1. The applicants have preferred the present revision against the order dated 21.5.2004 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Criminal Revision No. 143/2001 whereby the order dated 20.10.2001 passed by the JMFC Itarsi was get aside in which the complaint was dismissed under section 203 of CrPC and the matter was remanded back for reconsideration.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the respondent No. 1 had lodged a complaint against the applicants that being the office bearers of the Municipality, Itarsi they gave a sum of Rs. 1,18,685/- to a contractor Kamalnarayan Saini for digging jet pump wells and an information was given to the Legislative Assembly of the Madhya Pradesh that in Ward No. 15, 16, 24 and 30 digging of jet pump well being done, however no jet pump well was dug in those wards, and therefore a complaint was filed by the respondent No. 1 that the applicants have committed the offence under sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 477, 34 of IPC.

3. The learned JMFC Itarsi after considering the prosecution evidence under sections 200 and 202 of CrPC found that no sanction was received under section 197 of CrPC and therefore, the case could not be registered. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed under section 203 of CrPC.

4. On filing a revision by the respondent No. 1, the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad vide order dated 21.5.2004 remanded the case with the pretext that the objection under section 197 of CrPC shall be considered when it is raised by the accused persons after their presence and it cannot be considered initially.

5. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention raised by the learned counsel for theapplicants appears to be correct. The learned counsel for the applicants has placed his reliance on the various judgments and orders of Hon’ble the apex Court in the case of “Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. Pandey Ajay Bhushan and others”, (AIR 1998 SC 1524), “Mohd. Hadi Raja v. State of Bihar” (AIR 1998 SC 1945) and in the case of “State of Bihar v. Kamla Prasad Singh” (AIR 1998 SC 2379). By perusal of the aforesaid orders and judgments of Hon’ble the apex Court, it is apparent that no prosecution could be initiated against the applicants without any sanction under section 197 of CrPC. It is alleged that they committed some crime in the course of their public duty, and therefore a sanction under section 197 of CrPC was required.

6. So far as consideration of aforesaid point is concerned, if any complaint which is filed by the complainant appears to be not fit for registration due to any reason, then that reason can be considered by the Magisterial Court at the time of registration of the complaint. For example, if a complaint is moved against a Magistrate, who has protected against the prosecution, then the Magisterial Court can consider such a provision at the time of registration of the complaint. In the present case, it was apparent that the trial Court could not proceed unless sanction under section 197 of CrPC is received. Hence it was necessary for the Magisterial Court to consider such a point at the time of registration of the complaint otherwise if complaint is registered and thereafter it is required to be dismissed because no sanction was received for prosecuting the complaint, then such order cannot be passed by the Magistrate himself, because he did not possess the right of review of his own order.

7. Under such circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge took an incorrect view in remanding the case. The complaint cannot be prosecuted in absence of sanction under section 197 of CrPC, and therefore the trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint under section 203 of CrPC.

8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision filed by the applicants can be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby accepted. The order dated