J. M. MAHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners, the employees of the N. A. C. Bellaguntha, District Ganjam, in this revision application have challenged the order dated 14-8-1986 of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhanjanagar in case ICC No. 32 of 1986 taking cognisance for offences u/ Ss. 447, 427 and 379, IPC. ( 2 ) THE sole opposite party, the complainant in the court below had filed the complaint petition before the learned S. D. J. M. on the allegation that he had lawfully obtained settlement of a piece of land in the N. A. C. area, that petitioner No. 1 the, Executive Officer, of the N. A. C. issued a notice to him on 27-5-86 for demolition of the structure standing thereon, that he preferred an appeal before the A. D. M. Ganjam, that in spite of the patta shown to petitioner No. 1, all the petitioners under the direction of petitioner No. 1 demolished the structure on 9-6-86. The opposite party is said to have approached the Bellaguntha Out-post but as police took no action he approached the S. D. J. M. with the complaint petition. The learned S. D. J. M. after an enquiry u/ S. 202, Cr. P. C. took cognizance of the offence against the petitioners. The petitioners filed a petition before the learned S. D. J. M. on the maintainability of the case and by the impugned order rejected the prayer and fixed the case to 14-7- 86 for hearing. ( 3 ) THE core point that was urged before me by Mr. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the petitioners being public servants working under the N. A. C. of Bellaguntha, no cognisance of the offence could have been taken against them without prior sanction and prior notice as required u/ Ss. 349 and 376 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (for short the 'act' ). Reliance is also placed on a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Rama Chandra Sahu v. G. Baisakh (1987) 63 CLT 546 in which it was held that the Executive Officer of the N. A. C. is a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government he being an officer of the Administrative service. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners require careful scrutiny. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners require careful scrutiny. ( 4 ) THE facts revealed from the complaint petition and the statements of witnesses examined in the enquiry clearly indicate that the opposite party was directed to remove the structure pursuant to a notice u/ S. 273-A of the Act, and as he did not, the structure was directed to be demolished, and that as a matter of fact it was demolished. There is nothing to indicate that in the Miscellaneous appeal filed before the learned A. D. M. Ganjam, there was any order of stay or direction issued by the petitioner No. 1, the Executive Officer. In such state of affairs, the action of petitioner No. 1 in directing demolition of the structure through petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 who are the employees of the N. A. C. cannot but be said to lie within the scope and ambit of official duty. S. 376 of the Act requires sanction for prosecution of Chairman, vice Chairman, Councillors or any officer of the Government working under the Municipality / N. A. C. before any cognisance is taken S. 349 requires written notice to be served on the Chairman, Executive Officer, Councillor or any servant of the Municipality before initiation of any suit or legal proceeding. In this case, there is no material to show that there was compliance of the provisions of Ss. 349 and 376 or S. 197, Cr. P. C. prior to the taking of cognisance by the learned S. D. J. M. The impugned order extracted hereinbelow which is very cryptic would go to show that there is no application of mind on the question of sanction prior to taking cognisance of the case:"8-4-87 - R. L. for the accused persons present and complt. files hazira. On 14-8-86 the then Ld. S. D. J. M. has taken cognisance u/ss. 447, 427, 379, IPC against the accd. persons. But the persons have not preferred any appeal or revision before the appropriate court in time. There is no provision in the Cr. P. C. to hear maintainability of the criminal case. Hence the petition is rejected. files hazira. On 14-8-86 the then Ld. S. D. J. M. has taken cognisance u/ss. 447, 427, 379, IPC against the accd. persons. But the persons have not preferred any appeal or revision before the appropriate court in time. There is no provision in the Cr. P. C. to hear maintainability of the criminal case. Hence the petition is rejected. Put up on 14-7-87 for hearing b/c. Complainant to produce witness on the date fixed for hearing b/c. " ( 5 ) APART from the provisions of the Act referred to above in a series of decisions of this Court reported in 1971 (1) CWR 236 Atulya Charan Das and 13 others v. Aditya Prasad, (1987) 63 CLT 546 Pamachandra Sahu v. G. Basak ILR (1963 Cuttack 1 Berhampur Municipality represented by its Executive Officer, Balamukund Das v. Trinath Padhy in which the scope of the provisions of Ss. 349 and 376 of the Act and S. 197, Cr. P. C. have been discussed, it has been clearly held that no cognisance of the offence against the Executive Officer or any of the employees of the Municipality/n. A. C. can be taken without prior sanction and without prior written notice indicating the ground of the proposed action. ( 6 ) ON the aforesaid analysis, I would hold that the learned S. D. J. M. has erred in law in not following the procedure established by law, and as such the impugned order is not sustainable and hence liable to be quashed. As in the meantime more than five years have elapsed it would serve no useful purpose to direct rehearing of the case by the S. D. J. M. after a direction to the complainant to obtain the order of sanction against the petitioners as required under law. ( 7 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed, the order dated 14-8-86 taking cognisance of the offence against the petitioners as also the impugned order dated 8-4-87 are quashed. Revision allowed.