Sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is not required for public servants removable by their respective committee, and sufficient prima facie evidence justifies proceeding with prosecution.

O R D E R

Dated this the 13th day of June, 2023 All these criminal revision petitions have been filed challenging the dismissal orders of discharge passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Neyyattinkara (for short 'the court below').

2. The petitioner herein is the accused No.1 in five different cases (C.C.Nos. 1029/2012, 1028/2012, 1026/2012, 1030/2012 & 1027/2012) pending at the court below. The allegations in all the cases are identical. The offences alleged against him in all the cases are punishable under Sections 468, 471, 403, 420, 120B r/w 34 & 511 of 403 of IPC.

3. The revision petitioner was the Secretary and the accused No.2 was the President of the Balaramapuram West Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society, a Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. The accused No.3 was the Co-operative Inspector. The crime was registered on the basis of a complaint given at the Lok Ayukta by one Viswambharan, who was the former Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies.

After investigation, final report was filed in all the cases. The prosecution allegation in all the cases as revealed from the final reports is that the revision petitioner and the accused No.2 being public servants, with the intention of obtaining undue pecuniary advantage conspired with the accused No.3 and in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, abused their official position as public servants and committed forgery for the purpose of cheating. The petitioner along with the remaining accused were alleged to have fabricated documents such as Day Book, Invoice Register, Yarn Stock Register etc. in order to show huge production of clothes, sale of clothes at reduced rate during rebate season and fraudulently applied to obtain rebate claim for the years 1988 and 1995.

4. The revision petitioner appeared at the court below in all the cases. He was released on bail. He filed an application for discharge on the ground that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against him. The court below upon consideration of the records of the case and after hearing the submissions of the revision petitioner as well as the prosecution dismissed the applications vide the impugned orders. Challenging those orders, the above revision petitions have been preferred.

5. I have heard Smt. Anjali, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. S. Rekha, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the statement of the witnesses and the materials on record would reveal that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against the revision petitioner. The counsel further submitted that the prosecution is bad for want of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The court below ought to have discharged the revision petitioner, submitted the learned counsel. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that there are materials on record to prima facie show the involvement of the revision petitioner in the crime. The court below has rightly dismissed the discharge application, submitted the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned public prosecutor further submitted that, sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C is not required in any of the cases.

7. It is settled that, at the stage of consideration of the application for discharge, the court is required to consider whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. The court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials on record produced by the prosecution, nor is it for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. At this stage, the court is not to see as to whether the trial will end in conviction or not. The broad test to be applied is whether the materials on record, if unrebutted, make a conviction reasonably possible. 8. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is regarding sanction. Section 197(1