JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.05.1998 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar whereby the learned Judge has discharged the accused non-petitioners, and has reversed the order dated 4.8.1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the non-petitioners. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh wherein he claimed that the respondent No. 2, Kishorilal, is posted as Junior Telecom Officer in Telecom Office, Laxmangarh and the respondent No. 3, Satya Narain, is a contractor. According to him, the contractor along with four other unknown persons entered in his land and started digging the land for the purpose of erecting telephone poles on his land. According to him, by this act, they have committed offences under Sections 427, 447, 120B and 147 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). According to the complainant, he had filed the complaint before the police. However, the police had not taken any action. Therefore, he was constrained to file the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh. The said complaint was sent for further investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code ('the Code' for short) to the P.S. Laxmangarh. After a thorough investigation, a charge-sheet for offences under Sections 447 and 427 IPC was submitted before the learned Magistrate. Thereupon, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted an application under Section 258 of the Code. However, vide order dated 4.8.1995, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application and directed that summary of the charge should be read over to them. Aggrieved by the order dated 4.8.1995 whereby the application under Section 258 of the Code was dismissed, the respondent No. 2, Kishorilal, filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar. Vide order dated 16.5.1998, the learned Judge accepted the said petition and quashed the order dated 4.8.1995 and directed that summary of the charge should not be read over to them. hence, this petition before this court by the complainant, Shyamlal. 3. Mr. Anoop Dhand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the land in question is with the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not have any right to enter into his land and to damage the said land. hence, this petition before this court by the complainant, Shyamlal. 3. Mr. Anoop Dhand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the land in question is with the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not have any right to enter into his land and to damage the said land. According to him, prima facie, offences under Sections 447 and 427 IPC are made out. Therefore, the learned Judge was justified in dismissing the application under Section 258 of the Code and directed to frame charge against them. 4. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Sunda, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has argued that the respondent No. 2 was working in his capacity as Junior Telecom Officer in the office of Telecom Department. Therefore, he has given direction to respondent No. 3, Satya Narain, the Contractor, to erect the telephone pole and that direction was given in discharge of his official duty. Since the action of respondent No. 2 was in discharge of his official duty, a sanction order was needed before taking cognizance against him. In the present case, no sanction order was granted for prosecuting the respondent No. 2 by the concerned authority, and in the absence of such sanction order, the learned Magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance and in dismissing the application under Section 258 of the Code. Moreover, as far as the respondent No. 3 is concerned, he had carried out the act which he believed to be justified by law. Thus, the benefit of Section 79 IPC was certainly available to him. The exception contained in Section 79 IPC has not been noticed by the learned Magistrate. According to the learned counsel, the order dated 16.5.1998 is certainly justified. 5. We have heard both the learned counsels, and have perused the impugned orders. 6. Admittedly, the respondent No. 2 was discharging his duties as Junior Telecom Officer in Telecom office, Laxmangarh. Therefore, before he could be prosecuted for any offence, a sanction order was required from the competent authority. Section 197 of the Code has been enacted to protect the public servant from frivolous litigation. Section 197 of the Cor:- explicitly states that no court shall take cognizance of such offence excel-.:. ,aith the previous sanction. However in the present case, no sanction order vas been granted against the respondent No. 2. Section 197 of the Code has been enacted to protect the public servant from frivolous litigation. Section 197 of the Cor:- explicitly states that no court shall take cognizance of such offence excel-.:. ,aith the previous sanction. However in the present case, no sanction order vas been granted against the respondent No. 2. Therefore, in the absence of sanction order, the i Magistrate could not have taken any cognizance against the respondent No. 2. 7. The respondent No. 3 was merely a contractor and was carrying out the order of public servant. Therefore, the exception under Section 79 IPC is in his favour. Hence, any act done by him would not amount to an offence under the IPC. Therefore, the learned Magistrate could not have taken the cognizance against the respondent No. 2. Considering these facts, the learned Magistrate was equally not justified in rejecting the application under Section 258 of the Code. 8. A bare perusal of the impugned order also clearly reveals that-the learned Judge has discussed the evidence in detail. Therefore, the impugned i order is absolutely valid and legal.In the result, this petition has no force. It is, hereby, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******