Public servants cannot be prosecuted without necessary sanction under Section 197 of the CPC. The court must evaluate evidence for a prima facie case while deciding discharge applications.

1. By this application under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant ' “ original accused calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 21st May 2016 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj - Kutch, in the Criminal Revision Application No.16 of 2016, by which the revisional court rejected the revision application filed by the applicant herein, thereby affirming the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj - Kutch, dated 7th August 2015 below application Exhibit - 14 in the Criminal Case No.504 of 2012.

2. It appears from the materials on record that the accused herein is a Sub-Registrar. The first informant also is a Sub-Registrar. He lodged an FIR levelling allegations against the applicant ' “ accused herein of collusion and connivance with the other co - accused so far as the registration of 34 bogus fraudulent sale - deeds of the lands admeasuring about 500 - Acres situated at the Vadali and Kotada Taravada, District Kutch, is concerned.

3. The case of the prosecution is one of criminal conspiracy and fraud on the part of the applicant accused herein as a public servant. At the end of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed, which has culminated in the Criminal Case No.504 of 2012 pending as on date in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj - Kutch.

4. The case of the applicant - accused herein is that he is no way concerned with the conspiracy and the fraud as alleged. It is his case that he registered the sale - deeds in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act and in discharge of his official duties. It is his case that even otherwise he cannot be prosecuted and put to trial without an order of sanction under S.197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . It is his case that there is no incriminating materials worth the name in the entire charge - sheet for the purpose of framing of charge. In such circumstances referred to above, the applicant preferred an application Exh.14 before the trial Court and prayed for discharge.

5. The trial Court, by order dated 7th August 2015, rejected the discharge application, holding as under : ' Heard learned advocate for accused as well as A.P.P. The accused submitted discharged application under S.239 of Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 and contended in his discharge application that during the said incident, the accused was performing duty as a Sub Registrar office, Nakhtrana - Kachchh. Thirty four sale deeds of various persons executed which were later declared false and vendor persons have name of personation which were not in fact owner of the land inspite of that executed sale deeds of land and complaint be filed against all various persons who were become the name of personation of owner of land arrested as an accused and this accused also arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet has been filed on 14/06/2011, there is no name described in F.I.R. of this accused. The papers which are submitted along with charge sheet. From those papers there is no evidence against this accused to perform any part to committed said offence. There is no evidence upon record against this accused to frame charge. This accused only performed duty as a Registrar under Registration Act