JUDGMENT : Banwari Lal Sharma, J. The present misc. petition is preferred by the petitioner-complainant Santosh Kumar against the impugned order dated 27.06.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sikar in Criminal Revision Petition No. 30/2007 (Madhukar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan And Anr.) whereby learned lower Revisional Court allowed the revision petition and quashed the order of cognizance dated 14.02.2007 passed by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar in Complaint No. 35/2007 and Criminal Case No. 63/2007 (Santosh v. Madhukar Gupta) whereby learned Magistrate took cognizance against the private respondent Madhukar Gupta under Sections 384, 392 and 469/511 of IPC. 2. The misc. petition was admitted by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.01.2010 and notices were issued to respondents, even after service of notice respondent No.- 2 failed to appear before this Court, therefore, matter was heard finally. 3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner complainant filed a complaint before learned Magistrate on 23.01.2007 against the respondent-accused for offences under Sections 217, 218, 384, 392 and 469/511 of IPC wherein it was pleaded that petitioner is manager of Shri Khatushyam Ji Temple and the Public Trust is managing the affairs of Shri Khatushyam Ji Temple which is registered at Devsthan Department. 4. On 07.01.2006, in the meeting of the Committee of the Trust, the decision was taken regarding development and renovation of the present Temple of Shri Khatushyam Ji and renovation committee was constituted for the said purpose and petitioner was appointed as Manager and Shri Ashok Shekhar, Shri Rajendra Singh, Shri Pratap Singh, Shri Vikram Singh, Shri Madan Lal Sharma, Shri Radheyshyam Vyas and Shri Guljari Lal Sharma were appointed as Members of the committee. The Committee continued to perform its duties and in the meanwhile Shri Ashok Shekhar and Shri Guljari Lal Sharma resigned in June, 2006. 5. On 11.01.2007 private-respondent Madhukar Gupta entered in the premises of the temple with other persons and forcibly seized the entire documents of the Committee and also took away the cash, FDRs and the amount received in donation including jewellery, without there being any order either from the Devsthan Department or from any other competent authority of the State Government. The entire money, record etc., were taken away and they didn't give any receipt of the concerned cash, jewellery and the record seized from the office. The entire money, record etc., were taken away and they didn't give any receipt of the concerned cash, jewellery and the record seized from the office. On protest the accused-non-petitioner threatened that he will get the petitioner arrested alleging himself to be the Divisional Commissioner and a Senior IAS officer. During the proceedings respondent threatened that he will also get Shri Ashok Shekhar involved and would see how the concerned Shri Ashok Shekhar can come out of it. 6. On the aforesaid complaint, learned Magistrate conducted enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and vide order dated 14.02.2007 took cognizance against the accused-non-petitioner for offences under Sections 384, 392 and 469/511 IPC and summoned him through bailable warrant. The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent No. 2- accused before the Revisional Court and Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 27.06.2009 quashed the order of learned Magistrate dated 14.02.2007, therefore, this misc. petition is preferred by the petitioner-complainant before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed without applying mind by the learned lower Revisional Court and there is no material on record to show that respondent No.- 2- accused was at the time of committing offence was a public servant and acted in pursuance of his official duty, therefore, protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is not available to him. He submits that he sought information under Right to Information Act from Devsthan Department whereby it was informed that Devsthan Department has never issued any order to seize the cash, documents etc. He further submits that learned lower Revisional Court without any material considered that respondent No.- 2- accused as a public servant and he acted in his official duty. Learned lower Revisional Court considered Annexure- 5 which is only a newspaper cutting, which cannot be considered while passing any judicial order, therefore, the impugned order of learned lower Revisional Court may be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Jitendra Shrimali supported the impugned order. 9. No one appeared on behalf of respondent No.- 2- accused, even after service. 10. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Jitendra Shrimali supported the impugned order. 9. No one appeared on behalf of respondent No.- 2- accused, even after service. 10. From the bare perusal of impugned order of learned Revisional Court, it reveals that the order of learned Magistrate was quashed and set aside by the learned lower Revisional Court only on the ground of Sanction u/s 197 of Cr.P.C., considering Annexure-5 and Annexure-5 is only a newspaper cutting which cannot be considered while passing any judicial order. Section 197 of Cr.P.C. reads as under :- "197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants. (1) 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: 1 Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression" State Government" occurring therein, the expression" Central Government" were substituted. (2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub-section will apply as if for the expression" Central Government" occurring therein, the expression" State Government" were substituted. (3A) 1 Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (3), no Court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.(3B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a Court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991 , receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the Court to take cognizance thereon.](4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held." 11. From the perusal of aforesaid provision, it is clear that protection is extended to public servant only when he acts or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. 12. But here in the case in hand, there is nothing on record that the alleged act was committed by respondent No.- 2 while discharging his official duty. 13. Without considering this fact, learned lower Revisional Court allowed the revision petition and quashed the order of learned Magistrate, which is not sustainable, therefore, this misc. petition is allowed and the order of learned lower Revisional Court is quashed and set aside. 14. The record of the Court below be returned with the copy of the order of this Court forthwith. Stay application also stands disposed off.