Judgment : Ram Mohan Reddy, J. The petitioner, a Senior Sub-Registrar in the Department of Registration and Stamps, Government of Karnataka, was discharging duties in the sub-registry of Bangalore North Taluk along with two other senior Sub-Registrars, during the year 2002. On a complaint of one Shivakumar, Advocate, who, presented for registration two documents on behalf of his clients G Swami and Jayalakshmi, of Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, on 23-10-2002, an F.I.R. was filed by the 3rd respondent-Inspector of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta alleging a demand for payment of illegal gratification by the Senior Sub-Registrars in the Sub-Registry, Bangalore North Taluk. On the very same day, the 3rd respondent laid a trap and the proceedings that followed, led to recovery of the bribe money of Rs. 3,000/- from one Muthurayappa, not an employee of the Sub-Registry but a private person who was in the office of the Sub-Registrar said to have come to collect a copy of the registered document on behalf of one S.A. Srinivasan. The complainant is said to have tape-recorded the conversation between himself and the petitioner, which, was taken possession of-by the Investigation Officer and listed as Article No. 10. 2. Alleging that the ingredients to establish an offence under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, more appropriately a demand by a public servant of illegal gratification having not been established, and the complainant having not named the petitioner public servant as having made the demand for bribe money, coupled with the fact that the conversation which had been tape recorded having not been placed before the sanctioning authority, the sanction order dated 29-3-2005 Annexure-"C" of the 1st respondent to prosecute the petitioner for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, is contended to be invalid. 3. The petitioner questioned the validity of the said order in Crl.P.No.1509/2005 but however, withdrew the same with liberty to file a Criminal Petition after the charge sheet was filed and recording the submission of the learned counsel, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 12-4-2005. It is the further allegation of the petitioner that the 1st respondent revised the order dated 29-3-2005 by yet another order dated 29-8-2005 Annexure-"E" and hence, this writ petition to quash the sanction order. 4. It is the further allegation of the petitioner that the 1st respondent revised the order dated 29-3-2005 by yet another order dated 29-8-2005 Annexure-"E" and hence, this writ petition to quash the sanction order. 4. The petition is opposed by filing Statement of objections dated 15-11-2005 of the respondent inter alia contending that the bribe amount of Rs. 3,000/-recovered from the custody of Accused No.2-Muthurayappa was in fact received by Accused No. 2 on the instructions of the petitioner, witnessed by the complainant and the shadow witness and that the investigation revealed that the petitioner had engaged Accused No. 2 - Muthurayappa, at the Sub-Registrar office to collect the bribe amount from public, although while ending the sentence, the words "is false" is used. Respondents seek to support the sanction order as being well-merited, fully justified and not calling for interference. In addition, it is contended that the Sanctioning Authority having applied its mind to all relevant material has passed the order of sanction Annexure-"E". Lastly it is contended that the sanction order Annexure-"C" earlier issued was returned to the Sanctioning Authority for rectification and thereafter, the order impugned Annexure-"E" was issued. The investigation, it is said, is complete and charge-sheet is to be filed. 5. Sri Bajentri, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the sanction order does not satisfy the requirement of Section 19 of the Act in as much as, there is no application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority to all the material collected by the Investigating Officer excluding the alleged tape-recorded conversation listed as Article 10. According to the learned counsel, the complaint lodged by the learned member of the Bar did not disclose the commission of the offences by the petitioner. It is next contended that the validity of the sanction order cannot be questioned before the Special Court in the course of trial, as has been held by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 2313/ 2005 D.D. 21-2-2008 in the case of-B. Shivarudraswam Vs The State By lokayuktha Police Learned Counsel places reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State Of T N. Vs M.M Rajendran (1998) 9 SCC 268 ). 6. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Lokay ukta as well as the State contend that the sanction order issued in the normal course after complying with the procedure required by law animates application of mind to all the materials and is valid. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Parkash Singh Badal Vs State Of Punjab And Others (2007) 1 SCC 1 ). In addition, learned Government Advocate submits that an error has crept in Paragraph 4 of the Statement of objections of the respondent’s whereunder the words “is false" is a typographical error, inadvertently crept in. According to the learned counsel, after an investigation, it was found that the second accused was directed by the petitioner to collect the bribe amount. Lastly, learned counsel contends that the validity of the sanction order can be raised in the trial and not at the threshold, and that it is unnecessary for this Court to examine the question at this stage. 7. Sri B.A. Belliappa, learned counsel for the Lokayukta placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State Of M.P Vs Dr. Krishna Chandra Saksena (1996) 11 SCC 439 , contends that if the sanction order is not exfacie illegal or invalid, the mere allegation of the accused that there was non-consideration of the relevant document, is a question that could be examined at the stage of trial, for invalidating the sanction. Learned counsel places reliance upon the notice of the Court the decision In Satyanarayan Sharma Vs State Of Rajasthan (2001) 8 SCC 607 ) of the Apex Court, to contend that in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, there can be no stay of trials in the light of Section 19(3)(c) of the Act and if stay is granted in contravention of the said provision, it would have an adverse effect on combating corruption amongst public servants. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the order of sanction impugned, what is required to be noticed, at the threshold is that, Section 19 of the Act is essentially procedural and a safeguard provided to a public servant sought to be prosecuted. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the order of sanction impugned, what is required to be noticed, at the threshold is that, Section 19 of the Act is essentially procedural and a safeguard provided to a public servant sought to be prosecuted. In fact, Section 19(1), is a matter of procedure and does not go to the root of jurisdiction an as observed by the Apex Court in P.V. Narasimha Rao Vs State (CBI/SPE) (1998) 4 SCC 626 ), And Followed In Parkash Singh Badals Case (Supra). 9. The sanction for prosecution under the Act is clearly distinguishable from a sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Apex Court in Lalu Prasad Vs State Of Bihar (2007) 1 SCC 49 ) held thus: "In cases covered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in respect of public servants, the sanction is of automatic nature and thus factual aspects are of little or no consequence. Conversely, in the case relatable to Section 197 of the Crl.P.C., the substratum and basic features of the case have to be considered to find out whether the alleged act has any nexus with the discharge of duties." 10. The grant of sanction by the competent authority is a sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence. A bare perusal of the order impugned, in my opinion, exfacie animates consideration, by application of mind of the sanctioning authority, all the material placed before it and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that there is failure to consider relevant material by the Sanctioning Authority. It is no doubt true that the tape-recorded conversation listed as Article 10 in the investigation by the Lokayukta, is not shown to be placed before the Sanctioning Authority. That by itself and nothing more, cannot constitute a substantial legal ground to set at naught the sanction. I say so because, even if it construed as an error, omission or irregularity in the sanction, is not fatal, so as to entitle the petitioner to contend that it has resulted in failure of justice. That by itself and nothing more, cannot constitute a substantial legal ground to set at naught the sanction. I say so because, even if it construed as an error, omission or irregularity in the sanction, is not fatal, so as to entitle the petitioner to contend that it has resulted in failure of justice. In fact, the production of the tape recorded conversation is a matter of proof which has to be produced at the time of trial, as held by the Apex Court in the case Of State (Anti-Corruption Branch), Government Of NCT of Delhi And Another Vs Dr. R. C. Anand (2004) 4 SCC 615 ). 11. The Apex Court, in Parkash Singh Badals cast at Paragraph 48 held thus: "The sanction in the instant case related to the offences relatable to the Act. There is a distinction between the absence of sanction and the alleged invalidity on account of non-application of mind. The former question can be agitated at the threshold but the latter is a question which has to be raised during trial." 12. The decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not a ratio decidendi to be followed in the light of catena of decisions of the Apex Court that it is for the petitioner to establish in a trial the invalidity of the order of sanction. So also, the decision in State Of T.N. Vs M.M. Rajendran (Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of this case. I say so because, the facts of that case relate to the Trial Court having proceeded on the footing that the City Commissioner of Police, who was the proper authority to grant sanction against the accused to the trial, recorded a finding that all relevant material including the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer were not placed for consideration and that only a report of the Vigilance Department was placed before him. Apparently, such is not the position in this case as is animated by the order impugned. The authority has taken into consideration all relevant material placed before it by the Investigating Officer including the statement of witness. The only material that was not placed before the Sanctioning Authority was the tape-recorded version listed as Article 10. Apparently, such is not the position in this case as is animated by the order impugned. The authority has taken into consideration all relevant material placed before it by the Investigating Officer including the statement of witness. The only material that was not placed before the Sanctioning Authority was the tape-recorded version listed as Article 10. That by itself as noticed supra, is not fatal to the passing of the order of sanction. 13. Having regard to the fact that the two conditions for prosecuting a public servant, that is the commission of the offence and that the person is employed in connection with the affairs of the State, the sanctioning authority is empowered in law to reconsider its earlier decision and not bound by its earlier decision, as held in the case of Parmanand Dass Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh (1978) 4 SCC 32 ), no exception can be taken to the order Annexure-"E" of sanction impugned herein. 14. It must be borne in mind that Section 19(3)(c) of the Act states that there can be no stay of trials in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act and if stays are granted, it would have adverse effect on combating corruption amongst public servants as held by the Apex Court in Satyanarayana Sharmas Case Supra. In the instant case, the petitioner has had the benefit of stay by order dated 29-5-2005 and as a result, there has been a delay in prosecuting the petitioner. Sri B.A. Belliappa, learned counsel for the Lokayukta submits that between 2005 and today, in the interregnum, the petition was dismissed for default and before its restoration, the Lokayukta filed the charge-sheet before the Special Court. If that is so, then there is a need to direct the Lokayukta to complete the process of recording the evidence before the Special Court within a time frame. 15. I say so for yet another reason. The State Government accorded sanction for prosecuting the petitioner, and again posted the petitioner to the very same post, however at the Sub-Registry, Gandhinagar, Bangalore, questionably enabling the recurrence of commission of the offence. The State will be well advised not to post officers to the same post, which they held when accused of offences in the discharge of duties in such post. The State will be well advised not to post officers to the same post, which they held when accused of offences in the discharge of duties in such post. The action of the State in posting the petitioner to the very same post which he held prior to his being accused of offences, deserves to be deprecated. 16. Writ Petition is accordingly, rejected. The Lokayukta is directed to commence and conclude its recording of evidence in the case before the Special Court in any event, within a period of 9 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is needless to state that if the petitioner is entitled in law to a discharge, it is open for the petitioner to make an application, which the Special Court shall consider, without being influenced by the observations, supra, and pass orders in accordance with law.