Judgment 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 29-1-2002, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions judge, Ferozepur, vide which, it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate fazilka, vide which it convicted the accused Gurdeep Singh (now revision-petitioner)for the offence, punishable under sec. 223, whereas convicted accused shingara Singh for the offence punishable under Secton 224 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the accused-revision petitioner to undergo RI for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 and, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of two months for the offence, punishable under Sec.223 IPC, whereas accused Shingra Singh was sentenced to undergo RI for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00 and in default to further undergo RI for three months, for the offence punishable under Sec.224 IPC. 2. The facts in brief, are that on 27-4-1997, HC Rachhpal Singh was acting as incharge of guard stationed at Police Station City fazilka. As per the duty chart on 28-4-1997, Constable Bohar Singh, was to perform his duty for the first quarter constable Ashok Kumar was to perform his duty for the second quarter, AC Gurdeep Singh was to perform his duty for the third quarter, whereas duty of fourth quarter was allotted to ac Sukhwant Singh. The building of the Police Station, was under reconstruction, and a room of the residential quarters, was being used as temporary lock up room. At about 3 a. m. , when HC Sukhwant Singh wanted to take charge of the lock up, he asked AC Gurdeep Singh, to count the persons confined in the same (lock up room), and it was found that accused Shingara singh alias Shigari, who was detained in the police lock up, in case FIR No.67 dated 13-8-1996, under Sections 457/380 IPC and in case FIR No 109, dated 12-11-1996, under sections 457/380 Indian Penal Code. had escaped from the police lock up, despite the fact that he was handcuffed, and was also tied. The bolt of the door of the lock up room was lying broken. had escaped from the police lock up, despite the fact that he was handcuffed, and was also tied. The bolt of the door of the lock up room was lying broken. It was stated that shingara Singh alias Shigari, accused thus escaped from the police lock up due to the negligence and carelessness of the accused, gurdeep Singh, who was on duty, at the relevant time. On the basis of the statement of Constable Sukhwant Singh, the case was registered vide FIR No.31 under Sections 224 and 225 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. The investigation was conducted by SHO Balbir Singh, who seized keys of the lock up and handcuffs, vide recovery memo Ex. P2. He further took into possession the broken bolt, and the lock vide recovery memo Ex. P3. Rough site plan Ex. P6 of the place wherefrom Shingara Singh escaped, was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Sanction Ex. P7 sanction (doubly numbered) for the prosecution of accused Gurdeep Singh, was obtained. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned. 3. On their appearance, in the Court, the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sec.223 was framed against Gurdeep Singh accused (now revision-petitioner), whereas, under Sec.224 of the Indiian Penal Code, was framed against Shingara Singh, accused, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined S. I. Balbir Singh (P. W.1), as also (P. W.4) ASI Gurbej Singh (P. W.2), (wrongly numbered as P. W.1), H. C. Rachhpal Singh (P. W.3) (wrongly numbered as P. W.2), A. C. Sukhwant Singh (P. W.5) (wrongly numbered as P. W.3), Gurjit H. C. (P. W.6), (wrongly numbered as P. W.5), Constable Bohar singh, (P. W.7), (wrongly numbered as P. W.6), Constable Ashok Singh (P. W.8) (wrongly numbered as P. W.7) and H. C. Bhupinder mohan (P. W.9) (wrongly numbered as P. W.8 ). Thereafter, the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state, closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statements of the accused under sec. 313, Cr. P. C. were recorded. They put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing, against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. Gurdeep Singh accused (now revision petitioner)took up a plea, in his statement, under Sec.313, Cr. Thereafter, the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state, closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statements of the accused under sec. 313, Cr. P. C. were recorded. They put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing, against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. Gurdeep Singh accused (now revision petitioner)took up a plea, in his statement, under Sec.313, Cr. P. C. that the old building of Police Station City Fazilka, had already been demolished, and a new building in place thereof, was being constructed. He further stated that, in those days, the police Station was being operated from the residential of the family quarters. Permanent lock up had not been constructed. The detenues were being detained, in a room which had no lock from outside The windows thereof, were in broken condition. He further stated that he did not commit any negligence or carelessness, in the escape of shingara Singh. 6. Shingara Singh accused, in his statement under sec. 313, Cr. P. C. also denied all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in ths prosecution evidence. 7. However, the accused did not lead any evidence in their defence. 8. After hearing the Assistant Public prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. 9. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, was preferred by gurdeep Singh appellant/revision-petitioner, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 29-1-2002, by the Court of the additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. 10. Still feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition was filed by Gurdeep Singh, revision petitioner. 11. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 12. The Courts below, on careful perusal of the cogent, convincing reliable and trustworthy evidence of Gurbej Singh, P. W.2, who deposed that Gurdeep Singh, accused, was on duty at the lock up room, when Shingara singh, accused escaped. 11. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 12. The Courts below, on careful perusal of the cogent, convincing reliable and trustworthy evidence of Gurbej Singh, P. W.2, who deposed that Gurdeep Singh, accused, was on duty at the lock up room, when Shingara singh, accused escaped. HC Rachhpal singh, P. W.3, acting as MHC in place of mhc Kuldip Singh, Police Station City fazilka, who was on leave, who deposed that constable Bohar Singh, Constable Amar singh, A. C. Gurdeep Singh and A. C. Sukhwant Singh were put on guard duty outside the lock up room, whereas he (himself) was the guard Incharge and Gurdeep singh, accused was to perform the duty in the third quarter, whereas the last duty was to be performed by Sukhwant Singh; A. C. Sukhwant Singh, P. W.5, who took charge from Gurdeep Singh and found that shingara Singh accused, who was detained, in the aforesaid lock up, in the cases, referred to above, was not present and had already escaped. H. C. Gurjeet Singh, P. W.6, who proved the appointment of the accued as A. C. , Constable Bohar Singh, P. W.7, Constable ashok Kumar, P. W.8, and Balbir singh, S. I. , (P. W.1) as also (P. W.4 ). Investigationg Officer, came to the conclusion, that the accused was negligent and careless in performing his duty, as a result whereof Shingara Singh, accused, who was detained, in the lock up, escaped. The Courts below, thus, appreciated the evidence, in its proper perspective. It is settled principle of law, that the Court in its revisional jurisdiction, is not to re-appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence, produced by the prosecution, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the findings recorded by the Courts below are either illegal or perverse or erroneous, on account of mis-reading of evidence. In the instant case, the findings arrived at, by the Courts below, with regard to the proof of guilt of the accused (now revision-petitioner), are neither perverse nor illegal nor erroneous, on account of misreading of evidence. The Courts below, in my considered opinion, rightly came to the conclusion, that accused Gurdeep Singh committed the offence, punishable under Sec.223 of the Indian Penal Code. The Courts below, in my considered opinion, rightly came to the conclusion, that accused Gurdeep Singh committed the offence, punishable under Sec.223 of the Indian Penal Code. The findings recorded by the Courts below, in this regard, do not call for any interference and deserve to the upheld. 13. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, however, submitted, that no doubt, the Courts below, came to the conclusion, that Shingre Singh escaped from the lock up, on account of the carelessness and negligence of Gurdeep singh A. C. , yet no sanction under Sec.197, cr. P. C. was obtained before launching the prosecution and before taking cognizance of the offence. He further submitted that, under these circumstances the trial Court was not competent to take cognizance of the offence, as the commission thereof, related to the purported discharge of duty, by the accused. The Courts below, no doubt, held that the provisions of sec. 197 Cr. P. C. were not applicable, to the instant case. The Courts below further held that these were only applicable, to the armed forces, as per the provisions of Sec.197 (2), Cr. P. C. However, it may be stated here, that Ex. P7, (doubly numbered)the sanction was granted by Varinder Paul singh, Senior Superintendent of Police, ferozepur, which was duly proved by bhupinder Mohan, JC (P. S.9 ). He proved the signatures of Varinder Paul Singh S. P. (H) on the same, who was acting as the Senior Superintendent of Police. There is nothing, on the record, that Varinder Paul Singh, ssp, Ferozepur was not the appropriate authority, for the grant of sanction, for launching prosecution, against the accused. Under these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel the revision petitioner; in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 14. No other point, was urged, by the counsel for the parties. 15. For the reasons recorded above criminal revision petition no.322 of 2002, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to comply with the judgment promptly, in accordance with the provisions of law, on receipt of a certified copy thereof. Petition dismissed.