JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the order dated 6.8.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur by which he rejected the application filed by the accused petitioner under Section 197 read with 258, 468 Criminal Procedure Code 2. It arises in the following circumstances: The respondent No. 2 Smt. Rajshree James (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) lodged a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur on 22.8.2000 against the present accused petitioner, who was IFS and was posted as Director, Arid Forest Research Institute, Jodhpur stating inter-alia that in the office of Director, Arid Forest Research Institute, she was Stenographer Gr. II and she was working under the supervision of the accused petitioner. It was further alleged in the complaint that she joined the said institute in 1993 and she is a married lady having two children and the accused petitioner joined this Institute in Sept. 1998 on deputation for five years. It was further alleged in the complaint that for official purpose, the Car of the accused petitioner was being used by her and other members after taking prior permission of the accused petitioner and on 24th March, 1999, she stook the vehicle without his permission and on the next day, she was suspended and after three months, she was called back to join office and her suspension order was revoked pending enquiry against her. It was further alleged in the complaint that after the enquiry report was submitted to the accused petitioner, the accused petitioner called her and asked her as to what punishment should be given to her and he further told her that in case she made him happy, no punishment would be given to her and for the word 'happy', she understood that sweets etc. should be given to the accused petitioner, but the accused petitioner told her that the word 'happy' meant that she should shake hands with him etc. It was further stated in the complaint that from that day onwards, the accused petitioner was continuously threatening, misbehaving, giving mental torture and using abusive words when she was found alone in the office and chamber. It was further stated in the complaint that from that day onwards, the accused petitioner was continuously threatening, misbehaving, giving mental torture and using abusive words when she was found alone in the office and chamber. It was further alleged in the complaint that when she did not surrender to his sexual approaches and evil thoughts, the accused petitioner transferred her to another place and, thereafter, the accused petitioner used to tell her that he was feeling loneliness in her absence and the accused petitioner used to call her in his chamber. It was further alleged in the complaint that on 29.6.2000, after three weeks of her joining new office, the accused petitioner again transferred her to his office and he wanted to shake hands, but she refused, as a result of which, accused petitioner became annoyed and used filthy sexual language. It was further alleged in the complaint that accused petitioner used to ask her to come to his office when nobody was with him and he wanted her to keep company with him and entertain him and make him happy with sexual favours. The accused petitioner threatened her to spoil her ACR etc. It was further alleged in the complaint that accused petitioner called her and forces her to shake hands with him, but she refused and on her refusal, the accused petitioner made a tour to Jaipur from 24th to 26th August, 2000 and asked her to accompany him and he further asked her whether her husband would also accompany and upon this, she told yes and the accused petitioner did not like that idea. In these circumstances, it was prayed in the complaint that she be saved from the clutches of the accused petitioner. In these circumstances, it was prayed in the complaint that she be saved from the clutches of the accused petitioner. On this complaint, a case No. 163 was registered against the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 509 Indian Penal Code on 2.9.2000 at Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur City and investigation was started.After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 509 Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur on 18.11.2000.The learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur took cognizance against the accused petitioner on 29.1.2001, though the challan was filed on 18.11.2000.Thereafter, on 11.6.2001, an application under Section 197 read with 258, 468 Criminal Procedure Code was filed by the accused petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur and in that application, the following three pleas were taken by the accused petitioner: (1) That since the offence under Section 509 Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment of one year, therefore, cognizance should have been taken within one year and since in the present case, incident took place on 24.3.1999 and cognizance was taken against the accused petitioner on 29.1.2001, therefore, cognizance was time barred. (2) That since accused petitioner is a Member of the Indian Forest Service under the Government of India, therefore, he could not be prosecuted without the valid sanction, as required by Section 197*Criminal Procedure Code (3) That a writ petition was filed by the complainant before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3424/2000 and in that writ petition, some of the allegations were found false. Hence, it was prayed by the accused petitioner in the application that the criminal proceedings pending against him be dropped.After hearing the learned Counsel for the accused petitioner and going through the material on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur vide order dated 6.8.2001 rejected the application filed by the accused petitioner under Section 197 read with 258, 468 Criminal Procedure Code holding inter-alia:- (1) That though no doubt in the complaint filed by the complainant, the first date of incident is 24.3.1999, but from perusing the whole complaint, it appears that the accused petitioner was harassing her continuously thereafter also and this process continued upto August 2000 and, therefore, if the cognizance was taken on 29.1.2001, it was within limitation. Hence, the plea of the accused petitioner that the cognizance was time barred was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate. (2) On second point, the learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that acts of the accused petitioner do not fall within his official duties and, therefore, no sanction was required as per Section 197 Criminal Procedure Code Hence, the second plea of the accused petitioner was also rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate. (3) That on third point, the learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that since in the writ petition filed by the complainant, the suspension order was challenged and filling of the complaint was not in issue in that writ petition, therefore, any observation made in that writ petition would not be helpful to the accused petitioner. Aggrieved from the said order dated 6.8.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur, this revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner. 3. In this revision petition, all the three submissions, which were raised by the learned Counsel for the accused petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur, have been raised in this Court and it was prayed that this revision petition be allowed and the impugned order dated 6.8.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur be set aside and the criminal proceedings pending against the accused petitioner be quashed. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order and the materials available on record. 6. In my considered opinion, all the submissions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the accused petitioner are devoid of any merit and this revision petition is liable to be dismissed because of the following reasons: (1) That from perusing the complaint filed by the complainant against the accused petitioner, it appears that first incident of insulting modesty of the complainant by the accused petitioner started with effect from 24th March, 1999 the onwards and, thereafter, such type of incidents continued till filing of the complaint by the complainant on 22.8.2000. (2) That in the present case, cognizance for the offence under Section 509 Indian Penal Code against the accused petitioner was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur on 29.1.2001. For the offences punishable with imprisonment of one year, cognizance can be taken within one year, as provided in Section 468 Criminal Procedure Code and since in the present case it is wrong to say that the offence was committed by the accused petitioner only on 24th March, 1999, but the acts by which accused petitioner tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant remained continued till the filing of the complaint on 22.8.2000 and thus, in the case of continuing offence afresh cause of action arises and a fresh starting point of limitation is created every day the offence is committed and for that Section 472 Indian Penal Code may be referred to and looking to this aspect, the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate that acts of the accused petitioner amount to continuing offence are correct one and the point No. 1 was rightly rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur and the same is also going to be rejected by this Court. (3) On second point, it can be said that a public servant can only be said to act or to purport to act in the discharge of his official duty, if his act is such as to be within the scope of his official duty. If any officer makes indecent gesture or trying to outrage modesty of his subordinate woman employee, such act cannot be said to be an act falling within his official duty. Thus, the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur on this point are correct one and do not call for interference by this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011 , has held that sexual harassment of working woman amounts to violation of rights of gender equality and right to life and liberty. Keeping the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in mind, the alleged acts of the accused petitioner would not in any circumstance fall under the category of his official duties. Keeping the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in mind, the alleged acts of the accused petitioner would not in any circumstance fall under the category of his official duties. (4) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gauri Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2000 (5) SCC 15 , has laid down the text to determine whether the alleged action which constituted an offence has a reasonable and rational nexus with the official duties required to be discharged by the public servant and if the answer is affirmative, then sanction for prosecution is required to be obtained. In the present case, answer from every point of view would be negative and no question of obtaining prior sanction for prosecuting present accused petitioner is required. Hence, second point would not be helpful to the accused petitioner. (5) So far as the third point is concerned, the learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly observed that in the writ petition filed by the complainant, there was no issue of the present complaint and hence, any observation made in the writ petition would not be helpful to the accused petitioner. Thus, third point also does not help the present accused petitioner in any manner. 7. For the reasons stated above, this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.Revision Dismissed in Limine. *******