The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of independently examining the question of whether sanction under Section 197 of the Code is necessary for prosecuting a public servant, and the court's emphasis on the importance of addressing the jurisdictional aspect of the requirement of sanction.

1. The applicant who is the original complainant has filed the present criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short, the Code) as he is aggrieved by the order dated 11-6-2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Nagpur by which the non-applicant No.2 herein stands discharged in the complaint proceedings.

2. The facts in brief are that the complainant is a railway contractor engaged in execution of various contracts. In those contracts, it was stipulated that in the event of any disputes or differences the same would be settled through arbitration. One such dispute arose which was then referred to the Arbitrator. According to the complainant, in those proceedings a particular document was filed on behalf of the Railway authorities which appeared to the complainant to be fabricated. On that basis, a private complaint came to be filed alleging fabrication of the documents resulting in commission of offence under Section 193 and 204 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. In those proceedings process came to be issued by the learned Magistrate. The non-applicant No.2 – accused No.1 moved an application for his discharge on the count that no offence as alleged was made out in the complaint. Reply was filed by the complainant and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class rejected that application. The accused No.1 being aggrieved filed a revision application under Section 397 of the Code. The learned Judge of the Sessions Court allowed that revision application on the ground that though it was necessary for the complainant to have obtained sanction under Section 197 of the Code, no such sanction was obtained. It could not be said that there was deemed sanction to the prosecution of accused no.1. It was also held that there was no allegation made in the complaint against the said accused that he had filed the alleged fabricated document in the arbitration proceedings. On that basis said accused came to be discharged.

4. Shri V.V. Bhangde, learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that though the complainant had applied for grant of sanction under Section 197 of the Code, in the facts of the case no such sanction was required to be obtained. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inspector of Police and another vs. Battenapatla Venkata Ratanam and another, 2015(5) Scale 253 which judgment was also relied upon before the Sessions Court it was submitted that though the accused no.1 had been working as a public servant, as the allegation was with regard to fabrication of records which was not part of his duty, sanction was not at all necessary. It was submitted that without properly appreciating the ratio of this decision it was held otherwise by the learned Judge of the Sessions Court. It was further submitted that even if the complainant had applied for grant of sanction, the same would not preclude the complainant from urging that sanction was in fact not necessary to be obtained. In that regard, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the decisions in P. Nallammal and another vs. State (1999) 6 SCC 559, Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha and another vs. Dr. K. Santhakumari (2001) 5 SCC 60 and State of Rajasthan and another vs. Surendra Mohnot and others (2014) 14 SCC 77. It was then submitted that necessary allegations were made in the complaint alleging commission of offence of fabrication by the accused no.1. The learned Judge of the Sessions Court misconstrued the averments in the complaint while holding otherwise. He also submitted that there was delay on the part of the learned Judge of the Sessions Court in deciding the discharge application. He referred to the Roznama and submitted that though the learned Counsel for the parties had been heard, the proceedings were unnecessarily adjourned for passing the final order. This delay was unwarranted especially when the relevant case law was also placed on record. For said purpose, the