1. Irregularities and violations of rules and regulations do not constitute criminal offences. 2. Public servants cannot be prosecuted without obtaining prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

R. Mala, J.

1. The present Criminal Revisions have been preferred for setting aside the impugned order dated 26.11.2013 made in Crl.M.P. Nos. 4329, 7034 of 2012 and 3433 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, wherein the discharge applications filed by A1 to A3 under Section 239 Cr.P.C. came to be dismissed.

2. On the basis of source information, a case in RC.MA1.2009.A.0056 was registered on 30.10.2009 against four known persons and one unknown public servant of All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as 'AICTE'), New Delhi and Regional Office, Chennai under the provision of law under Section 120-B r/w 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After investigation, the charge sheet was levied on 15.12.2011 and a final report was filed against three persons in Report No. 43 of 2011 viz., the petitioners in Crl.R.C. Nos. 1510, 1533 and 1536 of 2013 alleging that the appraisal committee headed by A-1 has processed the proposal on 18.04.2006 by observing that the College was functioning with the shortage of 42.5% of faculty and shortage of built up area and has recommended to reduce the intake from 180 to 90 Students. However, A-1 has intentionally omitted to cause any inspection in the College by an Expert Committee to verify the availability of the faculty strength as required under AICTE Approval Process Hand Book and has dishonestly or fraudulently recommended for increase in intake of students from 180 to 280 on 10.10.2007 as requested by A-3 and induced AICTE to accord sanction for the same deceiving the AICTE and conferring pecuniary advantage to A-3. A-2 has willfully suppressed the material particulars that the College was not functioning 10 years continuously so as to get the eligibility of 3 years extension at a stretch and that it was kept under no admission category in 2002-2003 by AICTE and has obtained the recommendation of the Moderation Committee for 3 years extension of approval 2008-2011 to the College.

3. In paragraph 10, 11 and 12 of the charge sheet it has been specifically stated as follows:

"10. That Shri R.A. Yadav, Vice-Chairman and Chairman, AICTE is named in the FIR as an accused. During the investigation, no prosecutable evidence was available to prosecute Shri R A Yadav for proving that he has shown undue favour to M/s. Padmavathy College of Engineering in the matter of granting extension of approval and increase in intake of students. Hence, he is not sent-up for trial and consequently his name is mentioned in column 2 of the charge sheet.

11. That Shri K. Narayana Rao (A1), public servant was since retired from service on 31.01.2010, no sanction for his prosecution is required u/s.19(1) of PC Act, 1988.

12. During the course of investigation, it is revealed that Shri P. Venkateshwara Rao, Adviser-I, AICTE, New Delhi was also involved in commission of offences in this case and CBI has sought sanction for his prosecution as required u/s. 19(1) of PC Act, 1988. But the competent authority declined to accord sanction for his prosecution and hence he could not be prosecuted and as such he was shown in column 2 of the charge sheet."

Hence, the petitioners were arrayed as A1 to A3 and the charge sheet was filed against them.

4. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed application for discharge from the charges leveled against them. The Trial Court after hearing both sides has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners stating that there is prima facie material available against them. It is a well settled principle that at the time of framing the charges, it is not the duty of the Court to consider whether it is a fit case for convicting the accused, but the Court has to only see whether a prima facie case has been made out and there is sufficient ground for framing the charges. On that basis, the Trial Court had dismissed the application filed by the petitioners stating that the prosecution has submitted adequate m