ORDER :

Tirthankar Ghosh, J.

The present revisional application has been preferred against the order dated 27.09.2013 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, in connection with case no. C/31586/13.

2. By the said order the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to reject the application under Section 156(3) of Code Criminal Procedure filed at the instance of the petitioner, wherein the offences referred to were under Sections 166/167/218/219/463/464/465/466/471 of the Indian Penal Code, allegedly being committed by the opposite parties namely; (i) Basudeb Banerjee, Home Secretary, Govt. Of West Bengal; (ii) A. Sengupta, WBCS (Exe), Joint Secretary, Vigilance Cell, P&AR Department, Govt. Of West Bengal; (iii) Sanjay Mitra, Chief Secretary, Govt. Of West Bengal; (iv) Mamata Banerjee, Chief Minister and Minister in charge of Home Department and P&AR Department, Govt. Of West Bengal; (v) S.N. Haque, Additional Chief Secretary, ARD Department, Govt. Of West Bengal; (vi) Naparajit Mukherjee, DG&IGP WB Police Directorate. The learned Magistrate was pleased to observe that no offence under the said Sections were committed by the opposite parties and also observed that even if it is presumed that the offences were committed sanction would be required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved approached this Court against the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The first contention of the petitioner is that the substantive offences so alleged were committed by the opposite parties and for the purpose of investigation no sanction is required. In order to substantiate his argument the petitioner contended that in this case the opposite parties/accused entered into criminal conspiracy, prepared incorrect documents, prepared incorrect translation, forged the contents of his book, forged the Supreme Court judgment and used them as genuine for injuring him which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be work done in discharge of their official duties.

4. Petitioner appearing in person emphasized that sanction is required at the stage of cognizance and for the purpose of investigation no sanction is required. Additionally he submitted that even if sanction is required that can be made available at any stage but an offence cannot be deterred from being investigated for want of sanction, to this effect the petitioner relied upon P.K. Pradhan -Vs. - State of Sikkim, (2001) 6 SCC 704; State of H.P. -Vs.- M.P. Gupta (2004) 2 SCC 349; Choudhury Parveen Sultana -Vs.- State of W.B. & Anr. (2009) 3 SCC 398; Inspector of Police & Anr.-Vs.-Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam & Anr. (2015) 13 SCC 87; Punjab State Warehousing Corporation-Vs.-Bhushan Chander & Anr., (2016) 13 SCC 44.

5. The main thrust of argument by relying upon the aforesaid judgments was that the principles decided by the Larger Benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court do not require sanction to be granted particularly with reference to the acts committed by the accused persons and for the purpose of investigation of the same.

6. The next argument which was advanced by the petitioner is that even if it is presumed that sanction is necessary the same would be required at the time of taking cognizance and not at the time when the learned Magistrate considers an application on the issue of requirement of investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was contended that as the order was passed on 27.09.2013 the judgment of Anil Kumar & Ors. -Vs.-M.K. Aiyappa & Anr., (2013) 10 SCC 705 was not operating in the field and as such the said law will not be applicable to the present case. Elaborating his argument the petitioner stated that if the order of the learned Magistrate is closely scrutinized it would be clear that there was no analysis regarding the application of the Sections for which the offences were allegedly committed and the learned Magistrate cryptically observed that no offence has been