Judgment :- 1. Challenge in this criminal revision case is to the order dated 19.07.2007 passed in Crl.M.P.No.245 of 2007 in Calendar Case No.3 of 2007 by the Principal Special Court (for CBI cases), Madurai. 2. The revision petitioner herein as petitioner has filed a petition under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to discharge him from the proceedings of Calendar Case No.3 of 2007, pending on the file of the Principal Special Court (for CBI cases), Madurai and the same has been taken on file in Crl.M.P.No.245 of 2007. 3. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner has served as Inspector of Police in District Crime Branch, Pudukottai and in Mimisal Police Station, a case has been registered under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.38 of 1999 on 17.07.1999 against one Tamilselvan. One Gunasekaran has given the complaint in question, wherein it has been stated that the said Tamilselvan has driven Bajaj M-80 Motor Bike in a rash and negligent manner and thereby caused accident and the complainant viz., Gunasekaran has travelled as a pillion rider and due to accident, he has fallen down and sustained injuries. The Inspector by name Nagooran has investigated the case and registered in Crime No.38 of 1999 and after completing investigation, he has filed a final report. The Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi has fined the accused viz., Tamilselvan to the tune of Rs.1,250/-. The National Insurance Company, Thanjavur Division has given a complaint stating that a false case has been registered against the said Insurance Company. The complaint given by the said Insurance Company has been transferred to the District Crime Branch, Pudukottai and the petitioner has registered the same in Crime No.16 of 2004 against the said Gunasekaran and Tamilselvan under Sections 420, 120B read with 511 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has conducted investigation and ultimately filed a final report stating as mistake of fact. The said Insurance Company has filed a protest petition before the concerned Magistrate Court and thereby sought for reinvestigation and subsequently the said Insurance Company has also filed a writ petition before this Court and this Court has directed to conduct further investigation and accordingly further investigation has been done and ultimately filed a final report against the petitioner and the said Gunasekaran,Tamilselvan and Nagooran. Further it is stated in the petition that there is no allegation with regard to the alleged conspiracy and further no sanction has been obtained under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prior to proceed against the petitioner. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present petition praying to discharge him from the proceedings of Calendar Case No.3 of 2007. 4. The Court below after considering all the rival contentions raised on either side, has dismissed the petition. Against the dismissal order the present criminal revision case has been filed. 5. The only point that has now winched to the fore is; Whether the impugned order passed in Crl.M.P.No.245 of 2007 in Calendar Case No.3 of 2007 by the Principal Special Court (for CBI Cases), Madurai, is liable to be set aside? 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has laconically contended that there is no evidence to prove the alleged conspiracy between the petitioner and the other accused found in Calendar Case No.3 of 2007 and no permission has been obtained under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prior to proceed against the petitioner and further misjoinder of charges is found place, but the Court below without considering the above legal aspects has erroneously dismissed the petition and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is liable to be discharged from the proceedings of Calendar Case No.3 of 2007. 7. 7. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor (for CBI cases) has befittingly contended that the petitioner has been appointed as investigation officer to investigate the case registered in Crime No.16 of 2004, but the petitioner has failed to investigate the same properly and without conducting proper investigation, he has filed a final report stating as mistake of fact and in fact, he has colluded with the other accused and thereby hatched a plot so as to facilitate the other accused to elude from the clutches of law and since the petitioner has committed offence under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, no permission is required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal procedure and further no case shall be dismissed on the ground of misjoinder of charges and the Court below after considering all the rival contentions raised on either side, has rightly dismissed the petition and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Court below is not liable to be set aside and altogether the present criminal revision case deserves dismissal. 8. Before perpending the rival submissions made by either counsel, it would be apposite to look into the provisions of law under which the petitioner and other accused have been charged. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been appointed as investigating officer in Crime No.16 of 2004. It is also equally an admitted fact that the petitioner has filed a final report stating as mistake of fact. Against the petitioner and other accused reinvestigation has been ordered by this Court and the same has been done and accordingly a final report has been filed, wherein it has been clearly stated that the petitioner and the other accused have committed offences under Sections 120-B read with 182, 420 and 511 of Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 9. The first limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that there is no evidence so as to point out that the petitioner and other accused have committed offence under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 10. 9. The first limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that there is no evidence so as to point out that the petitioner and other accused have committed offence under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 10. In fact, this Court has perused the entire order passed by the Court below and ultimately found that the petitioner has stated in his final report that on 30.03.2004 he examined some witnesses at Aranthangi, but, at the same time he served in his office at Pudukottai from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. Therefore, it is very clear that without examining the relevant witnesses, the petitioner has created bogus records. 11. The specific contention of the respondent is that the accused namely Gunasekaran and Tamilselvan have falsely created the accident in question and thereby made fake insurance claim. The Doctor, who admitted the said Gunasekaran, has clearly stated in his statement that the said Gunasekaran has told him that on 23.05.1999 at about 2.50 p.m. he has driven Bajaj M-80 Motor Bike and he has voluntarily fallen down. The petitioner has not at all examined the Doctor who admitted the said Gunasekaran in Hospital. Therefore, it goes without saying that the petitioner and other accused have hatched a conspiracy so as to avoid the genuine contention of the Insurance Company. If really the petitioner has acted properly, definitely he would have examined the Doctor who admitted the said Gunasekaran in the hospital. Therefore, from the available records, the Court can easily discern that the petitioner and other accused have entered into conspiracy so as to spoil the contention of the Insurance Company. Under the said circumstances, the first limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petition is sans merit. 12. The second limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that the petitioner is a Government servant and since no permission has been obtained under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal procedure to proceed against him, he is liable to be discharged from the proceedings of Calendar Case No.3 of 2007. In support of his contention, he has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision reported in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1206 (Daulat Ram Vs. In support of his contention, he has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision reported in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1206 (Daulat Ram Vs. State of Punjab) wherein at paragraph 3, the Apex Court has held that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the Public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. 13. The Honourable Apex Court has passed its dictum on the basis of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 195 of the said Code deals with the offences coming under Section 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code. In the instant case, as stated earlier, the petitioner and other accused are facing charges under Sections 120-B read with 182, 420 and 511 of Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 14. At this juncture, it would be more useful to look into Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same reads as follows;"(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-(a)in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government." 15. From the close reading of the provision of Section 197 of the said Code, it is very clear to the Court that if any Government servant has done any offence in connection with his discharge of official duty, permission under Section 197 is absolutely required and in the instant case, as adverted to earlier, the petitioner and other accused have been facing a charge under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. The offence under Section 120-B cannot be done in discharge of official duty. Therefore, it is quite clear that no permission is required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to proceed against a Government Servant under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. Under the said circumstances, the second limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petition is also sans merit. 16. As adverted to earlier, the third limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that in Calendar Case No.3 of 2007 there is misjoinder of charges and on that ground also, the petitioner is liable to be discharged. 17. Even for the sake of argument assuming that there is a misjoinder of charges in Calendar Case No.3 of 2007, the same can be rectified at any point of time before completing trial. Therefore, simply because there is a misjoinder of charges the particular accused cannot be discharged from the proceedings of particular criminal case. Therefore, the third limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is not legally sustainable and the same can be eschewed. 18. In the light of the discussion made earlier, it is very clear that none of the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner can be accepted. The Court below after evaluating all the rival contentions raised on either side has rightly dismissed the petition and in the light of the foregoing narration of both the factual and legal premise, this Court has not found any valid ground to make interference with the well merited order passed by the Court below and altogether the present criminal revision case deserves dismissal. 19. In fine, this criminal revision case deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed and the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.245 of 2007 in Calendar Case No.3 of 2007 by the Principal Special Court (for CBI cases), Madurai is confirmed. 19. In fine, this criminal revision case deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed and the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.245 of 2007 in Calendar Case No.3 of 2007 by the Principal Special Court (for CBI cases), Madurai is confirmed. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2007 is also dismissed.