PASKALY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the proceedings on the file of the Special Judge, SPE and ACB cases in C.C. No. 40 of 1975 are vitiated for want of sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The petitioner who was the first accused in C.C. No. 40 of 1975 filed Crl M P No 185 of 1975 questioning the maintainability of the prosecution instituted against him on the ground that the sanction for his prosecution given by the Government of India is invalid as he is substantial holder of the post of secletion grade Divisional Accountant in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department under the Controller Auditor-General of India is the authority competent to remove the petitioner from office. The learned Sessions Judge having examined the provisions of the Act and also the contentions raised before him, came to the conclusion that the contention of the petitioner is untenable and so holding, he dismissed the petition.

(3.) Aggrieved with the said order, the present revision case is filed. Sri D. Satyanarayana the learned standing counsel for SPE and A.C.B. cases raised a preliminary objection that the revion case is ntt maintainable. According to him, Crl. M.P. filed by the petitioner ii only an interlocutory petition and hence the order passed therein is only an interlocutory order and hence no revision can lie under section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. and even under section 482 Cr. P.C. As against this contention, Sri Shaik Shah Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that as the matter goes to the very root of the case, it is not of interlocutory nature and the order passed in Crl. M.P.No. 185 of 1975 cannot be said to be an interlocutory order and the revision case is, therefore, maintainable, He also contends that this Court exercising its jurisdiction and power under section 482 Cr.P.C. is empowered to examine the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order.