Cr. Revision 147 of 2009. 9.3.2010 Present: Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG, for the respondent. This is the third round of litigation between the parties in this Court. Without referring to the other litigations, I need to notice only the judgment passed by me on 12.12.2008, when allegations of bias were made against learned Judge as he refused to accept the reply to the application made for withdrawing the cancellation report. No finding was given by me on the point of bias urged. The case was remanded to the learned Court below for decision afresh in accordance with law. The State moved an application before the learned Sessions Judge praying for recalling the cancellation report which it had filed. Simultaneously, the petitioner herein moved an application for proceeding against certain government officials under Sections 193 and 211 IPC. The petitioner urged that the case was required to be dealt with in accordance with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code). Learned Sessions Judge clubbed all the applications together and disposed them of by a common order which is the subject matter of this revision -2- petition. The learned Court below observed that the stage for launching prosecution against the government officials is pre mature. However, on the application filed by the respondent- State seeking to withdraw the cancellation report, the Court holds that it is an application under Section 173(8) of the Code. seeking further investigations. I am unable to accept the reasoning of the Court below. The application filed on record is Annexure P-5 which recites: “ In the Court of Special Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur, Distt. Shimla. In case: State Versus Sanjay Gupta Under Section 465, 467, 471, 477-A, 420, 201, 120-B IPC and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Case FIR No. 2/96. Next dateof hearing 12.11.2008. Respectfully Sheweth, 1. That in the above noted case charge sheet was prepared against the accused persons after detailed investigation. However, during the finalization of case against accused persons who are public servants, inadvertently, cancellation report was submitted before this Hon’ble Court. 2. That the perusal of evidence, both oral and documentary constitute commission -3- of offences punishable under the above noted sections of law. It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that the cancellation report may be returned back, so that, the matter may be taken up with the competent authorities for seeking prosecution sanction under law. Sd/- Applicant Superintendent of Police Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau,S/R Shimla, 171002.” Section 173 of the Code which deals with submission of a final report to a court by the police officer on completion of investigation, does not contemplate the kind of application which has been moved by the prosecution and which has been dubbed to be one under Section 173(8) of the Code. There is nothing indicated in the application to show that further investigation is required. The order of the Special Judge, therefore, in so far as it terms this application as one under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is quashed and set aside. The case is remanded to the learned Special Judge for decision afresh in accordance with law. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the material on record constitutes ample grounds for proceeding against the petitioner. She also submits that the challan -4- is ready and it is only the sanction of the appropriate authority as required under Section 197 of the Code. which is to be applied and on receipt of such sanction, further proceedings will commence against the petitioner. I need not express any opinion on this aspect of the matter. It will be open to the prosecution to take any such or further steps in accordance with law as may be permissible. It will be open to the petitioner herein to urge all the grounds available to him against withdrawal of the cancellation report. This petition is disposed of. The other aspect of the case on the question of the applications filed by the petitioner which have been held to be premature is not adjudicated by this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending applications shall stand disposed of. March 9, 2010 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.