1. After the arguments were concluded on 13.7.2012, the matter was kept for orders on 20.7.2012. However, on 18.7.2012, learned Counsel Shri I.H.Syed for the Petitioners mentioned and requested that he may be permitted to make one submission which escaped his mind. Therefore, in fairness and in the interest of justice, in presence of learned Senior Counsel Shri P.C.Kavina for the Complainant and learned Public Prosecutor Shri Prakash Jani, indulgence was granted though the matter was not on the board and the submissions have been recorded and dealt with in the order.

2. Both these Petitions have been filed by different Petitioners. The Petitioner in Special Criminal Application No. 2086 of 2012 is an I.P.S. Officer and the Petitioners in Special Criminal Application No. 2019 of 2012 are the other Petitioners who have filed these two Petitions challenging the impugned orders dated 30.6.2012 passed in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 20 of 2012 below Exhibit 32.

3. The present Petitions have been filed by the Petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and also under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the prayer that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jam-Khambalia, District Jamnagar, in Criminal Revision Application No.20 of 2012, on an application below Exhibit 32 dated 30.6.2012. It is also prayed that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued quashing and setting aside the order dated 20.12.1995 taking cognizance of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jam-Jodhpur in FIR registered as I-CR No.102 of 1990. Pending the hearing of the petitions, an interim relief has been prayed to stay further proceedings of Sessions Case No.35 of 2001 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jam-Khambalia, District Jamnagar, on the grounds stated in the Petitions inter alia that the impugned order passed in Criminal Revision Application No.20 of 2012 is ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction. It is also contended that the Sessions Court has ignored and overlooked the PM report and the expert opinion with regard to the death of the deceased. It is contended that the death of Shri Prabhudas Madhavji Vaishnani was not a homicidal death, and therefore, the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murder would not be attracted. It is also contended that the State Government, which is a competent authority, has not granted sanction to prosecute the Petitioners, and the said decision / order has become final. Reference is made to the earlier litigations also and the background of the facts giving rise to the present Petitions.

4. Heard learned Counsel Shri I.H.Syed for the Petitioners. He submitted that Section 197 of the Cr.PC refers to the administrative powers, which is to be exercised by the State. He emphasized that while granting sanction under Section 197 of Cr.PC, the State has exercised its powers and has considered, whether the act alleged is committed in discharge of official duty, which would give protection to the officer under Section 197 of Cr.PC. He emphasized that since it is an administrative decision by the State, such an order is not subject to judicial review before the Court. Learned Counsel Shri Syed submitted that in 1995 this question of sanction was considered and the State was of the opinion that the act was committed in discharge of the official duty, and therefore, now it is not open to review such a decision by the State or by the Court. He submitted that when the sanction was refused, the relevant papers were considered, and therefore, it cannot be said that the victim has not died natural death. He emphasized and submitted that the order of 1995 refusing sanction, has become final, and therefore, whether the Magistrate, in exercise of powers under Section 197 of Cr.PC, can consider that the act was