K. Harilal, J.

1. The revision petitioner is the fifth accused in Crl.M.P. No. 2148/14 in S.C. No. 112/14 pending before the VI Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam. Now, he stands charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, (for short, 'the Act'), pursuant to the Final Report filed by the police. In that context, he filed Crl.M.P. No. 2148/14 in the above Sessions Case, seeking discharge, under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that the charge filed against him by the police is groundless. On the above application, earlier, the learned Sessions Judge passed the order dated 27.7.2015 dismissing the said application by a cryptic order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Crl.R.P. No. 612/15 before this Court and, this Court, after considering the contentions raised in the revision petition, set aside the impugned order therein and remitted the case to the trial court, for fresh consideration, with specific directions to consider the police report and the documents sent along with it under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. in compliance with the statutory mandate under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. On receipt of the aforesaid order, the learned Sessions Judge heard the matter afresh and dismissed the petition again mainly on the ground that since the District Collector has granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner, the Sessions Court cannot sit in appeal over the order passed by the District Collector. The legality and propriety of the above findings are under challenge in this revision petition.

2. Heard Sri. Peeyus. A. Kottam, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Justine Jacob, the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel submits that the learned Sessions Judge failed to comply with the specific directions issued to him, in the earlier order passed in revision. It is also contended that the learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order disregarding the statutory mandate provided under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. According to the petitioner, twelve witnesses are seen cited by the prosecution to prove the prosecution case. But, none of the witnesses had given statement under Sec.161 of the Cr.P.C., implicating the petitioner either directly or indirectly in the alleged commission of the offence. But the learned Sessions Judge was very much obstinate in not to look into the statements given by the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., and also the documents therewith, which were sent along with the report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the arguments is that absolutely there is no iota of evidence to presume that the accused has committed the offence alleged against him.

3. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor advanced arguments to justify the findings in the impugned order. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, there is no statutory requirement to pass a reasoned order, when the application seeking discharge was dismissed. So, in the absence of statutory requirements, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in dismissing the application adopting the reasons stated in the order granting sanction for prosecution, passed by the District Magistrate.

4. Going by the impugned order, it is seen that the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the application on the sole ground that the District Collector has granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the offences alleged against him and it is not fair or proper to act as an Appellate Authority of the District Collector at this stage.

5. Considering the curiousness of the reasoning by which the learned Sessions Judge refused to exercise jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., I deem it appropriate to have a look at the manner in which the learned Sessions Judge dealt with the application for discharge filed by the petitioner from the very beginning.

6. The first order dismissing the application reads as follows:--

"Heard both s