Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20th March, 1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 762(c)/93 by which opposite 787 /93 party no. 2 has been discharged for the offence punishable under sections 406 420 and 161 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts leading to the case are that one Shri R.N. Rajak, Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Patna (opposite party no. 2) had cheated the petitioner (complainant) to the tune of Rs. 21,000/. It has been alleged that the complainant was given temptation by Shri Rajak and promised him to give a job in Minor Irrigation, Jehanabad. The petitioner was assured to pay Rs. 21,000/. The said amount was paid on 10.8.1992 in presence of Shri Ramdeo Singh, Up-Mukhiya. It has been alleged that the Chief Engineer directed the Executive Engineer to appoint him on daily wages. He also directed the Executive Engineer to contact him in the office after giving the work. The second letter which is Annexure-2 makes it clear that as per promise he had fulfilled his service. Mr. Khan was directed to do and to follow his instruction and explain the delay in his appointment. The third letter is well proved the said letter admits that the Chief Engineer has received the service and it was difficult in his part to return back the amount. The petitioner (complainant) was examined on solemn affirmation and statement of other witnesses were taken and thereafter cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner gave money in the allurement of getting job but he was not given job by opposite party no. 2, therefore, a case of cheating under sections 406, 420 and 161 of the Indian Penal Code is clearly made out against the opposite party no. 2. It has also been submitted that so far as sanction under section 197 of the Code is concerned, since money was not accepted during the course of his official duty in this case, it is not required. 4. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 in which it has been stated that the act alleged against the opposite party no. 4. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 in which it has been stated that the act alleged against the opposite party no. 2 by the petitioner does not attract a case under sections 406, 420 and 161 of the Indian Penal Code since the ingredients required for the offence under the aforesaid sections is not there. It has also been stated that section 161 of the Indian Penal Code has already been repealed through 1988 Criminal Amendment. Even if the alleged act attributed to opposite party taken to be true he is liable to be charged under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and for that prior sanction is very much required and it is triable by the Special Judge. 5. Perused the impugned order and the records of the case. The story of the complainant is not convincing. Apart from the witnesses examined, the petitioner (complainant) also filed three letters written by opposite party no. 2 but the original letters could not be produced in the court below. Unfortunately the Executive Engineer who was allegedly directed to give a job to the petitioner could not be examined since he died even before pendency of the trial. From perusal of the photo copy of the letters it appears that it is not in proper official format, it is alleged that it has been written on plain paper treating it as a buffsheet but buffsheet is not written in form of a letter. The buffsheet is used only for internal communication and it is not sent outside the office. It is also unlikely that a responsible officer like Chief Engineer would write such letters as has been annexed as Annexures 2 and 3 in the petition indicating that the money has been already accepted by him which has to be refunded if the work of petitioner was not done. Such type of letter cannot be expected from the prudent person since it amounts to admission of accepting bribe. It is also very much unlikely that the money which is alleged to have given to the opposite party no. 2 was accepted by him in presence of Up-Mukhiya of the Village. Allegation under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code can only be made in a case of misappropriation of valuable articles which is not applicable in this case. It is also very much unlikely that the money which is alleged to have given to the opposite party no. 2 was accepted by him in presence of Up-Mukhiya of the Village. Allegation under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code can only be made in a case of misappropriation of valuable articles which is not applicable in this case. In this case the cheating on the part of opposite party no. 2 can., also not be attributed as in the facts of this case even if accepted to be correct a case of simple bribe is made out against the opposite party and such cases are triable under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act by special court and previous sanction is also required. The court below has rightly held that in the facts and circumstances of the case as alleged taken to be true, a prima facie case under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act is made out and the same is triable by the Special Judge. 6. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate which may warrant interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.