JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner-complainant has challenged the order dated 07.07.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi (for short "the revisional Court" hereinaft er) whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.11.2005 taking cognizance passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Rewdar (for short "the trial Court" hereinafter), was set aside and the revision petition was allowed. 2. No one appears for the petitioner.I have heard learned public prosecutor for the State and counsel for respondent No. 2. Perused the memo of petition as well as the orders passed by both the courts below. 3. It appears that the respondent No. 2 at the relevant time of the occurrence was an employee of the State Government holding the post of Tehsildar. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayasingh v. K.K. Velayutham & Anr., reported in 2006(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 111 : 2006 Cr.L.R. (SC) 451 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under : "The basic fact of matter is not in dispute. The fact that the wife of the respondent No. 1 herein was running a tea stall is admitted. It further more stands admitted that the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a Government Order containing a policy decision to remove all such kiosks, tea stalls and bunks from the hospital premises in public interest, inter alia, on the ground that food prepared in such tea stalls in unhygienic conditions and the same had otherwise been causing nuisance to others. No Court has declared such a policy decision to be ultra vires." 5. The appellant herein only complied with the order of the Executive Engineer asking him to remove the said tea stall. The Hon'ble Apex Court was of the opinion that for removal of the tea stalls, he cannot be said to have committed any offence whatsoever. 6. It was further held that in the facts and circumstances of that case, sanction to prosecute the accused was necessary. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court was of the opinion that for removal of the tea stalls, he cannot be said to have committed any offence whatsoever. 6. It was further held that in the facts and circumstances of that case, sanction to prosecute the accused was necessary. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the petitioner is a public servant and while discharging the official duty removed the encroachment under the orders of the competent authority and as such is protected by the provision of Section 197 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, in absence of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., the respondent No. 2 cannot be prosecuted. 8. In this view of the matter, I find no error or Illegality in the order impugned. It cannot be said that the order impugned would result in serious miscarriage of justice or abuse the process of any Court.The instant misc. petition is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******