Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.:- This criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the impugned order dated 9.7.2010 passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Punjab, Patiala, whereby the petitioner along with other accused have been summoned to face trial.

2. Notice of motion has been issued in this criminal revision petition. Mr. P.S. Grewal, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Mr. Sukhdeev Singh Sandhu, learned Advocate has appeared for respondent No.2-C.B.I. and contested this petition.

3. From the record, I find that in this case challan was presented under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Punjab after perusal of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the accompanying documents found that prima facie case is made out to the effect that accused Nirmal Singh Kahlon in his capacity as Minister Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab along with accused Mandeep Singh, Pardeep Singh Kaleka, C.I Premi, J.P. Singla, Kanwalsher Singh, Peeyush Chander, Puran Chand, Baljit Singh, Jagjit Singh, Ajaib Singh Sooch, P.S. Sodhi, Rakesh Pal, J.S. Kesar and Vikas Sharma entered into conspiracy to select Panchayat Secretaries against monetary consideration; committed forgeries in the various records; used the forged documents as genuine and destroyed the evidence to justify their illegal acts and thus earned huge ill begotten money by abusing their official position as public servants and there are ground for summoning them to stand their trial for commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 465, 468, 471 and 201 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. The learned Special Judge, C.B.I. in the impugned order also held that as Nirmal Singh Kahlon had been Minister of Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab and his public capacity had changed after becoming Speaker of Punjab Vidhan Sabha, therefore, sanction under Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not required in view of ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, 2007(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 111 (SC), whereas accused C.L. Premi, J.S. Kesar, Vikas Sharma and P.S. Sodhi, who earlier had been public servants, were no more public servants of present and thus, no sanction for prosecuting them was required. As there was no sanction for prosecuting accused Mandeep Singh, Pardeep Singh Kaleka, J.P. Singla, Kanwalsher Singh, Peeyush Chander, Puran Chand, Baljit Singh, Jagjit Singh, Ajaib Sooch, Rakesh Pal and therefore, accused Nirmal Singh Kahlon, C.L. Premi, J.S. Kesar, Vikas Sharma and P.S. Sodhi, were ordered to be summoned for 17.8.2010. Against this order, present criminal revision petition has been filed.

5. At the time of arguments, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not be summoned in the present case as no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. had been obtained by the C.B.I. He further argued that rather the sanction so obtained by the C.B.I. has been declined.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the C.B.I. argued that in the present case no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required and the fact that earlier the respondent applied for sanction, which was declined, has no effect in this case. He argued that as per the prosecution version, the allegations have been levelled regarding forgery of the documents and using of forged documents as genuine and destroying the evidence to justify their illegal acts. He argued that the forging of documents, in no way, can be held to be an act done in discharge of official duties. In no way, this act can be held as done by the public servant within the scope and range of his official duties for which protection is required under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State Counsel and the learned counsel for