ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner-original accused has preferred this application with the prayers (A) to quash the proceedings and in particular the chargesheet which is submitted in the case against the accused on the basis of the order of sanction alleged to have been passed by the Central Government, (B) to set aside the judgment and order dated 14-6-2007 passed by Shri P.B.Desai, learned Special Judge, Court IV for CBI cases, Ahmedabad, (C) quash the order passed by Shri S.H.Vora, learned Special Judge, CBI Court-Vehicle, Ahmedabad dismissing Exh.4 the application of the accused for discharging him on the ground of want of valid sanction to prosecute him under Section 19 of the Act and (D) order that pending the admission and/or hearing and disposal of this petition further proceedings in Special Case no.17/2003(CBI Case) dated 13-2-2009 before the learned Judge hearing the CBI Cases in Ahmedabad are stayed. 2. The gist of the facts of the case as emerging from the record is as follows: 2.1 The applicant-accused Dharmendra Kumar Mohanji Mishra, Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(4), Ayakar Bhavan,Ahmedabad was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 7 read together with Section 13(1)(d) read together with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act . The applicant accused is alleged to have demanded Rs.5,00,000/ from Shri Nandlal Agarwal for showing favour in Income Tax related matter of M/s. Agarwal Exports, M/s. Kailash Darshan Samudaik Sansthan and his mother Satyavatiben J. Agrawal. It is further alleged that the applicant had made two phone calls from his office telephone no.7546790 to mobile phone no.9825008755 of Shri Nandlal Agrawal in connection with the said demand. Shri Nandlal expressed his inability to pay such huge amount and so the amount of demand was reduced up to Rs.3,00,000/- and again reduced to Rs.2,00,000/-. Shri Nandlal then lodged a complaint before the CBI on 24-6-2002. The CBI made necessary verification of the complaint of demand of illegal gratification through telephonic conversation between the complainant and the applicant in presence of two independent witnesses which came to be recorded. Shri Nandlal then lodged a complaint before the CBI on 24-6-2002. The CBI made necessary verification of the complaint of demand of illegal gratification through telephonic conversation between the complainant and the applicant in presence of two independent witnesses which came to be recorded. Shri Nandlal complainant told the CBI that he would be able to arrange only Rs,1,00,000/- It is further alleged that the trap was arranged, the complainant then as per the instruction given by the applicant over phone visited the residence of the applicant along with witness Indrajeet Gupta at B-72 Goyal Tower, Ahmedabad the premises of the accused-D.K.Mishra and placed the amount of tainted currency notes of Rs.1,00,000/- on the sofa. The accused Shri D.K.Mishra then put up a magazine over it . CBI team then rushed to the spot and recovered the bribe money. The remaining formalities were also completed by CBI, the said tainted currency notes were recovered from the residence of the accused in presence of Panchwitness and the accused has been arrested for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. On completion of the investigation of the case, the CBI submitted charge sheet against the accused to the Court of the Special Judge, Court no.3 for CBI cases and the case was numbered as Special. Case no.17/2003. In Special Case no.17/2003, the applicant-accused presented an application Exh.4 seeking examination of either the sanctioning authority or any person on his behalf who has applied his mind before forwarding the file for according sanction for prosecution against the present applicant at the stage before framing of the charge and also for discharge only on the ground that the sanction order dated 28-5-2003 (exh.30) is issued without application of mind, and therefore, the sanction order is invalid in the eye of law. The prayer for examining the concerned person came to be allowed by the learned Special Judge, Court no.4 for CBI Cases vide order dated 15-9-2005 and the prosecution was directed to present before this Court either the sanctioning authority or a person on his behalf, who had applied his mind before forwarding the file to accord the sanction while the prayer for discharge came to be rejected vide order dated 13-2-2009 by way of further orders. 3. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 15-9-2005, the CBI moved Revision before this Honourble High Court which came to be rejected. Subsequently, the CBI presented Shri Vijaykumar Sharma before this Court who was at that time functioning as an Under Secretary in the Ministry of Finance at New Delhi and who, in the year 2003, was functioning as an Under Secretary (Vigilance and Litigation) in the Central Board of Direct Taxes at New Delhi. The said witness was examined at length and his testimony is on the record of these proceedings at Exh.28. This witness was extensively cross examined and it is upon conclusion of the evidence of this witness that the Advocate for the applicant accused has moved an application exh.35 stating that as this witness was not able to throw any light on the aspect of application of mind by the competent authority, the then Finance Minister of the Union of India is required to be examined as a witness. Shri P.B.Desai, the learned Special Judge , Court no.4 (Special) for CBI Cases at Navrangpura, Ahmedabad after considering the rival submissions and appreciating the background and facts and circumstances of the case, rejected the same vide order dated 14-6-2007, giving rise to the present Revision Application. 4. Heard learned Sr.Counsel Mr.K.J.Shethna for Mr. Adil P.Mehta for the applicant-original accused at length and in great details, as also, Mr. K.P.Raval for the respondent no.1-State and Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2-Union of India. 5. At the outset it may be stated that the controversy in this Revision centers round the question as to whether the sanction order is valid? 6. Learned Counsel for the applicant accused while assailing the validity of the sanction order submitted that when a sanction is to be given by the sanctioning authority, each and every circumstance, which is placed before him, must be true and correct. According to him, it is the wholesome effect of all these circumstances, which are required to be taken into consideration. Omission of the material circumstances from the record placed before the sanctioning authority is also a circumstance which vitiates the sanction. According to him, it is the wholesome effect of all these circumstances, which are required to be taken into consideration. Omission of the material circumstances from the record placed before the sanctioning authority is also a circumstance which vitiates the sanction. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that there is non application of mind on the part of the competent authority in respect of appreciation of evidence in regard to demand and acceptance of money, report of CFSL while testing the presence of phenolphthalein powder and variance in duration of recording of conversation in the tape , in the Panchnama and CFSL report, the opinion of the Director of Income-tax (Vigilance) not having been brought to the notice of the competent authority. Lastly, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel that in the instant case application of mind and satisfaction has been reached by the Under Secretary who cannot substitute the statutory requirement of the satisfaction of the President or Finance Minister, they being the competent authority. 7. The learned A.P.P.Mr. K.P.Raval for the respondent no.1-State as also the learned Counsel Mr. Ravani for the respondent no.2-Union of India has in order to substantiate their say that the sanction order is quite legal and proper took me through the statements made in the sanction order which reflects application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. 8. I now proceed to decide as to whether the sanction order in question is valid or not. For this purpose, I deem it appropriate at this stage to reproduce the contents of the sanction order (Exh.30) dt.28th May 2003, which reads thus: SANCTION ORDER Whereas it is alleged that Shri D.K.Mishra while working as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad during the year 2002 and in the said capacity , as a public servant; he perpetrated the actions of commission and omission as stated hereunder: Whereas it is alleged that Shri D.K.Sharma demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.3 lakhs from Shri Nandlal J. Aggarwal, Prop M/s. Lippi Systems Ltd, Ahmedabad and partner in M/s Aggarwal Export, Ahmedabad and accepted an illegal gratification of Rs,1,00,000/- as first installment from the said Shri Nandlal J. Aggarwal for showing favour in the income tax related matters of M/s. Aggarwal Exports, M/s. Kailash Darshan Samudaik Kheti Sansthan and of his mother, Smt.Satyavatiben Jaygopal Agarval. Whereas a regular case no.RC-10(A)/2002-GNR dated 24-6-02 was registered on the complaint dated 24-6-2002 of Shri Nandlal J. Agarwal with the Central Bureau of Investigation and a trap was arranged in presence of two independent witnesses, namely Shri Indrajeet Gupta, Manager, Bank of Baroda, Vastrapur Branch, Ahmedabad and Shri Amrtubhai P. Patel Officer, Bank of Baroda, S.P.Colony Branch Ahmedabad. In the presence of these two independent witnesses the demand was verified by getting the complainant to talk to Shri D.K.Mishra over telephone on 24-6-02. The said conversation was also recorded on a micro cassette recorder. Thus, from the said conversation, genuineness of demand of illegal gratification of Rs.3 lacs by Shri D.K.Mishra was confirmed. Hence Shri I.B.Pendhari, PI, CBI, Gandhinagar, completed all necessary legal formalities to lay a trap in presence of panch witnesses. Such as demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and its reaction with sodium carbonate in the process of trap. The bribe money of Rs.1,00,000/-, produced by the complainant was treated with phenolphthalein powder and handed over to the complainant with suitable instructions. The panch witnesses were also instructed to independently witness the trap proceedings. Whereas on 25-6-02, as per directions of Shri D.K.Mishra, the complainant and panch witness Shri Indrajeet Gupta visited the house of Shri D.K.Mishra at B-72, Goyal Tower,7th Floor, Ahmedabad where Shri D.K.Mishra accepted Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant in presence of panch witness Shri Indrajeet Gupta. This tainted amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was later on recovered from the residence of Shri D.K.Mishra in presence of the independent witnesses. Whereas there is enough oral and documentary evidence such as complaint, trap panchnamas which contains details of trap proceedings, trap money, etc. along with other documentary and oral evidence of witnesses who would prove the facts of panchnamas and other documents collected during investigation, to substantiate the charges against Shri D.K.Mishra. Whereas the aforesaid acts of Shri D.K.Mishra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4) Ahmedabad, constitute offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. along with other documentary and oral evidence of witnesses who would prove the facts of panchnamas and other documents collected during investigation, to substantiate the charges against Shri D.K.Mishra. Whereas the aforesaid acts of Shri D.K.Mishra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4) Ahmedabad, constitute offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. And whereas the Central Government, being the competent authority to remove the said Shri D.K.Mishra from service, after fully and carefully examining the material before it, including the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in regard to the said allegations and circumstances of the case, considers that the said Shri D.K.Mishra, the then Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle 1(4), Ahmedabad, has committed the said offences and should be prosecuted in the Court of law for the same. Now, therefore, the Central Government hereby accords sanction under Section 19(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 for the prosecution of the said Shri D.K.Mishra, the then Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4),Ahmedabad, for the said offences and for any other offences punishable under the provisions of law in respect of the aforesaid acts and for taking cognizance of the said offences by the Court of competent jurisdiction. This Sanction Order is in supercession of the earlier Sanction Order of even no. dated 12-5-2003. (By order and in the name of the President) sd/- V.K.Sharma Under Secretary to the Government of India. Dated:28-5-2003. New Delhi-1. 9. In light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant-accused , what is required to be seen is (i) whether the sanction order Exh.30 dated 28-5-2003 (issued in supersession of earlier sanction order dated 12-5-2003 as there was correction from Section 19(1)(c) to 19(1) (a) on account of typographical error) has been accorded by the authority competent to make and execute the order., (ii) whether the material collected during investigation which would prima facie establish existence of evidence in regard to commission of offence by the applicant-accused was available before the sanctioning authority before the order of sanction is passed, and (iii) whether the sanction order is itself eloquent enough and shows that prima facie some offence has been committed by the applicant-accused. 10. 10. In the present case, the sanction order Exh.30 is issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India and under transaction of business rules, the said witness is quite competent to make and execute the order in the name of the President or the Finance Minister as is evident from the Notification dated 3rd November, 1958 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. So, there cannot be any dispute with regard to the sanction having been accorded by an authority competent to make and execute the order of sanction. On the issue of non application of mind by the competent authority on account of the fact that the Finance Minister has merely put his signature on the gist note sheet without applying his mind to the facts of the case, it may be noted that there is sufficient evidence on record which shows that the CBI report dated 16-11-2002 contained the facts and supporting evidence collected by the Investigating Agency; the Additional DIT (Vig) had minutely examined all the evidence including the defence of the accused and only after that it was agreed to launch prosecution against the accused as per the recommendation of the CBI. Various authorities like DGIT(Vig), Member (P) and Chairman, CBDT then approved such proposal. Finally, on 12-3-2003 Shri Sunil Vera DIT(Vig) made a draft note and the same was sent by Shri G.P.Prabhu, DGIT(Vig) to the Hon'ble Finance Minister for soliciting sanction of prosecution and RDA against the applicant-accused Shri Dharmendrakumar Mohanji Mishra (exh.33) . Various authorities like DGIT(Vig), Member (P) and Chairman, CBDT then approved such proposal. Finally, on 12-3-2003 Shri Sunil Vera DIT(Vig) made a draft note and the same was sent by Shri G.P.Prabhu, DGIT(Vig) to the Hon'ble Finance Minister for soliciting sanction of prosecution and RDA against the applicant-accused Shri Dharmendrakumar Mohanji Mishra (exh.33) . The draft note forwarded by Shri G.P.Prabhu on 13-3-2003 placed before the Finance Minister on 22-3-2003 soliciting approval of the Finance Mister for sanction of prosecution and RDA against the applicant-accused Shri D.K.Mishra goes a long way to show that on the basis of FIR RC-10(A)/02-GNR dated 24-6-2002 a trap was laid, wherein Shri D.K.Mishra was caught red handed at his residence; that he was arrested on 26-6-2002 and was released on bail on 1-7-2002; that Shri D.K.Mishra had made a demand through telephone call made at the mobile of the complainant as was evident from the CBI report; that the complainant approached CBI, trap was laid, bribe money was negotiated and reduced to Rs.3 lacs and the same was recorded; that at the time of raid the complainant placed the tainted currency notes on the sofa and ShriD.K.Mishra covered the same by putting a magazine over it, CBI team recovered the money and upon experimenting found that the magazine used and the sofa cover changed colour when treated with sodium carbonate, however, hand wash of D.K.Mishra was not incriminating as he had not touched the currency notes; that the CBI report reveals that the telephone number from which Shri D.K.Mishra had called the complainant was installed at his office and that the specimen voice of Shri D.K.Mishra tallied with the recorded conversation by CFSL, New Delhi; that the defence of the accused was taken into consideration; that the circumstantial evidence cited by the CBI in its report was sufficient enough to prove the case of bribe against the applicant-accused Shri D.K.Mishra. It is important to note that this draft note is also approved by Member (P), Chairman CBDT, Secretary (R) and MOSF (R) as can be seen from (Exh.33) and therefore, there is a collective opinion by all the authorities that the proposal of CBI in its report requires to be accepted and finally the draft note was also approved by the Finance Minister by putting his signature thereon. In this case Shri V.K.Sharma, Under Secretary to the Government of India has been examined, however, his oral deposition does not indicate that only noting were placed before the Finance Minister and no material was sent along with it even though the witness was cross-examined at length. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Finance Minister has signed the note (Exh.33) without reading and applying his mind to the materials on record. Even the error committed in mentioning the wrong Section in the earlier sanction order that was signed by the Finance Minister himself and thereafter issuing the correct version would not vitiate the trial. 11. Turning now to the sanction order (exh.30) dated 28th May, 2003 itself it is found that it stipulates as follows: Whereas there is enough oral and documentary evidence such as complaint, trap panchnamas which contains details of trap proceedings, trap money, etc. along with other documentary and oral evidence of witnesses who would prove the facts of panchnamas and other documents collected during investigation, to substantiate the charges against Shri D.K.Mishra. Whereas the aforesaid acts of Shri D.K.Mishra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4) Ahmedabad, constitute offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. And whereas the Central Government, being the competent authority to remove the said Shri D.K.Mishra from service, after fully and carefully examining the material before it, including the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in regard to the said allegations and circumstances of the case, considers that the said Shri D.K.Mishra, the then Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle 1(4), Ahmedabad, has committed the said offences and should be prosecuted in the Court of law for the same. 12. Having given my anxious thought and consideration to the entire material on record, I am of the firm opinion that the sanction order is a well reasoned speaking order, the contents whereof extracted hereinabove, are very expressive and eloquent enough. As stated above, there is the deposition and cross-examination of the sanctioning authority on record wherein he had categorically stated that he had accorded sanction for prosecution after proper application of mind. As stated above, there is the deposition and cross-examination of the sanctioning authority on record wherein he had categorically stated that he had accorded sanction for prosecution after proper application of mind. Apart from that, in the sanction order itself it is disclosed that the applicant-accused had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.3 lakhs, a trap was laid at the residence of the applicant accused; the applicant accused had accepted Rs.1,00,000/- as first installment and the tainted amount of Rs.1,00,000/-was also recovered from his residence, and therefore, it cannot be argued that particular material was not placed before the sanctioning authority for according sanction and the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind. Thus, considering the facts contained in the sanction order coupled with the evidence of the sanctioning authority, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the sanction order Exh.30 is illegal and invalid. In other words, there is due application of mind by the sanctioning authority and the sanction order is valid. 13. The other points canvassed by the learned Counsel for the applicant accused as regards contradictory statements in respect of acceptance of money, report of CFSL while testing the presence of phenolphthalein powder on incriminating articles and variance in duration mentioned in Panchnama and CFSL report about recording of conversation are all matters which can be decided only at the trial after recording evidence. 14. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that Shri S.H.Vora, the learned Special Judge, CBI Court no.5, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad has rightly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a just and proper conclusion in rejecting the application for discharge Exh.4 in Special Case no.17 of 2203 of the applicant-accused by way of further order dated 13-2-2009 as there was a prima facie case and sufficient ground available with the learned Judge to proceed against the applicant-accused as the material on record were capable for inferring a strong suspicion and were sufficient for framing the charge. Similarly, Shri P.B.Desai , Special Judge Court no.4 (Special) for CBI Cases at Navranpura, Ahmedabad was perfectly justified in rejecting application exh.35 in Special Case no.17/2003 seeking to examine the Finance Minister after the evidence of the Under Secretary to the Government of India( the person who had scrutinized the files and on due scrutiny after being satisfied with regard to the merits of the proceedings, initiated and signed the order sanctioning the prosecution against the accused) was concluded to prove the validity of the sanction order as such delaying tactics adopted by the applicant accused would have resulted in failure of justice and abuse of law. 15. The point which falls for determination in this Revision is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of C.S.KRISHNAMURTHY V. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2005) 4 SCC 81 wherein at paragraphs 7 and 9 of the judgment it has been held, That the sanction order should speak for itself and in case the facts do not so appear, it should be proved by leading evidence that all the particulars were placed before the sanctioning authority for due application of mind. But, when the sanction order is itself eloquent enough, then in that case only formal evidence has to be produced by the sanctioning authority or by any other evidence that the sanction was accorded by a competent person with due application of mind. In case the sanction speaks for itself then the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is apparent by reading the order. When the sanction itself is very expressive, then in that case, the argument that particular material was not properly placed before the sanctioning authority for according sanction and the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind becomes unsustainable. 16. The learned Counsel Mr. Shethna for the applicant-accused has drawn my attention to the following decisions (1) State of Karnataka v. Ameerjan ( (2007) 11 SCC 273 ), (2) State of Goa v. Babu Thomas ((2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 130) and (3) Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1978 SC 47 ). However, after a careful study of these authorities, while I do not dispute the proposition laid down in these decisions, the facts of the present case being on a different footing, the decisions cited by the learned Counsel cannot be made applicable. 17. However, after a careful study of these authorities, while I do not dispute the proposition laid down in these decisions, the facts of the present case being on a different footing, the decisions cited by the learned Counsel cannot be made applicable. 17. Consequently, there being no substance in this Revision, the same fails and is hereby dismissed. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial of Special Case no.17/2003 on day- to- day basis and complete the same within six months from today. The observations made in this order shall not in any way influence the trial Court s decision on merits. Interim relief granted earlier is vacated. Rule is discharged. 18. At this stage, learned Counsel Mr. Adil P.Mehta for the applicant-accused has made a request that the interim relief granted by this Court be extended for a period of eight weeks from today. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the case is very old, the request is rejected.