I.A. Ansari, J.

1. With the help of this application, made under Section 482 Cr.PC., the petitioners, who are accused in CR Case No. 223/2004, have sought for setting aside and quashing of not only the complaint, in question, which has given rise to the complaint case aforementioned, but also the order, dated 20.8.2004, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hailakandi, whereby summons have been directed to be issued to the petitioners as accused. I have heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel, for the accused petitioners, and Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. Before coming to the merit of this revision, it needs to be noted that the case of the complainant is, in brief, thus: The Central Government allotted money to various districts, including the district of Hailakandi, under a scheme known as SGRY and, in terms of the said scheme, accused No. 1, who is a member of the Anchalik Panchayat, and accused No. 2, who is a Junior Engineer, had the duty to utilize the amount, so sanctioned, during the financial year 2003-2004, upon getting the scheme approved by appropriate authority. However, without spending the money, in terms of the sanction so granted, the accused-persons, in collusion with each other, made false Master Roll forms by committing forgery and misappropriated the whole amount by falsifying the accounts and preparing false vouchers. The complainant and other witnesses came to know about the said acts done by the accused on visiting the local office, on 15.06.2004, when they inspected the work, which ought to have been done. In all, the accused persons have misappropriated a sum of Rs.54,331/- in the manner as indicated above. The complainant accordingly sought for prosecution of the accused persons under Sections 167, 407 and 477A read with Section 34 IPC.

3. Having examined the complainant and also upon holding an enquiry, the learned Court below directed issuance of processes, under Section 167 and 409 read with Section 34 IPC, against the two accused petitioners on the ground that a prima facie case, under the said penal provisions, had been made out against the accused-petitioners by the complainant.

4. Aggrieved by the taking of cognizance of the offences aforementioned and also by the direction of issuance of processes against them, the accused-petitioners, as already mentioned above, have come to this Court with the help of this application made under Section 482 Cr.PC.

5. It is submitted, on behalf of the accused-petitioners, that the accused-petitioners are wholly innocent and have been falsely implicated by the complainant. The allegations made against the accused-petitioners, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, are wholly false and, in such circumstances, the learned Court below ought not to have directed issuance of processes against the accused-petitioners. This apart, points out the learned counsel for the petitioners the accused-petitioners are protected under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and, hence, the learned Court below was not competent to take cognizance of the offences aforementioned and could not have also directed issuance of processes against the accused-petitioners in the absence of requisite sanction having been granted, under Section 197 Cr.P.C., by the State Government.

6. Repelling the submissions made on behalf of the accused petitioners, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the complaint, in question, does make out a prima facie case, as against the accused-petitioners, of commission of offences of misappropriation of Government fund, falsification of accounts and/or commission of forgery in furtherance of their common intention. In such circumstances, contends the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, neither the complaint, in question, is bad in law nor the taking of cognizance of offences, in question, by the learned trial Court and the direction to issue processes against the accused-petitioners, can be l