P.K. Musahary, J.

1. The alleged perpetrators here are seemingly posing.... 'Look we are going astray, far of from the justice...don't chase and make futile attempt to reach us with your incurable intrinsic default in not obtaining the prosecution sanction, by preferring a misconceived revision petition against an order of discharge in place of a statutory appeal, and that too, time barred, without an application for condoning the delay, which you cannot repair the damage by preferring yet another ill-advised appeal against the obvious dismissal order, before this Court.'

2. This is an appeal presented as an application under Section 26 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulations, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as Regulation only) read with Section 378A(1) and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the State of Arunachal Pradesh, against the order dated 18.5.2006, passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro (hereinafter referred to as Deputy Commissioner in short) in criminal revision No. 03/05 corresponding to Ziro P.S. Case No. 48/2001 under Sections. 120B/408/420/409 of IPC.

3. The facts of the case which are in narrow campus, are enumerated as follows:

(i) The respondent No. 1, Sri P.K. Baruah, was the Branch Manager of Arunachal Pradesh State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. ('APSCABL'), Hapoli Branch ('the Bank only'), a State Government Public Sector undertaking. Having received a written FIR complaining misappropriation of a huge amount to the tune of Rs. 1,89,79,337, the police registered a crime being Ziro P.S. case No. 42/2001, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 69/2001 under Sections 120B/408/420/409 of IPC, against him. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid by the police, charges were framed against the 4 accused persons including the present respondents who stood the trial before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ziro. The said Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ziro, vide order dated 12.7.2005, discharged all the accused persons on the ground that it is purely a case of civil nature and no sanction was obtained by the prosecution as required under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(ii) The State Government filed a Revision Petition being Civil Revision Petition No. 03/2005 before the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro, under Section 28of the Regulation read with Sections 399 and 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for setting aside and reviewing the Magistrate's order dated 12.7.2005, aforesaid. The learned Deputy Commissioner after hearing the parties came to a conclusion that prosecution sanction is not required in this case as the act of misappropriation of public money is not one of the duties of the government servant. However, the learned Deputy Commissioner dismissed the Revision Petition vide order dated 18.5.2006 as barred by limitation, for which, no application was filed by the State for condonation of the delay.

(iii) The State being aggrieved by the aforesaid order is now before this Court by filing this appeal under Section 26 of the Regulation read with Sections 378(1) and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for setting aside the aforesaid order dated 18.5.2006 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ziro.

4. This matter was heard earlier by a learned Single Bench of this Court and vide order dated 17.5.2007, granted leave for entertaining the instant appeal holding that the matter may be heard as to whether the impugned Judgment and Order dated 18.5.2006 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ziro, can be sustained on the basis of findings recorded therein and as to the application of Section 3 read with Article 131 in the Schedule to the Limitation Act to the matters covered by Regulation 28 of the Regulation. The question framed by the aforesaid learned Single Bench is whether Article 131 in the Schedule to the Limitation Act applies to the revision filed under Regulation 28 of the Regulation or