JUDGMENT Petitioner Gulam Sarwar @ Munne Mian has filed this petition under section 482 CrPC against the impugned order dated 27.6.96, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen in Criminal Revision No. 33/95. Petitioner/complainant Gulam Sarwar @ Munne Mian had filed a criminal complaint against non-petitioners 1 to 8, alleging commission of the offences under sections 166, 168, 120-B, 294, 323, 324, 342, 392, 427 and 452 read with section 34, of the IPC. After recording the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses, under section 200 and 202 CrPC, the trial Court vide its order dated 12.5.95 held that the accused persons were public servants and the acts committed by them were in discharge of their official duties. Therefore; holding that the sanction under section 197 CrPC was necessary, the trial Court dismissed the complaint as no such sanction was filed in the case. The petitioner, being aggrieved of the above dismissal of his complaint, filed a revision petition before the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Session Judge, vide impugned order dated 27.6.96, agreed with the view taken by the trial Court, about the requirement of sanction under section 197 CrPC, and while dismissing the revision petition upheld the trial Court's order. Shri A. Usmani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the dictum of the Apex Court, in the cases of AIR 1997 SC 2102 [Shambhoo Nath Mishra v. State of U.P. & Others] and AIR 1986 SC 345 [Balbir Singh v. D.N. Kadian and another], contended that the trial Court as well as the revisional Court have erred in holding that sanction under section 197 CrPC was required for the prosecution of non-petitioner accused persons as the acts, alleged to have been committed by them, constituting the above offences under the Indian Penal Code were not even remotely related with the discharge of their official duties. On perusing the trial Court's order dt. 12.5.95 and the revisional Court's order dated 27.6.96, it is found that both the Courts below have considered and decided the question of requirement of sanction under section 197 CrPC casually without giving due weightage to the facts of the present case. This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the matter deserve" to be remanded back to the trial Court itself for re-consideration of the question of requirement of sanction under section 197 CrPC. This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the matter deserve" to be remanded back to the trial Court itself for re-consideration of the question of requirement of sanction under section 197 CrPC. As the matter is being remanded, this Court is refraining from commenting on the merits of the case, lest it may affect the case of either of the parties at the trial adversely. For the foregoing reasons, the petition, filed under section 482 CrPC, is allowed. The orders dt. 27.6.96, passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen in Criminal Revision No. 33/95, and the order dt. 12.5.95, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raisen in an unregistered complaint, filed by the petitioner, are hereby set aside. The case is remanded back to the trial Court with the direction to reconsider and decide the question of requirement of sanction under section 197 CrPC, in the light of the observations made by the Apex Court in the cases of AIR 1997 SC 2102 [Shambhoo Nath Mishra v. State of UP and others] and AIR 1986 SC 345 [Balbir Singh v. D.N. Kadian and another]. As a period of about 3 years, since the filing of the complaint, has already elapsed and the matter is still at the threshold, the trial Court is directed to consider and decide the above question, of requirement of sanction under section 197 CrPC, within a period of 3 months from the filing of a certified copy of this order, by the petitioner in that Court. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raisen for necessary compliance and proceeding further according to law.