JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bayana in Cr. Revision Petition No. 41/1991 dated July 7, 1992 whereby the Revision Petition filed by Deendayal and Kanchan has been allowed and the cognizance taken against them under Sections 467, 471, 167, 474 and 120-B Indian Penal Code has been quashed. 2. I have gone through the order passed in Revision Petition whereby the order passed by the learned Trial Court on December 6, 1990 was set aside on the ground that necessary permission of the State Government was not obtained. The petitioner has alleged that the order dated 7.7.1992 is not in accordance with law and is perverse inasmuch as the Trial Court came to the conclusion that a prima facie case was made out against the accused persons. Deendayal who was posted as Patwari at the relevant time without any orders from the competent authority and without any justification struck off the name of the complainant petitioner from the Jamabandi and entered the name of Gyasi in the Jamabandi of the land bearing Khasra No. 514 measuring 2 bighas situated in village Sewla. The non-petitioner No. 3 was working as Sarpanch who attested the mutation in collusion with the accused-non-petitioner No. 2 and others against whom cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. The act done by the non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 was not in their official capacity but was to defraud the petitioner and forgery was played with the record. 3. I have gone through the record of the case and I am of the view that the power which has been exercised by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Bayana is not in accordance with law. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge was not justified in accepting the Revision Petition and setting aside the order dated 6.12.1990 in a case where such a fraud has been played. The evidence is yet to come on record from which it could be found that whether the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have committed offence or not. The criminal offence of an accused is in his personal capacity. Provisions of Section 197 Cr. P.C. requires the permission of the State Government in a case of removal of the person from service. It was not a case for removal and therefore no help of Section 197 Cr. 2 and 3 have committed offence or not. The criminal offence of an accused is in his personal capacity. Provisions of Section 197 Cr. P.C. requires the permission of the State Government in a case of removal of the person from service. It was not a case for removal and therefore no help of Section 197 Cr. P.C. could have been taken. 4. Consequently, this Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated July 7, 1992 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is set aside and the order of the Trial Court dated December 6, 1990 is restored.Petition allowed. *******