Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order of dismissal recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ara, in Complaint Case No.82(C)/93. 2. The petitioner filed the complaint on 15.3.1993 after being released from custady on bail in connection with Ara Police Station Case No.45 of 1993. 3. The case of the petitioner is that on 22.2.1993 at about 2.30 P.M. while he was proceeding to the telephone exchange for payment of his telephone bills he was taken to the house of the Sub- Divisional Officer and then the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 had assaulted him and also called police to file a case against the complainant-petitioner and a sum of Rs.1,600/- had been taken away from his pocket by the alleged accused persons. Preliminary statement was recorded on the basis of the complaint petition and two more witnesses had also been examined while holding enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. After consideration of the statements recorded during the course of enquiry under Section 202 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate came to the opinion that as the accused persons are the Government servants definitely for the purpose of cognizance Section 197 Cr.P.C. ought to have been complied with regarding prior sanction. It was further held by the learned C.J.M. that the complaint case filed by the petitioner is nothing but retaliation of the earlier criminal case lodged by the O.P.No.2 against the petitioner and that the assertions made by the complainant in the complaint petition and also been supported by his witnesses are manifestly manufacturing a false case. 5. Learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner has submitted strenuously that the occurrence took place at the residence of S.D.O. and, as such, whatever action has been done by him or other Government officials are beyond the scope of the official duty and hence question of sanction as required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. does not come to play in the present facts and circumstances of the case. On this score, perhaps the petitioner has got forceful submission but coming back to the factual aspect it appears that complaint was lodged after long days and some explanation had been given from the side of the petitioner but those explanations are not at all convincing. On this score, perhaps the petitioner has got forceful submission but coming back to the factual aspect it appears that complaint was lodged after long days and some explanation had been given from the side of the petitioner but those explanations are not at all convincing. Although the statement made in the complaint petition that at the instance of the S.D.O. a back dated criminal case was lodged against the petitioner but that portion of the complaint petition had not been supported by the complainant himself in his statement made before the court on oath. 6. There is little scope of this court to revise the dismissal order recorded under Section 203 Cr.P.C. by the appraisal of the statements of the witnesses on record unless it can be said that there is non reading or misreading of evidence on record resulting in miscarriage of justice. Here it appears that the learned court below has considered the evidence on record and then came to the finding that the complaint case is nothing but retaliation of the earlier criminal case filed against the petitioner by one of the accused persons. It has been stated at the bar that the criminal case filed against the petitioner had already been ended in acquittal of the complainant but that is not a matter of consideration for the purpose of this case when the impugned order does not suffer from any impropriety or misreading or non-reading of the evidence on record. 7. I do not find any scope to interfere with the same under Sections 197/399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the revision petition is rejected. But no order as to costs.