IMPORTANT POINT
It is not a fit case to interfere by grant of special leave in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.-This Special Leave Petition arises out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat, rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioner herein against the order of Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad. A charge-sheet for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 121, 121-A, 122, 123, 212 and under Sections 25(1)(A) and (B), 27 of the Arms Act came to be filed by the police on 12th April, 2000 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner figures as accused No.9 therein. The case being triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate submitted the case to the Court of City Sessions by an order dated 4.5.2000. Sanction for prosecution as required by Section 196(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code was obtained on 7th May, 2000, such sanction being necessary in view of the fact that the petitioner stands accused of some of the offences falling under Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code viz. collection of arms for the purpose of waging war against the Government etc. Sanction accorded by the State Government was produced before the Court of Sessions before the charge was framed against the petitioner-accused. The petitioner applied to the Court of Sessions for discharge on the ground that there was no prima-facie evidence to frame the charge against him. That application was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad. Thereupon, a revision petition was filed in the High Court under S. 397/401 Cr.P.C. In that revision an additional ground was raised for the first time that the entire proceedings including committal of the case to the Court of Sessions are vitiated by illegality for want of sanction under S.196 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the criminal proceedings cannot go on against him. The High Court by the impugned order dated 3.11.2001 dismissed the revision application, rejecting both the grounds urged. Hence, this Special Leave Petition. After notice to the State, we have heard the learned counsel.

2. We are concerned here with the second ground, that is to say, the effect of non-production of sanction order before the learned Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Sessions as that is the only point urged before us. The High Court was of the view that while committing the case to the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence. "It cannot be laid down", observed the learned judge "that unless Magistrate takes cognizance, he cannot commit the case to the Court of Sessions." The Learned judge, after referring to the decisions of Calcutta and Kerala High Courts, observed thus: "In both the decisions relied upon on behalf of the petitioner, it has been laid down that the committal proceedings is an enquiry before the Magistrate. It is not necessary, therefore, that during the enquiry, Magistrate is obliged to take cognizance of the offence. The glaring example is in Section 200 Crl. P.C. when Magistrate conducts enquiry before issuing process under Section 204 ..........". The learned Judge of the High Court therefore held that the ban under S. 196(1) is not attracted to the committal proceedings. The correctness of the view taken by the High Court has been questioned before us.

3. Section 196(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins that "no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Chapter VI of the Indian Panel Code, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government." The sanction of the Government is thus a pre-condition for the cognizance of the offences specified in various clauses of Section 196. Section 193 enacts a bar against the Court of Sessions taking cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under the provisions of the Code. However, if the Code or any law in force expressly provides for the Court of Sessio