JUDGMENT 1. - By filing instant criminal revision under Section 397 read with 401, Cr.P.C., the accused petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.7.2005 passed by Special Judge, Sessions Court, Anti Corruption Act, Kota as well as the order dated 1.9.2008. 2. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are that petitioner No.1 was posted as A.En., Irrigation Department, whereas accused petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were Junior Engineers, in the same department. A complaint was lodged as FIR No. 46/1996 by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Bharatpur wherein the works of providing Spillway in wire mesh creates (crates ?) in Banganga River at Kharbara Kenal was made the subject of inquiry. 3. I have heard Counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully scanned the entire material available on record. 4. Mr. Madhav Mitra, Counsel for the accused petitioners submits that the order dated 19.7.2005 has been passed after filing of negative final report twice is patently an exceedment of jurisdiction vested in the Court below more precisely when either the complainant pursued the complaint nor any arguments were heard. Initially the final report was submitted in the year 1998 and since then the complainant marked his presence byway of application and also submitted the dissenting view towards the final report for the first time on 30.11.2004. Further the protest petition was filed on 9.2.2005. The entertainment of such a belated protest petition is further nothing but exceeding the jurisdiction vested in the Court below. The sanctioning authority summoned the factual report by the Anti Corruption Bureau who responded vide Annex. 6 dated 3.1.2008 observing therein that none of the actions of the petitioners can be deemed to be an offence nor they have put the state at loss. Even the sanctioning authority without application of mind exercised their statutory power erroneously which deserves the gracious interference of this Court. 5. Mr. Madhav Mitra, drew attention of the Court to the following judgments: 1. Mansukhlal Vithalda Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, III (1997) CCR 169 (SC) : (1997) 7 SCC 622 ; and 2. Prabhulal Gaur v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 (1) WLC (Raj.) 135 . 6. Per contra Mr. B.N. Sandhu, Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. 5. Mr. Madhav Mitra, drew attention of the Court to the following judgments: 1. Mansukhlal Vithalda Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, III (1997) CCR 169 (SC) : (1997) 7 SCC 622 ; and 2. Prabhulal Gaur v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 (1) WLC (Raj.) 135 . 6. Per contra Mr. B.N. Sandhu, Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. D.D. Sharma, vociferously controverted the aforesaid arguments and submitted that the order dated 19.7.2005 passed by the Special Judge, Sessions Court, Anti Corruption Act, Kota is neither in the directive form nor in the mandatory form. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are of serious nature and the Courts in such type of cases should not take lenient view as in the present course of day corruption is increasing very fast. Thus, the order dated 19.7.2005 (Annex. 3) as well as order dated 1.9.2008 by which prosecution was accorded are legal and valid and no interference is required to be made. 7. In the result, this revision petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected.Revision Petition Allowed. *******