1. Heard.

2. Revisionist has filed this revision against the order dated 8th July, 2014 passed by the trial Court.

3. By the aforesaid order, the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the revisionist under section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Revisionist prayed in the aforesaid application that directions be issued to the Police Superintendent, Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, Gwalior Division and Station House Officer, MP Special Police Establishment, Bhopal to register criminal offences under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act in exercise of the powers under section 156(3) CrPC against the Judicial Officers who were retired compulsorily.

4. On the recommendations of the High Court, the State Government issued orders of compulsory retirement of ten Judicial Officers. The High Court made recommendations after considering the entire service record, overall performance and other available material of the Judicial Officers.

5. Contention of the revisionist, who appeared in person, is that because those Judicial Officers were retired compulsorily, hence, they be prosecuted under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.

6. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar v. MK Aiyappa, (2013) 10 SCC 705 has held as under in regard to powers of the Court to issue directions to the investigating agency in exercise of powers under section 156(3) CrPC :

“Where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of section 156(3) or section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, and in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter under section 156(3) CrPC for investigation against a public servant without a valid sanction order under section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under section 156(3) CrPC, should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. The Special Judge/Magistrate in the present case, has stated no reasons for ordering investigation.”

7. From the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, it is clear that the Court cannot exercise powers under section 156(3) CrPC without prior sanction of prosecution from the competent authority.

8. In the present case, revisionist has not obtained any prior sanction of prosecution from the competent authority. Hence, in our opinion, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the revisionist by the impugned order.

9. Apart from this, the trial Court has considered the merits of the case. There was no allegation of corruption. The officers were retired compulsorily after considering their entire service record. Hence, there was no occasion to issue any direction in exercise of the powers under section 156 (3) CrPC.

10. Present revision petition filed by the revisionist is misconceived. We do not find any merit in this revision petition.

11. It is hereby dismissed.

Revisionist in person; J. D. Suryavanshi, Special Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.