Order Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State Vigilance Department/opposite party. 2. Invoking the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner in this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings pending against him including the order of cognizance dated 11.9.2002 passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 44 of 2002 whereby and whereunder, cognizance for the offences under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, was taken against the petitioner. 3. Facts relevant for the disposal of this case, are as follows: A complaint was lodged by one Santosh Kumar before the officer of the State Vigilance Department alleging therein that there was a quarrel between the complainant and one trekker driver resulting in a scuffle between them. The owner of the trekker lodged a complaint at the Lalpur Police Station for the alleged occurrence. The complainant has alleged that the present petitioner being the then officer-in-charge of the Lalpur Police Station, called the complainant at the police station through a constable and demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1,500/- for settling the dispute between the complainant and the owner of the trekker out of court. On the basis of such complaint, the Vigilance Department, after verification, registered the case vide Vigilance P.S. Case No. 44 of 2002 dated 13.7.2002. Thereafter, a trap was organized. Currency notes amounting to Rs. 1,500/-, smeared with Phenolphthalein powder, were handed over to the complainant Santosh Kumar with instruction that upon demand made by the petitioner,' the money should be given to him. After the formal rehearsal, the trap team went to Lalpur Chowk as guided by the complainant. It is alleged that on seeing the complainant, the petitioner who was present at the chowk, demanded money from the complainant and in response, the complainant handed over the tainted currency notes amounting to Rs. 1 ,500/- to the petitioner who, in turn, handed over the same to his driver namely the co-accused Kunwar Singh. Upon receiving the signal, all the members of the trap team, who had positioned themselves nearby, arrived and caught hold of the petitioner and also the driver. 1 ,500/- to the petitioner who, in turn, handed over the same to his driver namely the co-accused Kunwar Singh. Upon receiving the signal, all the members of the trap team, who had positioned themselves nearby, arrived and caught hold of the petitioner and also the driver. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the trouser pocket of Kunwar Singh. Thereafter, the petitioner and the driver were brought to the police station. There the hands of both the accused persons were dipped in chemical solution and the solution was sealed in four different bottles with specific marks of identification. The sealed bottles of the hand dipped solution were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the report• of the Forensic Science Laboratory was subsequently obtained. Sanction for prosecuting the petitioner for the offences was obtained. After concluding the investigation, the Investigating Officer of the Vigilance Department submitted charge-sheet against both the accused persons and on the basis of the charge sheet, the Special Judge (Vigilance), vide the impugned order, took cognizance of the offences against the accused persons. 4. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order of cognizance as also continuance of the criminal prosecution against the petitioner on the following grounds: (I) No legal sanction for prosecuting the petitioner under the provisions of Section 197(2) Cr.PC and under the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was obtained. The purported sanction on the basis of which the prosecution has sought to rely, suffers from a serious error in law, inasmuch as, such sanction was not given by the competent authority. The petitioner is admittedly an officer of the Police Department of the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police holding a Gazetted post and he is removable from his office only with the sanction of the State Government. The fact that the State Government is the competent authority to sanction prosecution of the petitioner under Section 197(2) Cr. PC and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has been declared by the State Government vide its notification dated 16.3.1980 (Annexure-7). In consonance with the directives contained in the notification, sanction for prosecution of police officers have been given by the State Government in the cases of police officers of the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police and by the Director General of Police in the cases of the Subordinate Police Officers as indicated in Annexure-A series. In consonance with the directives contained in the notification, sanction for prosecution of police officers have been given by the State Government in the cases of police officers of the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police and by the Director General of Police in the cases of the Subordinate Police Officers as indicated in Annexure-A series. In the present case, sanction for prosecution has been given by the DIG Police, South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranchi who is not the competent authority to accord such sanction under Section 19(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecuting the petitioner. (II) The petitioner had suffered serious prejudice on account of the fact that the entire facts of the case for obtaining sanction has not been placed before the competent authority. Had it been placed, the competent authority upon considering the glaring lacuna in the prosecution's case, would not have accorded sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. (III) Even as per the entire admitted case of the prosecution, none of the offences for which cognizance was taken under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, is made out for the following reasons: (i) There is no evidence even to remotely suggest that the petitioner had any occasion to make any demand of any illegal gratification from the complainant Santosh Kumar. The contention of the complainant that a report was lodged at the police station, (where the petitioner was posted asofficer-in-charge), by the owner of a trekker against the complainant Santosh Kumar, is totally false, imaginary and concocted since even upon the verification made by the Vigilance Officer, no such complaint or report was found to have been lodged at the police station by any person claimed to be the owner of any trekker, against the complainant. The very genesis of the alleged offence, is therefore doubtful. (ii) Admittedly, no recovery of any money was made from the petitioner's possession by any member of the trap team. The very genesis of the alleged offence, is therefore doubtful. (ii) Admittedly, no recovery of any money was made from the petitioner's possession by any member of the trap team. (iii) Even though, it is alleged that the petitioner had received the tainted currency notes with his hands and his hands were later dipped in chemical solution and the same was examined by the forensic science laboratory, but as declared in the report of the forensic science laboratory, the solution in which the petitioner's hands were dipped, neither turned pink nor was there any trace of Phenolphthalein present in the sealed bottle containing the petitioner's hand wash solution. (iv) That the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the Vigilance Department on account of rivalry between the State Police Department and the Vigilance Department and this fact is amply demonstrated in the manner in which the petitioner and the co-accused were hounded up in open place and forcibly taken to the police station and the manner in which the currency notes were thrust in the pocket of the co-accused, as declared by the co-accused in his statement made before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.PC. (v) The allegation that the petitioner in his uniform, had invited the complainant at Lalpur Chowk, a busy crowded place, instead of any secluded place, to receive alleged gratification, is improbable and in fact unbelievable. This is the observation made even by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Killi Ram vs. State of Rajasthan [ (1985)1 SCC 28 ], while considering identical facts. (vi) Even otherwise, the prosecution has been intentionally delaying the trial ever since the year-2002 and till date, the prosecution has not been able to examine the entire set of its thirty odd witnesses. By protracting the criminal proceedings and keeping the vigilance case pending against him, the petitioner is being illegally deprived of his official rights which he would have otherwise earned by virtue of his long standing work experience. 5. Counsel for the State Vigilance, on the other hand, would want to controvert the grounds advanced by the petitioner, stating that the same are misconceived and not maintainable. 5. Counsel for the State Vigilance, on the other hand, would want to controvert the grounds advanced by the petitioner, stating that the same are misconceived and not maintainable. In order to rebut the grounds, learned counsel raises the following grounds: i. There is no error in the order of sanction since it was given by the competent authority and even if there was any error, this in itself, would not be sufficient to quash the criminal proceedings unless .the petitioner is able to demonstrate that he had suffered any serious prejudice on account of the error committed in granting sanction for prosecution. ii. The witnesses in their respective statements made before the investigating officer, have supported the prosecution's case that upon the demand made by the petitioner, the complainant Santosh Kumar delivered the tainted currency notes to the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner after receiving the notes by his hand, passed it over to his driver Kunwar Singh and thereafter, the Vigilance Officer had promptly arrested both the accused persons and recovered the tainted currency notes from the possession of the co-accused. These, according to the learned counsel, are sufficient prima facie material for the Special Judge to take cognizance of the offences under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and in this view of the matter, the impugned order of cognizance does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. iii. The trial against the petitioner, has considerably advanced and till date, as many as five witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and therefore, the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 Cr.PC cannot be invoked either for quashing the proceedings or even for staying the proceedings and it is apt that the trial should proceed to its logical conclusion. iv. The grounds advanced by the petitioner are by way of his defence which can be advanced by him at the trial and the evidence in this context may be better appreciated by the trial court at the stage of judgment. 6. iv. The grounds advanced by the petitioner are by way of his defence which can be advanced by him at the trial and the evidence in this context may be better appreciated by the trial court at the stage of judgment. 6. From the rival pleadings, the salient features which emerge are: i. On the allegation that the petitioner being the officer-in-charge of the police station, had called upon the complainant Santosh Kumar and demanded illegal gratification for settling out of court the dispute between the complainant and the owner of the trekker in respect of a case claimed to have been registered at the police station on the basis of the complaint made by the trekker owner. Thus, the registration of the case at the police station on the basis of some complaint lodged by the owner of a trekker against the complainant Santosh Kumar, appears to be the genesis and on the basis of which, it is claimed that the petitioner had occasion to call upon the complainant and demand illegal gratification from him. However, contrary to such claim, in course of verification of the complaint and in course of investigation, the concerned officer of the vigilance had not found any such report entered in the police station diary against the complainant Santosh Kumar at any point of time prior to the alleged date of occurrence. This apparently lends support to the stand taken by the petitioner that in absence of any such previous report lodged at the police station against the complainant Santosh Kumar, there could be no occasion whatsoever for the petitioner to call upon the complainant Santosh Kumar and demand any money from him by way of illegal gratification. It is also pertinent to note that the investigating officer has not found any such owner of any trekker with whom the complainant Santosh Kumar was allegedly involved in the alleged altercation and may therefore have reason to lodge a complaint at the police station against the complainant Santosh Kumar. ii. Next, it is alleged in the prosecution's case that the stained currency notes were handed over by the complainant to the petitioner and that the petitioner after receiving the same with his hands, transferred the currency notes to the co-accused who kept the same in his trouser pocket. ii. Next, it is alleged in the prosecution's case that the stained currency notes were handed over by the complainant to the petitioner and that the petitioner after receiving the same with his hands, transferred the currency notes to the co-accused who kept the same in his trouser pocket. It is also alleged that the petitioner's hands were dipped in the chemical solution and the solution was thereafter sealed and forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Yet, even as admitted, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory does not confirm the presence of any Phenolphthalein or other chemical in the sealed bottle containing the petitioner's hand wash solution. The prosecution's case that the petitioner had received the stained currency notes with his hands and thereafter, passed it over to the co-accused, does suffer a serious• dent and a reasonable doubt. iii. Counsel for the Vigilance has not specifically denied the petitioner's claim that the DIG of Police from whom the order of sanction was obtained for prosecuting the petitioner, was not the competent authority either under Section 197(2) Cr.PC or under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to grant such sanction. On the other hand, the notification of the State Government,• referred to by the petitioner, does confirm that the officer of the State Government including those in the Police Services, being of the rank of Gazetted Officer, are removable from office by the order of the State Government. This fact is confirmed by reference to several sanction orders (Annexure-A series)" which were passed by the State Government for prosecution of Police Officers including officers of the rank of Sub-Inspectors of Police, in various cases. It is manifest that the DIG of Police is not the competent authority to sanction prosecution of the petitioner either under Section 197(2) Cr.PC or under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act since the petitioner is certainly not removable from his office by the order of the DIG of Police, who admittedly, is not the appointing authority of the petitioner. Counsel for the State Vigilance has not produced any such notification which specifically authorizes the DIG of Police to sanction prosecution of the Subordinate Police Officers of the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police, for any offence either under the Indian Penal Code or for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Counsel for the State Vigilance has not produced any such notification which specifically authorizes the DIG of Police to sanction prosecution of the Subordinate Police Officers of the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police, for any offence either under the Indian Penal Code or for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The only response on this issue offered by the counsel for the State Vigilance, by reference to the provisions of Section 19 of the Act, is that even if the order of sanction suffers from any such error, this in itself, would not be sufficient to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court for quashing the criminal proceedings or even for stay of the criminal proceedings, unless the petitioner points out that he has suffered serious prejudice, which in the opinion of the court, can be accepted as reasonable. The main contention of the petitioner in the context of the allegations is that there was no basis or occasion for the petitioner to make any demand for any illegal gratification from the complainant Santosh Kumar considering the fact that since there was no previous complaint registered against the complainant Santosh Kumar at the police station at any point of time. Furthermore, the prosecution's claim that the petitioner had received the tainted currency notes with his hands and thereafter passed it over to the co-accused, is contradicted and belied by the Forensic Report. Thus, the proposed evidence of the prosecution to prove the charges that the petitioner had demanded and received illegal gratification, is itself doubtful. Furthermore, as has been observed by the Supreme Court in Killi Ram's Case (supra), it is highly improbable that a police officer in uniform would invite the complainant at a crowded public place to receive bribe money instead of adopting a secretive place. Had these vital informations been placed before the competent authority for its objective consideration, it may not have accorded sanction for prosecuting the petitioner for the alleged offences. The order of sanction passed by the DIG of Police, who is admittedly not the competent authority, has apparently been passed without application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case in proper perspective and the cognizance taken by the Magistrate on the basis of such illegal order of sanction, is also without application of judicial mind. The order of sanction passed by the DIG of Police, who is admittedly not the competent authority, has apparently been passed without application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case in proper perspective and the cognizance taken by the Magistrate on the basis of such illegal order of sanction, is also without application of judicial mind. It is further contended that the petitioner has suffered serious prejudice not only on account of the fact that he has been humiliated by such false and frivolous charges being framed against him, but also on account of the fact that he has been illegally made to suffer the rigours of a protracted trial which has not concluded even after lapse of more than eight years. 7. I find force in the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner on these issues. Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act reads as follows: "19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution. - (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 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, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence 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 Government; (b) in the case of a person [who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence 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 Government; (c) In the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office. (2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974):- (a) No finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby; (b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice; (c) no court shall stay the proceeding under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any• interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. (4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section:- (a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction, (b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature." 8. On a careful reading of the provisions, it would be manifest that the main object of the section is that it bars the court from taking cognizance of the offences therein enumerated, alleged to have been committed by a public servant except, with the previous sanction of the competent authority empowered to grant the requisite sanction. The object underlying such provision was to save the public servant from harassment of frivolous or unsubstantiated allegation. The existence thus of a valid sanction, is a prerequisite to the taking of cognizance of the enumerated offences alleged to have been committed by a public servant. The object underlying such provision was to save the public servant from harassment of frivolous or unsubstantiated allegation. The existence thus of a valid sanction, is a prerequisite to the taking of cognizance of the enumerated offences alleged to have been committed by a public servant. Therefore, as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India and Others [(1991)3 SCC 655], when the court is called upon to take cognizance of such offences, it must enquire whether there is a valid sanction to prosecute the public servant for the offence alleged to have been committed by him. 9. It is settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that the validity of sanction depends upon the material placed before the competent sanctioning authority to consider the relevant facts, materials and evidence and the sanctioning authority must apply its own independent mind to the relevant facts of the case, the evidence collected and other incidental facts before granting sanction. Sanction under the Act is not intended to be an idle formality and it is essential that the Rules in regard to the sanction should be observed in complete strictness. 10. In the case of State of Karnataka vs. C. Nagarajaswamy [ (2005)8 SCC 370 ], the Supreme Court has observed as follows: "Grant of proper sanction by competent authority is a sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence." In yet another judgment, in the case of State Inspector of Police, Vishakhapatnam vs. Surya Sankram Karri [ (2006)7 SCC 172 ], the Supreme Court has observed as follows: "When a sanction is granted by a person not authorized in law, the same being without jurisdiction, would be a nullity." 11. In the present case, it is not disputed that the State Government is the appointing authority of the petitioner and also the authority which can remove the petitioner from his office. The DIG of Police being not the appointing authority and neither vested with the powers to remove the petitioner from his office, cannot be accepted as a competent authority for sanctioning the prosecution of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. Such sanction has to be declared as invalid and a nullity. 12. The DIG of Police being not the appointing authority and neither vested with the powers to remove the petitioner from his office, cannot be accepted as a competent authority for sanctioning the prosecution of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. Such sanction has to be declared as invalid and a nullity. 12. Counsel for the Vigilance argues, by reference to the provisions of Sections 19(3) and 19(4) of the Act as well as the Explanation offered in the concluding paragraph of the section, that the order of sanction even if passed by the authority not competent, may at best be treated as an error and unless such erroneous order of sanction has resulted in failure of justice, the order of cognizance cannot be assailed. It is further argued that the word 'error' referred to in the section, also includes competency of the Authority to grant sanction and that while considering the objection of the accused against the order of sanction, the court shall also have regard to the fact that such objection should have been raised at the early stage of the proceedings. Learned counsel argues further that the petitioner did not raise his objection against the order of sanction at an early stage in the proceedings and on the other hand, had allowed the charges to be framed and the trial to commence with the examination of the prosecution's witnesses. 13. The answer to these questions would be found in the judgments of the Supreme Court in the following cases:- In the case of State of Goa vs. Babu Thomas [AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3606], a similar issue on almost identical facts, came up before the Supreme Court for consideration. While taking note of the admitted facts of the case that the order of sanction of the prosecution was passed under the signatures of the Company Secretary, who was not the competent authority under the Rules to pass an order of sanction, and in the context of the provisions of Section 19(1) and Section 19(3) of the Act, the Apex Court has held that since the sanction of prosecution under Section 19 of the Act was not granted by the competent authority, cognizance taken by the court, would be bad and without jurisdiction. The Court has also held that it is not a case of mere irregularity, error or omission in the order of sanction, as required under Section 19(1) of the Act. It goes to the root of the prosecution case and it being the fundamental error which invalidates the cognizance as without jurisdiction" While expressing tile same view earlier in the case of Manoranjan Prasad Choudhary vs. State of Bihar [ (2002)10 SCC 688 ], the Supreme Court has held that since there is no sanction of the competent authority, the proceeding is vitiated and upon such findings, the court had quashed the proceedings. Thus, it cannot be gainsaid that the order of sanction granted by incompetent authority, was a mere error or irregularity which could be accepted for the purposes of taking cognizance of the offences and for prosecuting the public servant. The law as established by the Supreme Court in its above referred judgments is that in absence of a valid sanction, the order of cognizance of the offences is without jurisdiction and would be invalid. This is a settled principle of law. 14. In response to the contention of the counsel for the Vigilance, that the objection against the sanction should have been taken at an earlier stage of the proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such an objection was taken by the petitioners even at the initial stage by filing a criminal miscellaneous petition before this court, but on improper legal advise, the same was withdrawn. Learned counsel adds that the second time when the objection was taken in respect of the illegal order, was at the stage of framing of charge, but such objection was also not appreciated by the trial court and hence, the petitioner has filed the present application. 15. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the order of sanction in the present case was passed by the authority not competent under the provisions of Section 19 of the Act, and under such circumstances, applying the settled principle of law, such order of sanction is a fundamental error. 15. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the order of sanction in the present case was passed by the authority not competent under the provisions of Section 19 of the Act, and under such circumstances, applying the settled principle of law, such order of sanction is a fundamental error. The order of cognizance passed on the invalid order of sanction, can very well be challenged by the petitioner and such objection would certainly be a matter for consideration by this court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, particularly in the light of the pleadings that the petitioner has suffered serious prejudice due to the prosecution initiated against him on the basis of the illegal sanction. 16. Another significant aspect which cannot possibly be ignored is the delay in conducting the trial against the petitioner. It appears from the records that though, the case was registered in the year 2002 and the trial had commenced shortly thereafter, but it has not concluded even after the lapse of more than eight years. Even as admitted by the counsel for the Vigilance, during the period after commencement of trial, only five witnesses were examined at the rate of one witness per year. At this rate, the trial is likely to continue for another 10 years or more for the examination of the entire set of over 31 witnesses named in the charge-sheet. Such delay of over eight years, was not in any way, attributable to the petitioner. The lackadaisical manner in which the investigation spread over a period of eight years, does certainly infringe the valuable constitutional rights of the petitioner for speedy investigation and trial. This is in fact the essence of the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others [AIR 2006 Supreme Court 3077] and in the case of Vakil Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar [(2009)3 Supreme Court Cases 355: 2009(1) JLJR (SC) 277], applied by the Apex Court for quashing the criminal proceedings. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to show any exceptional circumstance which could possibly be taken into consideration for condoning the callous and inordinate delay of more than eight years for the investigation and the trial. 17. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to show any exceptional circumstance which could possibly be taken into consideration for condoning the callous and inordinate delay of more than eight years for the investigation and the trial. 17. Another aspect of equal relevance which counsel for the petitioner would emphasize and which may not be ignored, is that even according to the admitted facts of the prosecution's case, the evidences on which the prosecution seeks to rely do not lay down the foundational facts to prove the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe by the petitioner. There is no cogent and reliable evidence to confirm that there was any occasion for the petitioner to demand any illegal gratification from the complainant Santosh Kumar. Admittedly, no tainted currency notes was recovered from the petitioner's personal possession. Furthermore, the allegation that the petitioner had received the tainted currency notes with his hands, is contradicted and belied by the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory which had conducted the forensic examination of the purported liquid containing the solution of the petitioner's hand wash. Thus, even according to the prosecution's own evidences sought to be put forth, there appears no cogent and reliable evidence both on the point of demand and on the point of receiving illegal gratification by the petitioner. The question, as rightly posed by the counsel for the petitioner, is as to whether on the basis of such shaky evidences, can the prosecution secure a conviction of the petitioner for the offences for which he has been charged? If not, then subjecting the petitioner to further protracted trial for further indefinite period, would be an exercise in futility. 18. In the light of the facts and circumstances and the discussions made above, I find merit in this application. Consequently, this application is allowed. The impugned order of cognizance dated 11.9.2002 as passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 44 of 2002 including the entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner following the impugned order of cognizance, is hereby quashed.