Short Note Accused-applicant Manoj Shrivastav, the then SDM, Mhow (presently posted as Collector, Indore), is aggrieved by the order dated 31.7.2000, passed in Revision (No. 47/ 1999) by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Mhow, setting aside the order dated 14.12.1998, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mhow, dismissing complaint filed by respondent No. 2 against the applicant and respondent No. 1 Devdatt Tripathi, the then SDO(P), Mhow, alleging commission of offence, u/ss. 341, 342, 500 r/w section 109 and 120B of IPC. The incident is said to have taken place on 7.11.1990 when curfew was clamped in Mhow town. Respondent No.2, a local Advocate, was arrested by Police for alleged violation of the order of curfew, u/s 188 of IPC. Admittedly he has been acquitted of the said charge after trial. Accused-applicant as also co-accused Devdatt Tripathi resisted their prosecution and raised objection that their prosecution is bad for want of sanction of the State Government u/ss. 196(2) and 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned trial Magistrate upheld their objection and dismissed the complaint. However, in revision, the learned ASJ demolished the order of the Magistrate holding that no sanction either u/s 196 or 197 was required. Factual matrix of the case as stated by the complainant himself in his complaint and borne out further from the evidence recorded u/ss. 200 and 202 of CrPC, clearly revealed that offences in question were committed by the accused persons while discharging their duties as SDM and SDO (P), Mhow. The act alleged against them clearly had nexus with the duties required to be performed by them inasmuch as they were empowered to apprehend a person and prosecute him for violation of the order of curfew. It is a different matter that the complainant was ultimately acquitted by the trial Court. That could be a ground for the complainant to sue the person concerned for damages for malicious prosecution. However, the said acquittal did not have the effect of wiping out the operation of section 197, CrPC Sub-section (2) of section 196 was also operative in the case as the offence charged was one u/s 120B of IPC (criminal conspiracy to commit an offence other than punishable with death, imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years and upward) and sanction of the State Government/District Magistrate was, therefore, required for any prosecution under that section. The view taken by the learned ACJM in the matter was reasonable and no case for interference in revision was, therefore, made out. The order passed by learned ASJ in revision cannot be sustained in law. The respondent complainant shall, however, be free to take recourse to such other remedy as may be available to him in law in the matter. This revision is thus allowed and the impugned order dated 3.7.2000 passed in CrRev. No. 47/1999 by ASJ, Mhow, is set-aside and that of ACJM, Mhow, is restored.