ORDER Lakshman Uraon, J. 1. Petitioner Akhilesh Sharma has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ/order /direction for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the F. I. R. and investigation in connection with Chaibasa Sadar PS Case No. 35 of 1995 (GR No. 231/95) including the order dated 20-1-2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa and also for quashing the order dated 7-3-2002 whereby the cognizance of the offence has been taken against the petitioner. 2. The prosecution case has been initiated on the written information of Gandhi Bhagat (Respondent No. 2) that under Jawahar Rojgar Yojna, Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa had sanctioned Rs. 70,60,883.50 to Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division for plantation of plants on both sides outside Chaibasa Municipality and also on both sides of canal embankment and the scheme was to be completed by 31st March, 1995. Local press reporter Amarendra Kumar Gyani pointed out some irregularities in execution of the scheme in the meeting of District Programme Implementation Committee held on 14-11-1994 at Chaibasa. An enquiry committee was set up by the D. C. Chaibasa which submitted its report that in between September 1994 and April, 1995, work of the scheme was not yet completed. The work was not carried out as per specification. There was shortfall of 10 km. in brushwood fencing and 13500 plants in Sapling plantation on four different roadsides and barbed wire fencing had not been done. Out of 4000 gabions, 444 gabions were not constructed and at places 475 gabions were found to be broken. Against the sanctioned amount of Rs. 70,60,883.50, the photocopies of 275 vouchers for the amount of Rs. 45,22,355.20 had been submitted by the D. F. O. On being demanded by the A. D. C. West Singhbhum, vouchers for the rest amount was not submitted and the vouchers submitted appeared to be fake as they were neither countersigned by the competent authority nor entered in the cash book. In the FIR, it was alleged that the petitioner in connivance with the Range Officer, misappropriated and defalcated (sic) petitioner at the time in the year 1992 to 1995 was posted as D.F.O. Social Forestry Division, Chaibasa. The enquiry committee found that the reports of the D.F.O. in respect of completed work were conflicting to each other. 3. In the FIR, it was alleged that the petitioner in connivance with the Range Officer, misappropriated and defalcated (sic) petitioner at the time in the year 1992 to 1995 was posted as D.F.O. Social Forestry Division, Chaibasa. The enquiry committee found that the reports of the D.F.O. in respect of completed work were conflicting to each other. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in course of inquiry, this petitioner was never given any opportunity to explain. The inquiry was one sided. It was further submitted that out of the total amount of Rs. 70,60,883.50, an amount of Rs. 60,09,756.50 was advanced to the concerned Range Officer in phases by this petitioner. The rest amount of Rs. 4,51,127.00 is still lying in the name of D. F. O. Forestry Division, Chaibasa in the current account No. 859 in the Chaibasa branch of Canara Bank. Out of the advanced amount, the Range Officer submitted vouchers worth Rs. 63,80,771.00 which were forwarded by this petitioner to the A. C. F., Forestry Division, Chaibasa. After primary scrutiny, vouchers worth Rs. 18,58,370/- were found to be incomplete. Hence they were returned to the Range Officer by this petitioner for making missing entries. The rest vouchers of Rs. 45,22,340/- are lying with the ACF for verification and counter-signature. In spite of reminders of this petitioner the ACF did not produce those vouchers for verification and counter-signature which caused delay in entering in the Divisional Cash Book. The (sic) was lodged hurriedly without any proper inquiry based on surmises & conjectures having no iota of truth. It was submitted that cognizance against this petitioner has been taken without sanction from the competent authority. The petition filed for discharge was erroneously rejected by the learned CJM on 20-1-2003. The CJM by his order dated 4-12-2001 ordered to keep the matter of cognizance in abeyance till sanction of prosecution was obtained, but for the reasons best known to him, he reviewed his order dated 4-12-2001. On these grounds, it was prayed to pass appropriate order/direction for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the F. I. R. and the investigation in connection with Sadar PS Case No. 35 of 1995. 4. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their counter affidavit has submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable when the alternative remedy of Section 397, 401 and 482 of the Cr PC are available. 4. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their counter affidavit has submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable when the alternative remedy of Section 397, 401 and 482 of the Cr PC are available. The petitioner is Class-I officer of Indian Forest Service, who was posted as D. I. O., Social Forestry Division, Chaibasa, who was trusted and entrusted by the State Government with the work and responsibility of social development for the public interest at large. This petitioner in connivance with the other officers defalcated and misappropriated huge amount during 1993-94 and 1994-95 for which two F. I. Rs. bearing Chaibasa Sadar PS Case No. 231 of 1995 and Sadar Chaibasa PS Case No. 5 of 1998 were registered for defalcation and misappropriation of Rs. 30.21 lakhs and Rs. 40.2 lakhs respectively. In respect of Sadar Chaibasa PS Case No. 5/98, the sanction for prosecution has already been accorded by the competent State authority and so far Chaibasa Sadar PS Case No. 35 of 1995 is concerned in anticipation of sanction order, which is at final stage, the charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken. Out of the fund of Jawahar Rojgar Yojna creating opportunity of employment for poor helpless people of the area, the amounts were defalcated. The police investigated the matter and submitted charge-sheet against this petitioner Section 197 Cr PC contemplates protection to a government servant from any malicious prosecution while discharging official duty. In this present case, the petitioner has not defalcated or misappropriated the amount in his official capacity while discharging his official duty, rather it is a crime against the society and the State as a whole. Hence, no sanction to prosecute the petitioner is required. The same has to be considered at the time of delivery of judgment after conclusion of the trial. 5. It was stated that enquiry committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Conservator of Forest for technical evaluation and verification of work. The petitioner and others were duly informed and opportunity was given to them. After thorough inquiry, the defalcation of Rs. 31.21 lakhs out of total amount of Rs. 70,60,900/- were detected and confirmed. The petitioner has misused his authority and embezzled huge amount on the basis of fake vouchers. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet. At this stage, there is sufficient material to frame charge against the petitioner. After thorough inquiry, the defalcation of Rs. 31.21 lakhs out of total amount of Rs. 70,60,900/- were detected and confirmed. The petitioner has misused his authority and embezzled huge amount on the basis of fake vouchers. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet. At this stage, there is sufficient material to frame charge against the petitioner. Hence, no interference is required at this stage. On this ground it was submitted that this writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was discharging his official duty and in course of his duty. he has been alleged to have misappropriated a huge amount in the social forestry programme, hence before lodging any F. I. R. sanction to prosecution should have been obtained which is lacking in this present case. The learned GP-II has referred a case reported in (2001) VI, SCC 704 : (2001 Cri LJ 3505); 1979 (IV) SCC 177 : (1979 Cri LJ 1367) and has submitted that in this present case, the petitioner while discharging his official duty as D.F.O., Social Forestry Division, Chaibasa from 1992 to 1995 submitted conflicting reports and fake vouchers for which two FIRs were lodged regarding defalcation and misappropriation of huge public money. After thorough inquiry and giving opportunity to him in one case i.e. Chaibasa Sadar PS Case No. 5 of 1998, sanction to prosecute has already been accorded by the competent authority and sanction to prosecute in respect of Chaibasa Sadar PS Case No. 35 of 1995 is in its final stage lying before the Law Department. Hence, the prosecution is well permissible in accordance with law. In this case, virtually no sanction is required where there is no such connections and the official status furnishes the occasion or opportunity for the acts. The claim of the petitioner that the act alleged was done reasonably and not in pretending course of his official duty can be examined during trial by giving an opportunity to the defence to prove it in such cases the question sanction should be left open to be decided in the remaining judgment (after commission) (sic) of trial or after conviction. The learned G. P.-II in course of his argument has submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has got alternative remedies available under Section 197, 401 and 482 of the Cr PC case reported in (1991) 1 BLJ 45 : (1991 Cri LJ 1367) (FB) in Surendra Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, it was held that power of the High Court contained in Article 227 is wide and cover criminal Courts also. Thus, orders passed by criminal courts are also amenable to judicial superintendence, but in ex-ceptional circumstances. These powers are not meant to circumspect statutory bar. There are three situations under which the power under Article 227 may be invoked. First, where no appeal or revision has been provided against the order in question; secondly, where the person aggrieved has already filed a revision application before Sessions Judge and his revision application to this Court against the order passed by the Sessions Judge is barred under Section 397(3) of the Code. The third eventuality may be where although a revision application or an application under Section 482 of the Code is maintainable before this Court still an application under Article 227 is filed. In this present case, the petitioner has challenged the order taking cognizance dated 7-3-2002 by the learned CJM, Chaibasa and order dated 20-1-2003 of the learned JM holding that there are sufficient materials / grounds to frame charge against the petitioner and one another under Section 409, 465, 468, 120B IPC. Against that order, no revision was either preferred in the Court of Sessions Judge or any application was filed in this Court under Section 482 Cr PC. In view of this fact, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable. 7. When considered the allegation against this petitioner which has been fully considered by the learned Court below, I find that after thorough enquiry after giving opportunity to this petitioner he was found to have defalcated and misappropriated a huge amount of public money. After investigation the 10 also submitted charge sheet. Sanction to prosecute has been obtained in one case and in another case in its final stage lying with law department. The learned Magistrate has considered in detail in the impugned order under challenge. I do not find that there is any infirmity in the orders under challenge passed by the learned CJM and the JM. Sanction to prosecute has been obtained in one case and in another case in its final stage lying with law department. The learned Magistrate has considered in detail in the impugned order under challenge. I do not find that there is any infirmity in the orders under challenge passed by the learned CJM and the JM. On the other hand, this petitioner being a public servant has defalcated and misappropriated a huge amount meant for public utilization. In view of this fact, I find no merit in this criminal writ petition which is dismissed.