* 1 * W.P.-2024/2008 W.P.-2025/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2024 OF 2008 W I T H CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2025 OF 2008 Shri.K.N. Chaturvedi .......Petitioner V/s. Union of India .......Respondent Mr. V.G. Pradhan, Senior Counsel i/by. Mr. Suresh Dubey, adv.for the petitioner. Mr. D.J. Khambatta, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. S.K. Shinde and Mr. M.S. Bharadwaj, adv. for respondent. CORAM: SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 04 th SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. These petitions challenge the orders dated 25th July 2008 of the Sessions Court rejecting the applications for discharge filed by the petitioner in CBI Special Case No. 99 of 2000 and CBI Special Case No. 100 of 2000. There are two more proceedings for similar reliefs filed by the co-accused in CBI Special Case No.99 of 2000 which were heard alongwith the * 2 * W.P.-2024/2008 W.P.-2025/2008 present petitions. Perusal of both the petitions show that the only ground on which the petitioner assails the impugned orders is that the charge-sheets in both the cases, read in their entirety do not, prima-facie, bring out the charges against him. It is not contended by the petitioner that the prosecution of the petitioner is bad for want of sanction under Section 197 Criminal Procedure Code. This contention has been raised in only one of the other proceedings. 3. The arguments, however, on all the four petitions were limited only to the question of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. No submission on merit was advanced in any of the matters. Mr. Pradhan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, had adopted the arguments of Mr.Chitnis, the Senior Counsel appearing in the other petition. At the stage of rejoinder, however, he submitted that the provision of Section 197 CrPC is not attracted to the proceedings herein as according to him, the petitioner is removable from service without sanction of the government. He has relied upon the following three decisions to support his submission that Section * 3 * W.P.-2024/2008 W.P.-2025/2008 197 Criminal Procedure Code is not attracted to proceedings involving such a public servant. (i) K.Ch.Prasad V/s. J. Vanalatha Devi reported in 1987- Curcrij-0-page 179 : 1987-Chandlr (Cri)-2-page516 (Supreme Court of India). (i) Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd V/s. State of Bihar reported in 2004-Crlj-0-page 1951 : 2004-Patljr-2-page 458 (Patna High Court). (ii) Rablndra Nath Shrivastava V/s. State of Bihar reported in 2007-Reccrir-2-page 27 : 2007-Curcrir-1-page 93 (Patna High Court). . Mr. Pradhan, states that the petitioner desires to challenge the sanction granted by the government under Section 9 of The Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 188 Criminal Procedure Code by filing appropriate applications before the appropriate forum. 4. In the circumstances, nothing remains for consideration of this court. The petitions are dismissed for want of prosecution. [JUDGE]