JUDGMENT P.K. Palli, J.—This petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has ft been filed for quashing of the fresh challan as well as proceedings pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, who has taken cognizance of the matter vide order dated 14th of July, 1994. 2. In the petition, it has been said that five accused were originally tried and as two of the accused were public servants, there was no proper sanction for proceeding against them and the said sanction was held invalid. 3. The learned Court of Special Judge absolved these two public servants of their involvement and it was further observed that they are honorably discharged. The judgment, dated 30th of April, 1988, has been placed on record of this case as Annexure P-1. 4. Admittedly, the State of Himachal Pradesh filed an appeal before this Court and the leave to appeal was declined vide judgment dated 27th of June, 1989, passed by this Court. 5. The C.B.I. presented a fresh challan by obtaining fresh sanction order qua the two public servants and as well as other accused and this challan was presented before the learned Special Judge, Shimla. 6. This challan appears to have been presented, as given in the petition, on the basis that this Court while deciding the appeal had held that the sanction was invalid and the trial becomes void ad initio. It was however, left open for the C.B.I to file fresh charge-sheet after obtaining proper sanction for prosecution from competent authority. 7. It is said in paragraph 6 of the petition that a fresh challan against all the five accused was submitted, after obtaining fresh sanction, before the Court of learned Special Judge. Both the public servants stand discharged at the initial stage of the case, without framing the charge. 8. It was found that the prosecution had failed to prove any conspiracy between these two public servants and the other three remaining accused and the case was remanded in respect of the remaining three accused for trial before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, This order, dated 21st of June, 1994, passed by the learned Special Judge has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. 9. 9. It is said in paragraph 7 that, as per judgment dated 30th of April, 1988, Annexure P-2, the two public servants, namely, T.R. Seth and Balwant Singh, stand discharged and it has been found that there was no sufficient evidence to connect these persons with the crime involved. The judgment stands intact and had attained finality. 10. It is stated that unless the judgment is got set aside by the C.B.I., the fresh challan could not have been filed in the present case. The obtaining of the fresh sanction order is said to be a futile exercise keeping, particularly, in view the judgment dated 21st of June, 1994, Annexure P-3. 11. The next ground of attack is made to the effect that when the two public servants were not to be tried, could, the challan be presented before the learned Special Judge and if so presented, could it be remanded against the other three accused for the purposes of trial before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla. 12. The argument is based on the reasonings that the challan in the normal course goes from the learned trial Court to the Court of learned Sessions Judge and if is found that the offences disclosed are not triable there, in that situation alone the case is remanded back to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 13. The grievance is. made to the challan which has been straight away presented against the other three accused i e., B.S. Mehta, Muni Lal and Surinder Chaudhry, It is Surinder Chaudhry, who has filed this petition and the other accused have been impleaded as respondents No. 3 and 4. 14. Admittedly, the charges against the three remaining accused were framed under sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code on 23rd of May, 1995 and the prosecution evidence is being recorded. 15. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the acquittal recorded earlier having attained finality, another trial has put the petitioner as well as his co-accused in jeopardy and second attempt is violative of the provisions contained under section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, 16. The next submission made by the learned Counsel is that second trial cannot be held before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla. The next submission made by the learned Counsel is that second trial cannot be held before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla. It is further argued that the learned Special Judge has no jurisdiction to remand the case to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Shimla It is further sought to be contended that no appeal, or leave to appeal, was ever filed against the judgment dated 30th of April, 1988 by the C.B.I and the appeal having been filed by the State was meaningless and even in that appeal the leave was declined by this Court. 17. In reply, Mr. P.A. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, contends that the present petition is highly belated. The order passed by the learned Special Judge making over the case to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for framing of the charges is dated 21st of June, 1994 According to the learned Counsel, the charges against the three remaining accused were framed and no objection was raised by any of them at that time. Nine witnesses, according to the learned Senior Counsel, have already been examined by the prosecution and this petition having been filed after more than three years, was liable to be dismissed as belated. 18. Mr. Sharma further contends that the petitioner has twisted the facts. There was no question of any acquittal and a careful perusal of the judgment dated 27th of June, 1989, Annexure P-2, passed by this Court, clearly reveals that the proceedings with regard to offence under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, were held null and void in the absence of a valid sanction and the learned Special Judge could not have proceeded to pass an order either of acquittal or of conviction. 19. Mr. Sharma further contends that the Government was given liberty to file fresh challan against the accused in accordance with law and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Special Judge never precluded the State to bring the offenders before the Court for the purposes of trial in the manner permissible by law. 20. Mr. Sharma, thus, proceeds to contends that the challan has rightly been presented and was quite in consonance with the observations made by this Court. 20. Mr. Sharma, thus, proceeds to contends that the challan has rightly been presented and was quite in consonance with the observations made by this Court. As the two accused, who were public servants, were discharged and the offence under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act not being there, the other accused could be tried for the commission of other offences by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the case was, consequently, ordered to be placed before him for proceedings further. 21. It is further said that tie learned Special Judge come to a definite conclusion that there was a prima focie case on the basis of the material on record and that there was a criminal conspiracy between three accused and, consequently, the charges against them have been framed under sections 120-B, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. As these offences are triable by the Magistrate 1st Class, contends the learned Senior Counsel, the case was, consequently entrusted to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla Lastly, Mr Sharma submits that there was no question of giving any importance to the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge regarding acquittal of the three accused by giving them the benefit of doubt. 22. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at length and on careful perusal of the record as well as the case law cued at the bar, I find that no case has been made out for quashing the challan and the proceedings, as is being sought to be projected by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, 23. A perusal of the judgment, dated 30th of April, 1988, passed by the learned Special Judge, Annexure P-1, reveals that all the five accused were involved in cooking up a false case for compensation in respect of accident of a truck The present petitioner happens to be the surveyor and was deputed by the Insurance Company to assess the loss He is said to have submitted a false survey report and the other accused, i.e. Muni Lal and B.S. Mehta, were said to have manipulated the estimate, cash memos, receipt and several other documents in support of the accidental claim. A case was made out that it was a bogus truck and the figures were altered in the F.I.R. Act of the accused was said to be fraudulent 24. A case was made out that it was a bogus truck and the figures were altered in the F.I.R. Act of the accused was said to be fraudulent 24. On appreciation of the material placed on record, I find that the learned Special Judge towards the concluding part of the judgment, held that as the sanction order in respect of (he two public servants involved in the case was defective, the entire proceedings are rendered void abinitio. Immediately, in the last line it was observed in para 34 at page 21 that the accused persons are, therefore, discharged. 25. Under point No.3 discussed para 35, it was held that the accused persons, namely. Muni Lal, B.S Mehta and Surinder Chaudhry, are acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. The other accused, i.e., T.R Seth and Balwant Singh, were honorably discharged, 26. Annexure P-2 is the judgment dated 27th of June, 1989, passed by this Court on appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh After appraisal of evidence, it was observed that the learned Special Judge had come to the conclusion that no case of any complicity of T.R. Seth and Balwant Singh was made out The sanction was found not in accordance with law and the conclusion was reached that the two accused persons were entitled to honorably acquitted. 27. In respect of the other three accused, it was found that the evidence clearly showed that they were guilty of the offences with which they were charged The observations made by the learned Special Judge were to the effect, it his been proved beyond hilt that accused B.S. Mehta, Surinder Chaudhry and Muni Lal entered into a conspiracy to cheat New India Assurance Company Limited by forging certain documents and by using as genuine certain documents 28. As there was no valid sanction in respect of the prosecution of the public servants that they had also conspired with these accused persons, an order of acquittal was recorded in respect of all the five accused 29. It was found by the learned Judge of this Court that the learned Special Judge could take cognizance of the offence only, if there was a valid sanction as required by section 6 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The very jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge is dependent on the existence of a valid sanction. It was found by the learned Judge of this Court that the learned Special Judge could take cognizance of the offence only, if there was a valid sanction as required by section 6 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The very jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge is dependent on the existence of a valid sanction. The following observations made in the judgment can be read with advantage ; "The moment the Special Judge came to the conclusion that there was no valid sanction, he should have held that entire proceedings before him with regard to the offence under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were null and void. That being &o, he could not have passed an order either of acquittal or of conviction.” 30. After the aforesaid observations, it is said in the judgment that as per the position in law, it would be open to the State to proceed against the accused in any manner t which may be permissible under Jaw. The State, if so advised, can proceed against the accused persons afresh and for that purpose that State has not to depend upon an observation to that effect from this Court. While concluding the judgment, it was observed that the order of the Special Judge does not preclude the State from bringing the offenders before the Court for trial in the manner which may be permissible under the law, It was in this situation, that it was found that no case was made out for grant of have to appeal against the said judgment of the learned Special Judge 31. The stage was now set for filing fresh challan after obtaining proper sanction. The matter came before the learned Special Judge on 21st of June, 1994 and challan was put against all the five accused After giving the narration of events, the learned Judge came to hold there was be grain of evidence on the file against accused T.R. Seth and Balwant Singh to show that they were parties to the criminal conspiracy under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and also in sequence of which offences under the other provisions are alleged to have been committed by them. Both of them were ordered to be discharged. 32. Both of them were ordered to be discharged. 32. It is here that the observations made in paragraph 7 of the judgment Annexure P-3 are to be considered carefully It was held that there is sufficient material on record to make out optima facie case for offences under section 120-B, read with sections 420, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code against the remaining accused It was further held that the truck owned by Muni Lal accused never met with an accident and he gave a false information this regard to the Insurance Company. It was further observed that intimation to this effect, was prepared by the co-accused B.S. Mehta who at the relevant time was an agent. The present petitioner Surinder Chaudhry was appointed as Surveyor of the Company. As the truck never met with an accident, the question of its being lying there in damaged condition did not arise, but accused Surinder Chaudhry in his report had assessed the truck as damaged to its various components, made a false report assessing the loss. 33. It was further observed that a criminal conspiracy between the three accused to commit offence of cheating and forgery and actual commission of these offences by these three accused is made out prima facie from the material on record and as such charges in this respect against them are to be framed It was held that since the offences are triable by a Magistrate of First Class the case was ordered to be made over to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla for framing of the charges and to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. 34. This order was passed on 21st of June, 1994 35. Undisputedly, charges against all the three accused were framed and nine witnesses for the prosecution have been examined. This petition has been filed on 17th of March, 1997 and no explanation is coming forth for this inordinate delay, 36. Admittedly, the petitioner has not laid any challenge to the order passed by the learned Special Judge, dated 21st of June, 1994, which order has also attained finality. 37. Again, the petitioner never objection to the framing of the charges nor any grievance has been made by him laying challenge to the proceedings which are being held by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, except by way of this petition. 38. Mr. 37. Again, the petitioner never objection to the framing of the charges nor any grievance has been made by him laying challenge to the proceedings which are being held by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, except by way of this petition. 38. Mr. Sukhija, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has cited several judgments to support his contention that the question being raised by him could be raised at any time and the trial in the given situation could not be permitted to be proceeded with further as the petitioner has been sufficiently harassed and put to ordeal for no sufficient reasons. 1 have somehow not been able to persuade myself to the argument raised by the learned Counsel and I am of the considered view, that in peculiar circumstances of this case, as given above, it does not call for any interference at this stage The proceedings are being concluded and the petitioner will have full say and it would be open to the learned Counsel for the petitioner to urge all these points before the learned Court where the trial is being conducted. In view of what has been said above, the petition is ordered to be dismissed. Petition dismissed.