Judgment 1. BY this revisional application the petitioner challenged the order dated 14th May, 1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South), in C. Case No. 1850 of 1990 relating to T. R. No. 176/90 whereby the learned Magistrate discharged the accused persons under Section 245 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground of absence of sanction as adumbrated in Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. THE fact of this case, in a short compass, is that on the 17th September, 1990 the accused persons went to a spot on which a boundatory wall stood in between plot nos. 380 and 356, although the boundary wall stood on the plot no. 353. The accused persons demolished that boundary wall and stole some properties lying on the plot and as such a complaint has been made for the offence under Sections 379/440/447/120b of the Indian Penal Code. During the time of framing the charge, a contention was raised on behalf of the accused persons before the trial court that in the absence of sanction as contemplated under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court is not competent to take cognizance as the accused persons are public servants discharging their duties in their official capacity as public servants. The learned Magistrate on consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the accused persons discharged the accused persons as aforesaid under Section 245 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for want of sanction holding inter alia that the accused persons discharged their duties in their official capacity. Mr. Ainul Haque, learned Advocate for the petitioner, contended that the accused persons were directed to go to a particular plot but instead they visited another plot and thereby they have transgressed their jurisdiction in discharging their duties as public servants and as such the work that had been done by them does not come within the meaning of official work discharged in official capacity and as such no sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code is required. His next stream of contention was that even if the accused persons had done something as public servants in discharge of their officials duty but in doing so they transgressed their jurisdiction and had done something in excess which cannot be done and cannot be termed to have been done as public servants in discharge of their duties in their official capacity and as such no sanction is required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. MR. L. C. Bihani, learned Advocate appearing in support of the opposite parties nos. 2,3 and 4, staff and employees of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, contended, on the other hand, that whatever was done by the said accused persons was done in their official capacity and in the discharge of their duties as public servants. Mr. Bihani also invited my attention to Section 21 (10) of the Indian Penal Code to point out that every officer entrusted with the duty to take, receive, keep or expend any property, to make any survey on assessment or to levy any rate or tax for any secular common purpose of any village, town or district, or to make, authenticate or keep any document for ascertaining of the rights of the people of any village, town or district, is a public servant. Mr. Bihani further submitted that the accused no. 2 Lakshmi Pat was the Deputy chief Valuer and Surveyor, Calcutta Municipal Corporation, the accused no. 3 Parimal Bose was the Chief Engineer, Survey, Calcutta Municipal Corporation and the accused no. 4 Nagen Das was a Surveyor entrusted with surveying the work of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation during the time of the occurrence. As such they come within the purview of the definition 'public Servant' as contained in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. He further contended that, by referring to the relevant orders from the proper authority of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation by which the three accused persons were deputed to do the demolition work of the boundary wall at Dhapa they come within the protection of sanction as defined in Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. MR. Asok Biswas, learned Advocate for the accused opposite party no. 1, by referring to the case diary and register, pointed out that the accused no. 4. MR. Asok Biswas, learned Advocate for the accused opposite party no. 1, by referring to the case diary and register, pointed out that the accused no. 1 was directed by the superior authority to render all sorts of help to the corporation people who would be engaged in demolition work of the wall and as such whatever service: he had rendered so in his official capacity and as a public servant and as such the protection of sanction as envisaged in Sec. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code is applicable to him. With patience and anxiety, I have heard the rival contentions made on behalf of the parties by their learned Advocates, considered the materials on record and the materials, as has been produced by Mr. Bihani on behalf of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and by Mr. Biswas on behalf of the accused opposite party no. 1 and on scrutiny I find that the opposite parties were entrusted with the work, as alleged by the complainant, by the Superintendent of! Police, 24-Parganas in case of the opposite" party no. 1 and by the Mayor in Council of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation in case of the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner was requested by this Court to satisfy himself about such authority from the records as was placed by Mr. Bihani and by Mr. Biswas and the learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Haque relied on the Court for that purpose Mr. Haque Submitted that it should be recorded that the materials removed from the plot were the stolen materials. That is not the subject-matter to be decided here and I refrain from making any commend on that. From the record as aforesaid as I find that the accused persons acted as public servants in discharge of their duties in their official capacities, I am of the opinion and also of the view that even if the work done is in excess of their official capacities sanction will be required. That was also the submission of Mr. Bihani and in support of his submission he relied on a decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court-Darshon Kumar us Sushil Kumar Malhotra and others, reported in 1990 Crl. L.J., 154. The learned Magistrate has come to a right decision that the sanction under Section 19. That was also the submission of Mr. Bihani and in support of his submission he relied on a decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court-Darshon Kumar us Sushil Kumar Malhotra and others, reported in 1990 Crl. L.J., 154. The learned Magistrate has come to a right decision that the sanction under Section 19. 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code would be required for the purpose of prosecuting the accused persons and in the absence of the sanction the Court is not empowered to take cognizance 5. AS I find that there is no illegality in the order of the learned Magistrate and as I also find that there is no merit in this revisional application warranting interference with the order impugned, I dismiss the same. Application dismissed.