The main legal point established is the determination of the competent authority to grant sanction under Section 197 of the Code and the applicability of protection under Section 3 of the Act of 1985.

R.C. Mishra, J.

This revision is directed against the order dated 26-6-2009 passed by Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) (for brevity 'the Act'), Rewa in Special Case No. 2/08,'rejecting petitioner's objection as to want of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short "the Code") for his prosecution.

2. The petitioner is facing trial upon the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with 120-B of the IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act. The charges, in substance, are that in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched between him and the persons arraigned as co-accused, he had accorded permission to sell certain lands belonging to Ujjaini Maharani Public Trust Anathalaya, Rewa against the interest of the Trust and the corresponding sale transactions ultimately resulted into a total loss of Rs. 26,23,321/- to the Trust.

3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27-12-2008 framing the aforesaid charges, the petitioner also preferred a revision inter alia on the ground of absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Code as well as that of statutory protection under Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 (for short "Act of 1985") before this Court. However, observing that the question of sanction was not projected against the backdrop of its refusal by the State of Madhya Pradesh, a co­ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 28-1-2009 passed in Criminal Revision No. 79/09, disposed of the revision with liberty to raise the plea of sanction before the Trial Court. Accordingly, the petitioner raised the objection before the Trial Court by way of an application on 4-2-2009 but, as pointed out already, it was rejected by the order forming subject-matter of challenge in this revision.

4. The following facts are not in dispute :-

(i) The petitioner was a member of State Administrative Service in the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh. At the relevant point of time, he was working as SDO and Registrar, Public Trust, Rewa.

(ii) After due investigation, the report and the corresponding records were forwarded to Principal Secretary, Department of Law and Legal Affairs, Bhopal along with a letter of request for grant of sanctions under Section 197 of the Code and Section 19 (1) of the Act to prosecute the petitioner as well as other public servants, namely :-

(i) Omkarnath Pandey, Deputy Collector

(ii) Vineet Tiwari, Superintendent Land Records

(iii) Suresh Kumar Agrawal, Tehsildar

(iv) Surendra Deo Pathak, Sub-Registrar

(v) Ramsevak Chaturvedi, Record Keeper in the office of Sub-Registrar

(vi) Partheshwar Pandey, Patwari

(vii) Nagendra Singh, Patwari

In respect of the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and also under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act. However, for the reasons recorded in the order dated 8-11-2007, the Secretary in the Department declined to grant the sanctions.

(iii) Taking note of the fact that consequent to reorganisation of State of M.P., the petitioner was allotted to State of Chhattisgarh, that was brought into existence w.e.f. 1-11-2000, the Investigating Agency applied for sanctions of the new State. The Additional Secretary, Department of Law and Legislative, Government of Chhattisgarh by way of order dated 16-5-08, accorded the sanctions as prayed for.

(iv) On the date of filing of the charge-sheet, the petitioner was posted as Additional Collector, Distt. Kawardha (Chhattisgarh).

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance on the pronouncement of the Apex Court in R.R. Chart Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1573, has strenuously contended that State of Madhya Pradesh alone was competent to grant the sanction as, at the relevant point of time, he was employed in connection with the affairs of that State. According to him, the State of Chhattisgarh that was not even in existence during the corresponding period, was not expected to know as to whether the petitioner ha