1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.237/2009 AND CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.238/2009 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.237/2009 Applicant :- Gajanan s/o Modkuji Meshram Aged about 59 years, Occ. Chief Executive Officer (Retired as Assistant Commissioner of Fisheries Mumbai) Fish Farmers Development Agency, Gadchiroli, Now R/o Shashtri Nagar, Bhandara, District Bhandara. ...Versus... Respondents :- 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Gadchiroli. 2. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Dhanora, Distt. Gadchiroli. 3. The State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Armori, Distt. Gadchiroli. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.238/2009 Applicant :- Naresh s/o Kisanji Meshram Aged about 50 years, Occ. Deputy Engineer, Public Work Department, Sironcha, Tah. Dist. Gadchiroli. ...Versus... 2 Respondents :- 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Gadchiroli. 2. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Dhanora, Distt. Gadchiroli. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri B.L. Meshram, Adv. for applicant] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 02.02.2010 1. Heard. 2. In both these matters the question i.e. raised by the applicants is that the sanction was required before prosecuting the applicants under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Admittedly, the applicants in both these cases have been convicted by the trial Court and against the said conviction and sentence respective appeals have been filed. It need not be said that in the substantive appeals all questions including the question regarding sanction which is being raised in these revisions can be easily raised. 3. Learned Sessions Judge has expressed surprise as to how a revision was filed before him against an order rejecting application for discharge on the ground of want of sanction when appeal was filed. I must express double surprise as to how the present criminal revision applications have been filed before me by the learned Counsel for the applicants in both these 3 cases. As a matter of fact these criminal applications ought to be dismissed with costs. This is an abuse of process of law. But I refrain from doing so. In the result, both the criminal revision applications are dismissed reserving liberty in favour of the applicants to raise the said question regarding sanction in the appeal. JUDGE SSW