ORDER : K V Aravind, J. Heard Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner/State, and Sri Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. 2. The instant revision petition is filed by the State challenging the order dated 15.04.2021 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.63/2018 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadag. 3. The investigation officer filed the charge sheet in C.C. No.308/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 167, 119, 177, 468, and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No.1 filed an application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge. The Trial Court, by order dated 10.07.2018, rejected the said application. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.63/2018. 4. The main grounds of challenge were threefold: firstly, that there was no sanction as required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prior to the filing of the charge sheet, as accused No.1 is a public servant; secondly, that for the very same allegations, departmental proceedings had been initiated, which culminated in exoneration on merits; and thirdly, that the allegations are baseless, and the actions of accused No.1 were based on the records available at the relevant point in time. 5. The Revisional Court, upon consideration of all the three grounds urged, set aside the order of the Trial Court dated 10.07.2018 and discharged the respondent from the offences mentioned in the charge sheet. 6. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner/State, submits that the application for discharge was filed along with additional material/documents, which is impermissible in law. It is contended that a plea for discharge can be considered only on the basis of the documents accompanying the charge sheet. It is further submitted that exoneration in departmental proceedings does not ipso facto warrant discharge in criminal proceedings. In support of his submissions, the learned Additional Government Advocate placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi , [ (2005) 1 SCC 568 ] 7. Sri Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, submits that the order passed by the Revisional Court is justified on all three grounds. Sri Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, submits that the order passed by the Revisional Court is justified on all three grounds. It is contended that the Revisional Court, upon a meticulous examination of the material filed along with the charge sheet, rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to make out a prima facie case for the offences charged against the accused. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.1, being a public servant, could not have been prosecuted without obtaining prior sanction as mandated under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also contended that while the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is based on the preponderance of probabilities, the standard in criminal proceedings requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, once the respondent has been exonerated in the departmental proceedings on merits, it necessarily follows that the prosecution cannot establish the criminal charges beyond reasonable doubt. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and Another, (2020) 9 SCC 636]. 8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties and upon perusal of the records, it is to be noticed that the charge sheet was filed against the accused for various offences. Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates prior sanction of the competent authority before cognizance can be taken of such offences. However, it is fairly submitted that, in view of subsequent judicial pronouncements, the requisite sanction may be placed on record even after the filing of the charge sheet. In that view of the matter, this Court does not propose to examine the correctness or otherwise of the finding recorded by the Revisional Court insofar as the issue of sanction is concerned. 9. The other grounds urged and considered by the Revisional Court pertain to the merits of the case and the alleged commission of the offence. The Revisional Court has, in detail, examined the material placed on record by the prosecution and has come to the conclusion that even if a full- fledged trial were to be conducted, the case against the accused could not be established. The factual findings recorded by the Revisional Court are based on a proper appreciation of the material on record and warrant no interference by this Court. 10. The factual findings recorded by the Revisional Court are based on a proper appreciation of the material on record and warrant no interference by this Court. 10. The other principal ground on which the Revisional Court has granted discharge is the exoneration of the respondent in the departmental proceedings. 11. It is not in dispute that the accused was subjected to departmental proceedings and was exonerated therein on the merits of the case. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent. In Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and Another [ (2020) 9 SCC 636 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is based on the preponderance of probabilities, whereas in criminal proceedings, the prosecution is required to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. It was further held that where exoneration in departmental proceedings is on merits, and the allegations are found to be wholly unsustainable, the continuation of criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances would not be justified, the underlying principle being the higher threshold of proof required in criminal cases. If the facts of the present case are examined in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, it becomes evident that the departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent and that he was exonerated on merits. 12. In light of the foregoing discussion, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the respondent is unwarranted. It is further observed that, in view of the respondent's exoneration in the departmental proceedings, the likelihood of conviction in the criminal trial, based on the same set of facts, appears to be remote. In the present case, when the allegations have not been established even by applying the standard of proof based on the preponderance of probabilities, the question of proving the same against the respondent by the stricter standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not arise. Permitting continuation of the prosecution in such circumstances would not only amount to an exercise in futility but also constitute an abuse of the process of law. Permitting continuation of the prosecution in such circumstances would not only amount to an exercise in futility but also constitute an abuse of the process of law. The Revisional Court, having duly considered all the relevant aspects, has rightly concluded that there is no necessity to proceed with the trial and has appropriately discharged the respondent from the offences alleged. 13. As the impugned order is found to be justified and well-reasoned, this Court finds no merit in the present revision petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.