Judgment : This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed at the instance of Surabuddin Halder, the charge sheeted accused in G. R. Case No.82 of 2009 arising out of Sonarpur P. S. Case No.17 of 2009 dated 9.1.2009 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, praying for quashing of the proceeding on the grounds that the investigation into the case was not done by an officer competent to do it under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; that no previous sanction to prosecute under Section 19 of the Act was obtained before taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate and that Section 161 of the I. P. C. has been repealed at the time charge sheet was filed. Mr. Kazi Safiullah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the charge sheet although filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police, the investigation into the case was actually conducted by B. Ghosh, S. I. of Police. He has taken me to the First Information Report which indicates clearly that the investigation into the case was taken up by S. I., B. Ghosh not by any officer of the rank authorized to do so under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mr. Kazi Safiullah further contends that in view of Section 19 of the Act, no Court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act in absence of previous sanction to prosecute. In the instant case, he submits, no such previous sanction was obtained. Mr. Aniket Mitra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party/State contends that true it is that no previous sanction was obtained as contended by Mr. Kazi Safiullah. He concedes fairly also that the provision of Section 17 of the Act which appears to be mandatory have not been complied with because the investigation, in fact, was done by S. I., B. Ghosh which is evident from the F. I. R. itself. Mr. Kazi Safiullah. He concedes fairly also that the provision of Section 17 of the Act which appears to be mandatory have not been complied with because the investigation, in fact, was done by S. I., B. Ghosh which is evident from the F. I. R. itself. Mr. Kaushik Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 contends that the petitioner herein was asked for quashing of the charge sheet and in that case even if the mandatory provisions have been violated by the investigating agency, the F. I. R. will remain as it is because there is no bar to investigate into the case by the appropriate authority after obtaining necessary sanction under Section 17 of the Act. There is no room of doubt or no debate can be made on the issue that the Section 17 of the Act starts with non-obstante clause whereby some class of police officers have been entrusted with the job of taking of investigation into a case under Section 7 of the Act. If any officer below such rank investigates into the case, the entire investigation process would be useless and illegal for not being competent to do so according to the mandatory provisions of law. It is also not debatable at all that in order to prosecute someone under Section 7 of the Act, previous sanction of the authority is a sine qua non. Section 19 prohibits a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence under Section 7 and other offence of the act committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction. In the instant case, no such sanction has been obtained. The learned Magistrate was oblivious of the mandatory provisions of law and taken cognizance of the offence and thereby made a mistake. No doubt, Section 161 of the I.P.C. has not found place as a provision of penal offence in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. By Act 30 of 2001 with effect from 3.9.2001, the Section 161 to 165 of I.P.C. has been omitted. In view of the facts above, I find that the prosecution in G.R. Case No.82 of 2009 is liable to be quashed for not being in conformity with the mandatory provisions of law. Cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is manifestly bad in law. Accordingly, I allow the revisional application. In view of the facts above, I find that the prosecution in G.R. Case No.82 of 2009 is liable to be quashed for not being in conformity with the mandatory provisions of law. Cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is manifestly bad in law. Accordingly, I allow the revisional application. However, on the basis of the F.I.R. filed by the opposite party No.2, the matter can be investigated afresh in accordance with law. The revisional application is thus disposed of.