JUDGMENT G.H. Guttal, J.- This Revision Application by the State of Maharashtra and two Police Officers in the employment of the State of Maharashtra impugns the validity of the Order of the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge. Thane in Criminal Revision Application No. 11 of 1987 whereby he reversed the Order of the learned Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 189 of 1984 and held that the accused Police Officers were erroneously discharged. 2. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the offence of criminal trespass which consists of the action by the Applicants Nos. 2 and 3 who were in-charge of the Bhoiwada Police Station in committing trespass into the floor mill of the complainant by breaking open the lock, removing the sign-board and a motor, was not an act performed in discharge of their duties, as Police Officers. In view of this conclusion, he held that the acts of these Police Officers do not fall within the scope of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The accusation of the complainant is that the two Police Officers committed criminal trespass in the circumstances set out in the complaint. Even if the property has been acquired for the purpose of Police Station, the Police Officers were not by their duties required to take forcible possession. It is no part of their duty, actual or purported, to forcibly dispossess a person whose property has been acquired. If the property has been acquired, it is the Collector who can take possession and hand it over to the Police Department. The learned Sessions Judge is right is his conclusion that the two Police Officers were not acting in discharge of their duties as Police Officers and therefore, sanction to prosecute them was not required. This view is consistent with the Supreme Court's judgment in Prabhakar v. Sinari v. Shankar A. Verlekar.1 4. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan anr.2 does not lay down a different proposition. It too says "what is necessary is that the offence must be in respect of an act done or purported to be done in the discharge of an official duty". In the context of this case, taking forcible possession in the manner alleged by the complainant cannot be said to be in discharge of the official duties of the Police Officers. 5. In the context of this case, taking forcible possession in the manner alleged by the complainant cannot be said to be in discharge of the official duties of the Police Officers. 5. In my opinion, the learned Sessions Judge was right in his conclusion. 6. Assuming that the learned Sessions Judge was in error in taking the view which he did and assuming that after a prolonged analysis of the section and the facts, there is a possibility of taking a different view, I do not see why this Court should interfere at this stage in its revisional jurisdiction. No error of law impropriety of procedure or non-application of mind has been pointed out. 7. In my opinion, there is no merit in this Revision Application. It is accordingly rejected summarily. 1. A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 686. 2. (1973) 2 S.C.C. 701 .