SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE case of petitioner complainant is that on 26. 7. 1980 he applied for permission from the Gram Panchayat for construction on the land of his owner-ship alongwith the map of the land. Permission was accorded to him on 31. 3. 1981 by the Gram Panchayat. On 4. 10. 1989, when he started to construct `pakka Wall' in front of his house, Ganesh Lal (Present respondent No. 8) and Laxman Singh (father of Lal Singh-respondent No. 10) and his brother Dilip Singh prevented him from putting up `pakka Wall' and tried to encroach upon his land. THErefore, he filed civil suit No. 47/89 before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Sagwara against them for declaration and permanent injunction. THE said suit was decreed in his favour by the trial court on 19. 2. 1996 and the said plot measuring 22' x 25' was declared to be of his owner-ship and in his possession. Accordingly, they were restrained from interfering with the work of putting up `pakka Wall. '
(2.) THE aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial court was challenged by them before the District Court, Doongarpur in appeal No. 3/96. However, the same was dismissed on 20. 11. 1996 by the learned District Judge, Doongarpur. In spite of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, which was confirmed in appeal by the learned appellate court, the present respondent No. 8 Ganesh Lal and respondent No. 10- Lal Singh committee trespass on his land and also got the tap fitted on it. For that a F. I. R. was filed against them for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 427 I. P. C. before the Sagwara Police Station. Respondent No. 11 -Mahesh, respondent No. 12- Upendra, respondent No. 13 - Kalpesh, respondent No. 14- Jai Prakash and respondent No. 15- Manoj are sons of respondent No. 8 - Ganesh Lal. They alongwith respondent No. 10- Lal Singh, Dev Shanker- respondent No. 7, Shanker - respondent No. 9 and respondent Nos. 1 to 6, who are members of Gram Panchayat illegally entered upon his plot on 23. 4. 1997 in Tractor No. RJ-12 -0395 and forcibly removed 4000 bricks and other things lying there on the plot. Thus, therefore, respondent Nos. 1 to 6 have mis-used their position and abeted the respondent Nos. 7 to 15 for their illegal act, though they were in know of the fact that plot is of his owner-ship for which courts have also passed decree in his favour. On 24. 4. 1997, the petitioner-complainant filed compliant case No. 153/97 directly before the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagwara against all the respondents accused for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 379, 120 B I. P. C. Learned Magistrate, after considering the material on record, was of the opinion that though the respondents accused No. 1 to 6 were public servants, but their act was not bonafide, therefore, without obtaining sanction from the State Govt. to prosecute them for the offences for which they were charged, cognizance can be taken against them and accordingly, learned Magistrate took cognizance against them alongwith private respondents accused No. 7 to 15 by his impugned order dated 17. 5. 1997.
(3.) THE aforesaid order passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagwara taking cognizance against the respondents accused was challenged by them before the Sessions Court, Doongarpur in revision petition No. 86/97, which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 17. 1. 1998. This has been challenged by the present petitioner complainant by way of this misc. petitioner before this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. A Preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel Shri Sanjay Mathur for the respondents accused that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 17. 1. 1998 allowing the revision petition filed by the respondents accused was revisable. He submitted that instead of filing revision petition, the petitioner complainant has filed this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , therefore, only on this ground this misc. petition be dismissed. The impugned judgment and order allowing the revision petition filed by the respondents accused was passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 17. 1. 1998. The certified copy of the same was applied on 28. 2. 1998 and the same was ready for delivery on 2. 3. 1998 and received on 4. 3. 1998. Thereafter, this misc. petition was filed on 16. 4. 1998. The period of limitation in filing revision petition is 90 days. If the revision petition was required to be filed then also it would have been within time. ;