Honble N. K. JAIN, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge dated 22-10.1982, Bhilwara whereby he has set aside the order of Judicial Magistrate, Jahajpur dated 23.10.1980. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the non-petitioner No. 2 filed complaint on 18.81980 alleging that the petitioner who was the Station House Officer at Police Station, Jahajpur has not properly acted in discharge of his duties and prepared false statement of the complainant Moolchand, Kalyanmal, Ramprasad and Dharamvir in order to save one Ahmed Noor from proceeding u/s 145 Cr. P.C. it appears that process was issued against the petitioner on 03.7.1980. The petitioner filed objection on 16.10.1980 that without sanction u/s 197, proceedings cannot be initiated. The petitioner also relied on the notification of the State Government No.F. 20(7) Home (Gr. VI)/74 S.O. 89, July, 1974 according to which the provisions of section 1970) were made applicable to the police employees of the State Government. The learned Magistrate vide his order dated 23.10.1980 dismissed the complaint for want of sanction. On revision petition, being filed by the Non-Petitioner, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge set aside the order of learned Magistrate dated 22.10.1982. Hence this revision petition. 3. Miss Manju, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that this revision may be treated u/s 482 Cr P.C. She has submitted that learned Sessions Judge has erred while rejecting the objection that it is not the stage when the point of sanction could be decided, as sanction u/s 197, Cr. P.C. was a prerequisite condition for taking cognizance and in the absence, cognizance taken is abuse of the process of the court. She has placed reliance on Girdharilal Vs. Lalchand (I). 4. Looking to the facts of the case, the revision is treated as petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Mr. V.S. Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor has not disputed the factual as well as legal position. 6. I have heard Miss Manju, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V.S. Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. None has put in appearance on behalf of the Non-Petitioner No. 2 despite service. 7. It is clear from the language of section 197, Cr. P.C. that sanction has to be taken before the cognizance and sanction to prosecute is not a mere formality but an important matter and is pre-requisite condition to proceed with. 8. In Girdharilal Vs. None has put in appearance on behalf of the Non-Petitioner No. 2 despite service. 7. It is clear from the language of section 197, Cr. P.C. that sanction has to be taken before the cognizance and sanction to prosecute is not a mere formality but an important matter and is pre-requisite condition to proceed with. 8. In Girdharilal Vs. Lalchand, (supra) the decision of Privy Council in Gokulchand Vs. The King (2) was considered and their Lordships of Privy Council expressed the opinion: " The sanction to prosecute is an important matter; it constitutes a condition precedent to the institution of the prosecution and the Government have an absolute discretion to grant or with hold their sanction." 9. The decision of Honble Supreme Court in Baijnath Vs. State of M.P. (3), was also considered and their Lordships observed as under: "It is clear from the language of S. 197 that the sanction has to be taken before cognizance has been taken." After considering the above decisions, it was observed as under: "When even at the time of taking cognizance lack of sanction has to be considered, it is open to an accused person when he has been notified of the fact that cognizance has been taken to raise the plea of lack of sanction. It is correct that there may be cases wherein at initial stages such a question may not admit of a clear answer. It may be remembered that it is not merely the suggestion of the accused that is enough as pointed out by their lordships. In my opinion, therefore, while it is open to an accused to raise the plea of want of a sanction at any stage of the case but its decision would be dependent on the availability of adequate material on record enabling a Court to effectively adjudicate it." 10. It is not disputed that in the instant case, the petitioner was the Station House Officer and was acting in discharge of his official duty as incharge of Thana, Jahajpur at point of time and therefore, it was incumbent upon him to proceed with the allegation set out in the complaint dated 28.10.1980 filed by Jabar Mohammed. In this case no additional fact was required to be relied upon by the petitioner for invoking aid of section 197, as its decision can be effectively adjudicated on material on record. In this case no additional fact was required to be relied upon by the petitioner for invoking aid of section 197, as its decision can be effectively adjudicated on material on record. In view of this, the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge reversing the order of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate that it is mere allegation and it can be decided at a later stage is erroneous and waiting to decide it at later stage will amount to abuse of the process of the court. If the proceedings are allowed to continue, in my opinion, it will be miscarriage of justice. Therefore, to secure ends of justice, the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, deserves to be set aside and the cognizance taken against the petitioner without sanction u/s 197 is quashed. 11. In the result, this petition is allowed. The order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge is set aside. The cognizance taken against the petitioner is quashed and pendings proceeding are set aside.