Judgment : KANCHAN CHAKRABORTY, J: 1) These two revisional applications are taken out by Birendra Nath Sharma and R. L. Nahata accused in Special Case no. 2 of 2005 pending in the 1st Court of learned Special Judge at Alipore, praying for setting aside the order no. 96 dated 15.7.2008 on the grounds, inter alia, - i) that the learned Court failed to appreciate the true intent and purport of the order dated 11.3.2008 passed in C.R.R. No. 324 of 2008 by this Court whereby the order passed by the learned Special Judge on 26.4.2007 was set aside; ii) that the learned Court, in fact, had gone deep into merit of the case and made some observations in the order dated 15.7.2008 and some earlier orders which are contrary to law and against the order passed by this Court in the above stated Criminal Revision; iii) that the learned Court while passing the order was oblivious of his duty to appreciate the materials placed before it by the I.O. before dismissing the petition filed by the present petitioner praying for his discharge from the case; and iv) the order impugned being otherwise bad in law, is liable to be set aside. 2. Since common question are raised by the petitioners against particular orders both the Revisional applications are disposed of by this common judgment. One complaint was lodged by one Dr. A. K. Chowdhury of Kalensthan, Bagusarai, Bihar with the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi alleging therein commission of an offence by the petitioner and others punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and Sections 13(2)/13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was alleged therein that the petitioner herein upon giving false representation that he would have the son of the complainant admitted in Government Medical College in Calcutta in Chief Minister’s Quota by using his influence as a CBI officer, took a huge some of money from the complainant but filed to arrange admission of the son of the complainant in a Government Medical College at Calcutta. On the basis of such complaint RC. AC 2/2002 A 0003 dated 18.4.2003 was registered for investigation. It was complaint further that the petitioner in the same way cheated one Uday Mishra of Muzaffarpore to the tune of Rs.18,00000/-( Eighteen lakhs) on false assurance of arranging license for Liquor Retail Shop of West Bengal Government in Kolkata. On the basis of such complaint RC. AC 2/2002 A 0003 dated 18.4.2003 was registered for investigation. It was complaint further that the petitioner in the same way cheated one Uday Mishra of Muzaffarpore to the tune of Rs.18,00000/-( Eighteen lakhs) on false assurance of arranging license for Liquor Retail Shop of West Bengal Government in Kolkata. The said complaint lodged to the Superintendent of Police CBI/ACB on 21.4.2002 by Uday Mishra. It was further alleged that the petitioner and others also cheated similarly one Dr. Bimla Sahi to the tune of Rs.17,00000/- ( Seventeen lakhs) against false assurance of arranging of her daughter’s admission in Medical College in Calcutta under Chief Minister’s quota. That case was also registered with CBI, Calcutta. All the complainants, however, are close relations of the petitioner. The learned Special Court at Alipore from the very inception of lodging of the FIR dealt with the case by taking important steps like recording confessional statement of the accused/petitioner under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and even granting pardon to (1) the accused Sadquik Md. Mallick, (2) Sandip Sekhar @ Anshu and (3) Kalyan Moitra of Assembly of God Church School, Kolkata who played pivotal role in accepting the money. The Biren Sharma filed an application praying for his discharge from the case under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code and the learned Court by an order no. 76 dated 26.7.2004 rejecting his prayer after being satisfied that there was a strong prima facie case against the petitioner punishable under Section 120 B read with Section 420 IPC and under Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned Special Court also framed charge against the petitioner under the above mentioned sections dated 17.12.2007. Some co-accused, namely, Jitendra Nath Sharma, Rajdeo Prosad and Ratan Lal Nahata were also arrayed to face the charge under the above mentioned sections. That order of the learned Special Court dated 7.12.2007 was challenged by the petitioner in this Court in a revisional being no. C.R.R. No. 324 of 2008 which was disposed of on 11.3.2008 whereby the order dated 7.12.2007 was set aside with a direction on the learned Special Judge to consider the matter of framing of charge afresh after giving the parties opportunity of being heard in the matter and to proceed according to law. C.R.R. No. 324 of 2008 which was disposed of on 11.3.2008 whereby the order dated 7.12.2007 was set aside with a direction on the learned Special Judge to consider the matter of framing of charge afresh after giving the parties opportunity of being heard in the matter and to proceed according to law. Learned Special Judge, being communicated of the order of this Court in C.R.R. 324 of 2008, fixed 11.4.2008 for hearing regarding framing of charge. Learned Special Judge on 11.4.2008 passed an order being no. 92 dated 11.4.2008 expressed his reluctancy to give a fresh look with regard to framing of charge with preconceived notion quoting its earlier order dated 26.4.2007. On that date, another accused R.L. Nahata filed an application for his discharge under Section 239 of the Code from the case. The learned Court fixed 14.5.2008 for hearing of that petition. The petition was taken up for hearing on 30.5.2008 and by an order no. 94 dated 30.5.2008 the learned Court expressed his reluctancy in giving a fresh look into the matter. The matter was finally heard on 15.7.2008 and by the order no. 96 dated 15.7.2008 learned Special Court found that their existed a strong prima facie case against the petitioners for the offences alleged and accordingly, the learned Judge framed charges under the above mentioned sections against all the accused including the petitioners. Against that order the petitioners have come up with these revisional applications praying for setting aside the order on the grounds mentioned earlier. 3. Mr. Sekher Bose, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner R. L. Nahata (C.R.R. 2965 of 2008) contended that the learned Special Judge was absolutely misconceived and wrong in passing the order no. 96 without giving the effect to the order passed by this Court in C.R. no. 324 of 2008 in its true sprite and letter. Mr. Basu contended further that the learned Court failed to come out of his order passed earlier on 7.12.2007 and stuck to that order ignoring the directions given by this Court in the Criminal Revision. This apart, Mr. 324 of 2008 in its true sprite and letter. Mr. Basu contended further that the learned Court failed to come out of his order passed earlier on 7.12.2007 and stuck to that order ignoring the directions given by this Court in the Criminal Revision. This apart, Mr. Basu contended that while dismissing the petitions for discharge filed by B. N. Sharma and R. L. Nahata which were taken up together for hearing by learned Special Court on 15.7.2008, the learned Court was oblivious of considering the materials placed before him as well as the translated version of the statement of the witnesses produce before him. No where in the four corners in the order impugned it has been spelt out that the learned Court had made any effort even any intention to make effort to consider that translated version of case diary. The learned Court did not consider as to whether proper order of sanction to prosecute was obtained by the I.O. before filing of the charge-sheet and placed before the Court for its perusal. Mr. Basu also contended that the learned Special Judge was duty bound to examine that prosecution was accorded in respect of all the three complaints made against the petitioner B. N. Sharma and R. L. Nahata. The learned Special Court was oblivious of his such duty and pass the order whereby he failed to reconsider the matter as directed by this Court and stuck to his earlier view taken in order dated 7.12.2007. Mr. Basu contended that this Court should interfere into the order impugned and set aside the same. 4. Mr. Sambhu Nath Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner B. N. Sharma (C.R.R. NO. 3065 of 2008) contended that a composite charge-sheet has been filed in respect of three allegations against his client. The sanction to prosecution was not accorded in respect of all the offences at least the order impugned does not disclose as to whether sanction for prosecution was accorded against his client in respect of all the three allegations or not. Mr. Roy contended further that the learned Court did not comply with the directions given by this Court in CRR NO.. 2965 of 2008 in its letter and spirit. The learned Court acted peculiarly by reiterating his view taken earlier on 26.4.2007. Mr. Roy contended further that the learned Court did not comply with the directions given by this Court in CRR NO.. 2965 of 2008 in its letter and spirit. The learned Court acted peculiarly by reiterating his view taken earlier on 26.4.2007. He neither discussed the materials placed before him nor the points raised by the petitioners were, according to the facts and circumstances of this case, given any importance or not. The order impugned does not disclose as to whether the offences alleged were committed by the petitioners while discharging his official duties. The translated version of the C.D. although produced was not at all looked into. The learned Court reiterated his view taken on 26.4.2007 and came to a conclusion that there existed a prima facie case against the petitioners punishable under Section 120 B read with Section 120 B IPC, Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 5. Mr. Himangshu Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party CBI contended that the learned Court although failed to discuss the real issue before him, somehow arrived at a conclusion that their existed a prima facie case against the petitioners for trying them for the offences mentioned above of the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. A combined charge-sheet was filed and charges have already been framed against them. Therefore, this Court should not exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceeding only on the grounds taken in these revisional applications. 6. I have carefully gone through all the orders passed right from 31.1.2008 including the order dated 26.4.2007 and the order dated 15.7.2008. I have also gone through the order passed by Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in CRR no. 324 of 2008. Two petitions were filed - 1) petitioner B. N. Sharma and another 2) R. L. Nahata praying for their discharge from the prosecution under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The earlier petition praying for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. taken out by B. N. Sharma was taken up together with the petition of R. L. Nahata filed subsequently praying for his discharge from the case. On 26.7.2004 the petition filed by B. N. Sharma was rejected by the Court noting its satisfaction regarding existence of strong prima facie case against him under Sections 120 B and 420 IPC read with Section 13(2) and Section 13(1 (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and the learned Court also framed charge against him. That order was challenged in this Court and by an order dated 11.3.2008 in CRR no. 324 of 2008 and this Court set aside that order passed by the learned Special Judge with a direction to consider the matter of framing of charge afresh after giving the parties opportunity of being heard in the matter and to proceed according to the law. Thereafter, both the petition of B.N. Sharma and R. L. Nahata were taken up together by the learned Court on 15.7.2008 for consideration. Prior to that the learned Court got the materials in C.D. written in Hindi version translated in English version. I find that the major portion of the order dated 15.7.2008 relates to acceptability of said translated version of the C.D. As far as merit of the petitions filed by the petitioners under Section 239 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is clear that the learned Court stuck to its earlier view taken on 26.4.2007 vide order no. 76. In doing so, the learned Special Court did not consider, at least the order does not show, the materials placed before it after getting the same translated from Hindi version to English version. What he found in that translated version is not mentioned any where within the four corners of the order. The learned Court did not consider as to whether sanction to prosecution was accorded legally or not and if so, in respect of all the allegations or not. The charge-sheet is a combined charge-sheet of all the three allegations lodged by three different persons by way of three specific FIRs. Of course, there is no bar in filing a combined charge-sheet but whether all the FIRs attributed to all the allegations put forth therein directed against the petitioners was supported by legal sanction or not was not at all considered as far as petitioner B. N. Sharma is concerned. Whether or not the FIR lodged by Uday Mishra implicating both B. N. Sharma and R. L. Nahata was placed before the sanctioning authority has not been considered by the learned Court. Whether or not the FIR lodged by Uday Mishra implicating both B. N. Sharma and R. L. Nahata was placed before the sanctioning authority has not been considered by the learned Court. If the order impugned dated 15.7.2008 if read carefully, it would be clear that a learned Court failed to take a fresh look at the materials placed before it as directed by this Court in the Criminal Revision mentioned earlier. The learned Court could not come out of his earlier view taken on 26.4.2007 and re-look into the matter afresh on the basis of materials placed before him together with the translated version of the C.D. Therefore, I find substance in the contention of Mr. Basu as well as Mr. Roy. The order impugned is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I set aside the order impugned and disposed of the application with following directions. a) that the learned Court shall take up the entire case record together with the translated version of the C.D. and consider the prosecution case afresh; b) that while considering the materials on record learned Trial Court should also see whether requirements of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code have been fulfilled or not; c) that learned Court shall consider each and everything and all the points raised by the petitioners in their petitions filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. independently without being influenced by any observation made by this Court and its earlier order dated 26.4.2007and pass a speaking order without delay. 7. The revisional applications are disposed of accordingly. 8. Interim stay, if any, stands vacated.