The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order of sanction for prosecution must demonstrate the application of mind, contain necessary particulars, and adhere to principles of natural justice. Additionally, a complainant cannot be the sanctioning authority.

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri dated 211. 2005 made in Crl.M.P.No.1347/2005 in C.C.No.285/1999 pending on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Krishagiri.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the Criminal Revision Case, in brief, are as follows:-

a) Based on the complaint of Thiru.Mohan Piyare, I.A.S., the then Collector of Dharmapuri District, a case was registered on the file of CB-CID, Dharmapuri Unit, Dharmapuri District as Crime No.1/1997 against the petitioner herein and other persons for alleged offences punishable under Sections 466, 120-B and 379 IPC and also for an offence punishable under Section 4(1) read with Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957. The Inspector of Police attached to the CBCID, Dharmapuri unit conducted investigation and submitted a final report under Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code, accusing the petitioner and nine others of committing various offences. The petitioner was arrayed as the 4th accused in the said charge-sheet (final report) and was accused of committing the following offences:-

i)An offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 447 and 379 IPC and Section 21(1) read with Section 4(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957, 420 IPC, 434 IPC, 466 IPC, 468 IPC, 451 IPC, 480 IPC, 406 IPC and Section 201 IPC read with 109 IPC.

ii) An offence punishable under Section 434 IPC read with Section 109 IPC,

iii) Offence punishable under Section 420, 426 and 468 IPC,

iv) Offence punishable under Section 466 IPC and 468 IPC

AND

v) Offence punishable under Section 201 IPC read with Section 109 IPC

b) The said final report was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri on his file as C.C.No.285/1999 and thus the offences came to be taken cognizance of by the said Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner herein/Accused No.4, thereafter submitted a petition for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the offences allegedly committed by him attracting the above said penal provisions were admitted to have been committed while discharging or purporting to discharge his official duty as a public servant employed as surveyor in the Survey and Settlement Department and that hence the offences should not have been taken cognizance of without obtaining sanction for prosecution as contemplated under Section 197(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The said petition was taken on file by the court below as Criminal M.P.No.1347/2005.

c) The respondent herein/the Investigating Officer filed a counter statement (written objections) contending that an order of sanction was, in fact, obtained from the District Collector and hence the petitioner/accused was not entitled to an order of discharge as prayed for by him. It was also contended therein that sanction for prosecution was not necessary since the petitioner had been charged with offences punishable under Sections 120B of IPC and 406 of IPC also. It was the further contention of the respondent that an order of sanction for prosecuting the petitioner had been made by the then District Collector of Dharmapuri in his R.C.No.1352/97/G3 dated 20.09.1998. A copy of the said order of the Collector was also produced along with the counter statement.

d. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, after enquiry dismissed the said discharge petition holding that the question-whether sanction for prosecution was granted by the competent authority or not? -could not be decided in discharge petition in the light of the fact that a copy of the sanction order had been produced along with the counter statement. The learned Judicial Magistrate also held that the genuineness and validity of the sanction order could be canvassed in the trial and that the same could not be decided in a discharge petition. Based on the above said reasoning, the lear