Judgment MILAP CHANDRA JAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for setting aside the order of the Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pipar dated January 12, 1987 by which cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 384, I. P. C. has been taken against the petitioner and also the order of the Special Judge (E. C.), Jodhpur dated April 27, 1989 dismissing the revision petition filed against the said order dated January 12, 1987 and for quashing the proceedings in which the order dated 12. 1. 1987 has been passed. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case giving rise to this petition may be summarised thus. On 05. 01. 1987, the complainant-respondent Sohan Raj filed a complain under Section 384, I. P. C. against the accused- petitioner with the averments that he granted contracts in October, 1986 to Bhanwar Das and Kana Ram for raising construction on his plot situated in the village Chowkari Kala, on 20. 11. 1986 the accused-petitioner threatened him that he would stop the contractors from raising constructions on his plot and would demolish the construction already made in his capacity as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat if he was not paid Rs. 1,500/-, the same day he paid Rs. 500/- to the accused-petitioner and promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 1,000/- after few days, when the amount was not paid, the accused-petitioner served notice on 25. 11. 1986 for stopping the construction but subsequently good sense prevailed but he did not return the said amount of Rs. 500/ -. After recording statements of the complainant under Section 200 and of his witnesses Pauna Ram P. W. 2 and Pukh Raj P. W. 3 under Section 202, Cr. P. C. cognizance was taken under Section 384, I. P. C. against the accused-petitioner by order dated January 12, 1987. Revision petition was filed against this order by the accused-petitioner but it was dismissed holding that a prima facie case is made out against the accused-petitioner under Section 384, I. P. C. From the evidence on record and the provisions of Section 197, Cr. P. C. are not attracted. ( 3 ) IT has been contended by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that the learned subordinate Courts have not properly considered the provisions of Section 197, Cr. P. C. are not attracted. ( 3 ) IT has been contended by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that the learned subordinate Courts have not properly considered the provisions of Section 197, Cr. P. C. and have also not considered at all the provisions of Section 99, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 requiring previous sanction of the State Government for taking cognizance. He further contended that besides offences under Section 384, I. P. C. offence punishable under Sectian 7, Prevention of Corruptian Act is also made out from the averments made in the complaint and statements of the complainant and his witnesses, admittedly the State Government has not granted sanction and as such the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the proceedings to be quashed. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel far the complainant respondent duly supported the order under challenge, he contended that at the appropriate time the Magistrate will see whether the accused-petitioner was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty when he accepted Rs. 500/ -. He further contended that no offence under Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act is made out and as such no sanction under section 19, Prevention of Corruption Act is required. Paras No. 6, 7 and 8 of the complaint nm as under Other Language latter ( 5 ) THE relevant portian of the statement of the camplainant Saban Raj recorded under Section 200, Cr. P. C. runs as under: Other Language Matter ( 6 ) CLAUSES (b) and (c) of Section 2 of the Act of 1988 define Tpublic duty and public servant respectively. Sub-clause (viii) of clause (c) runs as under: (viii) - any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty. Admittedly, the accused-petitioner was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Section 16 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 enumerates the powers and duties of Sarpanch and Upsarpanch. Clause (xv) of sub-section (i) of Section 16 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 runs as under: (xv) execute such other works or discharge such other functions as the Panchayat or the Officer-in-charge of Panchayats may authorise him to execute or discharge, and exercise such powers in the execution or discharge or such works or functions as may be conferred an him by this Act. or rules made thereunder. or rules made thereunder. The Gram Panchayat has power to remove encroachments under Sections 24 and 26. of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. The above-quoted averments of the complaint and also the above quoted statement of the complainant clearly make out a case under Section 7 of the Act of 1988. It is clear from the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act that a Sarpanch is removable by the State Government only. Section 19 of the Act of 1988 provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 7 alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove him from his office. Admittedly, no sanction has been granted by the State Government far taking cognizance of the said offence. All these aspects were not considered either by the Munsif-cumjudicial Magistrate, Pipar or by the learned Special Judge (B. C.), Jodhpur. The petition deserves to be accepted. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition moved under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is allowed. The order of the learned Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pipar dated January 12, 1987 and order of the learned Special Judge (B. C.), Jodhpur dated April 27, 1989 are set aside. Proceedings commenced an the said complaint filed by the non-petitioner Sohan Raj are quashed. Petition allowed.