JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 2.7.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbatsar rejecting the revision petition filed by them against the order dated 18.8.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kuchaman in Criminal Case No. 62/1998 whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 342, 365 and 392 IPC. 2. Succinctly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant misc. petition are that the petitioners were both posted as police constables at the Police Station, Losal, District Sikar. A complaint was filed by the respondent No. 2 with the allegation that on 14.6.1998 in the morning at about 8 O' clock, he had gone to village Deeppura in his jeep. He was pursued by another jeep in which the accused Bhiwa Ram, Ranjeet Singh, Madan Lal, Ajeet Singh, Mangla Ram and others were sitting. All of them were having lathies and other weapons. The complainant's jeep was overtaken and stopped in the Guwad of Village Adaksar and the complainant was surrounded by the accused persons. Thereafter, the accused persons dragged him out of the jeep and assaulted him with lathies, kicks, fists etc. The complainant received number of injuries due to this assault. The complainant further alleged that he was going to Village Deeppura for making payment of the jeep which he had purchased and, therefore, he was carrying Rs. 40,380/- with him which was also looted by the accused. It was also alleged that the accused also took away his watch, pen, diary etc. It was further alleged that when he started going towards the Police Station, Chitawa for lodging an F.I.R., the accused persons again came back and forcibly abducted the complainant and kept him in wrongful confinement from 14th to 17th June, 1998 and threatened him that if he tried to lodge the F.I.R. or complaint, he would be done to death. 3. The complainant further alleged that the accused kept him in illegal confinement and thereafter in order to save their own skins, he was produced before the concerned court at Sikar from where he was released on bail. The complainant tried to report the matter to the police but the police did not register the same. 3. The complainant further alleged that the accused kept him in illegal confinement and thereafter in order to save their own skins, he was produced before the concerned court at Sikar from where he was released on bail. The complainant tried to report the matter to the police but the police did not register the same. The complainant thus filed a complaint in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kuchaman on 18.6.1998. The complaint filed by the respondent No. 2/complainant was sent to the concerned police station for investigation and the police registered the FIR No. 62/1998. After investigation, a negative final report was filed by the police. The complainant upon receiving the notice of final report, filed a protest petition and examined himself and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate by order dated 18.8.2000 proceeded to take cognizance and summoned the petitioners to stand trial for the above mentioned offences. The petitioners assailed the order passed by the learned Magistrate by filing a revision claiming protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The revision filed by the petitioners too has been rejected by order dated 2.7.2005. Hence, the instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the impugned orders. 4. Assailing the orders impugned, Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were public servants discharging their official duties when the incident took place and as such, the prosecution having been launched against them without procuring sanction is illegal. He submitted that the State of Rajasthan has issued a notification being S.O. No. 89 dated 31.7.1974 whereby all the police officials have been extended the benefit of Section 197 Cr.P.C. Placing reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sankaran Moitra. v. Sadhna Das & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 1599 . Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police officials had arrested the complainant in a case involving cognizable offences and, therefore, they were entitled to seek the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. Therefore, he urged that the petitioners' prosecution was impermissible in this case as no sanction was procured prior to taking cognizance. 5. Per contra, learned PP has opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 6. 5. Per contra, learned PP has opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 6. Notice was issued to the complainant/respondent No. 2 but nobody has put in appearance on his behalf despite service being effected upon him. 7. On a consideration of the arguments advanced at bar and upon going through the material available on the record as well as the orders impugned, it is evident that the petitioners were posted as constables at the relevant time. 8. For the purpose of benefit of Section 197 Cr.P.C. being granted to a public servant, the public servant should be holding such a post that he cannot be removed save with the prior permission of the State Government. Apparently, the petitioners were not holding any such position. The notification issued by the State Government as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sankaran Moitra (supra) which have been relied upon the counsel for the petitioners deal with the situation where the police officer concerned is engaged in the function of maintaining public order. Obviously, there is no such defence or claim of the petitioners that when they arrested the complainant, at that time, they were discharging any duty involving the maintenance of public order. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioners were performing any duty which was connected with the maintenance of public order. Thus, neither the notification dated 31.7.1.1974 nor the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sankaran Moitra can come to the petitioners' rescue at this stage.Resultantly, the present misc. petition, having no force, is hereby rejected.Petition dismissed. *******