S. L. KOCHAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision has been directed against the order dated 15-1-2002 passed by the Special Judge/ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Shajapur (Smt. S. B. Rehman) declining to accept final report filed by the prosecution i. e. Special Police Establishment, Ujjain. But the same was returned back by order dated 30-11-2001 with the direction that "after completing all legal formalities, the case should be sent to the Court for final report". The report was returned on the ground that as per provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecuting agency did not take any step for obtaining sanction though there was a direction given by the Court below and without complying with the direction given in the past, again the final report was submitted by the prosecution. But the same was not in accordance with law when the Court had issued specific direction for completion of legal formalities i. e. sending the matter to the sanctioning authority for consideration of sanction. The final report was filed again as it was filed earlier when the said direction was issued. The trial Court on 15-1-02 recorded the statement of Mahavir Singh Chandrawat who has stated that he had not lodged any false report. Thereafter, the trial Court has passed the order that after perusal of the statement of the witness and other documents of the case, in the opinion of the said Court, prima facie case under Section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d)/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out and also took cognizance for the aforesaid offences. The trial Court, thereafter put the case for hearing both the parties i. e. the accused and the prosecution on the point whether after taking cognizance by the trial Court, the Court can send the matter for obtaining the sanction. The Court has also directed the prosecuting agency for production of all the documents which were prepared during the course of investigation or the Investigating Officer to submit a declaration that he has no other documents in his custody regarding this case. ( 2 ) THE trial Court has also issued direction for sending the copies of this order to the Chief Secretary, D. G. P. , Lokayukta, Bhopal and fixed the case for hearing the matter on the question of sanction, on 5-2-2002. ( 2 ) THE trial Court has also issued direction for sending the copies of this order to the Chief Secretary, D. G. P. , Lokayukta, Bhopal and fixed the case for hearing the matter on the question of sanction, on 5-2-2002. This is the order which is impugned in this revision. ( 3 ) IN the opinion of this Court, the trial Court has committed a glaring illegality by passing the order for placing the matter by Investigating Agency before the Sanctioning Authority for grant of sanction, because this step could have been taken by the Investigating Agency when they found prima facie case or sufficient material for prosecuting the accused and ready to file the charge-sheet for that purpose as per the provisions of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Secondly, there is no dispute about the legal position that the trial Court is not obliged or bound to accept the Katma-report ipso facto as presented by the Investigating Agency. The Court has jurisdiction to examine the matter thoroughly and come to the conclusion whether a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused is made out or not and if made out, the Court is required to pass a detailed reasoned and speaking order mentioning that on what material the Court is forming such opinion. ( 4 ) IN the present case, the impugned order is not disclosing the fact as to on what material which was available in the case-diary, the Court was satisfied for holding that the prima facie case is made out for the aforesaid offences and ordered for taking cognizance. Therefore, both the orders passed by the trial Court, firstly issuing direction to the Investigating Agency for placing the matter before the Sanctioning Authority for grant of sanction as well as without passing the reasoned and speaking order rejected the application of final report (Khatma Report) filed by the non-applicant. ( 5 ) THIS view of this Court finds support from the Supreme Court judgment rendered in State through CBI v. Rajkumar Jain, (1998) 6 SCC 551 : (1998 Cri LJ 4051), wherein it has been held as under :-"from a plain reading of Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 it is evidently clear that a Court cannot take cognizance of the offences mentioned therein without sanction of the appropriate authority. In enacting the above section, the legislature thought of providing a reasonable protection to public servants in the discharge of their official functions so that they may perform their duties and obligations undeterred by vexatious and unnecessary prosecutions. The CBI was under no obligation to place the materials collected during investigation before the sanctioning authority, when they found that no case was made out against the respondent. To put it differently, if the CBI had found on investigation that a prima facie case was made out against the respondent to place him on trial and accordingly prepared a charge-sheet (challan) against him, then only the question of obtaining sanction of the authority under Section 6 (1) of the Act would have arisen for without that the Court would not be competent to take cognizance of the charge-sheet. It must, therefore, be said that both the Special Judge and the High Court were patently wrong in observing that the CBI was required to obtain sanction from the prosecuting authority before approaching the Court for accepting the report under Section 173 (2), Cr. P. C. for discharge of the respondent. As regards the direction for further investigation, it is, of course, true that the Special Judge has power to so direct if he finds on consideration of the police report, that the opinion formed by the Investigating Officer seeking discharge of the respondent not based on full and complete investigation, however, in issuing the above direction, the Special Judged has not given any reason whatsoever which prompted him to direct further investigation nor does it appear that he has gone through the police report and its accompaniments. In the present case, a thorough investigation has been made and the opinion expressed by the CBI that no prima facie case was made out against the respondent is just and proper. "section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 is para materia to Sec. 6 of PC Act, 1947. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, since the matter is fresh, this Court deems it fit and proper to remand the case back to the trial Court for passing a well reasoned speaking order on the final report whether the prima facie case is made out or not and, thereafter to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. ( 7 ) WITH the aforesaid direction, the impugned order is set aside. ( 7 ) WITH the aforesaid direction, the impugned order is set aside. ( 8 ) A copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary to the Government of M. P. , D. G. P. , Bhopal and Lokayukta, M. P. , Bhopal. Petition allowed. .