ORDER R.P. Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner in this petition challenges the order dated 21-6-99 of C.J.M., Jabalpur whereby the C.J.M. rejected the objection of the petitioner that the trial against him should be dropped as no sanction of the prescribed authority had been given against him under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for his trial. 2. The petitioner was Asstt. Engineer/S.D.O. in the Irrigation Deptt.. There were sub-engineers and other accused working under his control. The allegations of the prosecution are that he and others committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C.. The charges are that during the period March, 94 and April, 94 they falsely included the names of some labourers in the muster roll as having worked and showed payments to them. In fact such workers did not work and therefore, the muster roll had been connected and the money of the State which was shown paid was misappropriated and the State fund was cheated and this false muster roll was utilised as mechanism for that purpose. Prima facie this false muster roll amounts to forgery. 3. The trial Court has yet to consider what charges are to be framed as hearing on that has yet not taken place. However, the petitioner moved the trial Court that in the absence of proper sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. he could not be tried, the allegation being that he was not the person who was responsible for preparing the muster roll not he checked the actual labourers working. He only paid money to those who were identified before him by the juniors on the basis of the muster roll whom he could not verify nor was he required to verify each worker or each muster roll. 4. The learned counsel, during arguments submitted that even if in the face of the Supreme Court's pronouncements in number of cases including the case of Baijnath v. State of M.P. ( AIR 1966 S.C. 220 ) and State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan Nair, JT 1999 (4) S.C. 499, the petitioner may not be able to challenge that sanction was necessary for offence under Section 409 I.P.C., but for the alleged offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 such sanction should be necessary and without sanction these charges should be dropped. When the alleged forgery of muster roll or preparation of false documents are said to be mechanism to facilitate the criminal breach of trust of State funds, that part of the offence is only a methodology for achieving the ultimate end of offences under Sections 409 and 420 I.P.C. and they cannot be said to be severable. In view of pronouncements of the Supreme Court, there is no prima facie case made out for necessity of the sanction. There is no infirmity in the order of the trial Court on the point of sanction. 5. The petition is dismissed.