JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : The question which needs determination in this Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is as to whether cognizance of offences under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 should be quashed where there is dispute with regard to the validity of the sanction for prosecution against a public servant. 2. Admittedly on the basis of a prosecution report submit¬ted by the Inspector of Vigilance, Central Division, Cuttack as long back as on 19th June, 1990 Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.37 of 1990 was registered against the petitioner which was subse¬quently registered as T.R. No.10 of 1994 in the Court of the Special Judge, Bhubaneswar. According to the petitioner, after completion of investigation the materials collected against him were placed before the Chairman, SPINFED, the employer of the petitioner for according sanction to launch prosecution. The said authority on a scrutiny of the materials produced before him refused to accord sanction observing that the investigation was incomplete. After lapse of four months, it is alleged that the investigating officer once again plead the materials before the successor Chairman and the latter mechanically accorded sanction for prosecution on 27th July, 1993. Thereafter the investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and the Court below took cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioner as stated above and directed issuance of processes against him. 3. The petitioner surrendered before the trial Court and was released on bail. Thereafter he filed a petition to recall the order taking cognizance of the offences alleged against him inter alia on the ground of absence of valid sanction to launch prosecution as well as on the ground that investigation was incomplete and perfunctory. A petition was also filed to call for the relevant records from the prosecuting agency as well as the letter dated 25th March, 1993 issued by the Managing Director, SPINFED, refusing to accord sanction for prosecution. The learned Special Judge after hearing both sides rejected the petition on 25th February, 2000 and declined to recall the order taking cognizance. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Mr. The learned Special Judge after hearing both sides rejected the petition on 25th February, 2000 and declined to recall the order taking cognizance. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, forcefully submitted that the Court below lost sight of the fact that in absence of fresh materials, sanction for prosecution accorded by the successor Chairman, when his predecessor had refused, was illegal and invalid and, as such, the Court below ought to have refused to take cognizance. Relying upon the decision in the case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. State, reported in 1996 Cri.L.J 4424, Mr. Mukherjee forcefully submitted that once an order refusing sanction is passed after taking into consideration the entire materials available on record and on being satisfied that no prima facie case was made out, a review of the said order was illegal and unjust. He further contended that after the transfer of the Chairman of SPINFED who had applied his mind and had refused to accord sanction, the prosecuting agency in a camouflage way once again sought sanction by approaching the successor Chairman on the basis of the same materials. The latter, it is alleged, with¬out applying his mind to the materials and without realizing the fact that his predecessor had refused to accord sanction, mechan¬ically accorded sanction and the said order being a nullity in the eye of law, the trial Court thus committed illegality and irregularity in taking cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioner. 5. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Standing Counsel appear¬ing for the Vigilance Department, at the other hand submitted that the investigating officer in course of investigation and before completion of the same placed the materials collected by it before the sanctioning authority and sought sanction for prosecution. The sanctioning authority after due application of mind arrived at the conclusion that the investigation was still in progress and directed the investigating officer to complete the investigation and place all the materials before him for consideration. According to him, the sanctioning authority had never refused to accord sanction but had only directed the investigating officer to complete the investigation and produce all the materials before him so that he could apply his mind to the same. According to him, the sanctioning authority had never refused to accord sanction but had only directed the investigating officer to complete the investigation and produce all the materials before him so that he could apply his mind to the same. Thereafter the investigating officer conducted further investigation and after completing the same approached the then sanctioning authority once again who applied his mind and accord¬ed the sanction. Thus the allegations levelled by the petitioner are unjust, illegal and contrary to law. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the materials available on record as well as the impugned order. Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act deals with sanction for prosecution. Section 19(1) reads as follows :- “19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution. - (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sec¬tions 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction.- (a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Gov¬ernment; (b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Govern¬ment; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.” It is abundantly clear that a previous sanction is a sine qua non for taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the P.C. Act except the instances more¬fully specified at (a), (b) and (c) of Section 19(1).It is no more res integra that sanction is an administrative function and no opportunity of hearing need be given to the accused before passing any order. The object of the provision to accord sanction is that the authority giving sanction should consider for itself the materials placed before it and has to come to the conclusion as to whether prosecution, in the circumstances, be sanctioned against a Government servant or the same be forbidden. The object of the provision to accord sanction is that the authority giving sanction should consider for itself the materials placed before it and has to come to the conclusion as to whether prosecution, in the circumstances, be sanctioned against a Government servant or the same be forbidden. It should be clear from the order of sanction that the sanctioning authori¬ty had considered the materials placed before him and after consideration of all the circumstances of the case sanction for prosecution was accorded. The legislative mandate is engrafted in Section 19 of the Act and it debars a Court from taking cogni¬zance of an offence except with the previous sanction of the competent authority where the acts complained of were allegedly committed by a public servant while discharging his official duty or purporting to be doing so and such public servant is not removable from office save by or with sanction of Government. 7. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. M.M. Rajendran, reported in 1998 (9) SCC 268 , Mr. Mukherjee submitted that once on merit a conclu¬sion was arrived at that according sanction for prosecution was not just and proper, it would be no more open to a Court to go into the merit of the case. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case in the touch-stone of the decision cited above, this Court finds that it is not a case where sanction was refused to be accorded. In fact the competent authority did accord sanction considering which the Court below took cognizance of the offences alleged. Thus the only question that needs to be considered in this case is as to the propriety or otherwise and/or the proce¬dure adopted for giving sanction can be taken into consideration at the stage of taking cognizance. It is well settled that the question as to whether sanction was validly accorded or not can be raised at any time, i.e. after cognizance is taken of the of¬fences alleged, or immediately after the order taking cognizance or framing of charge or even at the time of conclusion of trial and after conviction as well, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim, AIR 2001 SC 2547 . There may be certain cases where it may not be possible to decide the question as to whether the sanction was legally ac¬corded or not without giving opportunity to defence. In order to come to the conclusion that sanction was not properly afforded, evidence has to be led and materials have to be placed before the Court for consideration. In such an eventuality, the question with regard to the validity of sanction should be left open to be decided in the main judgment, which may be delivered upon conclu¬sion of trial. On a consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present case is one of such cases where validity of sanction has to be proved by adducing evidence specially in view of the submissions advanced by both sides. 9. In view of the conclusion arrived at in the preceding paragraph, I am not inclined to quash the impugned order taking cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioner and I dispose of this Criminal Revision giving liberty to the petition¬er to raise the question of validity or legality of the sanction accorded for his prosecution in course of trial and/or after conclusion of trial, as the case may be, and as advised. This Court directs that if such a point is raised by the petitioner, the trial Court shall decide the same on the basis of the materi¬als placed before it, without being influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order. Crl. Revision disposed of.