JUDGMENT : Z.K. Saiyed, J. 1. By way of present Criminal Revision Applications preferred under Section 401 read with Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants seeks to challenge the orders passed by the trial Court and all these Criminal Revision Applications arise out of common issues, they are decided by this common judgment. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 140 of 2010: 2. Present application is directed against the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) Mirzapur, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Revision Application No. 29 of 2009 dated 18.12.2009, whereby the learned Sessions Judge granted the said application by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, below Exhibit 15 in Criminal Case No. 9377 of 2004 dated 25.5.2007, whereby the learned trial Judge has granted discharge application of the applicant and ordered to be discharged the applicant in connection of the offences under Sections 304, 418, 420, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(2)(c)(d), 7(2)(i)(ii) and Section 42 of the Gujarat Flat Owners Association Act. 3. Facts in short are as under: "The applicant is serving as Planning Assistant, Class III employees in AUDA. On 26.1.2001, a devastating earthquake occurred in the State of Gujarat, due to which number of buildings had collapsed causing deaths and injuries to several persons. One of the buildings which collapsed due to this earthquake was Ayodhya Apartments situated in Vejalpur area and same was collapsed and as a result, 5 persons lost their lives. In this connection, FIR was lodged against the builder and structural designer on the ground that sub-standard quality work had been done and material which was used for construction was of sub-standard quality and the offence was registered at Satellite Police Station vide C.R. No. I 54 of 2001 for the aforesaid offences." After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) and same was numbered as Criminal Case No. 9377 of 2004. In the said case, the applicant has preferred discharge application below Exhibit 15, which was granted by the learned trial Judge. In the said case, the applicant has preferred discharge application below Exhibit 15, which was granted by the learned trial Judge. Against the said order, the State preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 29 of 2009 before the Sessions Court and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad, quashed and set aside the said order, which is under challenge by way of present application. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 141 of 2010: 4. Present application is directed against the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) Mirzapur, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Revision Application No. 30 of 2009 dated 18.12.2009, whereby the learned Sessions Judge granted the said application by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, below Exhibit 18 in Criminal Case No. 1718 of 2006 dated 25.5.2007, whereby the learned trial Judge has granted discharge application of the applicant and ordered to be discharged the applicant in connection of the offences under Sections 304, 418, 420, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(2)(c)(d), 7(2)(i)(ii) and Section 42 of the Gujarat Flat Owners Association Act. 5. Facts in short are as under: "The applicant is serving as Planning Assistant, Class III employees in AUDA. On 26.1.2001, a devastating earthquake occurred in the State of Gujarat, due to which number of buildings had collapsed causing deaths and injuries to several persons. One of the buildings which collapsed due to this earthquake was Giriraj Avenue situated in Vejalpur area and same was collapsed and as a result, 10 persons lost their lives. In this connection, The offence was registered at Vejalpur Police Station vide C.R. No. I 22 of 2001 for the aforesaid offences." After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) and same was numbered as Criminal Case No. 1718 of 2006. In the said case, the applicant has preferred discharge application below Exhibit 18, which was granted by the learned trial Judge. Against the said order, the State preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 30 of 2009 before the Sessions Court and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad, quashed and set aside the said order, which is under challenge by way of present application. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 142 of 2010: 6. Against the said order, the State preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 30 of 2009 before the Sessions Court and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad, quashed and set aside the said order, which is under challenge by way of present application. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 142 of 2010: 6. Present application is directed against the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) Mirzapur, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Revision Application No. 74 of 2009 dated 18.12.2009, whereby the learned Sessions Judge granted the said application by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, below Exhibit 9 in Criminal Case No. 1724 of 2006 dated 25.5.2007, whereby the learned trial Judge has granted discharge application of the applicant and ordered to be discharged the applicant in connection of the offences under Sections 304, 418, 420, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(2)(c)(d), 7(2)(i)(ii) and Section 42 of the Gujarat Flat Owners Association Act. 7. Facts in short are as under: :The applicant is serving as Planning Assistant, Class III employees in AUDA. On 26.1.2001, a devastating earthquake occurred in the State of Gujarat, due to which number of buildings had collapsed causing deaths and injuries to several persons. One of the buildings which collapsed due to this earthquake was Himgiri Apartments situated in Vastrapur area and same was collapsed and as a result, several persons lost their lives. In this connection, the offence was registered at Satellite Police Station vide C.R. No. I 55 of 2001 for the aforesaid offences.: After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) and same was numbered as Criminal Case No. 1724 of 2006. In the said case, the applicant has preferred discharge application below Exhibit 9, which was granted by the learned trial Judge. Against the said order, the State preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 74 of 2009 before the Sessions Court and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad, quashed and set aside the said order, which is under challenge by way of present application. 8. In these all matters, leaned senior advocate Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala appearing on behalf of the applicants, stated that the applicants have not committed any offence. 8. In these all matters, leaned senior advocate Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala appearing on behalf of the applicants, stated that the applicants have not committed any offence. He also stated that the applicants are public servants and to prosecute against them, the prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory. Here in these matters, for weak or sub-standard quality construction work, the applicants cannot be held responsible. Section 197 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: 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." 9. He also read the provisions of Section 105 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, which reads as under: "105. Bar of Legal Proceedings: "No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the State Government, the appropriate authority or any public servant or person duly appointed or authorized under this Act, in respect of anythings in good faith done or purporting to be done under the provisions of this Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder." 10. Learned senior advocate Mr. Learned senior advocate Mr. Anandjiwala, therefore, submitted that from the bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear that this provisions of the Act is providing specific restriction and bar against the prosecution of any public servant or person appointed or authorized under this Act. He also submitted that the allegations made against the present applicants in the Criminal Cases, cannot be termed as offence because they have done their act under the colour of duty in good faith. He also submitted that the applicants are not the final decision making employees to recover the U.A.d. fees and the person like employee has to follow the instruction in pursuant to the circular of office order of his superior officer i.e. Senior Town Planning Officer. He also submitted that in this cases also, present applicants have followed the instructions of their superior officer in discharging their duties and therefore, the act of recovering the U.A.D. fees cannot be attributed to the mala fide action of the applicants. He also submitted that there is no iota of evidence, which prima facie suggests that act and action of the applicants are mala fide. He therefore, submitted that the provisions of Section 105 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 is applicable to be facts of the present cases. He also submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly discharged the applicants. 11. Learned senior advocate Mr. Anandjiwala, for the issue as to whether the present applicants being the employees of the AUDA is responsible in any way for negligence caused in the collapse of building or not, referred the provisions of the General Development Control Regulations (GDCR), more particularly, sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) and Sub-section (1) of Section 17. He submitted that GDCR got statutory force in the eye of law. He referred Clause 5.3.1 of the GDCR, which reads as under: "5.3.1 Grant of development permission shall mean by the Authority of the following requirements: (i) permissible built-up area. (ii) permissible floor space index. (iii) height of a building and its various storeys. (iv) permissible open spaces and setbacks. (v) permissible use of land. (vi) arrangements of lifts and parking. (vii) minimum requirements of high rise buildings including N.O.C. from Fire Officer/Fire Safety Consultant as appointed by the Appropriate Authority. (viii) Minimum requirement of sanitary facility and other common facility. (iii) height of a building and its various storeys. (iv) permissible open spaces and setbacks. (v) permissible use of land. (vi) arrangements of lifts and parking. (vii) minimum requirements of high rise buildings including N.O.C. from Fire Officer/Fire Safety Consultant as appointed by the Appropriate Authority. (viii) Minimum requirement of sanitary facility and other common facility. (ix) Required light and ventilation Provided that it shall not mean acceptance of correctness, confirmation, approval or endorsement and shall not bind of render the Authority liable in any way in regard to; (i) Title of the land or building (ii) Easement rights (iii) Variation in area from recorded areas of a plot or a building (iv) Structural reports and structural drawings (v) workmanship and sounds of material use in construction of the building (vi) Location and boundary of the plot." 12. Learned senior advocate Mr. Anandjiwala submitted that aforesaid provisions contemplating the consequential aspect of grant of development permission. This provision clearly indicate that the grant of permission not mean acceptance of workmanship and soundness of materials used in the construction building (Clause No. 5.3.1). He further submitted that as per this provisions, the employees of the Authority is not empowered to check workmanship and soundness of materials used in the construction of the building. He submitted that it the case of the prosecution that the buildings have collapsed in the earthquake due to bad workmanship and bad soundness of the materials used in the construction of building in question. Therefore, as per his submission, in this set of circumstances, the liabilities cannot be fastened upon the employees of the AUDA i.e. present applicants. Therefore, the present applicants deserve discharge. 13. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned senior advocate Mr. Anandjiwala prayed to quash and set aside the orders impugned and confirm the orders passed by the trial Court. 14. As against, learned APP supported the orders impugned passed by the Sessions Court. He further submitted that the applicants have committed alleged offence and therefore, they are not required to be discharged. He also submitted that the trial Court erroneously discharged the applicants and therefore, the lower Appellate Court has rightly quashed and set aside the orders passed by the trial Court. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the present Revision Applications. 15. Perused the records of the cases and considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. He also submitted that the trial Court erroneously discharged the applicants and therefore, the lower Appellate Court has rightly quashed and set aside the orders passed by the trial Court. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the present Revision Applications. 15. Perused the records of the cases and considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. This Court has perused the provisions of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as per this provision, to prosecute against the public servant, first sanction of the concern department is required. Here the applicants being the Government servants working as Planning Assistants, Class III employees, with the AUDA, which is the Authority under the State Government and therefore, prior sanction must be required before prosecuting against the applicants. 16. In this regard, one more provisions of Section 105 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, is required to be referred, same is already cited in the earlier para of this judgment, which is also clearly provided that no legal proceedings shall lie against the public servant or person duly appointed or authorized under the Act in respect of anything in good faith done or purporting to the done. Herein these cases, no prior sanction is obtained to prosecute against the applicants. Merely the applicants have been joined as accused in respective FIRs, is not sufficient to establish that they have committed alleged offence. 17. This Court has also perused the Clause 5.3.1 of GCDR and same relates to grant of permission of plant, area, height of building etc. as stated in the earlier part of this judgment. Therefore, the applicants are not directly connected with the construction work carried out by the concerned builder and therefore, they are not required to be linked with the alleged offence. The so called buildings have been collapsed due to earthquake, which is natural calamity and for that, work of the applicants has no concern at all. 18. This Court has referred the decision relied upon by the learned senior advocate Mr. Anandjiwala, wherein this Court has considered the aspect of the public servant and this Court has allowed said matter i.e. Special Criminal Application No. 774 of 2009 in the case of Surendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and anr. 19. 18. This Court has referred the decision relied upon by the learned senior advocate Mr. Anandjiwala, wherein this Court has considered the aspect of the public servant and this Court has allowed said matter i.e. Special Criminal Application No. 774 of 2009 in the case of Surendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and anr. 19. Now, the factual aspects, if consider, the applicants are Planning Assistants, Class III and therefore, they have to work under their superior officer and they have not carried out the building construction work. They have done the work as per instruction of higher authority. 20. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the lower Appellate Court have committed grave error in rejecting the Criminal Revision Applications filed by the applicants. Hence, the orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) Mirzapur, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 29 of 2009, 30 of 2009 and 74 of 2009 dated 18.12.2009 are quashed and set aside. 21. In view of the above, present Criminal Revision Applications are allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Application Allowed