( 1 ) ). THIS Revision Application is filed against the order passed by learned City Sessions Judge, Court No. 2 below Application Exh. 3 in Session Case No. 207 of 2000 by which learned Addl. Sessions Judge rejected application Exh. 3 filed by some of the accused including present petitioner for discharging them for the offences for which charge sheet is submitted against them.

( 2 ) AS per the brief facts of the case against about as many as 14 to 16 accused including present petitioner accused No. 9, DCB Police Station submitted a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B), 121, 121 (A), 122, 123, 212 and under Section 25 (1), (A), (E) and 27 of the Arms Act in pursuance of Crime Register No. I-4/2000. Complaint of which came to be filed on 20th January, 2000. Though name of the present petitioner is not disclosed in the FIR, whose involvement was discovered during the course of investigation. As per the brief facts of the case sought to be made out against the accused including present petitioner, serious charges are being levelled. It is alleged that the accused in the said case are the members of Babar Khalsa group and they planned criminal conspiracy and remained in contact by telephone with Chhota Rajan of the under world of Bombay. All of them attempted to create disharmony and terror in India and to disturb the peace and tranquility. In conspiracy, the accused prepared a plan to manufacture weapons, to implement their terrorist intentions and it was their plan to instal a factory near the border of Gujarat and Rajasthan near Pakistan and to transport arms and ammunition in this country and to create terror. For raising wherewithals for their horrible intention, the accused intended to implement a plan to kidnap the then Chief Minister of Gujarat State Shri Amarsinh Chaudhary and one Dr. Amit Shah, a wealthy citizen of the State in pursuance of the conspiracy which was hatched by the accused. The accused also conspired to supply necessary deadly weapons and vehicles for implementation of the above said plans and, therefore, the above said charges are levelled against the accused including the present petitioner.

( 3 ) IT appears that since there are charges against the accused for waging the war against the State and required sanction under Section 196 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code was not obtained at the relevant time, the present petitioner filed a Criminal Misc. Application No. 2003 of 2000 in this Court for quashing of the proceedings and vide order dated 6th October, 2000, this Court relying on decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of BIRENDRA K. SINGH vs. STATE OF BIHAR, reported in JT 2000 (8) 238. While dismissing the petition this Court directed the present petitioner to raise the issue before the Trial Court while framing of the charge. However, raising the contention relying upon a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of ABDUL WAHAB ANSARI vs. STATE OF BIHAR, reported in 2000 (4) Crimes 152 (SC) the Application Exh. 3 came to be filed by some of the accused including petitioner for the discharge on facts as well as on the count that since the required sanction under Section 196 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been obtained and as per the above decision of the Supreme Court, the accused is not required to wait till the framing of the charge to raise this plea, the accused are required to be discharged and the court is not empowered to take cognizance in absence of sanction under Section 196 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

( 4 ) THE factual data and certain dates will be material for deciding the issue. A charge sheet in the Metropolitan Magistrate Court came to be filed on 12th of April, 2000 and the same was registered on 13th April, 2000 by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. The case being triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the Metropolitan Magistrate vide order Exh. 18 committed the case to the Court of City Sessions vide Or