JUDGMENT 1. - Before I take the arguments of the learned counsel, for the accused-petitioner. in this revision petition which has been filed against the judgment dated 1-2-1991 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar that in view of the Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cognizance of the offence under s. 409 Indian Penal Code could not have been taken against the accused petitioner and he could not have been sentence to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,500/- in default of payment of fine the petitioner further undergo 3 months RI. it is necessary to give facts, 2. The accused petitioner Prabhu Dayal was Sarpanch or Gram Panchayat Lalpura, was entrusted with 60 quintals of wheat under the National Village Employment Scheme for payment as wages for construction of Primary School building. A complaint was made on 26-2-86 and the case of the prosecution is that the accused-petitioner did not distribute or give the wheat to the labourers and misappropriated the same. A report Ex P 32 was submitted by the Panchayat Samiti Thanagazi in Police Station Pratapgarh on 26-2-86 thereafter case was registered against the petitioner The cognizance of offence under sections 409, 471 and 467 Indian Penal Code was taken and the petitioner was acquitted from the charges under Sections 467 and 471 Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced under section 409 Indian Penal Code to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2.500/- in default of pry rent of fine he was ordered to further undergo 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment. 3. The accused-petitioner, against his conviction filed an appeal. The appeal was disposed of by the learned Addl., Sessions Judge on 1-2-91 The learned Addl., Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the accused was not guilty of 17 quintals of wheat. Consequently it was held by the learned Sessions .judge that the accused misappropriated 771 kilograms of wheat. And the appeal was partly allowed and sentenced the accused-petitioner to till rising of the ,court with the fine of Rs. 2,500/- in default of payment of fine further undergo six months RI. 4. I agree with the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be punished under section 409 Indian Penal Code without prior sanction of the State Government under section 197 Criminal Procedure Code. 2,500/- in default of payment of fine further undergo six months RI. 4. I agree with the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be punished under section 409 Indian Penal Code without prior sanction of the State Government under section 197 Criminal Procedure Code. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. The case of the prosecution was t hat the accused-petitioner did not give wheat to the labourers as wages under the National Rural Employment Scheme. Therefore, when the offence was committed by the accused-petitioner he was Sarpanch, there,fore, the provisions of Section 197 Criminal Procedure Code is attracted. It will be seen from the perusal of the judgment of trial court, which runs in 11 typed pages, that the petitioner was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of Lalpura, and therefore, he was a public servant, and it can be said that the accused had received the wheat in the capacity of a public ,servant. Under Section 78 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 the Sarpanch is deemed to be public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. This court has to examine the question whether a court can take cognizance for an offence against a Sarpanch or Panch in respect of any offence alleged to be committed while he was a public servant. Whether the prior sanction of the State Government is not necessary.In the case of Pukhraj v. Ummaid Ram, AIR 1964 Raj. 174 : 1964 RLW 238 : Cr. LJ 339 , a Division Bench of this court had taken the aforesaid view. In the case of Ramdutt and Ors. v. State of Raj., AIR 1966 Raj. 125 , this court said that : "It is well settled that the Sarpanch. Up-sarpanch and Panchas is a public servant and cognizance could only be taken against him with previous sanction of the State Government under section 197 Criminal Procedure Code. It must be established that there is a reasonable connection between act and discharge of duty, the act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could led a reasonable, and not a pretended or fanciful, that he did it in the course of the performance of his duty". 5. There was reasonable connection between the act and complained of discharging the duty as a Sarpanch. 5. There was reasonable connection between the act and complained of discharging the duty as a Sarpanch. Learned trial court did not found him guilty of 60 quintal wheat and held it was the duty of the accused to give the wheat to the labourers as wages under the scheme. Therefore, it can hardly be disputed that the offence which is purported to be committed by the petitioner Sarpanch was committed while discharging the official duties and, therefore, section 197(1) was attracted and the previous sanction of the State Government was necessary. It is not the case of the State that any sanction was sought or obtained before the charge-sheet had been filed. A bare reading of Section 197 show that no court shall take cognizance of any offence except with the previous sanction against a public servant. 6. I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate can not take cognizance, because there was no previous sanction. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The judgment dated 1-2-91 of convicting the petitioner and judgment dated 15-11-89 of the learned Magistrate is set aside. The petitioner is acquitted from the charge under section 409 Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is on bail and need not to surrender to his bail bonds.Petition allowed. *******