JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner, while working as Office Superintendent in the office of Registrar, Board of Indian Medicine Rajasthan, Jaipur, was involved in a trap case of anti corruption in the year 1993. It has been alleged that on 14.7.1993 a sum of Rs. 1,500/- was found in the drawer of the petitioner which he received as bribe from one Mr. Gurujant Singh Man, a resident of Village Makka Saharna, district Ganganagar for his permanent registration as a 'A Class Ayurvedic Chikitsaka'. During the trap proceedings statements of the other employees were also recorded and even the sample of hand wash was also taken. Pink Colour of Pinolpthlene powder was found in the hand wash of the petitioner for which no satisfactory explanation was given by him at the time of incident. 2. A sanction was sought by the State Bureau of Investigation for prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act. Initially the sanction was refused by the Registrar, Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan Jaipur vide his letter dated 3.1.1994. Subsequently, on reconsideration of the matter it was found by the State Government that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, proper sanction for prosecution should have been granted and the same was accorded vide order dated 6.5.1995. 3. The petitioner filed the present writ petition initially challenging the order dated 6.5.1995. This Court, while issuing notices on 17.7.1995 stayed the operation of the order dated 6.5.1995 vide order dated 17.7.1995. However, the same was vacated vide order dated 8.7.1996. 4. Subsequently, when it was found that the State Government was not a competent authority to issue such sanction, the matter was referred to the Board for issuing fresh sanction in accordance with law vide letter dated 17.9.1997 written by the Deputy Secretary, Medical & Health (Group IV) Ayurved Department, Jaipur. After considering the whole matter fresh sanction Was issued by the Chairman, Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide letter dated 19.9.1997. After amendment in the writ petition, both the letter dated 17.9.1997 issued by Deputy Secretary and order dated 19.9.1997 passed by the Chairman of the respondent-Board are now under challenge in the present writ petition. 5. Mr. After considering the whole matter fresh sanction Was issued by the Chairman, Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide letter dated 19.9.1997. After amendment in the writ petition, both the letter dated 17.9.1997 issued by Deputy Secretary and order dated 19.9.1997 passed by the Chairman of the respondent-Board are now under challenge in the present writ petition. 5. Mr. R.C. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner with all vehemence at his command submitted that once the sanction already having been refused in the present case, in absence of any provision of review, the State Government or even the competent authority could not have issued a fresh sanction order. He has further contended that earlier the competent authority i.e. Registrar of the respondent-Board had refused to accord sanction. However, on 6.5.1995 the sanction order was issued by the State Government who was not the employer of the petitioner. Further, when it was found that the State Government could not have issued sanction in the present matter, the same was referred to the respondent-Board again vide letter dated 17.9.1997. Thus, the sanction issued by the Chairman of the respondent-Board on 19.9.1997 cannot be treate as an independent decision because the same has been passed at the behest of the Government under pressure. Mr. Joshi has relied upon various judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court and also some other High Courts. 6. Mr. Avasthi, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that after due sanction has already been accorded by the Competent Authority, the challan has already been filed before the Trial Court and the charges also have already been framed against the petitioner in the present case. 7. After having considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the entire material on record and also the judgments cited at Bar. 8. There is no dispute that granting sanction in such matters is purely an administrative order. It is also a settled proposition of law that opportunity of hearing or even principles of natural justice are not attracted in such cases. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any rule or law that such administrative orders cannot be reviewed subsequently. 9. In the present case, prima-facie, there was enough material before the Bureau of Investigation for prosecuting the petitioner. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any rule or law that such administrative orders cannot be reviewed subsequently. 9. In the present case, prima-facie, there was enough material before the Bureau of Investigation for prosecuting the petitioner. The money was recovered from the drawer of the petitioner, statements of independent witnesses were also recorded and further, hand wash containing pink colour of pinolpthlene powder was also taken by the investigation agency, it is for the Trial Court to decide the whole matter after taking evidence of both the sides. This Court, under its writ jurisdiction should not interfere in such matters at this stage. 10. So far as letter dated 17.9.1997 is concerned, the same is only a forwarding letter written by the Deputy Secretary whereas, after having gone through the order dated 19.9.1997, I find that Chairman of the respondent-Board does not seem to have been influenced at all by the above letter of the Deputy Secretary. The Chairman of the Board has discussed the entire facts while passing sanction order dated 19.9.1997. 11. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 laid down certain principles and also illustrated some categories of cases where in the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the inherent powers under Article 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice in such matters. Seven main ingredients as illustrated by the Apex Court are reproduced here as under: "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (3) Where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 12. None of the ingredients, as referred to above, exists in the present case. Further, there is no specific rule or law debarring the authorities from review or reconsideration of the matter. The Apex Court in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1997(7) SCC 622 has clearly observed that normally when the sanction order is held to be bad, the case is remitted back to the authority for reconsideration of the matter, and to pass a fresh order of sanction in accordance with law. However, in the facts of that case, since the incident related back to the year 1983, the Apex Court thought it proper not to remand the matter from the stage of sanction. However, in the present case, the incident was only of the year 1993 and the charges already having been framed against the petitioner by the Trial Court, as such, I find no ground for any interference of this Court in the present matter under its writ jurisdiction. 13. However, in the present case, the incident was only of the year 1993 and the charges already having been framed against the petitioner by the Trial Court, as such, I find no ground for any interference of this Court in the present matter under its writ jurisdiction. 13. To interfere with the order of sanction at this stage will not only be against the ends of justice, but stopping the trial also will nothing but killing a foetus in the womb. 14. Accordingly, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. There will be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******