Order : Both the criminal miscellaneous petitions arising out of the same order dated 15.06.2013, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Code’), the two petitioners have questioned the legality of the order dated 15.06.2013 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Hazaribagh in Special Case No. 03 of 2013 whereby and whereunder cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 419/420/467/468/166/218/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 8, 9 & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has been taken against the two petitioners. 3. The prosecution case, which is relevant for the proper adjudication of the issue involved in this case, in short, is that at the instance of one Pramesh Kushwaha, Block Development Officer, Ramgarh the aforesaid case was instituted with the allegation that on 11.04.2013 at about 9 a.m. he received telephonic information from Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh that some persons in police uniform have intercepted truck drivers near Bijulia bridge at NH 33 and extorting money from them. After receiving the said information, he alongwith his driver and Agriculture Officer-in-charge, Ramgarh reached near Bijulia bridge and found a truck bearing registration no. HP 12D-5661 standing near east of the road and one Tata Sumo Gold with symbol of police was also standing. When the informant reached near Tata Sumo, he found some persons in Khaki dress besieging the truck and on enquiry from them, they disclosed the names of five persons and also disclosed that they are alongwith R.T.O. Inspector to catch trucks. The four persons sitting in the Tata Sumo in which one bearing dress of Police Inspector disclosed his name as Kamal Kishore, Enforcement Officer and other persons who were sitting in the vehicle in Khaki dress were Fuleshwar Malakar, Arastus Ekka, the two petitioners as Mobile Constables of Flying Squad. The driver of the said truck disclosed that he was coming from Himachal and the accused persons stopped the truck on the charge of overloading and were demanding Rs.5000/- but the matter was settled on Rs.3500/-. In the meantime, Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh also reached at the place of occurrence and on search of the police personnel and other persons and of the vehicles, several items were recovered including the registration certificates, money receipts etc. In the meantime, Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh also reached at the place of occurrence and on search of the police personnel and other persons and of the vehicles, several items were recovered including the registration certificates, money receipts etc. From the Tata Sumo also some documents were recovered. Cash, mobile phone and ATM cards were also seized from the possession of the accused persons. Whereafter, they were arrested and seizure list was prepared. 4. On submission of charge sheet by the Deputy Superintendent of Police-cum-Investigation Officer, the court of Special Judge, Vigilance being prima facie satisfied with the evidences and allegations as indicated above took cognizance of the offence against the accused persons including the petitioners of the two criminal miscellaneous petitions after recording that for taking cognizance in Section 8 & 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act sanction is not required for prosecution. 5. Mr. P.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the two petitioners assailing order taking cognizance as bad in law seriously contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case which would appear from mere perusal of F.I.R. itself that the petitioners were found sitting in Tata Sumo vehicle so no offence was committed by them and that the petitioners on the alleged date of occurrence were posted as Mobile Constables in the Flying Squad so protection under Section 197 of the Code is available to them and since the cognizance has been taken without obtaining the sanction of the State Government, the impugned order taking cognizance is illegal and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Learned counsel further submitted that sanction is a condition precedent for successful prosecution of a public servant when the provision is attracted and there is absolutely nothing on the record to show that the two petitioners were also involved in collecting illegal money or extorting money from the driver or owner of vehicles. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Learned counsel further submitted that sanction is a condition precedent for successful prosecution of a public servant when the provision is attracted and there is absolutely nothing on the record to show that the two petitioners were also involved in collecting illegal money or extorting money from the driver or owner of vehicles. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submitted that Section 197 of the Code has no application in the instant case as the petitioners were the members of the police party, who were extorting money from the driver and owners of the vehicle which is not the part of official duty of the petitioners and that the protection under the above provision has been given to those public servants who are not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of Government while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty. 7. Before I enter into the veils of the submissions of learned counsels, a reference of Sub section 1 of Section 197 of the Code is necessary for the proper adjudication of the issue which reads as follows:- “When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction. (a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government; (b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government.” From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it would be clear that the sanction of Government is required to prosecute only those public servant, who are removable from the service by the order of the Central Government or the State Government. So there is a clear line of distinction between public servant, who are removable by the Central Government or State Government and on the other hand the public servant who are removable by some lesser authority empowered to remove a public servant and when an employee who is removable by the order of his superior authority without taking any approval from the State Government, in those cases sanction to prosecute that employee is not necessary. Obviously, the two petitioners are Constables in Police Department and their appointing authority are the Superintendent of Police of a district so no sanction is required before prosecuting the petitioners. 8. Apparently, the allegation made against the petitioners in no way connected with their official duty or it cannot be said that it was done in discharge of his official duty. In the case, Birendra Prasad Singh & Anr. Versus The State of Jharkhand; 2009 (4) JLJR 160 the court while considering the question of sanction of the petitioner of that case who was Sub Inspector of Police held that for prosecuting a Sub Inspector of Police no sanction is required under Section 197 of the Code. Rule 825 Sub Rule (C) and Appendix 84 of Police Manual clearly empowers the Deputy Inspector General of Police to impose punishment on Sub Inspector of Police and the Sub Inspector of Police was removable from the service by the order of Deputy Inspector General of Police and no approval of State Government was required. At this initial stage there appears to be no ground to interfere in the order of cognizance but the petitioners are at liberty to raise all the questions at an appropriate stage in the court below. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in the two criminal miscellaneous petitions. The two criminal miscellaneous petitions, being devoid of any merit are, hereby, dismissed.