JUDGMENT 1. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Munsif and Judl. Magistrate, Sirohi dated 22.10.1984, whereby, he rejected the application of the petitioners holding that no prior sanction for prosecution of the petitioners is necessary Under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Necessary facts to be noticed in short are that the respondent No. 2- Kushalchand filed a criminal complaint Under Sections 447 & 427, Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. It was alleged that the petitioner No. 1- Amritlal Dosi was Executive Engineer in Public Works Department, Sirohi and petitioner No. 2- Tarachand was Assistant Engineer in the same department was got a road constructed through accused No. 3 Kailash Agrawal and accused No. 4 Bhanwarsingh Mistri of the same department, through the complainant's plots, on or about 25.7.1981. It was also alleged that stones valued at Rs. 500/- belonging to the complainant were illegally used for the construction of the road. On this complaint, a case was registered against the petitioner No. 1 for the offences Under Sections 447 & 427 Read With Section 109, Indian Penal Code and against the petitioner No. 2 Under Sections 447 & 427, Indian Penal Code. Both the petitioners appeared in Court and raised objection that without sanction Under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, no cognizance can be taken. The prayer of the petitioners were rejected and hence, they filed this revision petition. 3. Mr. S.R. Singhi, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are public servants under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1950. Both the petitioners are members of the State Services, therefore, without the prior sanction, no cognizance can be taken or criminal proceedings be initiated without the prior sanction of the Government, if they have done anything in discharging their official duties. 4. Heard Mr. S.R. Singhi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Hemant Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Arun Bhansali with Mr. Rajendra Mehta, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and perused the material on record. 5. Rule 7 read with Schedule T of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1950 reveals that the posts of Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer appeared in Item Nos. Hemant Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Arun Bhansali with Mr. Rajendra Mehta, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and perused the material on record. 5. Rule 7 read with Schedule T of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1950 reveals that the posts of Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer appeared in Item Nos. 3 & 4 under heading "Public Works Department-Buildings & Roads" are classified as "State Services", therefore, they can be removed or any disciplinary action can be taken by the State Government only, as such, they come within the purview of the definition of "Public Servant". In view of this matter, the sanction is must for prosecuting a public servant, when any offence alleged to have been committed by public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharging the official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with previous sanction of the State Government. 6. To ascertain, whether any offence has been committed while discharging his duties. It is to be seen whether there is reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. For that, we have to classify the offence while committing it during discharging of the official duties. In the first category, if any offence is committed strictly during discharging the official duties and in the second category, the offence is committed, which may not fall within the ambit of the strict official duty but that has reasonable nexus with the official duties, though possibly done in excess of the requirement of the situation resulting into commission of offence and in the third category, while the offence has not come under the first two foregoing categories means, that has no connection at all with the official duty, such as, while conducting search, the official commits rape, that has nothing to do with the discharging of his official duty and no sanction is required in such a case Under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. But in two foregoing categories the sanction is must whether the offence has been committed in discharging his official duty or not depends upon the facts of each case. In the case in hand, the petitioners have got; constructed a road as per scheme of the department and they have to execute the scheme of the road as provided to them by their department. In the case in hand, the petitioners have got; constructed a road as per scheme of the department and they have to execute the scheme of the road as provided to them by their department. If some complaint is there against them in respect of constructing the road through the plot of any person that conduct or act of the petitioners will come within the ambit of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code as it cannot be said that the duties have nothing to do with the construction of the roads in question. 7. In view of this matter, I do not find any substance in the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi to hold that no sanction is required in this case, hence, the impugned order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi is set aside and if respondent No. 2 is interested in the prosecution of the petitioners prior sanction of the State Government is necessary. They cannot be prosecuted without prior the sanction of the Government as required Under section 197(1), Criminal Procedure Code. The revision petition is allowed with the above observations. Petition Allowed. *******