JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision against the order dated 30.1.88 passed by Additional Sessions Judge. Raisinghnagar in Cr. revision No.71/86 by which be accepted the revision petition and set aside this order dated 23.10.86 passed by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar in Cr. case No. 148/83 and quashed the proceedings pending against Kaluram. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length. Counsel for Kaluram, though appeared at the initial state yet he did not come to argue the case on his behalf. 3. Kaluram was the Sarpanch of village Panchayat. Jeevanram had three sons. On his death, property devolved on his sons Dhanna, Bishna and Rati Ram. Bishnaram thus succeeded Jeevanram. Bishnaram had four sons viz. Phoosa Ram, Ramrakh, Gopal Ram (petitioner) and Sohanlal out of them. Sohanlal went in adoption to Rati Ram's family. On the death of Bishnaram, his property devolved on Phoosaram, Ramrakh and the petitioner. Mutations of the agricultural land were done accordingly. On the death of Ramrakh his land went to his son Shankarlal. On the death of Ramrakh his widow remarried with petitioner and she gave birth at the loin of petitioner to Sahibram, Ramkumar, Devilal and Ram Swaroop. Shankarlal died in 1962. He had no issue, therefore, his successors were Phoosaram. Gopal Ram (petitioner). Kaluram Sarpanch, respondent No.2, issued a certificate on 1.11.76 that after the death of Shankar lal his legal heirs were Ramkumar and petitioner's sons Sahebram, Devilal, Ram Kumar and Ram Swaroop. Mutation on the basis of this certificate was entered in the year 1983 regarding agricultural land. In the year 1982 panchayat elections were held. Petitioner's son Sahebram contested the election but due to enmity Kaluram incited one Banwarilal and got an application filed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raisinghnagar alongwith a certificate which was dated 11.4.83. It was mentioned therein that Shankar lal died about 22 years ago and had no heir and that no one could have his land. It was also mentioned in the certificate dated 11.4.83 that the persons in whose name mutation was recorded were cultivating land illegally and that the land should be taken in possession of the State. Thus Kaluram issued two certificates which were contradictory to each other. He was a public servant and knew that one of the certificates was false. It was also mentioned in the certificate dated 11.4.83 that the persons in whose name mutation was recorded were cultivating land illegally and that the land should be taken in possession of the State. Thus Kaluram issued two certificates which were contradictory to each other. He was a public servant and knew that one of the certificates was false. It was issued with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the petitioner. A complaint for offence under Section 218 IPC against Kaluram was submitted by the petitioner before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar before whom Kaluram claimed protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. which was not given to him. He preferred a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar who was of the view that Kaluram was entitled for protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has come in the revision against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited 1997 Cr.L.J. 2491, Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of & Ors. in which it has been observed that fabrication of record and misappropriation of public fund is not the official duty of a public servant. Therefore, sanction for prosecution for alleged offence is not necessary. In this case the allegations against the accused persons were that the cashier and the accused had fabricated the signatures of the complainant and had drawn and misappropriated an amount of Rs.443.90 which was due and payable to him. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint holding that the sanction under Section 197 Cr.PC. was not obtained. The appellant went in revision before the High Court and the High Court recorded the finding that the respondent was discharging his duties as a Government servant and was alleged to have misappropriated the amount in question by forging the signatures of the appellant in the payment register. The question before the Apex Court arose was whether the view taken by the trial court as upheld by the High Court for the aforesaid reason was correct in law? It has been observed by the Apex Court in para No.5 of the judgment given in Shambhoo Nath Misra's case (supra) that when the public servant is alleged to have committed the offence of fabrication of record or misappropriation of public fund etc. cannot be said to have done so in the official duty. It has been observed by the Apex Court in para No.5 of the judgment given in Shambhoo Nath Misra's case (supra) that when the public servant is alleged to have committed the offence of fabrication of record or misappropriation of public fund etc. cannot be said to have done so in the official duty. It is not the official duty of the public servant to fabricate the false record and misappropriate the public funds etc. in furtherance of or in discharge of his official duties. 5. Thus the latest law is that such persons who fabricate record in their official capacity are not entitled for protection under Section 197(1) Cr.RC. Even otherwise by no stretch of imagination it can be said that a public servant can fabricate any record and thereby cause any injury to anybody. It is not his official duty to fabricate the record. By issuing the later certificate the Sarpanch had himself controverted the earlier certificate. He has not bothered to show before this Court how these certificates contradictory to each other were issued by him. Consequently, it will be presumed that he has fabricated the record. It was not the part of his duty to do so. Hence the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge does require interference. 6. Consequently, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and the revision is allowed. Kaluram Sarpanch is not entitled for protection under Section 197 Cr.RC. Learned magistrate is directed to proceed against Kaluram in cr. case No. 148/83 as his order dated 20.1.88 revived.> Petition allowed. *******