JUDGMENT

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. Pratiush Lala, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-CBI.

3. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

This petition has been filed to challenge the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 01.07.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV-cum-CBI, Dhanbad in connection with the R.C. Case No. 08(A)/2014-D for offences under Sections 120B read with Sections 420,467,468,471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IVcum-CBI, Dhanbad has rejected the discharge petition dated 03.06.2019 filed by the petitioner for discharge. The case is pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-IV-cum-CBI, Dhanbad for framing of charge."

Be further pleased to discharge the petitioner from R.C. Case No. 08(A)/2014-D as there is no sufficient ground for proceeding in the present case for offences under Section 420, 467,468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only point which is required to be considered in the present revision petition is that the petitioner had raised a specific plea before the learned court below that the petitioner is a principal of the government school, but the CBI has not obtained prior sanction from government to prosecute him. He submits that this point was raised by the petitioner before the learned court below, but the learned court below has not considered this point and has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 also. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid point having not been considered by the learned court below, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the matter may be remanded back to the learned court below for fresh consideration on the aforesaid point.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI on the other hand, while opposing the prayer, has submitted that the petitioner was not working in a government school and at the stage of filing of the charge sheet itself it has been indicated that sanction for prosecution is not required for the petitioner as well as other four charge sheeted accused persons. Learned counsel submits that considering the nature of work and employment of the petitioner, no sanction was required to prosecute the petitioner and he is not entitled to protection under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, upon perusal of the order passed by the learned court below, the learned counsel could not point out any consideration by the learned court below on the point of sanction. He further submits that otherwise also, the alleged action against the petitioner cannot be said to be done in discharge of his official duties but he does not dispute that even this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned court below.

6. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and upon perusal of the impugned order, this court finds that the petitioner had raised specific plea regarding absence of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. This court further finds that this point was taken by the petitioner before the learned court below but the same has not been considered. It appears from the charge sheet that at the time of filing of the same, the CBI was of a view that sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was not required. The aforesaid aspect of the matter as to whether sanction for prosecution is at all required or not was to be considered by the learned court below while