Judgment I. P. Singh, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29-4-1987 passed by the Judicial magistrate, Bhabhua Complaint Case no.412 (C) of 1984 by which he has ordered for framing of charge against the petitioners under Sec.380 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts leading to this case are that a complaint petition was filed by the opposite party against the petitioner stating, inter alia, that the petitioners on 19-10-1984 along with some persons came to his house situated in Ramgarh bazar and forcibly took away P. V. C. wire measuring 30 feet, L. T. Starter 2 (pc) and kitkat Pure 30 mp. worth is.1300/-without his consent. It was- further stated that the complaintant had decided to operate ice factory in his house and for that purpose he has purchased a machine besides starter and kitkat but by then the electric connection was not taken. It was further stated that the petitioners had been demanding Rs.1,000/- as bribe and when the complainant refused it then they filed a police case against the complainant. 3. On the other hand the petitioners case is that the said complaint case is a counter blast of the police case filed against the complainant-opposite party by the petitioners in the capacity of public servant. In the police case it was stated, inter alia, that petitioner No.1, Kumar satish Chandra Sinha, Assistant Electrical Engineer posted at Electric Supply sub-Divisional at Mohania, on secret information along with Shiva Shankar, deputy Superintendent of Police and shri Bigu Singh, Assistant Electrical engineer, both posted at Special Cell, crime Investigation Department, Patna and others, went to Ramgarh Bazar on 19-10-1984 at 11 A. M. to raid the house of Mahesh Singh were the complainant had installed and was running an ice factory without having proper electrict connection though direct connection from the pole by means of wire and thereby they were causing loss of Rs.20,000/- per month to the Electricity board. It was further alleged that the complainant has also installed an electric meter of 5 H. P. The raiding party seized the electric wire etc. and prepared a seizure list in presence of the party as no local witness was available. They also made an enquiry about one vijay Kumar Singh in whose name the ice factory was installed but he could not be traced out. and prepared a seizure list in presence of the party as no local witness was available. They also made an enquiry about one vijay Kumar Singh in whose name the ice factory was installed but he could not be traced out. The written report was accordingly submitted to the police at 6 P. M. on 19-10-1984 by petitioner no.1 and a case was registered against one the owner of the premises and the police also arrested one Shri Ram singh, the son of the owner of the house in which the factory is alleged to have been running. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has challenged the order impugned both on facts and law. This admitted that the case of opposite party on the face of it is a counter-blast of the police case filed by the petitioners on official capacity who is protected under Sec.81 of the electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. 5. There is much substance in the contention raised on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioners on the facts and circumstances of the case. This is admitted point that petitioners had come to the house of opposite party no.1 and had seized some articles. Both sides have, however, different version about it. Be that as it may, the fact remains that soon after seizure a report was sent to the police and investigating agency took the matter. At that stage the opposite party No.1 kept silent and after six days a complaint petition was filed making out a case of theft which was later on not established as it appears from the judgment dated 24-9-1990 passed in G. R. No.981/84, Tr. No 611 of 1990 by which the opposite parly no.1 was convicted under Sec.379 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in the case registered against him by the present petitioner in respect of incident in question. 6. It is, thus, evident that after police case was lodged opposite party no.1 after consultation with legal brain set up a case by way of defence. 7. There is another aspects of the matter which cannot be overlooked. The legal position is clear that the petitioners are the public servant within the meaning of Sec.21 of the Indian penal Code, as it appears from sections 81 and 82 of the Electricity (Supply)Act, 1948. 7. There is another aspects of the matter which cannot be overlooked. The legal position is clear that the petitioners are the public servant within the meaning of Sec.21 of the Indian penal Code, as it appears from sections 81 and 82 of the Electricity (Supply)Act, 1948. The acts allegedly committed by the petitioners have been done in the capacity of public servant and in that view the opposite party could not have proceeded against the petitioners unless sanction for the name was obtained from the competent authority. That having not been done the case against the petitioners must fail on that ground alone. 8. In the result, the impugned order dated 29-4-1987 passed by the judicial Magistrate, Ist Class is quashed and this criminal revision application is allowed. Revision Allowed.