Judgment NUNUMANI PRASAD SINGH, J. 1. This is an application for quashing the order, dated 30-5-1986 passed by Sri P. N. Yadav, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani in G. R. Case No. 1330/85 whereby he has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 409, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 2. On 5-8-1986 complainant Bansi Ram filed a complaint petition before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhubani alleging therein that the petitioner who was a Mukhiya of Sugauna Gram Panchayat had committed forgery in the official record of old age pension scheme and mis-appropriated the public money. The complaint was sent to the police for instituting a case under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, Rajnagar P. S. Case No. 125/85 under Sections 409, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner. 3. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and cognizance of the offence was accordingly taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as mentioned aforesaid. As against that the petitioner has come up before this Court for quashing the cognizance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the cognizance taken against the petitioner is illegal and the same cannot be sustained. He contended that earlier the complainant had filed a petition on the same allegation before the District Magistrate, Madhubani who got the matter enquired into by the S.D.O. The S.D.O. after enquiry submitted his report to the District Magistrate stating that the allegation made against the petitioner was palpably false and motivated. The District Magistrate accordingly dismissed the complaint by his order, dated 26-3-1985. Thereafter, the complainant filed petition for complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st class Madhubani for an action against the petitioner and the same was sent to the police for instituting a case. Accordingly, this case was registered and the, cognizance was taken. He has further contended that during investigation of the case, the case was supervised by the S.D.P.O. On 24-5-1986 the petitioner filed a petition before the learned Magistrate to call for the case diary, supervision note of S.D.P.O. Madhubani, ledger of the old pension and payment voucher from the office of the Block Development Officer, Rajnagar. He has further contended that during investigation of the case, the case was supervised by the S.D.P.O. On 24-5-1986 the petitioner filed a petition before the learned Magistrate to call for the case diary, supervision note of S.D.P.O. Madhubani, ledger of the old pension and payment voucher from the office of the Block Development Officer, Rajnagar. The petition was accordingly allowed and the documents were called for but the same were not made available to the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 30-5-1986, but inspite of that cognizance of the offence was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. He contended that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance against the petitioner without locking into the evidence against the petitioner in the case diary, supervision note and other papers and satisfying himself as to the prima facie case. I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. From Annexure-3 it appears that a similar allegation made against the petitioner was enquired into by the S.D.O. and the same were found to be false. It further transpires from Annexure-4 that the complaint of the informant was dismissed by the District Magistrate. Thus the Chief Judicial Magistrate should have perused the papers which he had called for before taking cognizance in this case and he should not have taken cognizance hastily without satisfying himself as to the prima facie case against the petitioner when a doubt was created in the mind of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The cognizance taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate does not appear to be in accordance with law. It is also contended that the cognizance is also bad on account of the fact that the petitioner is a Mukhiya of Sugauna Gram Panchayat and he being public servant the cognizance should not have been taken against him without prior sanction of the State Government. He referred to Sections 83 and 84(A) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 . He referred to Sections 83 and 84(A) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 . Section 83 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act lays down as follows : "Public servant.Every member of a bench of the Gram Cutcherry, the Mukhiya, the Up-Mukhiya while performing the duties or exercising the powers of the Mukhiya, the Panchayat Sevak or Sahayak Sevak and the Chief Officer of a Village Volunteer Force shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860) and the provisions of Chapter X of the said Code shall apply in respect of any contempt of the lawful authority of such public servant." Section 84 (A) reads lays down as follows : "Court not to take cognizance of certain offences without previous sanction. When the Mukhiya, the Up-Mukhiya or any other member of the Executive Committee or the Chief Officer of the Village Volunteer Force of the Gram Panchayat or the Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch of any other Panch of the Gram Cutcherry or the authority appointed under Clause (to) of Section 79-B to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Executive Committee during the period of its dissolution or supersession is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties, no court shall take cognizance of the offence except with the previous sanction of the Government or such other authority as may be prescribed." 5. It is apparent from Sections 83 and 84-A of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 referred to above that the Mukhiya is a public servant and he cannot be prosecuted for an offence committed by him in discharge of his official duty without the prior sanction of the State Government. Here in this case no sanction appears to have been obtained by the complainant for launching the prosecution against the petitioner who is a Mukhiya of Sugauna Gram Panchayat. Thus the cognizance taken against the petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate without prior sanction of the State Government is bad in law and the same cannot be sustained. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed and the prosecution case launched against the petitioner is quashed.