1. On behalf of the applicant, this revision petition is preferred under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC, being aggrieved by the order dated 26.8.2014, passed by Special Judge (Constituted under Prevention of Corruption Act) and First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Private Complaint Case No.0/2013, whereby the private complaint filed by the applicant against the respondents No.1 to 5 has been dismissed after recording the statements under sections 200 and 202 of CrPC on the ground that in the absence of sanction from the competent authority as per requirement of section19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act in the light of decision of the apex Court in the matter of Anil Kumar v. M. K. Aiyappa [2013 AIR SCW 5570], is not maintainable.

2. Applicant's counsel after taking us through the papers placed on record along with the impugned order, argued that subsequent to passing the aforesaid order by the trial Court, he had approached the competent authority of State Government for grant of sanction to prosecute respondents No.1 to 3 the public servants but such authority has refused to grant sanction to the applicant to prosecute those respondents. So, firstly he seeks permission to withdraw this revision petition till the extent of respondents No.1 to 3, with liberty to approach the appropriate forum under appropriate provision with appropriate proceeding against the order of State Government refusing to grant sanction to prosecute such respondents.

3. Till the aforesaid extent, revision petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn as well as not pressed by extending a liberty to the applicant to approach the appropriate forum with appropriate proceeding permissible under the law against the order of the State authority refusing to grant sanction for prosecution of the respondents No.1 to 3.

4. Apart from the aforesaid, in continuation of the argument, by referring the copy of private compliant filed by the applicant before the trial Court, the applicant's counsel submits that such complaint was filed only to take cognizance against the public servants for the offences made punishable under sections 13(1)(d), 13(2), 9 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 161 166, 120B of IPC but the same was also filed against the respondents No.4 and 5 who are not public servants but they are the persons from private sector and to prosecute them for the alleged offences, no sanction was required and in such premises, the trial Court was bound to consider the matter in the light of the evidence adduced by the applicant under sections 200 and 202 of CrPC for taking cognizance against such respondents No.4 and 5 for the offences as stated above. With this background, he said that it is apparent from the impugned order that while dismissing the complaint by the trial Court the same was dismissed only on one ground that in the lack of sanction for prosecution from the competent authority the complaint is not tenable but the aforesaid aspect for taking cognizance against private persons was not considered in any manner and prayed to set aside the impugned order till the extent of respondents No. 4 and 5 and to remit the matter back to the trial Court with a direction to decide afresh in the light of available papers and evidence to take cognizance of the offences against the respondents No.4 and 5.

5. Responding the aforesaid argument, counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5 submits that he did not have any objection in permitting the applicant to withdraw this petition till the extent of respondents No.1 to 3 with liberty as prayed by applicant's counsel. So far as other argument is concerned, he did not have any objection in remitting the matter back to the trial Court after setting aside the impugned order till the extent of respondents No. 4 and 5 with a direction as prayed by the applicant's counsel but he said that the trial Court be specifically directed to decide the matter till the extent of respondents