarding sanction as required under Sec. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was raised. The Magistrate brushed aside the said point, relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of Karimullah Khan and others V/s. Champa Khojawa and others wherein it was held that at the stage of enquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused bas no locus standi to agitate any matter regarding the enquiry. The Magistrate brushed aside the said point, relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of Karimullah Khan and others V/s. Champa Khojawa and others wherein it was held that at the stage of enquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused bas no locus standi to agitate any matter regarding the enquiry. He further held that so far as sanction in this case is concerned, it was not necessary at all because there is no dispute that the petitioner was a public servant and that he was on duty. The Question raised by the petitioner, that the entire proceeding was void in absence of sanction having not been obtained prior to the initiation of the proceeding was thus ruled out. 5. The entire approach of the Magistrate is wrong. The case of Karimullah Khan (supra) is not a decision for the proposition raised here that the proceeding would be void in absence of sanction which was not obtained prior to the initiation of the proceeding. Again, the reasoning that since the petitioner is a public servant and he was on duty, therefore, sanction in this case was not necessary at all is equally fallacious. It is well settled principle that initiation of a criminal proceeding could not at all be made in relation to a public servant who is removable by the State Government without obtaining sanction from the State Government for initiating a proceeding against him in relation to the discharge of the public duty. 6. In the result, the order taking cognizance against the petitioner for an offence under Sec. 304-A of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and the petition is allowed.