Order The petitioner has preferred the Criminal Revision for quashment of the order impugned dated 6.10.2007 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, in CBI, Ranchi Case No. 8(A)/2005 whereby and whereunder his petition for discharge was rejected. The learned Special Judge, had taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 420, 12013 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1 ) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner admitted having agitated the matter earlier before this Court for quashment of his criminal proceeding in the said CBI, Ranchi Case No. 8(A)/2005 in Cr. M.P. No. 1429 of 2006 which was dismissed by according liberty to the petitioner to agitate the issue before the trial court at the appropriate stage. 2. The prosecution story in short as narrated in the self-statement of the Sr. Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACBI Ranchi addressed to Spl. Judge, Ranchi was that the petitioner Mahesh Kumar Thapar @ M.K. Thapar being the Director (T) CMD, CCL, Ranchi by entering into criminal conspiracy with Sri. S.K. Basu, Director (Finance), Shri P.V.L.N. Prasad, the then Chief General Manager and in league with M/s Rungta Project Limited placed orders for transportation of 1.5 lakhs M.T. coal from Jharkhand Project of Hazaribagh dishonestly and fraudulently to Rajrappa Washery of CCL at an exorbitant rate without ensuring competitive rate and also ignoring the prevalent rate of transportation causing loss to the extent of Rs.24. 781akhs to the CCL. 3. After registration of C.B.I. case the investigation was carried out but, according to the learned counsel, no criminal case was made out against the petitioner as per the evidence collected during investigation yet, by misinterpreting the evidence, the learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that the CBI shown to have made out criminal case against the petitioner for the offence of criminal conspiracy, cheating and misconduct. 4. The admitted case was that during the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Director (T) CMD, CCL, Ranchi and as such he was a public servant within the definition under Section 2(c)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 21 of IPC which called for appropriate sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act and Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned counsel submitted. 5. The Senior Counsel Mr. 5. The Senior Counsel Mr. Anand further contended that the CBI after investigation of the case forwarded the investigation report to the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner viz. Coal India Limited, Government of India seeking sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure to prosecute him which was declined after perusal of the materials so collected by the CBI. In other words, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner was not satisfied with the materials produced, as no prima facie case could be made out against him for which sanction was sought for. The Disciplinary Authority after perusal not only declined to accord sanction but observed also with the reasoning that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner and such observation was communicated by the Joint Secretary, Government of India to the prosecution on 29.5.2006 while the petitioner was still in service. The D.I.G., CBI by his letter dated 2.8.2006 after two months again requested the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner i.e. the Joint Secretary and CVO, Ministry of Coal to reconsider the proposal of granting sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner, though by that time the petitioner had already retired from his service on 31.5.2006, yet the competent authority did not reconsider the further request of D.I.G., CBI and fresh proposal was again turned down. The CBI, Ranchi then without obtaining sanction and by suppressing the fact that the competent authority declined to grant sanction, submitted charge-sheet on 12.9.2006 stating that no sanction was required as the petitioner had retired from his service. The conduct of CBI in this manner whereby relevant fact was concealed, according to the Sr. Counsel, was sufficient to show that it was their biased approach against the petitioner. The Special Court, CBI took cognizance of the offence on 13.9.2006 without appreciating this aspect. 6. Having been dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred Cr. M.P. No. 1429 of 2006 before this Court which was dismissed by a detailed order dated 15.2.2007 with the liberty to raise the issue before the trial court. Pursuant to such observation, the petitioner and another accused agitated the matter before the Special Judge, CBI Ranchi for dropping his criminal prosecution on the ground that their prosecution was not maintainable for want of sanction under Section 197 Cr. Pursuant to such observation, the petitioner and another accused agitated the matter before the Special Judge, CBI Ranchi for dropping his criminal prosecution on the ground that their prosecution was not maintainable for want of sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. and under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 but it was rejected by the CBI court concurring the view that by the time the prosecution CBI filed charge-sheet under Section 173 of Cr. P.C. the petitioner had retired and ceased to be a public servant. 7. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel, CBI submitted that cognizance of the offence was taken under Sections 420 and 120B Indian Penal Code as also under Section 13(ii) r/w Section 13(i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner and three others to which the petitioner had preferred quashing petition before this Court being Cr. M.P. No. 1429 of 2006 which was dismissed. 8. Mr. Kumar emphatically submitted that the petitioner invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court with the similar prayer for quashment of the order dated 6.10.2007 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, and quashment of his criminal proceeding, though for the same set of relief, the petitioner had earlier invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. and this Court by a detailed order dismissed the said petition with the observation:- "From rival contentions of the parties, the controversy revolves around the question as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, sanction for prosecuting the petitioner for the offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code as also under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is at all necessary. The acts of the petitioner, as contended, depends for its resolution on evidence, which can be taken at the trial. It is, therefore, appropriate that the question of sanction should be left open to be decided by the trial court at any appropriate stage. In view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in its recent judgment regarding the scope of Section 197 of Cr. P.C., I am not inclined to decide the issue at this stage. The petitioner may agitate the issue before the trial court at the appropriate stage. With the above observation this application is dismissed." 9. In view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in its recent judgment regarding the scope of Section 197 of Cr. P.C., I am not inclined to decide the issue at this stage. The petitioner may agitate the issue before the trial court at the appropriate stage. With the above observation this application is dismissed." 9. Advancing his arguments the learned counsel for the CBI submitted that against the order passed by this Court in Cr .M.P. No. 1429 of 2006 on 15.2.2007 under Section 482 of Cr .P.C. the petitioner did not prefer any Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court questioning the legality, to the contrary, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision for the review of the order passed under Section 482 of Cr .P.C. 10. In P.K. Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim represented by the Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2001)6 SCC 704 the Apex Court observed:- "It is well settled that question of sanction under Section 197 of the Code can be raised any time after the cognizance; may be immediately after cognizance or framing of charge or even at the time of conclusion of trial and after conviction as well. But there may be certain cases where it may not be possible to decide the question effectively without giving opportunity to the de-fence to establish that what he did was in discharge of official duty. In order to come to the conclusion whether claim of the accused that the act that he did was in course of performance of his duty was a reasonable one and neither pretended nor fanciful, can be examined during the course of trial by giving opportunity to the de-fence to establish it. In such an eventuality, the question of sanction should be left open to be decided in the main judgment which may be delivered upon conclusion of the trial." 11. The legislature has afforded adequate protection to public servants against their malicious and vexatious criminal prosecution done by them in discharge of their official duty. It is settled that official act or official duty means an act or duty done by an officer in his official capacity. The legislature has afforded adequate protection to public servants against their malicious and vexatious criminal prosecution done by them in discharge of their official duty. It is settled that official act or official duty means an act or duty done by an officer in his official capacity. Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide immunity to every act or omission done by a public servant but restricts its scope of operation to such acts or omission which are done by the public servant in discharge of official duty as held by the Apex Court in B. Sahu VS. M.S. Kochar, (1979)4 SCC 177 . 12. Section 197(1) of Cr. P.C. provides:- 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 be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government. 13. Similar situation fell for consideration and it was held by the Apex Court in State of H.P. vs. M.P. Gupta reported in (2004)2 S.C.C. 349 :- "The correct legal position, therefore, is that an accused facing prosecution for offences under the old Act or the new Act cannot claim any immunity on the ground of want of sanction, if he ceased to be a public servant on the date when the court took cognizance of his said offence. But the position is different in cases where Section 197 of the Code has application." 14. The short question which needs consideration is as to whether the order passed by this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. can be reviewed in Criminal revision under limited jurisdiction. The answer is certainly not. But the position is different in cases where Section 197 of the Code has application." 14. The short question which needs consideration is as to whether the order passed by this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. can be reviewed in Criminal revision under limited jurisdiction. The answer is certainly not. The petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. by the petitioner was dismissed with certain observation with respect to the application and scope of Section 197 of Cr. P.C. The scope of sanction for criminal prosecution of an accused in my view is a mixed question of law and fact and such issue can only be decided by the trial court as consistently observed by the Apex Court, referred to hereinabove and under such situation the question of sanction either under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. or under Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 should be left open for the trial court to decide on its own merit on the given facts and circumstances of the case at the appropriate stage with the liberty to agitate the matter. 15. The petitioner failed to show any ground so as to call for interference in the order impugned passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in CBI, Ranchi Case No. 8(A)/2005 on 6.10.2007. 16. There being no merit, this Criminal Revision is dismissed with the observation as aforementioned.