Judgment :- Manivannan, accused in C.C.Nos.14 to 18 of 1991 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, has filed these petitions under Sec. 482, Crl.P.C, praying to call for the records in the above cases and quash the same. 2. Short facts are: In C.C.No. 14 of 1991 the respondent has filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner for offences under Sec. 120-B read with 420 read with 511 and Sec. 477-A, I.P.C. The allegations in it are briefly as follows: During the month of August, 1986, the petitioner and Rajasekar entered into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy the petitioner fraudulently obtained a bill from Rajasekar, as if the books mentioned in that bill were purchased from standard book depot by him. Rajasekar fraudulently and dishonestly submitted the said bill and claimed as if the books mentioned in it were supplied to the Institute by him and the petitioner had shown the said bill was received by the Institute on 24. 1986 itself by falsifying the Institute records viz., Library Inward Register and gave the serial number to that bill and he inserted this entry in that register. The petitioner and Rajasekar have attempted to cheat the Institute for a sum of Rs. 5,247 by falsifying the records of the Institute. Thus they have committed offences punishable under Sec. 120B read with 420 read with 511 and 477-A, I.P.C. Since the petitioner is not a public servant before 1988, sanction order is not required. 3. In C.C.No. 15 of 1991, the respondent has filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner and one Suresh, for offences under Secs.408, 120-B, read with 420 and 420, I.P.C. The allegations in it are briefly as follows: The petitioner joined as Documentation Assistant in Sugarcane Breeding Institute on 11. 1981 and he worked in that capacity upto October, 1986. In the said period, he functioned as Library Assistant also. Suresh is the proprietor of Coimbatore Book Home. The petitioner and Suresh entered into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of it, the petitioner misappropriated the books entrusted to him or got domination over the books mentioned in annexure and in view of that criminal conspiracy, Suresh prepared to bogus bill dated 6. Suresh is the proprietor of Coimbatore Book Home. The petitioner and Suresh entered into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of it, the petitioner misappropriated the books entrusted to him or got domination over the books mentioned in annexure and in view of that criminal conspiracy, Suresh prepared to bogus bill dated 6. 1986 for Rs.784 and knowing fully well that he had not supplied these books to the said Institute, had claimed that amount as if he supplied the books mentioned in that annexure for the abovesaid value to the Institute and the petitioner caused the payment of the bill submitted by Suresh and Suresh Was fully aware that the books mentioned in the annexure in respect of which the payment was made had not been received by the Institute. Hence they are liable for offences alleged. Since the petitioner is a public servant before 1988, sanction order is required. 4. In C.C.No.16 of 1991 the respondent has filed the charger-sheet against the petitioner and Suresh for offence under Secs. 408, 120-B read with 420 and 420, I.P.C. on allegations which are similar to the allegations made in the charge-sheet in C.C.No.15 of 1991, in respect of a bill dated 6. 1986 for Rs. 7,3736. In it, it is stated that sanction order is required and that petitioner is a public servant before 1988. In C.C.No. 17 of 1991, the respondent has filed charge-sheet against the petitioner and Suresh for offences under Secs.408, 120-B read with 420 and 420, I.P.C., on allegations which are similar to the allegations made In the charge-sheet in C.C.No. 15 of 1991, in respect of the bill dated 6. 1986 for Rs. 4,422. In it, it is also alleged that the petitioner was a public servant before 1988 and sanction order is required. In C.C.No.18 of 1991, the respondent has filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner, Rajasekar and Suresh for offences under Secs.120-B read With 420 and 420, I.P.C. In it is also stated that the petitioner was a public servant prior to 1988 and sanction order is not required. 5. In C.C.No.18 of 1991, the respondent has filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner, Rajasekar and Suresh for offences under Secs.120-B read With 420 and 420, I.P.C. In it is also stated that the petitioner was a public servant prior to 1988 and sanction order is not required. 5. Mr.V. Chandrakanthan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that first information reports in each of these cases were registered for offences under Indian Penal Code and as well for offence under Prevention of Corruption Act and now charge-sheets have been filed only for offences under Indian Penal Code and that this was deliberately done only for the purpose of circumventing the obligation of obtaining, a sanction order before since he is public before prosecuting the petitioner, since he is public servant and such circumvention is not permitted in law and on that score, the proceedings in these cases are liable to be quashed. He would further submit that there was inordinate delay in the filing of the charge-sheets that the occurrence was in between 1981 and 1986 and that after considerable delay, the charge-sheets were filed in 1990. He would further submit that there were mala fides on the part of the respondent in filing the charge-sheets that earlier the petitioner was suspended and it was set aside and thereafter he was transferred and that was also set aside and now these charge-sheets have been filed. That would show the mala fides. I have heard Mr.T.S. Ramaratnam, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent, on the above aspects. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel on both sides. 7. I shall consider the submissions in seriatim. The first submission was that the cases were registered for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and under the Indian Penal Code. But, the charge-sheet was filed only for offences under the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that sanction ought to have been Obtained under the Prevention of Corruption not for filing the charge-sheet. To consider this submission, Sec. 19(1) stated as follows: “No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Secs. 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by public servant, except to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction”. To consider this submission, Sec. 19(1) stated as follows: “No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Secs. 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by public servant, except to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction”. So, it is clear that only for filing charge-sheet under the Prevention of Corruption Act, as mentioned above, sanction is required. The prosecution in this case is not one for the offences mentioned above. Hence, this submission cannot be sustained. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner draw my attention to a decision of the Gauhati High Court in S.N. Choudhury v. State, 1992 Crl.L.J. 1472, wherein a similar point has been considered. In that Case, the First Information Report discloses offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and under the Indian Penal Code, and charge-sheet was submitted, giving a complete go by to the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, to circumvent the sanction for prosecution. It was held that proceedings are liable to be quashed. With respect, I am unable to agree with the learned single Judge, of the Gauhati High Court for the reason, that Sec.19 of the said Act does not preclude filing of the charge-sheet for other offences, without getting a sanction under Prevention of Corruption Act. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is a public servant and so sanction of the Central Government is required as enjoined by Sec.l97 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The sanction of the Central Government is required only in such cases where the concerned public servant was removeable from office by or with the sanction of the Government. It is not as if every public servant is entitled to insist that sanction under Sec. 197(a) of the Code is required. To show that the petitioner is a public servant as per Sec.l97(a) of the Code, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in some of the charge-sheet concerned in these cases it is stated that sanction is required. The copy of the documents concerned in C.C.No. 15 of 1991 is produced before me. In it, the last sentence reads as follows: “Sanction order is required please”. Whereas in C.C.No.14 of 1991 it is stated as follows: “Sanction order is not required please.” 10. The copy of the documents concerned in C.C.No. 15 of 1991 is produced before me. In it, the last sentence reads as follows: “Sanction order is required please”. Whereas in C.C.No.14 of 1991 it is stated as follows: “Sanction order is not required please.” 10. Mr.T.S. Ramarathinam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that there is some clerical mistake and would assert that it is not stated so in the charge-sheets filed in the court below and also produced the copies of the charge-sheets. They do not contain the words as mentioned in the copy of the chargesheetsfurnished to the accused in C.C.No.15 of 1991. No other material was placed before me to show that the petitioner is a public servant to come within Sec.197(a) of the Code. In the circumstances, at this stage, I am unable to accept the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and quash the proceedings on that ground. Any way, I leave it open to him to produce any documents before the trial court, at the time of trial to sustain this ground. 11. The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was inordinate delay in filing of the charge sheets. The delay by itself cannot result in quashing of the proceedings at the threshold. The offence alleged is a serious one. Therefore, on the ground of delay, I am unable to quash the proceedings, because the occurrence was between 1981 and 1986 and the charge-sheets were filed only in 1990. With regard to the last submission that there male fides on the part of the respondent, I am not able to find any material to sustain the ground that the prosecution was actuated by mala fides. 12. Since none of the submissions finds acceptance with me, the inevitable result is these petitions fail and they shall stand dismissed.