HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.685 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the accused, S.P. Singh, against the order dated 06-01-2010 in Criminal M.P. No.1014 of 2009, a petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C., in C.C. No.12 of 2005 passed by the learned Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. Cases. 3. While disposing of Criminal Petition No.2602 of 2008, a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., on 20-11-2008, this Court passed the following order: “Now, as already referred, there is no positive material to show that the sanction for prosecuting the petitioner was refused earlier. In the circumstances, liberty is given to the petitioner to summon the file concerned from the Department concerned, which would positively reveal as to whether the sanction for prosecuting the petitioner was refused earlier. This exercise shall be completed by the trial Court before commencing the trial on an application being filed by the petitioner for that purpose.” 4. Pursuant to the above order, petitioner filed the impugned petition in Criminal M.P. No.1014 of 2009 for production of the file relating to granting sanction order for prosecution of the petitioner and the same was dismissed by the learned Special Judge vide impugned order, holding as under: “The contention of the petitioner that as per the information, the sanction authority in previous dispensation was not satisfied with the evidence of the case and refused to accord sanction, thus the sanctioning authority was guided by the external factors and extraneous considerations for granting Sanction Order in this case. Unless the witness, who was cited as LW.54 to prove the sanction order came into the witness box and unless the same witness admitted or denied with regard to the earlier sanction order was refused to prosecute the petitioner, Special Officer now at this stage summoning of the entire file containing the Sanction order is not necessary, when the prosecution filed the Sanction order copy as the list of Document No.39. The learned Sr. P.P. rightly submitted that though the Sanction order copy filed by the prosecution i.e., Document No.39 is a self contained document reflecting due application of mind and perusal of the concerned documents and in the absence of a specific phrase as to the refusal of sanction initially ex-facie summoning of the file at this early stage of trial is uncalled for. This Court also agreed with the contention raised by the prosecution.” 5. The order of this Court, referred supra at paragraph No.3, is that exercise of summoning the file concerned shall be completed by the trial Court before commencement of the trial. 6. In the circumstances, it is directed that the trial Court shall summon the relevant file as expeditiously as possible, in any case before commencement of the trial. The file shall be sent by the authority concerned in a sealed cover and it shall be opened by the presiding officer only at the relevant time i.e., at the time of examining the witness concerned. Further, it is made clear that only material with regard to sanction for prosecution of the petitioner alone has to be sent, as the file might contain other confidential information, which need not be sent. 7. With the above directions, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order of the learned Special Judge in Criminal M.P. No.1014 of 2009 in C.C. No.12 of 2005 dated 06-01-2010 is set aside. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J April 20, 2010. PV