1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 24.1.2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revision Petition No.145/2012 whereby the revisional court, while partly allowing the revision petition, has affirmed the order dated 27.4.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby the trial court ordered for taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 166 and 188 I.P.C. read with Section 29 of Police Act, 1981.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that before ordering for taking cognizance against the petitioner, no prosecution sanction was sought by the trial court as per the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in absence of prior prosecution sanction by the competent authority, the order of taking cognizance against the petitioner is liable to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 10.10.2014 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Devi Dan v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2177/2013 ).

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that the trial court as well as the revisional court have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders.

6. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Devi Dan v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2177/2013) decided on 10.10.2014, while taking into consideration the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. as well as the earlier pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court, has held as under:-

"The next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner's prosecution in absence of a valid prosecution sanction for acts or omissions done by him during bona fide discharge of official duty as S.H.O. of the Police Station Swaroopganj is not permissible. At the outset, it may be noted that the protective umbrella of Section 197 Cr.P.C. is available only to such public servants who are not removeable save by or with the sanction of the State Government. As per the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 the appointing authority of the officers upto the rank of Inspectors/Company Commanders is Director General cum Inspector General of Police. For the post of Sub Inspectors/Platoon Commanders, the appointing authority is Dy. I.G. of Police (Hqrs.) or an officer of the equivalent rank. It is admitted in para no. 1 of the misc. petition that the petitioner was working as a sub inspector at the relevant time and was posted as S.H.O. Swaroopganj. Thus, as the petitioner was an officer in the rank of sub inspector, ipso facto, the protective umbrella of Section 197 would not be applicable to him straight off. The State Government by a notification dated July 31, 1974 has extended the benefit of the Section 197 (3) Cr.P.C. to the police officials of all ranks charged with the maintenance of public order, where-ever they may be serving. Undoubtedly, an officer posted as Station House Officer of a Police Station would be a police official charged with maintenance of public order within the area of the police station concerned. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh & Ors. v. Jammal Patel & Ors. reported in 2001 Cr.L.R.(SC)-542 while dealing with a similar notification issued by the State of Maharashtra held that the police officers do discharge duties relating to maintenance of public order in the wider sense and thus extended the benefit of Section 197 Cr.P.C. to the police officers concerned. In the case of Ram Swaroop Sharma v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2007(5) W.L.C.(Raj.)-796 the co