ORDER: Petitioners/accused 1, 2 and 4 in C.C.No.329 of 1998 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram have preferred the revision aggrieved against the order of dismissal in M.P.No.6870 of 1998, dated 5.2.1999. 2. The case in brief for the disposal of the case is as follows: ‘The public road abutting railway level crossing in Tambaram called the Velacheri Road belongs to the Highways Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu and the same falls within the Tambaram Municipality. The Indian Airforce have a base in Tambaram and there is lot of air traffic in and around the area. The entire stretch of Velacheri Road has been occupied by encroachers and several of them had built even permanent structures for their business activities. The entire area attracted street vendors and hawkers. Several persons also put up unauthorised beef, mutton and chicken stalls. The sale of beef, mutton and chicken in open areas naturally attracted large birds that abound the area of carcass. These birds cause serious obstruction to Airforce Pilots and the Airforce authorities were complaining to the Government to take suitable action to remove the encroachments. The encroachments in Velacheri Road became unbridled and ultimately, the District Collector, Kancheepuram under whose jurisdiction the area comes, directed the Highways Department to clear the encroachments. The Collector also directed the Municipality, the Electricity Board and the Superintendent of Police to lend all assistance for the removal of encroachments. The Collector also convened a meeting in the Tambaram Municipality premises on 19.4.1998 and invited the representatives of Municipality Chairman also attended the meeting and their co-operation was solicited. The Collector directed the Highways Department to make public announcements by beat of drums about the proposed action to remove all encroachments and these instructions were also carried out on 17.4.1998. 3. On 20.4.1998 the Highways Department officials removed all the encroachments in the Velacheri Road. Thereafter, one Mr.Akbar Ali preferred a private complaint arraying the Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, the Commissioner, Tambaram Municipality, the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways Department and the Assistant Engineer, Electricity Board as accused before Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.329 of 1998 for offences under Secs.448, 427 and 352, I.P.C. They filed a petition for discharge before the trial court and the same was dismissed on 5.2.1999 and aggrieved against this, the present revision is filed. 4. 4. Notice of motion was ordered and private notice was also permitted. The respondent was served by private notice on 26.3.1999 and neither he appeared nor engaged any counsel. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the trial court ought not to have taken cognizance to the complaint since the complainant has not made out a case of commission of offence. It does not disclose mens rea. The trial court before issuing process should have conducted an enquiry under Sec.202, Crl.P.C. Under Sec.204, Crl.P.C.; there should be sufficient ground for proceeding by issuance of process. The petitioners are public servants and so far as the first petitioner is concerned, there is no valid sanction under Sec. 197, Crl.P.C. So far as the 2nd petitioner being the Commissioner of Tambaram Municipality is concerned, he had acted in discharge of official duty and, hence, under Sec.353-A of Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, no prosecution can be launched without a sanction from the State Government, Similarly in respect of third petitioner, under Sec.82 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, no prosecution shall lie against an employee of the Board for action taken in good faith. 7. The fact that the accused have not denied the removal of encroachment cannot mean that they have accepted the commission of the offence. It is the case of the petitioners that beef stalls were unauthorised and unlicensed ones. The accused had acted only in good faith. The complainant is an encroacher on poromboke land and he has admitted the same when he filed an indemnity bond with the Electricity Board authorities seeking power supply for the demolished structure. 8. One Akbar Ali filed a private complaint against the revision petitions for alleged offences under Secs.448, 427 and 352, I.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the revision petitioners are public servants and they have discharged their duty as public servants and there is absolutely no mens rea or any motive for removing the unauthorised construction. The respondent has put up an unauthorised construction and because of the drive for removal of the unauthorised construction, after observing all the formalities the petitioners have performed their duty in their capacity as public servants. The respondent has put up an unauthorised construction and because of the drive for removal of the unauthorised construction, after observing all the formalities the petitioners have performed their duty in their capacity as public servants. The first petitioner is an official of the revenue department, the 2nd petitioner is the Commissioner of Tambaram Municipality and the 3rd petitioner is an officer of the Electricity Board. In the absence of any mens rea or motive on their part and they having done the duty in the capacity as public servants, there should be a valid sanction for prosecuting them. There is no record to show that any sanction was obtained under Sec.197, Crl.P.C. so far as the first petitioner is concerned. In respect of the 2nd petitioner, under Sec.353-A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, no prosecution can be launched without a sanction from the State Government. Similarly in respect of the 3rd petitioner, Sec.82 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, indicates that no prosecution shall lie against an employee of the Board for action taken in good faith. In view of the aforesaid facts and in the absence of any sanction from the competent authority. I am of the view that the cognizance taken by the trial court against the revision petitioners is not proper and correct. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a decision in N.K.Ogle v. Sanwaldas alias Sanwalmal Ahuja, (1993)3 Supreme 131, wherein it is observed that where scooter of complainant was seized and auctioned by Tahsildar, when the complainant visited the Tahsildar’s office, pursuant to earlier attachment order, it could not be said that Tahsildar’s action was pretended or fanciful exercise of his power so as to disentitle him protection under Sec.197 of Crl.P.C. The analogy in the decision can be made applicable to the facts on hand also. 10. Learned Magistrate dismissed the application by the revision petitions on the ground that the respondent could have taken licence for running a beef stall and as such, only after revoking the licence, the encroachment can be removed. The respondent is an encroacher on poromboke land and this was admitted by him even in the indemnity bond filed by him with the Electricity Board. Even assuming that there is a licence, this will not confer any title to him in the property. The respondent is an encroacher on poromboke land and this was admitted by him even in the indemnity bond filed by him with the Electricity Board. Even assuming that there is a licence, this will not confer any title to him in the property. There must have been a general order for removal of the encroachment in the particular area and in the absence of any specific order to remove the encroachment made by the respondent, it cannot be presumed that the act is a mala fide one. Simply because the revision petitioners had admitted the removal of the encroachment, it will not give a cause of action for the respondent to initiate a criminal action against them, who are public servants. They have clearly stated the reasons as to why the encroachments were ordered to be removed. Prima facie it is clear that the trial court is not justified in taking the case on file without proper sanction from the competent authority. Further more, there is absolutely no mens rea or any motive on the part of the revision petitioners to remove the unauthorised construction put up by the respondent in the poromboke area and, as such, I am of the view that the finding given by the trial court is not proper and correct and, as such, it is liable to be set aside. 11. For the reasons stated above, the revision is allowed and the order passed by the trial court in M.P.No.6870 of 1999, dated 5.2.1999 is set aside and the petition is allowed. Consequently, Crl.M.P.Nos.2113 and 2114 of 1999 are closed.