JUDGMENT 1. - The Addl. Superintendent of Police, State Investigation Bureau, Jodhpur after investigation of F.I.R. No. 156/95 submitted a final report in the court of Special Judge (Anti Corruption Act), Jodhpur for approval which was protested by the complainant Nathu Singh on the ground mentioned in the protest petition dated 30.4.97 enclosed with number of affidavits. The learned Special Judge heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the Public Prosecutor and passed the impugned order on 9.12.97 refusing to accept the final report and directed the Bureau to procure sanction from the competent authority against the accused persons Ashok Kumar Anand and Mangilal Pania and to file the result in the court by 9.3.98. State of Rajasthan has preferred this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to expunge the adverse remarks passed by the learned Special Judge in the para 2 of the impugned order. 2. Ashok Anand has preferred revision petition with the prayer that the impugned order of obtaining sanction may be set aside. Both the petitions have been heard together and these are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The learned Special Judge after giving the brief facts of the case and his reasons to reject the final report observed in Para 2 as follows:- ftl usd fu;fr ij vk/kkfjr ,oa fo'oluh; Vs~i dh dk;Zokgh ij vkj0,l0ch0vkbZ0 eq[;ky; }kjk ikuh Qsj fn;k x;kA vR;f/kd la;e cjrrs gq;s Hkh ;g U;k;ky; bl Lrj ij ;g dgus dks foo'k gks x;k gS fd Hkz"Vkpkj ds laj{k.k dk ;g ToyUr ekeyk gSA ,d izdkj ls vkj0,l0ch0vkbZ0 eq[;ky; us bl ekeys esa] Hkz"Vkpkj ds laj{k.k ds lEcU/k esa] ,slk fuUnuh; dk;Z fd;k gS ftldh ftruh fuank dh tkos mruk gh de gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds }kjk lqLFkkfir dkuwuh O;oLFkk dh vogsyuk dh xbZ gSA ;g ,slk ekeyk vklkuh ls dgk tk ldrk gS fd ftlesa dh ;g dgkor pfjrkFkZ gks jgh gS fd " j{kd dh Hk{kd cu x;k gSA " bl izdkj ckM+ us gh [ksr dh Qly dks [kk fy;k gSA tc bl izdkj ls vkj0,l0ch0vkbZ0 dh dk;Z iz.kkyh mtkxj gqbZ gS vkSj bl ekeys esa ,Q0vkj0 nsus dk fu.kZ; vkj0,l0ch0vkbZ0 eq[;ky; us fy;k gS rc Hkz"Vkpkj ij vdqa'k yxkus dh ckr dsoy ek= fnok LoIu cudj jg tkrh gSA Further in Para 5, the learned Sessions Judge observed. " bl U;k;ky; dh jk; esa mijksDr fu"d"kZ csbZekuh ij vk/kkfjr gSaA vfHk;qDrx.kksa dks cpkus ds fy, euekus vk/kkj rS;kj fd;s x;s gSaA " 4. It has been taken ground in the petition that the learned Special Judge has committed serious irregularity and illegality in passing such remarks without giving any opportunity to explain and without any material on record. Therefore the remarks are at this stage unwarranted which amounts to the abuse of the process of the court and should be expunged in the interest of justice. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have perused the impugned order particularly the reasons assigned by learned Special Judge for refusing to accept the final report and also the final report submitted wherein the grounds for the final report has been given by the Addl. S.P. Rajasthan State Investigation Bureau, Jodhpur. 5. In my view it is unnecessary to go into the merits of the evidence collected by the investigation agency. Learned Special Judge is vested with the jurisdiction to appreciate and consider the documents and the material submitted by the Investigation Agency with a view to accept or reject the final report. If the facts and circumstances or the material suggest or lead to an irresistible conclusion that the submission of the final report is unjustified or and it is result of some misconduct or favour to accused persons, the observations can be made by the court duly supported by the material on record. But in the instant case, the learned Special Judge has transgressed the well defined jurisdiction vested in him for considering the final report. The learned special Judge may disagree with the view or the conclusions drawn by the investigation agency and hold otherwise that case is made out against the accused persons but merely on that basis it does not ipso facto leads to this inference that the conclusions drawn by investigation agency are malafide and motivated. The court has to make a very cautious approach and in exercise judicial restraint in passing adverse remarks. If such remarks are warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case then it must be based and supported by the material on record. While dealing with the judicial matters and documents we should not allow the emotions to come in the forefront. 6. If such remarks are warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case then it must be based and supported by the material on record. While dealing with the judicial matters and documents we should not allow the emotions to come in the forefront. 6. Having perused the record of the final report and the reasons given by the investigation agency not to file the charge sheet. I do not feel that there are facts and circumstances or cogent reasons to pass the nature of remarks as quoted above. It has been emphasised time and again that the remarks cannot be and must not be made against the agency or the institution as a whole although the Court should not also hesitate to make observations against a particular official about his dealing with the case negligently or guided by extraneous considerations. In the instant case, the learned Special Judge has made generalise and sweeping remarks against the investigation agency of this case i.e. Rajasthan State Investigation Bureau. which is in my view unreasonable and uncalled for. Such remarks deserves to be expunged. 7. Now we advert to the arguments raised on behalf of the revision petitioner Ashok Anand to set aside the direction for obtaining sanction for prosecution. It is vehemently contended that the court has no jurisdiction to issue direction to the investigation agency to obtain sanction because the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests in the competent authority after applying own mind on the perusal of the documents submitted after investigation and the facts and circumstances of the case. The discretion of the sanctioning authority cannot be put to any pressure or to act in particular way only under any direction given by a court. Similarly, the court has no jurisdiction to direct the investigation agency to file the charge sheet if case is not made out on the evidence collected during investigation. The investigation agency has power and jurisdiction to file the final report. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the court can scrutinise the final report and the evidence collected during the investigation and pass suitable orders to reject the final report and to further investigate or to consider for filing chargesheet in view of the reasons assigned by the court for not accepting the final report. 8. I have given my earnest consideration to the pleas raised by both the sides. 8. I have given my earnest consideration to the pleas raised by both the sides. The same question came up for consideration in S.B. Criminal Revision No. 19/98 (Prabhulal Gaur v. State of Rajasthan) decided on 2nd April, 1999 and relying upon the decision Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat reported in 1997 Criminal Law Journal Page 4059 , this court held that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for its satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. The discretion to grant or not to grant sanction absolutely vests in the sanctioning authority and this discretion cannot be put to any pressure or any other direction which deprives the authority to take a decision of not according the sanction. The sanction granted by the authority mechanically without applying its mind in obedience of the mandate by a court shall be held invalid because the validity of sanction itself depends on the applicability of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence collected by the investigation agency. In the instant case. the learned Special Judge has directed to obtain the sanction and file result in the court. In my view such positive direction to file result after taking sanction cannot be issued by the court for the reasoning discussed above. Therefore this part of the impugned order is also bad in law and liable to be set aside. 9. Consequently, the petition under section 482 Cr.PC. filed by the State is accepted. The above quoted adverse remarks in Para Nos. 2 & 5 are hereby expunged. The revision petition by petitioner Ashok Anand is also allowed and the order/direction to obtain sanction in the impugned order is also set aside.Order accordingly. *******