A Sub-Inspector of Police is not a public servant who is not removable from office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, and therefore, no sanction from the State Government is necessary for his prosecution.

B. Prasad, .1.- This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter caned the 'Code'). It is directed against the order dated 6. 12.1985 passed by Shri G. P. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, in Complaint Case No. 112/85 taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and ordering for the issue of summons against him.

2. In this petition it has been contended that opposite party no. 2 had filed the above mentioned complaint case in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur against the present petitioner (the officer-in-charge of Barari Police Station) and others. The allegations made out in the complaint petition were that the complainant (opposite party no. 2) had purchased 9 Kathas and 15 dhurs of land of Holding No. 17-A on which there was a cottage where the complainant was living along with two cows etc. and his belongings. It was further alleged that on 4.6.1985 at about 10 A. M. accused Kameshwar Jha of that case along with several others came there. S. I. of Police and the police constables also carne with them. The Police officer asked the wife of opposite party no. 2 to vacate the house in question since there was a proceeding under section 144 of the Code in respect of it. When the wife of opposite party no. 2 refused to vacate, it is alleged, that Daroga Jee had assaulted her childern with fists and slaps and had thrown them down on the ground. It was further alleged that thereafter accused Rameshwar Jha of that case had thrown away the house-hold belongings of opposite party no. 2 from the house and had further snatched away a purse containing Rs. 800/- in cash. It appears that before the learned Magistrate three witnesses were examined under section 202 of the Code. On the perusal of their statements and also the record of the case the learned Judicial Magistrate held that a prima facie case under sections 323, 447, 379 and 499 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused of that case including the present petitioner. He, therefore, ordered for issue of summons to them.

3. In this petition the petitioner has taken a number of grounds for quashing the impugned order dated 5.12.1985 taking cognizance of the offence so far as it related to present petitioner. The first ground is that the petitioner happened to be a Government servant and, therefore, taking cognizance against him without prior sanction of the State Government or the competent authority was bad ill law. The second ground taken is that Naresh Jha one of the accused of the case brought by opposite party no. 2 had instituted Kotwali (Barari) P. S. Case No. 251/85 against opposite party no. 2 and others to the effect that on 4.6.1985 they had entered inside the cottage and asked him to leave the cottage immediately. It was further alleged that opposite party no. 2 and his associates had forcibly taken away the belongings of the informant, Naresh Jha. In this case, the police has already submitted charge-sheet after completing the investigations and, accordingly, the cognizance has been taken. It was further contended that on the basis of this first information report the petitioner who happened to be the officer-in-charge of Barari Police Station had immediately rushed to the place of ocourrance and had arrested the accused of that case who were committing high-handedness. This he had done in the discharge of his official duties as a Government servant and, therefore, no cognizance against him could have been taken. It was further contended that no prima facie case against the petitioner was made out inasmuch as in view of the institution of Barari P. S. Case No. 251/85 the petitioner had visited the cottage in question in the discharge of his official duty and no liability can be fastened on him for the same. On these grounds, it has been contended that this petition should be admitted.

4. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2. In thi