Honble KHAN, J.–This is a petition u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 5.11.93 whereby the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Mobile) Atru, Distt. Baran, declined to take cognizance of the offences u/Ss. 420, 423, 471 and 120-B IPC against the present respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who happened to be the Inspector Land Records and Patwari respectively, on the ground that no sanction for their pro- secution as required u/S. 197 Cr.P.C. had been obtained from the State Govt. It may be mentioned that by his said impugned order the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences against seven other accused. The grievance of the complainant-petitioner was that the petitioner and other persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to deprive the petitioner of his interest in the land and in the prosecution of such criminal conspiracy they manipulated the record of rights by making false entries of the death of the petitioners father Narain. (2). Heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order and other materials, placed on the record of the lower court. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time Rameshwar Dayal and Purshottam Srivastava, res- pondents, stood posted as Inspector Land Records and Patwari of the village concerned. It is also not in dispute that certain entries in record of rights, maintained as per provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, were made in respect of Khasra No. 386, admeasuring 10 biswas, on which Narain was recorded as a tenant. It also appears that mutation case No. 410 dated 17.1.83 had been opened in respect of transfer of possession over Khasra No. 386, aforesaid wherein Narain was shown as having died and the land belonging to aforesaid Narain was mutated in the names of Jagdish Singh and six others, who have been summoned as accused in the present case. Under such circumstances the learned Magistrate had sufficient evidence before him to take cognizance of the offences u/Ss. 420, 471 r/w Sec. 120-B IPC in the case. (3). Mr. Under such circumstances the learned Magistrate had sufficient evidence before him to take cognizance of the offences u/Ss. 420, 471 r/w Sec. 120-B IPC in the case. (3). Mr. S.S. Hassan, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the present respondents had acted upon a report made by Jagdish Singh, Surpanch Gram Panchayat Asnawar and that being public servants the respondents were required to be make entries of the land, in the names of persons, in the record of right as per report of the Gram Panchayat, in discharge of their official duties and, therefore, they cannot be said to have committed any offence. The other limb of the argument of Mr. Hassan is that the respondents could not have been prosecuted without a sanction, having been obtained from the State Government for their prosecution. (4). It is not disputed that neither the Inspector Land Record nor the Patwari is a public servant to be appointed by the State Government. Since the State Govt. does not happen to be the appointing authority of either of the two respondents, a sanction of the State Government for their prosecution was not necessary. (5). In so far as the nature of the alleged official act performed by them in the discharge of their official duties is concerned it may be pointed out that in the case of Shambhu Nath Misra vs. State of U.P. (1) the Apex Court has observed that : ``It is not the official duty of the public servant to fabricate the false record and mis-appropriate the public funds etc. in furtherance of or in the discharge of his official duties. The official capacity only enables him to fabricate the record or mis-appropriate the public fund etc. It does not mean that it is integrally connected or inseparably interlinked with the crime committed in the course of same transaction. (6). It may thus be appreciated that the making of false entries in the public record with the intention of depriving certain persons of their rights in some property cannot be said to be an act done in the discharge of ones official duties. (7). In view of the above the protection provided by Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. was not available to the respondents. (8). Mr. (7). In view of the above the protection provided by Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. was not available to the respondents. (8). Mr. Hassan further submitted that the impugned order is a revisable order, but the petitioner has filed the petition u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the invalidity observed by this court in the impugned order it matters not whether this court corrects the mistake in exercise of its powers u/S. 397(1) Cr.P.C. or prevents the abuse of the process of court, which perpetuates an illegality to continue and injustice to be caused to the other party, in exercise of its powers u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. Any way since the order under challenge is a revisable order, the present petition is directed to be treated as one u/S. 397(1) Cr.P.C. (9). The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed further against the respondents in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.