JUDGMENT A complaint under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the petitioner by respondents No. 2 and 3. It was alleged that petitioner has lodged false complaint against them on 24.4.1987 with police station Morena. It was alleged that respondents have stolen 31 answer books of the examination. On the basis of this report prosecution was initiated and respondents were acquitted by order dated 3rd May, 1991. After their acquittal, the respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed complaint under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The trial Court took cognizance and issued notice to the petitioner. An objection was raised by the petitioner that he was acting in his official capacity has lodged the complaint about theft of the answer books. The petitioner being public servant cannot be prosecuted without prior sanction of competent authority. The trial Court accepted the contention, but revisional Court rejected the contention of the petitioner, therefore, this revision is against the order passed by revisional Court allowing the revision of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the complaint as filed itself was barred by limitation. The cause of action accrued to the respondents in the year 1987 and under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure complaint ought to have been filed within a period of three years. He submitted that the punishment for an offence under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is two years, therefore, the complaint as filed itself is barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of Surinder Mohan Vikal v. Ascharj Lal Chopra, reported in AIR 1978 SC 986 , and submitted that in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the complaint itself is barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that question of limitation was not raised before the trial Court. He further submitted that since the petitioner's services cannot be terminated by the State Government, therefore, he will not fall in the capacity of 'public servant'. The revisional Court has rightly held that sanction is not necessary in the case of petitioner. Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code defines ''public servant". The petitioner is in service in the pay of the Government, therefore, he is public servant. The revisional Court has rightly held that sanction is not necessary in the case of petitioner. Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code defines ''public servant". The petitioner is in service in the pay of the Government, therefore, he is public servant. Now the learned counsel submitted that petitioner's services are not liable to be terminated by the State Government, therefore, provisions of section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not applicable and question of approval is not necessary. Section 197 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that when any person who is a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that at the relevant time services of the petitioner, who was holding the post of Lecturer, could be terminated by Director of Public Instructions. Therefore, the revisional Court has rightly held that sanction was not necessary. Without entering into this controversy, it is apparent that in view of the judgment in the case of Surinder Mohan Vikal (supra), the complaint itself was barred by limitation, therefore, no cognizance could be taken by the Court. In this case, it is also held that the delay cannot be condoned. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be quashed only on the ground of delay. In the result, the complaint filed under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner is quashed. Revision succeeds and is allowed.