V. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order passed on 13. 11. 84 by Mr. R. S. Pandey, III Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, who was sitting to decide criminal appeal No 63 of 1984. The learned Judge confirmed the order passed on 19. 5. 84 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Fatehpur and up-held the conviction of the revisionist under section 166 I. P. C. as well as the sentence passed by the learned Magistrate which was of fine of Rs. 500. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the matter are that the revisionist Pyarey Lal was on the relevant date working as Lekhpal of Asothar Anirudh Singh, who is first informant-complainant, obtained a sale deed in respect of half portion of plot no. 2180 of village Asothar and moved an application for mutation of his name after expunction of the name of Durga Shanker, Daya Shanker and Kamlesh, which was allowed on 28. 1. 77 itself. The mutation application was moved and an appeal filed against that order also failed. Then it is said that the Supervisor. Qanungo made the correction in the Mutation Register on 17. 5. 79 vide serial no. 67 at page 14. It also appears that Anirudh Singh and his brother approached Pearey Lal Lekhpal twice before 5. 4. 81 and apprised him of the order of mutation in their favour and asked him to make the necessary corrections in the revenue records which were in his custody, but the revisionist demanded illegal gratification and refused to obey the order. It was only on 5. 04. 81 when for the last time a request was made to him that he actually corrected the entries on 6. 4. 81. Information to the police was given and thereafter a criminal complaint was filed. ( 3 ) FOUR witnesses were examined by the prosecution before the learned Magistrate Dharam Singh Assistant Record Keeper was examined as P. W. 1. Anirudh Singh complainant entered the witness box as P. W. 2. The Record Keeper Mom Uddin Khan was examined as P. W. 3, and the Supervisor Qanungo who corrected the Mutation Register, namely Chandrapal, was examined as P W. 4. The mutation order passed by the Tehsildar on 28. 1. 77 and Khatuni for 1379-F were also placed on the record. The Record Keeper Mom Uddin Khan was examined as P. W. 3, and the Supervisor Qanungo who corrected the Mutation Register, namely Chandrapal, was examined as P W. 4. The mutation order passed by the Tehsildar on 28. 1. 77 and Khatuni for 1379-F were also placed on the record. ( 4 ) THE plea taken by the accused revisionist in his statement in court both prior to the framing of the charge and after conclusion of the trial was that there was some mistake in the entry of the number in the Mutation Register and so long as it was not corrected, he could not make any entry in the relevant documents, which were in his custody. ( 5 ) SRI Chandrapal, Supervisor Qanungo P. W. 4 clearly stated that he remained posted as Supervisor Qanungo in this area upto 15. 12. 79 when he was transferred and till that date there was no over-writing or cutting in the Mutation Register at serial no. 07 on page 14. P. w. 1 who brought the Mutation Register in court was, however, put a question to this effect and he gave out that there was some cutting and over writing in the entry but he does not know also when it was made. In the light of the statement of P. W, 4 it becomes absolutely clear that this over writing and cutting was made after 15. 12. 79. The mutation order is dated 28. 1. 77. For almost three long years the Lekhpal did not carry out the order of mutation and there is no cross examination with P. W. 2 Anirudh Singh on this aspect of the matter that twice prior to 5. 4. 81 and after 28. 1. 77 he had approached the Lekhpal to carry out the corrections in the Register. The Lekhpal also does not take the plea that he had no information of the mutation order dated 28. 1. 77. ( 6 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist has been that this case will be covered by the provisions of Section 197 Cr. P. C. and in the absence of any sanction by the State Government the revisionist who was a Lekhpal cannot be prosecuted. His contention is that Lekhpal is a public servant who cannot be removed without the sanction of the State Government. P. C. and in the absence of any sanction by the State Government the revisionist who was a Lekhpal cannot be prosecuted. His contention is that Lekhpal is a public servant who cannot be removed without the sanction of the State Government. According to him, it is the State who appoints him and as such section 197 Cr. P C. will apply and since as a matter of fact in this case no previous sane lion has been obtained, the prosecution itself can not be allowed to proceed and if it had proceeded, it will be deemed to have been illegal and unauthorized and hence void. ( 7 ) ON this point the learned counsel wanted some more time to search the law and argue the matter afresh before this Court and time was granted, he was again heard on 18. 2. 1988. 8. U. P. Government through Notification no. 3426/1b-1422-B-53, dated May 9, 1958, framed Rules, concerning the services of Lekhpals and in the preamble it was specifically mentioned that these Rules had been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in super session of existing Rules and Orders on the subject by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, and the Rules were for regulating the recruitment to, and the conditions of service of Lekhpals. Rule 7 deals with the appointment and lays down that whenever posts of Lekhpal fall vacant, the Assistant Collector shall appoint thereto alternatively the senior most candidate on each of the two lists maintained under rule 6 and so on and so forth. It thus clear that appointment of the Lekhpal is made by the Assistant Collector and if the Rules are read as a whole, there can be no doubt that the Assistant Collector shall be empowered to dismiss or remove a Lekhpal from service. Naturally, therefore, so far as these rules are concerned, they clearly make it out that removal of the Lekhpal is not to be made by the State Govt. or with the sanction of the State Government. There is nothing in the Rules to lay down that the Assistant Collector when be proceeds to dismiss or remove a Lekhpal from service has to submit his proceedings to any higher authority including the State Government and seek final orders therefrom. or with the sanction of the State Government. There is nothing in the Rules to lay down that the Assistant Collector when be proceeds to dismiss or remove a Lekhpal from service has to submit his proceedings to any higher authority including the State Government and seek final orders therefrom. My attention was, however, drawn to Section 23 of Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act wherein it is mentioned that State Government shall appoint a Lekhpal to each Halka for the preparation of records specified by and under the Act. It is argued with reference to this Section that since a specific provision of law was in existence, no Rules could be framed under the provision of Article 309 of the Constitution. ( 8 ) THE question as to who is the appointing authority and removing authority of a Lekhpal was considered by a Division Bench of this Court 10 the case Sita Ram v. State, and it was held that the Lekhpal was to be appointed by the Assistant Collector and also to be removed by him. There is no reason for me to differ from the view taken by the Division Bench, which is binding on me and, therefore, I hold that the case of the revisionist shall not be covered by the provisions of Section 197 Cr. P. C. ( 9 ) THE sentence awarded is very light. The learned Magistrate has only sentenced the revisionist to a, fine. I may, however, mention in passing that the learned Sessions Judge in his judgment has mentioned the section under which the conviction has been made as 66 Cr. P. C. and in the grounds of revision also the learned counsel who has drafted the memo of revision and filed it has also mentioned the Section as 166 Cr. P. C. Actually this should be Section 166 LP. C,t and not of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being, however, a clerical mistake, I will ignore it. The revision has no force and is dismissed accordingly. .