HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1354 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for opposite party. 2. This revision has been filed against the order dated 3.1.2024 passed by A. C. J. M.-Ist, Basti in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1805 of 2023; Ghanshyam Versus Rajit Ram, wherein the application moved by the revisionist under Section 156 (3) CrPC against Rajit Ram, has been dismissed relying upon the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Versus M. K. Ayyappa and others 2013 (2) ACC page 1817 on the ground that prior sanction of the competent authority is required before proceeding against a government servant. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that so far as the applicability of law laid by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Versus M. K. Ayyappa and others 2013 (2) ACC page 1817, wherein it has been held that on the application filed under Section 156 (3) CrPC against a public servant, the Magistrate cannot direct investigation without prior sanction of the competent authority, against opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 is concerned, opposite party no. 2, Rachit Ram, S/o Nohar is not a government servant, rather he is Ex-village Pradhan and therefore, if the aforesaid proposition of law is applied, that is not applicable to opposite party no. 2. 4. Learned counsel has further submitted that for taking any action against a public servant, there are two stages, first is the part of investigation and once the charge-sheet is filed, then comes the second stage of cognizance and Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ganesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shesh Narain Mishra Ghanshyam .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) prior to taking cognizance, is the stage of pre-cognizance. However, the case would be different, when a final report is filed, which is not the case here. Learned counsel also submits that there is misappropriation of State exchequer's money to the tune of Rs. 3,24,000/- which has allegedly been misappropriated by opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsel has also referred to one report dated 12.10.2022, which has been submitted by one Junior Engineer and Incharge Regional Sports Officer, Basti. In the said report, it has been found that no such C. C. road was constructed between the residence of Chandrabhan Sharma, leading towards the house of Ramlagan, measuring about 80 mts. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 has submitted that as far as the road in question is concerned, it was constructed from the house of one Kanikram Varma towards the house of Ram Bhawan Yadav, measuring the same length of 80 mts., as the same has been referred to in one report of the then Block Development Officer dated 14.12.2023. The same report was addressed to Dy. Collector, Harriya, Basti, therefore, submits that no offence, whatsoever, has been committed by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and efforts are being made to falsely implicate opposite party nos. 2 and 3 respectively. 6. Having regard to the contentions raised on behalf of parties and perusing the material on record, there appears to be merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for revisionist and the learned ACJM has got misplaced, while relying upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar (supra), as opposite party no. 2 is not a government servant as on date and prior approval is required at the stage of taking cognizance. 7. In view thereof, the order dated 3.1.2024 passed by the ACJM-Ist, Basti is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the A. C. J. M.-I, Basti with the direction to decide the matter afresh by passing a speaking order. 8. The revision is allowed. September 24, 2025 HR CRLR No. 1354 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad