This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order of discharge, dated 24.01.2011 passed in Crl.R.C.65/2010 by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court I, Tirunelveli, discharging the respondent, who is arrayed as third accused, in the complaint, confirming the order, dated 10.05.2010, passed in Crl. M.P. No. 2206/2010 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he approached the respondent/third accused, while he was working as a Government Servant, for furnishing certain documents. Since the respondent failed to discharge his official duty, the petitioner has lodged a complaint against him, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambasamudram and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.132/2010. While the said case was pending, the respondent herein filed a discharge petition in Cr. M.P. No. 2206/2010 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambasamudram on the ground that the sanction of prosecution from the Government is necessary. Since the respondent was discharging his official duty and based on the fact that without obtaining sanction from the Government Authority, under Section 197 of Cr.P.C, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, discharged the respondent from the charges, is bad in law. Aggrieved over the same, this petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.65 of 2010, under Section 397 of Cr.P.C before the lower Appellate Court. The lower Appellate Court after hearing both sides, confirmed the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate. Against which, the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent was discharged in violation of G.O.Ms.No.114 and Section 76 of the Evidence Act. However, without considering the facts, the lower Court discharged the respondent/third accused and the lower Appellate Court also confirmed the Order of the lower Court.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner herein filed a petition before the respondent under the Right to Information Act. If the respondent refused to furnish the particulars, the remedy available to the petitioner is only to approach the appropriate forum available under the Right to Information Act. Implicating the respondent in the criminal offence by way of private complaint, does not arise and the sanction of prosecution from the Government is necessary under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.

5. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on the following Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court, in Rajan Kumar Machananda Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1990 SCC(Cri) 537, wherein at paragraph 2, it has been held as follows:-

''2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The respondent- State had challenged the order before the Court of Sessions when the learned Magistrate before whom the matter was proceeding directed release of the truck in favour of the appellant. The Revisional Court dismissed the petition of the State. A second Revision did not lie at the instance of the State to the High Court in view of the provisions of Section 397(3) of Cr.P.C. Obviously, to avoid this bar, the application moved by the State before the High Court was stated to be under Section 482 Cr.P.C. asking for exercise of inherent powers. In exercise of that power, the High Court has reversed the order of the Magistrate as affirmed by the Sessions Judge. The question for consideration is as to whether the bar under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. should have been taken note of to reject the revision at the instance of the State Government or action taken by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power has to be sustained. It is not disputed by counsel appearing for the State that the move before the High Court was really on application for revision of the order of the Magistrate releasing the truck. That is exactly what is prohibited under Section 397(