ORDER 1. Petitioner had a grievance that the complaint filed by the respondent against him for various offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner cannot be prosecuted unless and until there is a sanction granted by the competent authority under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. 2. With the aforesaid grievance, the petitioner came to this Court. Justice N.K.Mody, vide order dated 01.04.2009 permitted the petitioner to file an application before the Court concerned, taking objections to the continuation of the proceedings and by making specific allegation that the case requires prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. 3. It is stated that such application was moved and copy thereof has not been filed on record. The said application was allowed by the trial Court holding that the sanction was required. It is stated that such application was moved and copy thereof has not been filed on record. The said application was allowed by the trial Court holding that the sanction was required. However, on a revision filed by the respondents, under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the Sessions Judge reversed the order by making the following observations:- ^^17- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us U;k; n`’Vkar pkS/kjh ijohu lqYrkuk fo:) if”pe caxky jkT; vkSj vU; ¼2009½ 3 ,l-lh-lh- 398 esa ;g izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd fdlh yksdlsod ds }kjk “kkldh; dRrZO;ksa ds fuoZgu esa fd;s x;s lHkh dk;Z /kkjk 197 n-iz-la- ds izko/kkuksa dks vkdf’kZr ugha djrhA ,sls Hkh izdj.k izdk”k esa vk, gSa] ftuesa yksdlsod }kjk vius dRrZO;ksa dk fuoZgu mfpr :i ls ugha dj “kfDr;ksa dk nq:i;ksx fd;k gSA /kkjk 197 n-iz-la- dk mn~ns”; ;g gS fd yksdlsod dks feF;k ,oa vlR; vfHk;kstu ls cpk;k tk lds] fdUrq ;fn yksdlsod }kjk iznku dh xbZ “kfDr;ksa dk nq:i;ksx fd;k tkrk gS rks /kkjk 197 n-iz-la- ds izko/kku vkdf’kZr ugha gksrsA 18- ifjokn i= esa rFkk ifjoknh }kjk izLrqr ekSf[kd lk{; ds voyksdu ls ;g Li’V gksrk gS fd izFke n`‘V;k ifjoknh us eq[;r% vkjksih ds fo:) xkyh xykSp djus ,oa ekjihV djus dk vkjksi yxk;k gSA fdlh Hkh n`f‘Vdks.k ls voyksdu djus ij ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk gS xkyh xykSp djuk ;k ekjihV djuk “kkldh; lsokvksa ;k drZO;ksa ds fuoZgu ds varxZr “kkfey gSA iqujh{k.kdrkZ ds fo:) yxk, x, vkjksi “kkldh; drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu ugha gSA yksdlsod dks bl izd`fr ds dk;Z djus dh vuqefr fu;ksDrk “kklu }kjk ugha nh tkrh] vfirq ,sls dk;Z djus ls oftZr fd;k tkrk gSA vr% izdj.k ds leLr rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f‘Vxr j[krs gq, bl U;k;ky; ds er esa iqujh{kdrkZ@vkjksih ds fo:) /kkjk 197 n-iz-la ds vUrxZr “kklu ls vfHk;kstu pykus gsrq vuqefr izkIr djuk vko”;d ugha gSA** 4. In view of the aforesaid, it becomes a question of fact as to whether the action taken by the petitioner was within his legal responsibility or that he has not committed anything which is not part of his duties. This can only be found out once the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses are completed. An opportunity is granted to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses and if required, to lead his defence evidence. 5. This can only be found out once the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses are completed. An opportunity is granted to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses and if required, to lead his defence evidence. 5. As such, it is not a case where this Court can intervene under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The petition is dismissed.