JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is directed against the order of trial court dated 21.11-92, whereby the trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioner for the offence under the provisions of Section 7 and 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1983 in case No. 5/1992. 2. The petitioner while working as Professor and Head of the Department of T.B. & Chest at Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer on 9.5.91 he demanded Rs. 100/- as bribe from one Mool Chand of Alaniyavas, District Nagaur for admission of his brother Nemi Chand, a T.B. Patient, in the hospital for treatment and accepted Rs. 20/- as a part payment of bribe, and Mool Chand sought time for payment of balance amount Rs. 80/- The matter was reported by Shri Mool Chand to the Additional S.P., SBI, Ajmer, and while the petitioner was accepting Rs. 80/- from Mool Chand he was caught red.handed by Additional S.P., SBI, Ajmer. On that basis, the case was registered and after investigation the challan was filed in the court of Special Judge, SBI, Jaipur on 29-2.92. The Special Judge, SBI, Jaipur after hearing the accused-petitioner framed charges against him for the offence under Section 7 and 13 (')(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act, 1988'). Being dissatisfied with order dated 21-11-92, the petitioner has filed this revision petition challenging the impugned order of the Trial Court. 3. Heard learned counsel f)r the petitioner and the learned P.P. for the State, and perused the material available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further no sanction has been obtained under Section 197 of Cr. PC. Therefore, on this ground along the petitioner should be discharged. From the material, available on record, it reveals that the petitioner has been caught red-handed accepting the balance amount of bribe, that is Rs. 80/-, from Moot Chand and for that no satis-factory explanation has been put forth by the petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that for want of sanction under Section 197 Cr PC, no charge can be framed against the petitioner. The clause (a) of Sub-section 3 of Section 19 of the .Act, 1988', reads under "19. 80/-, from Moot Chand and for that no satis-factory explanation has been put forth by the petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that for want of sanction under Section 197 Cr PC, no charge can be framed against the petitioner. The clause (a) of Sub-section 3 of Section 19 of the .Act, 1988', reads under "19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution:- (1) xx xx (2) xx xx (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),? (a) no finding. sentence or order passed by a Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence or, or any error, commission or irregularity in, the sanction required under Subsection (1), unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby;" 5. It is true, in normal case the sanction for prosecuting a public servant is required under Section 197 of Cr. PC, but the clause (a) of Sub. section (3) of Section 19 of the 'Act 1938' starts with non.objective clause provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no order passed by a Spacial Judge shall be reversed or altered by the Court in appeal on the ground of the absence or, any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction regained tinier sub section (1) of Section 19 of the Act, 1988, unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner was caught red handed while accepting Rs 80/- as bribe from one 400l Chand, now the petitioner has retired. No arguments are advanced by the counsel for petitioner that in absence of sanction, required under subsection (I) of Section 19 of the 'Act 198b', whether any failure of justice will be occasioned. 7. It is well settled provision of law that the provisions of Special Act always prevail over the general law, It is true that before prosecution the Government Servant the sanction under section 197 of Cr. PC is required, but simultaneously there is a provision in the 'Act 1988', which also requires sanction for prosecuting the Government Servant, but at the same time clause (a) of sub-section 3 of Section 19 of the 'Act 1938' provides that if there is no failure of justice. PC is required, but simultaneously there is a provision in the 'Act 1988', which also requires sanction for prosecuting the Government Servant, but at the same time clause (a) of sub-section 3 of Section 19 of the 'Act 1938' provides that if there is no failure of justice. in absence of sanction, no order should be reversed or altered in appeal. 8. In the case in hand the petitioner has accepted Rs. 100/- as bribe. He was not authorised to take Rs. 100/- from the patient for admission in T.B. Hospital. Certainly, prima-facie, it is nothing but a bribe from Mool Chard, and no failure of justice in this case for want of sanction. 9. Some other technical objections also have been takes by the counsel for petitioner, but at the stage of charge such technical objection can not be considered. The court has to consider only whether there is a prima-facie case against the accused or not? On the facts of the case there is prima-facie case against the petitioner, and the court has rightly framed the charges, against the petitioner. No interference is called for in the impugned order dated 21.11.92 of the trial Court. 10. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.Revision dismissed. *******