JUDGMENT 1. Brief facts of the case are that the wife of the petitioner late Smt. Kanta Devi was admitted in the General Hospital, Sawai Madhopur for delivery. Petitioner has come with the case that his wife was not attended properly in the Hospital and the Doctors and the Nursing Staff were culpably negligent in the discharge of their duties. Petitioner has prayed that he may be allowed to prosecute the Doctors and Nurses who were culpably negligent in the discharge of their duties resulting in the death of his wife. 2. The first information report, Annexure-1, was submitted at the Police Station. No action was taken against the Doctors and the Nursing Staff and, as such, he submitted the complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The final report was submitted by the Police authorities and it was submitted that there is no sufficient proof to hold that the Doctor and the Nursing Staff were culpably negligent in the discharge of their duties. The complaint was treated as a protest application and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after examining the record came to the conclusion that prima facie the case of culpable negligence of the Doctors and Nurses has been made out, however, for want of the sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. he cannot proceed with the case. He directed that the matter may be referred to the Government for taking necessary steps. 3. State Government vide order dated, 22nd February 1986, refused to accord sanction for the prosecution of the present respondents. Present petitioner submitted Writ Petition No. 639/86 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same has been disposed of with the direction that the petitioner should first approach to the High Court. Thereafter this Writ Petition has been submitted before this Court on 3rd February 1987. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the order, Annex. 6, is not a speaking order. He further submitted that the State Government has not applied its mind particularly when the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has held that there is a prima facie case and the matter should be referred to the State Government for according sanction. State Government has not discussed any evidence on record and has only said that it is not a fit case for according sanction. 5. State Government has not discussed any evidence on record and has only said that it is not a fit case for according sanction. 5. On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that it is not the duty of the Court to took into the details. The case of Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari ( AIR 1956 S.C. 44 ) was cited by the learned counsel for the respondents. Their Lordships held that the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. are intra-vires. Their Lordships have also held that the question whether the sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage. The necessity may reveal itself in the course of the prosecution of the case. 6. On behalf of the petitioner the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another ( (1982) 2 S.C.C. 463 ) was cited. It is a case in which the question of according sanction for the prosecution against the Chief Minister was involved. Their Lordships held that, in the circumstances, advice of Council of Ministers, need not be taken by the Governor for taking the decision. Their Lordships considered the provisions of Articles 74 and 163 of the Constitution. This case is not relevant in the instant case to a great extent. However, one thing is certain that the provisions relating to the sanction have been held intra-vires. 7. We have heard rival contentions of the parties. 8. In the case of Kehar Singh v. Union of India ( AIR 1989 S.C. 653 ) , their Lordships have discussed the various provisions of law and hell that the power to pardon is a part of the Constitutional scheme and it should be so treated in the Indian Republic. Their Lordships further held that the order of the President cannot be subjected to judicial review on its merits except within certain limitations. It cannot be denied in the facts and circumstances that this Court has power to review on the judicial side the order passed by the State Government refusing to accord sanction subject to the restrictions which may be imposed by the Court itself. Ordinarily, this Court will not act as a Court of facts and will not disturb the order of the Government refusing or according permission for the prosecution. Ordinarily, this Court will not act as a Court of facts and will not disturb the order of the Government refusing or according permission for the prosecution. However, when the Court finds that the Government order is perverse or malafide then this Court has a power to review the order and to pass necessary orders to see that the real culprits are punished and on account of extraneous circumstances, the Executive cannot be allowed to decide finally that the persons against whom there is prima facie case, should not be allowed to be prosecuted. This may result in the discharge of the persons against whom there is a primafacie case. At the same time, this Court should exercise this power sparingly and should not ordinarily disturb the finding of the Executive. 9. It will not be out of place here to mention that it is the duty of all the wings of the State to see that the real culprits are punished. We should also see that the doctrine of accountability is there and it is for the persons who are holding the public office to satisfy that they have performed their duties faithfully and sincerely. There may be a mistake in the judgment and it cannot take the position of a culpable negligence. We cannot allow also the parties to prosecute public servant when they act faithfully in the discharge of their duties and while acting as such, commit mistake bonafidely. 10. In the instant case, it is the prime duty of the State Government to pass speaking order. State Government will have to place on record the reasons for dis-agreement with the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Annexure-6 is not a speaking order. It was the duty of the State Government to have taken note of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and to pass necessary orders. 11. In the circumstances of the case, we accept this writ petition, set aside the order Annexure-6, dated 22.2.86 and direct the State Government to pass fresh speaking order after hearing both the parties. The process of hearing and passing of necessary order should be completed within three months from today. 12. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.Petition disposed of. *******