1. Petitioner seeks following reliefs in this writ petition: "1. By issuance of a writ of certiorari/mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned FIR No. 15/2007 registered by Police Vigilance Organization Kashmir, Srinagar, under section 5(1) (e) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against the petitioner be quashed. 2. The respondents 3 and 4 be also directed not to grant any sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner in FIR No. 15/2007 of P/S Vigilance Organization, Kashmir. They be also directed to pay the unpaid salary and increments to the petitioner and give him the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme which has already been sanctioned in his favour. 3. The Honble court may pass any other order or direction which it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. The case under FIR No. 15/2007 u/s 5(1) (e) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act came to be registered against the petitioner on 20th March 2007. In the FIR copy whereof is placed on the writ record, it is alleged that the petitioner is resident of Kachgari Mohalla Feteh Kadal, Srinagar and has acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is further alleged in the FIR that the petitioner is an employee of Centeur Lake View Hotel, Srinagar belonging to Public Sector Hotel Corporation of India. It is further alleged that in his capacity as public servant the petitioner was found to have acquired the following assets apparently disproportionate to his known sources of income, by indulging in corrupt practices:- "i. a house at Raj bagh Srinagar over a piece of land of 18 marlas in his own name and converted it into Hotel "Lee Lords" ii. 10 kanals of land at Haripora Harwan, Srinagar converted into a Cheery Garden in his own name; iii. One kanal and five marlas of oland under Kashra No. 118 at Sector B-2, Laximi Poram, Chinnore, Jammu on which construction of a house is in progress." 3. The ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation is complete and the investigating agency has referred the matter to the competent authority for grant of sanction, to enable them to prosecute the petitioner. The ld. counsel while arguing the case has referred to the allegations as contained in the FIR. The ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation is complete and the investigating agency has referred the matter to the competent authority for grant of sanction, to enable them to prosecute the petitioner. The ld. counsel while arguing the case has referred to the allegations as contained in the FIR. In an effort to disprove the allegations, petitioner has placed on record of writ petition revenue extracts, report of Naib Tehsildar, report of committee constituted by Tehsildar, and affidavits sworn by Ghulam Mohd Ganie, Gh. Mohd Bhat, Ali Mohd Rather and Mohd Shaban Bhat and photo copy of sale deed executed by Maqbool Ahmad as also family agreement. 4. It is further submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are totally baseless and petitioner has been harpooned into fabricated case. The further case of the petitioner as projected by his ld. counsel is that the petitioner had opted for voluntarily retirement from service, though sanction has been accorded, but because of pendency of the case, no formal order is being issued. 5. Heard. Considered. The FIR and investigation can be quashed only when the allegations made in the FIR and investigation do not disclose commission of offence. The truth and falsehood of the allegations as made in the FIR are to be investigated into by Investigating Agency and the final report of the investigating agency is to be scrutinized by court of competent jurisdiction. It is admitted by the ld. counsel for the petitioner that investigation is complete and record has been submitted to competent authority for obtaining sanction, would mean that the investigating agency has come to the prima facie conclusion that the allegations made in the complaint have been found to be prima facie correct and for that purpose the petitioner is to be put on trial. 6. The question arises whether this court in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction can declare the petitioner to be innocent and quash the proceedings and FIR on the basis of documents which have been annexed by the petitioner with the writ petition. The evidence placed on record of the writ petition cannot be looked into by this court at this stage while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction and this court cannot declare the petitioner to be an innocent person. This view is supported by judgment of Honble Supreme Court in case titled "State of Bihar and others versus Sh. The evidence placed on record of the writ petition cannot be looked into by this court at this stage while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction and this court cannot declare the petitioner to be an innocent person. This view is supported by judgment of Honble Supreme Court in case titled "State of Bihar and others versus Sh. P.P Sharma, reported in AIR 1991 V. 78 SC page 1260. The Honble Supreme Court at page 16 of the said judgment has observed as under:- "..16.It is thus obvious that `the annexures were neither part of the police reports nor were relied upon by the investigating officer. These documents were produced by the respondents before the High Court along with the writ petitions. By treating `the annexures and affidavits as evidence and by converting itself into a trial court the High Court pronounced the respondents to be innocent and quashed the proceedings. The least we can say is that this was not at all a case where High Court should have interfered in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. This Court has repeatedly held that the appreciation of evidence is the function of the criminal courts. The High Court, under the circumstances, could not have assume jurisdiction and put an end to the process of investigation and trial provided under the law. Since the High Court strongly relied upon the "the annexures" in support of its findings, we may briefly examine these documents." 7. This is not the case of the petitioner that these documents were produced before investigating agency. Even in such eventuality, it is within the powers of investigating agency, to accept or reject a document or even not to entertain the same. 8. The Honble Supreme Court has expressed the opinion in plethora of cases about exercise of power u/s 561-A Cr.P.C, and it has been the consistent view of the Honble Supreme Court that such power shall be exercised with great caution, very sparingly with circumspection, that too in the rarest of rarest cases. The Honble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs Bhajan lal 1991 Supp (1) SCC 355: AIR 1992 SC 604: (1992 Cri LJ 527), it is pointed out (para 109 of AIR and Cr. The Honble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs Bhajan lal 1991 Supp (1) SCC 355: AIR 1992 SC 604: (1992 Cri LJ 527), it is pointed out (para 109 of AIR and Cr. LJ):- Para 103 is reproduced as under: "We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon the enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." 9. The Honble Supreme Court has further held in State of Bihar v J.A. C. Saldanha (1980) 1 SCC 554: (1980 2 SCR 16: (1980 Cr. LJ 98) and observed that unless extraordinary case of gross abuse of power by those incharge of investigations is made out, the courts should be quite loath to interfere at the investigation stage. 10. Again the Honble Supreme Court has further held in State of Bihar v. P.P Sharma 1992 Suppl(1) SCC 222: (1991 Cr. LJ 1438 Honble K. Ramaswamy, J, is on record to say (at p. 1462 of Cr. LJ). Para 68 is reproduced as under: "it has been observed by his Lordships that quashing the charge sheet even before cognizance is taken by a criminal court amounts to "killing a stillborn child". Till the criminal court takes cognizance of the offence there is no criminal proceedings pending. I am not allowing the appeals on the ground that alternative remedies provided by the code as a bar. It may be relevant in an appropriate case. My view is that entertaining the writ petitions against charge-sheet and considering the matter on merit in the guise of prima face evidence to stand an accused for trial amount to pre-trial of a criminal trial under Art. 226 and 227 even before the competent Magistrate or the Sessions Court takes cognizance of the offence. Once the proceedings are entertained the further proceedings get stayed. Expeditions trail of a criminal case is the cardinal rule. Delay feeds injustice to social order and entertaining writ petition would encourage to delay the trial by diverse tricks.". 11. Once the proceedings are entertained the further proceedings get stayed. Expeditions trail of a criminal case is the cardinal rule. Delay feeds injustice to social order and entertaining writ petition would encourage to delay the trial by diverse tricks.". 11. The Honble Supreme Court in "Sunita Janin v. Pawan Kuamr Jan and ors, 4[(2008)] 2SCC 705, has stated: "In exercising its jurisdiction under Section 561-A the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Courts inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained." 12. The ld. counsel for petitioner further submitted that the authority competent to grant sanction is under obligation to grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before considering the material for grant or otherwise of sanction. This submission of the ld. counsel requires to be rejected in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in case "State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri" reported in 1996 (1) SCC page 542. Para 17 is reproduced as under:- "Further the conclusion of the learned Judge that the opportunity of hearing must be granted and the non grant of the same would vitiate the order of sanction is clearly contrary to the following observations of this Court in P.P. Sharma case which reads as under: (SSC pp.268-69, para 67) "It is equally well settled that before granting sanction the authority or the appropriate Government must have before it the necessary report and the material facts which prima facie establish the commission of offence charged for and the appropriate Government would apply their mind to those facts. The order of sanction is only an administrative act and not a quasi-judicial one nor is a lis involved. Therefore, the order of sanction need not contain detailed reasons in support thereof as was contended by Shri Jain. But the basic facts that constitute the offence must be apparent on the impugned order and the record must bear out the reasons in that regard. The question of giving an opportunity to the public servant at that stage as was contended for the respondents does not arise. But the basic facts that constitute the offence must be apparent on the impugned order and the record must bear out the reasons in that regard. The question of giving an opportunity to the public servant at that stage as was contended for the respondents does not arise. Proper application of mind to the existence of prima facie evidence of the commission of the offence is only a precondition to grant or refuse to grant sanction. When the Government accorded sanction, Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act raises presumption that the official acts have been regularly performed. The burden is heavier on the accused to establish the contra to rebut that statutory presumption. Once that is done then it is the duty of the prosecution to produce necessary record to establish that after application of mind and consideration thereof to the subject the grant or refusal to grant sanction was made by the appropriate authority. At any time before the court takes cognizance of the offence the order of sanction could be made. It is settled law that issuance of the process to the accused to appear before the court is sine qua non of taking cognizance of the offence. The emphasis of Section 197 (1) or other similar provisions that `no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction posits that before taking cognizance of the offence alleged, there must be before the court the prior sanction given the competent authority. Therefore, at any time before taking cognizance of the offence it is open to the competent authority to grant sanction and the prosecution is entitled to produce the order of sanction. Filing of charge sheet before the court without sanction per se is not illegal, nor a condition precedent. A perusal of the sanction order clearly indicates that the Government appears to have applied its mind to the facts placed before it and considered them and then granted sanction. No evidence has been placed before us to come to a different conclusion. Accordingly we hold that the High Court committed manifest error of law to quash the charge sheets on those grounds." 13. The ld. counsel for petitioner at conclusion of the hearing of this petition at admission stage, submitted that he will produce judgment of the Honble Supreme court of 2009 which in the submission of the ld. Accordingly we hold that the High Court committed manifest error of law to quash the charge sheets on those grounds." 13. The ld. counsel for petitioner at conclusion of the hearing of this petition at admission stage, submitted that he will produce judgment of the Honble Supreme court of 2009 which in the submission of the ld. counsel for the petitioner provides for grant of opportunity by the competent authority, before the matter is considered for grant or otherwise of the sanction. Ld. counsel sought one days time for production of the aforesaid judgment. The matter was ordered to be kept on Board for 19.02.09. The ld. counsel, however, did not produce such judgment. 14. The second relief sought for in the writ petition for directing respondents 3 & 4 not to grant any sanction also cannot be issued as statutory authority cannot be prevented from discharging statutory duty. The competent authority is yet to consider the matter and it depends on the decision to be taken by competent authority whether sanction will be granted or not in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The petitioner also seeks a direction for payment of unpaid salary and increments as also for allowing benefit of voluntarily retirement scheme which has been allegedly sanctioned in his favour. If the petitioner satisfies the requirements as envisaged by the scheme/rules then there shall be no impediment in allowing the benefit accruing to the petitioner from voluntarily retirement scheme and payment of other benefits. This is to be seen by competent authority in the first instance. No case is made out. The writ petition is dismissed in limini. 16. Menace of corruption has eaten into very vitals of the body politic. By indulging in corrupt practice, a neo-rich class has come into existence in the society. The rights of genuine people are being trampled underfoot by corrupt power full, which if allowed to continue will lead to anarchical situation. People who indulge in corrupt practices and amass wealth must be denuded of the assets in accordance with law. The earnest effort has to be made that public money is not siphoned-off into coffers of few corrupt people. By adopting corrupt means some people are becoming richer day in and day out and victims of such abominable acts become poorer and poorer day in and day out. The earnest effort has to be made that public money is not siphoned-off into coffers of few corrupt people. By adopting corrupt means some people are becoming richer day in and day out and victims of such abominable acts become poorer and poorer day in and day out. It shall be effort of conscientious and law abiding people to fight the hydra-headed monster of corruption with vibrating zeal and pulsating enthusiasm