K NINGKHALAM SHIMRAY Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also Mr. Jalaluddin, learned public prosecutor for the respondent State.

(2.) The facts leading to the present revision may be noted in brief. In connection with the FIR No. 36(8)99 Vigilance P.S., the police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner K. Ningkhalam Shimray, a Government servant in Criminal (P) Case No. 23 of 200C( under Section 471/468/420 IPC. The accused petitioner filed an application on. 7.12.2001 before the Trial Court for dismissing the proceeding for alleged lack of sanction as required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Mr. M. Haokip, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manipur upon hearing the counsel far both the sides discharged the accused vide order dated 11.1.2002 holding, inter alia, that the sanction for prosecution filed by the pros:- ecution is bad in law/invalid and, as such, the Court is debarred from taking cognizance against the accused petitioner. Relying on contain decisions of the Apex Court which are noted in the judgment, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was of the view that the question of having proper sanction or not could be considered by the trial court as a preliminary issue before construction of charge.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Manipur filed Criminal Revision No. 9/2002 before the Sessions Judge, Manipur East challenging the propriety of the order dated 11.1.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The said revision was admitted by the learned Sessions Judge. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed an application before the Sessions Judge questioning the maintainability of the revision petition. It was submitted that the revision has been filed by unauthorized person in contravention of the provisions of Sections 301, 302 and 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was also urged that the impugned order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate is an interlocutory order and against the said order no revision lies in view of the provisions of Section 397(2) Cr. P.C. The petitioner had also made submission as regards the merit of the matter. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 17.6.2002 rejected the first two contentions of the petitioner as to the maintainability of the revision petition and fixed 28th June, 2002 for hearing of the revision on merit.