JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.—This Criminal revision has been preferred against the Judgment and order dated 10.11.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Moradabad in S.T. No. 735 of 2014 whereby the discharge application of the accused was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that on 31.3.2013 Naveen Singh Rawat informant alongwith other Vigilance Officers boarded train No. 14258 from New Delhi with purpose to check the train. They had information that by demanding 50 to 100 rupees from the passenger, the R.P.F. staff make them sit in the compartment reserved for disabled persons. On this Jashwant Singh and Om Pal Parcel Porter were sent, who went to the accused and requested that they may be permitted to sit in the reserved compartment. The R.P.F. personnel took money from the passengers sitting in the reserved compartment. The accused took hundred rupees from the independent witnesses, which were paid to them and the Vigilance Team was informed. On information, the vigilance team boarded the train at Gajraula station. They revealed their identity to R.P.F. Constable Vinod Kumar and R.P.F. Constable Vikas Chauhan. When the accused were asked to give their personal money and the currency in the bags were counted which was more. Thus, the F.I.R. was lodged. Later on the discharge application was moved before the trial Court, who rejected discharge application, vide impugned order. Against this order, the revision has been preferred. 2. Counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 677 , but this law does not help the applicant. Inasmuch as it has been laid down that the validity of sanction can only be looked into after the evidence is adduced. 3. Counsel for the revisionist has also placed reliance on State of Maharashtra through C.B.I. v. Mahesh G. Jain, (2013) 8 SCC 119 , in which it has been laid down that the validity of the sanction has to be looked into by the Court but this can only be looked done after the evidence has been adduced. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that there were no grounds available to the trial Court to frame charges against the present applicant. It has further been contended that no sanction as provided under law has been obtained for prosecuting the present applicant. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that there were no grounds available to the trial Court to frame charges against the present applicant. It has further been contended that no sanction as provided under law has been obtained for prosecuting the present applicant. He being a constable, the charges could not be framed. 5. Learned AGA has resisted the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for the revisionist. 6. As far as discharge is concerned, the grounds on which an accused can be discharged are as follows: (i) If upon consideration that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused for which he is required to record his reasons for so doing. No reasons are required to be recorded when the charges are framed against the accused persons. (ii) Where it is shown that the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence cannot show that the accused committed the crime, then and then alone the Court can discharge the accused. The Court is not required to enter into meticulous consideration of evidence and material placed before it at this stage. 7. In Santosh Kumar Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2011 (72) ACC 770, it has been laid down that if there is ingredients of offence against the accused, charge should be framed. The Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and another, 2010(1) ACR (SC), has laid down that whether the materials at the hands of the prosecution are sufficient or not are matters for trial. At the stage of charge, it cannot be claimed that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and discharge is the only remedy. Whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal is absolutely immaterial. 8. The learned lower Court while referring the case of R.N. Mishra v. State of U.P., Crl.L.J. 2011, has specifically stated that if a Government Servant during the performance of his duties commits any illegal act, shall be liable under Prevention of Corruption Act and there is no need to sanction in this regard at all. 8. The learned lower Court while referring the case of R.N. Mishra v. State of U.P., Crl.L.J. 2011, has specifically stated that if a Government Servant during the performance of his duties commits any illegal act, shall be liable under Prevention of Corruption Act and there is no need to sanction in this regard at all. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2005 SC 3509, has laid down that the documents or material filed by the accused cannot be looked into at the stage of framing of charge. Even the proposed defence of the accused cannot be looked into at the time of framing of the charge. 9. As far as the sanction is concerned, in the case of Chandan Kumar Basu v. State of Bihar decided on 7.7.2004, the Apex Court in paragraph No. 9 has observed as under: “9. The above discussion will now require the Court to consider the question as to whether the acts giving rise to the alleged offences had been committed by the accused in the actual or purported discharge of his official duties. In a series of pronouncements commencing with Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab; Harihar Prasad v. State of Bihar and Prakash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab and others, it has been consistently held that it can be no part of the duty of a public servant or acting in the discharge of his official duties to commit any of the offences covered by Section 406, 409, 420 etc. and the official status of the public servant can, at best, only provide an opportunity for commission of the offences. Therefore, no sanction for prosecution of the public servant for such offences would be required under Section 197 of the Code. Notwithstanding the above, the High Court had granted liberty to the appellant to raise the issue of sanction, if so required, depending on the evidence that may come on record in the course of the trial. Therefore, no sanction for prosecution of the public servant for such offences would be required under Section 197 of the Code. Notwithstanding the above, the High Court had granted liberty to the appellant to raise the issue of sanction, if so required, depending on the evidence that may come on record in the course of the trial. Despite the view taken by this Court in the series of pronouncements referred to above, the opportunity that has been provided by the High Court to the benefit of the appellant need not be foreclosed by us inasmuch as in Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari, P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim and Prakash Singh Badal (supra) this Court had consistently held that the question of sanction under Section 197 of the Code can be raised at any time after cognizance had been taken and may have to be determined at different stages of the proceeding/trial. The observations of this Court in this regard may be usefully extracted below. Matajob Dobey v. H.C. Bhari (para 21) “The question may arise at any stage of the proceedings. The complaint may not disclose that the act constituting the offence was done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty; but facts subsequently coming to light on a police or judicial inquiry or even in the course of the prosecution evidence at the trial, may establish the necessity for sanction. Whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage. The necessity may reveal itself in the course of the progress of the case.” P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim (para 15) “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 of 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 defence to establish that what he did was in discharge of official duty. But there may be certain cases where it may not be possible to decide the question effectively without giving opportunity to the defence 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 the performance of his duty was reasonable one and neither pretended nor fanciful, can be examined during the course of trial by giving opportunity to the defence 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.” Prakash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab and others (para 27) “The question relating to the need of sanction under Section 197 of the Code is not necessarily to be considered as soon as the complaint is lodged and on the allegations contained therein. This question may arise at any stage of the proceeding. The question whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage. ..............” 10. It is settled principle of law that the revisional jurisdiction is not as wide as the appellate jurisdiction and under the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is required to exercise its powers where there is material irregularity or manifest error of law or procedure, or there is misconception or misreading of evidence or where the Court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or has exercised the jurisdiction wrongly and perversely or where the facts admitted or proved do not discloses any offence. 11. As a broad proposition, the interference of revisional Court may be justified in cases (i) where the decision is grossly erroneous (ii) where there is no compliance with the provision of law (iii) where the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on evidence on record (iv) where the material evidence of parties has not been considered (v) where the Court below has misread or mis-appreciated the evidence on record (vi) where the judicial discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or perversely. 12. 12. In the case of Jagannath Chaudhary v. Ramayan Singh, AIR 2002 SC 2229 , Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “revisional jurisdiction is normally to be exercised only in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on point of law resulting in miscarriage of justice”. The order is well reasoned and based on material on record. The order under revision does not need any interference. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. ——————