1. Heard learned senior counsel Mr. N.D. Nanavaty appearing with Ms. Disha Nanavaty for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh R. Amin for the respondent No.1 – State.

2. The applicant herein is accused No.3 before the Sessions Court at Vadodara in Special A.C.B. Case No.2 of 2017. Such Sessions case has been initiated pursuant to Vadodara City A.C.B. Police Station I-C.R. No. 3 of 2017 registered under Sections 7, 8, 10 and 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’, for short) read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’, for short) based upon the complaint filed by one Dr. Jasminaben Dilipbhai Devda (herein after referred to as the ‘complainant’). After investigation, when the investigating agency has filed a chargesheet against several accused, including present applicant, the present applicant has filed an application at Exh.13 on 16.11.2017 before the Sessions Court. Such application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 29.11.2017 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara. Being aggrieved by such impugned order, present Criminal Revision Application is filed.

3. If we peruse such application, copy of which is at Annexure-P1, it transpires that the applicant has in the heading of the application, described such application as “an application for dropping the proceedings on behalf of accused No.3 – Dr. Mansukh K. Shah”. In the prayer clause also, the applicant has prayed to drop the proceedings of Special A.C.B. Case. In view of such disclosure, there is preliminary objection by the respondents that there is no provision in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’, for short), which permits the Sessions Court or empowers it to drop the proceedings of any criminal trial and therefore, there is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order, and thereby present application needs to be rejected. Whereas, it is submitted by the applicant that, in fact, the application is u/s.227 of the Cr.P.C. For the purpose, the applicant has referred the contents of the application, wherein in first line of first paragraph itself, there is categorical disclosure that the application is filed under the provisions of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. Even in impugned order, the Sessions Court has in first line categorically disclosed that the application is filed u/s.227 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, though there is a word drop both in the heading and prayer to drop the proceedings in such application, practically, this application is u/s.227 of the Cr.P.C. and therefore, considering the settled legal position that disclosure of improper provision of law, would not debar the litigant from getting appropriate relief by the court, it is to be held that the application is for discharging the applicant from the charges levelled against him and it is u/s.227 of the Cr.P.C. for that purpose. Therefore, such contention of the respondents are rejected holding that using the word “dropping” instead of word “discharging” in such application by the accused, would not curtail the right of the accused – applicant to get appropriate relief in accordance with law i.e. considering the available prima facie material and applicable law u/s.227 of the Cr.P.C. Thereby, practically, when the application is u/s.227 of the Cr.P.C. and the trial Court has also considered the application for discharge under such section, it is to be treated as such and thereby, when such order refusing to discharge the applicant is challenged in such revision application, the consideration in revision application is regarding discharging the applicant by scrutinizing that whether he can be discharged from the charges levelled against him or not.

4. Similarly, before coming to the factual details, it is to be recorded and make it clear that in addition to the above-referred technical ground, the respondents have taken another two technical grounds while opposing the revision application to be heard on mer