WAMAN PUNAJI SHILARKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VHEARD the learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for non-applicants.

(2.) THE applicant has been charge-sheeted for offence under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of I. P. C. The applicant filed an application before the Magistrate for discharge on the ground that sanction to prosecutre him has not been granted by the government. This application was rejected by the Magistrate vide order dated 15-1-1996 which was challenged in revision before the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide order dated 14-6-1996, which is subject matter of challenge in this application, held that the revision was not maintainable. Accordingly, he dismissed the revision on the ground of maintainability.

(3.) HEARD learned Advocates for the parties on the question of maintainability of revision before the Sessions Court. The issue is no longer res integra in view of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in K. K. Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2000 Cri LJ 4592 : (2000 Cri LJ 4592 ). In that case, the accused were prosecuted for offence under Sections 166, 167, 176, 201, 219, 220, 342 and 417 of the I. P. C. read with Sections 120-B, 34 and 109 of I. P. C as also offence under Section 147 (G) of the Bombay Police Act. The Metropolitan Magistrate after taking the sworn statement of the complainant, took cognizance and issued process. The accused therein filed petition for discharge on the ground that no sanction was obtained to prosecute them. The Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the said petition with a rider that "appropriate decision regarding prior sanction shall be taken on merits after considering the evidence that may be produced by the parties. " This order was challenged in revision by the accused before the Court of Session. The Court of Session upheld objections relating to sanction based on Section 197 of Cr. P. C. and Section 161 (1) of Bombay Police Act. Consequently, the process issued by the trial Court was quashed and complaint itself stood dismissed. The matter then came up in revision before the learned single Judge of the Gujarat High Court and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was set aside mainly on the ground that the Sessions Court should not have entertained the revision at all as the order challenged before it was only interlocutory. On this controversy, the Apex Court in paras 12 and 13 has laid down :