JUDGMENT - T.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.:---This application is filed by the petitioners to set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Criminal Revision Application No. 66/87. The short facts relevant to the purpose of disposal of the case are as under. 2.The first petitioner is a Talathi and the second petitioner is a Circle Officer. A complaint has been filed by the respondent No. 1 against them before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Waduj in Regular Criminal Complaint No. 142/86 that the petitioners have committed an offence under sections 167, 464, 466, 468, 420, 194 read with section 34 of the I.P.C., while discharging their duties. It is alleged that, while making the entries in the Revenue record, they played defraud. Firstly, the said complaint was dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C., on prima facie opinion formed by the Magistrate that no sufficient ground was made out to proceed with the proceedings. That order has been challenged at the instance of the first respondent before the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara. On an elaborate order Addl. Sessions Judge, Satara came to a conclusion that there is a prima facie case made out and the dismissal order of the Magistrate was set aside. It is in these circumstances, the applicant approached this Court. 3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Sessions Court ought not to have set aside the order of the Magistrate as the complaint is not maintainable for want of sanction envisaged under section 197 of the Cr. P.C. She further submits that being a Government Servant, before initiating the prosecution against them, sanction under section 197 of Cr.P.C., was mandatory, and it was obtained in this case. While examining this contention, in order to bring the case under section 197, the accused must establish that the offence alleged has been committed in the discharge of the official duty. In other words the act or omissions must have been committed by the accused during the discharge of their official duty and the public servants must be those who are removable by the Government. 4.It is true that the petitioners are public servant and the offence is alleged to have been committed during the course of discharge of their duty. In other words the act or omissions must have been committed by the accused during the discharge of their official duty and the public servants must be those who are removable by the Government. 4.It is true that the petitioners are public servant and the offence is alleged to have been committed during the course of discharge of their duty. But there is no evidence either before the Magistrate or before the Revisional Court or before this Court to the effect that the petitioners are removable by the Government. To be precise, there is no material before the Court to show that the authority competent to remove them from the service is the Government. The section 197 makes it clear that in order to bring the case in the hotchpotch of section 197, the Government servant should show to the Court that he is removable by the Government. No evidence or material are before the Court to that effect. Therefore the contention of the learned Counsel regarding the want of sanction under section 197 Cr. P.C., has to be rejected. 4-A.Miss Leena Deogaonkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner then submits that there is no merit in the observations made by the Revisional Court, that while doing their duty they committed this offence. The learned Counsel also submits that they have only acted as per the sale deed produced before them and the entry made in the Revenue records was done only according to the law and rules. Accordingly she submits that the observations made by the Revisional Court is unsustainable. 5.I am afraid whether in exercising the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr. P.C., whether this Court can go into the matter at this stage. Here according to the learned Magistrate on examining the materials and witnesses before him came to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case. On the other hand on appreciation of the same evidence the Revisional Court says that there is prima facie case. However, this Court is not expected to go into that controversy in exercising its revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner's contention that when they made Mutation Entry No. 15531 in Survey No. 66/118 was based on the sale deed executed by R.V. Joshi, can be a question to be gone into by other factual aspect of the case. However, this Court is not expected to go into that controversy in exercising its revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner's contention that when they made Mutation Entry No. 15531 in Survey No. 66/118 was based on the sale deed executed by R.V. Joshi, can be a question to be gone into by other factual aspect of the case. This defence of the petitioner can be examined by the trial Court during the trial. Therefore I am not inclined to exercise this Court's jurisdiction under section 482 Cr. P.C., to set aside revisional Court order. But I direct the trial Magistrate to proceed with the trial of the case and finalise the same within four months from today untramalled by the observations made against the petitioner in the revisional order. In the result the application is dismissed. No order as to costs. Application dismissed. *****