Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. There is a chequered history of the case. The petitioner has filed the Complaint case no. 482 of 1999 corresponding to T.R. no. 16 of 1999 bringing various allegations against the opposite party no. 2, who happens to be an I.A.S. officer at the relevant time and superior officer to the petitioner. Regarding missing of some important files, the occurrence alleged to have taken place. Cognizance was taken under various Sections and Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of framing of charge witnesses were examined under Section 244 of the Indian Penal Code. A petition was filed under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge of the petitioner. By the impugned order discharge was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, holding that even if some ingredients of Sections 342 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code could be made out against the petitioner but as the whole occurrence is in the discharge of official duties of the opposite party no. 2 then sanction is a must as contemplated under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, hence, discharge has been recorded. Against the discharge order the petitioner came up before this Court in S.L.A. being S.L.A. no. 62 of 1999. Vide Annexure-1 such S.L.A. was entertained by a Bench of this Court and on merit the S.L.A. was dismissed vide order dated 21.9.1999. Against that order the petitioner went to the Apex Court wherein the S.L.P. was withdrawn on an undertaking that the petitioner could file revision petition before this Court. It appears that proper facts were not placed before the Apex Court, that S.L.A. was not dismissed only on the ground of maintainability rather the Bench of this Court, as contemplated in Annexure-1 had entertained the S.L.A. and dismissed the same on merit. However, this revision has been filed with a limitation petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. But as wrong forum was there and, as such, as contemplated under Section 14 of the Limitation Act condonation of delay was to be considered although I am not very much inclined to condone the delay as the S.L.A. was never dismissed on the maintainability ground, however, as per the observation made by the Apex Court the delay is hereby condoned. 3. 3. On the factual aspect and on the recent decisions of the Apex Court find even if ingredients of some penal provisions could be there prima facie but the initiation of the whole episode is within the discharge of official duty of both the complainant and the accused then sanction is a must under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not find that the learned Magistrate has committed any error of law or jurisdictional error. The plea of sanction has been taken at the stage of framing of charge. It was the ideal stage when such plea has been taken although by recent judgments, Apex Court held that plea of sanction can be taken at any stage reviewing the earlier judgment that such plea can be taken at the latest at the stage of framing of charge. 4. I do not find any force in this revision petition on merit. Hence, the case is dismissed.