1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners, seek an order to quash Annexure-1order in CMP 6196 of 2011 whereby the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Hosdurg, took cognizance for offences under Sections 268, 269, 270 and 278 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners who are the Chairperson, Secretary, Health Supervisor and Standing Committee Chairman for Health of Kanhangad Municipality. The second respondent is the complainant. After taking cognizance the case was numbered as CC 1121 of 2011.

2. The plea of the petitioners is that to prosecute the petitioners for any offence alleged to have been committed by them while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty, sanction under Section 548 of the Kerala Municipality Act and under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be obtained before launching prosecution and since no sanction was obtained, Annexure-1 order taking cognizance is not legally sustainable.

3. For a better appreciation of the case, a reading of Section 548 of the Kerala Municipality Act and Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be relevant:

Section 548 of the Municipality Act reads thus:

"548. Sanction for prosecution of Chairperson, Secretary or Councillor - Where the Chairperson, any Councillor or the Secretary of a Municipality 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 of the Government."

Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads thus:

"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:

(2) No Courtshall 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. direct (3) class provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply to such that the or category of the members of the Forces State Government may, by notification, the 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.

(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."

Section 548 of the Kerala Municipality Act would show that before launching prosecution against the Chairperson, any Councillor or the Secretary (petitioners 1, 4 and 2) of a Municipality for any offence alleged to have been committed by them while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, there should have been previous sanction of the Government. To put it other way, sanction under Section 548 is a prerequisite for taking cognizance against petitione