Judgment : 1. Crl.M.P.No.301 of 2012 in C.C.No.2 of 2011 filed by the petitioner before the learned III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad under Section 239 Cr.P.C. to discharge him, was dismissed through orders dated 29.04.2013. Assailing the same, the present revision is laid. 2. The petitioner is said to be 1991 batch IAS officer belonging to the cadre of Mizoram-Arunachal Pradesh-Goa. A case of disproportionate assets to the known source of income was instituted against the petitioner under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In October, 2006, the Income Tax Department seized a sum of Rs.02.88 crores from one Dr. Ramesh Kapoor, Managing Director of Raddision Hotel of Delhi while he was passing through Begumpet Airport. One Uma Shankar Das is said to be a real estate consultant for Ramesh Kapoor. Uma Shankar Das is claimed to be a family friend of the petitioner. The Income Tax Department found cash of Rs.70.20 lakhs in the room of Ramada Hotel which was registered under the name of the petitioner and was occupied by Uma Shankar Das. Out of this amount, Income Tax Department claimed that an amount of Rs.20.20 lakhs was found in the hotel room occupied by Uma Shankar Das, who was sharing the room with the petitioner. 3. Sri D.V. Seetharama Murthy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ramesh Kapoor (LW.19) claimed that he owns the whole of the amount seized by the Income Tax Department authorities. He further claimed that he made a declaration of unaccounted for money of Rs.19 crores to the Income Tax Department including the amount of Rs.20.20 lakhs that is recovered from the hotel room. He further submitted that Income Tax Department passed assessment order including the amount of Rs.20.20 lakhs as the unaccounted money of Ramesh Kapoor. 4. The check period in this case is from 1991 in which year the petitioner joined service till 2006. The petitioner claimed that his wife is a tax assessee since long and that CBI has included the assets of the wife of the petitioner and the assets of the family as the assets of the petitioner and considered that the petitioner possessed disproportionate assets to the known sources of income. He contended that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. 5. He contended that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. 5. Sri P. Kesava Rao, learned standing counsel for CBI, on the other hand, contended that the scope of Section 239 Cr.P.C. is very limited and that it is not permissible to make a roving search to assess the merits and demerits of the prosecution case and the defence. Indeed, what is considered u/s.239 Cr.P.C. is whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused or otherwise. 6. The learned standing counsel for CBI contended that the petitioner possessed nearly Rs.95 lakhs of assets beyond his known sources of income. Indeed, the petitioner contended that the income of his wife and the income of the family have been computed as the assets of the petitioner. These questions cannot be considered in a petition u/s.239 Cr.P.C. Where the allegations on the basis of the available record is that the petitioner possessed Rs.95 lakhs of assets in excess of his known sources of income, I cannot hold that there is no prima facie case and that the petitioner is liable to be discharged. 7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner raised another contention that under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, permission of the concerned State Government is necessary to prosecute an employee of the State Government. It is the case of the learned standing counsel for CBI that Government of Andhra Pradesh has given consent to prosecute the petitioner. It is not clear whether the Government of Andhra Pradesh has given such a consent u/s.6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. However, admittedly, the petitioner belongs to Mizoram-Arunachal Pradesh-Goa cadre. Mizoram has attained statehood on 20.12.1987. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted unless permission is granted under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act by the concerned State Government in which cadre the petitioner has been working. Admittedly, such sanction has not been obtained by CBI to prosecute the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner is justified in seeking his discharge. 8. I reiterate that I cannot go into the details of the merits of the rival contentions. The only question is whether the petitioner can be prosecuted or cannot be prosecuted. Admittedly, such sanction has not been obtained by CBI to prosecute the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner is justified in seeking his discharge. 8. I reiterate that I cannot go into the details of the merits of the rival contentions. The only question is whether the petitioner can be prosecuted or cannot be prosecuted. In the absence of permission u/s.6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, prosecution by CBI for the offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not permissible. Consequently, the petitioner is liable to be discharged for the offence levelled against him. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The petitioner is discharged of the offences levelled against him. The miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this revision, shall stand closed.