JUDGMENT : This revision is directed against the judgment-dated 04.02.2002, passed by Special Judge [for CBI cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') at Bhopal in CBI Case No.60/99, whereby the respondents were released for want of valid sanction for their prosecution. 2. At the trial, the respondent no.1 was charged with the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act whereas charges of the offences under Sections 201 and 477-A of the IPC were framed against the respondent no.2. 3. Background facts may be summarized as under - (i) At the relevant point of time, the respondents were posted respectively as Booking Clerk and Head Booking Clerk-cum-cashier in the current booking office located in the Railway Station premises at Bhopal. (ii) On 5.9.1997, upon credible information to the effect that Booking Clerks were collecting excess amount for issuing journey tickets to the passengers, a surprise check was conducted jointly by officials of CBI and those of Commercial Department of Railways at the booking office in the 'C' shift that runs from 16:00 hrs to 24:00 hrs. On verification, - (a) A total amount of Rs.10,569/- was found in excess of the amount equivalent to the value of tickets sold at Counters No.1, 2 and 3. (b) Personal search of the Booking Clerks, who were managing these counters, resulted in recovery of a total sum of Rs.7,400.50 paise, in excess of the amount declared by them at the time of joining the shift duty. (c) Before attending to his duty, the respondent no.1 had declared that he was having Rs.72/- as personal amount and had sold journey tickets worth Rs.5140/- but an additional amount of Rs.5408/- was also found at the counter no.2 manned by him. (iii) Accordingly, a case was registered as Crime No.RC18(A)/97-BPL at Bhopal office of the CBI, in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 420 of the IPC and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act against the respondent no.1 only who, in turn, attempted to explain the recovery of excess amount by stating that it was “on-hand cash” kept for public convenience and left by his predecessor at the counter upon completion of duty in the 'B' shift. (iv) The respondent no.2, in order to substantiate the plea taken by the respondent no.1, made an entry in the cash book suggesting that the relieved Booking Clerk namely R.K. Gehani had left an amount of Rs.5130/- as “on-hand cash” whereas the respondent no.1 was required to explain possession of the excess amount to the tune of Rs.5408/- only. It was also found that there was no provision or instruction for keeping excess cash in the form of “on-hand cash” for public convenience. (v) After due investigation, the outcome thereof was placed before Ravindra Sharma, the then Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Bhopal, who accorded sanction (Ex.P-1) for prosecution of - (i) the respondent no.1 in respect of the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)&(e) read with 13(2) of the Act. (ii) the respondent no.2 for the offences under Sections 13(1)(c)&(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and Sections 201 and 477-A of the IPC. 4. To bring home the charges, as many as 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. No evidence was led in defence. Upon conclusion of the trial, learned Special Judge for the reasons assigned in the impugned judgment (that ought to have been termed as 'order'), proceeded to release the respondents due to invalidity of the sanction for their prosecution. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that the sanction was held to be invalid due to non-application of mind on the part of Ravindra Sharma (PW1), the sanctioning authority in view of the following admissions made by him - (i) The investigating agency had forwarded draft sanction order along with the other documents. (ii) He was not able to recollect as to - (a) on which date the documents relating to the investigation were produced before him. (b) how many documents were perused by him. (c) how much time was taken in studying the documents. (iii) Before granting sanction, he had not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the respondents. (iv) He was also not able to say with certainty as to whether the report (Ex.C-1) prepared by Chief Booking Supervisor supporting the defence was placed before him. (c) how much time was taken in studying the documents. (iii) Before granting sanction, he had not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the respondents. (iv) He was also not able to say with certainty as to whether the report (Ex.C-1) prepared by Chief Booking Supervisor supporting the defence was placed before him. However, none of these facts was sufficient to invalidate the sanction on the aforesaid ground in the light of the well-settled principles on the subject as explained by the Supreme Court in the under-mentioned cases - (a) In Indu Bhusan Chatterjee v. State of W.B. AIR 1958 SC 148 , the sanctioning authority, that clearly admitted that the sanction was prepared by the Investigating Agency, was not able to answer some questions in cross-examination. Nevertheless, the Court held that sanction itself was eloquent read with evidence of the sanctioning authority and was valid as the statement of the sanctioning authority did not prove that he merely put his signature on the readymade sanction presented by the police without applying his mind to the facts of the case. Similar view was taken in State of T.N. v. Damodaran AIR 1992 SC 563 wherein the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption had enclosed model sanction orders so as to enable the Revenue Divisional Officer to draft sanction order in those lines. Accordingly, it was held that sanction, based on all relevant materials placed before Sanctioning Authority, was perfectly valid. (b) In State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri (1996) 1 SCC 542 , (which has been followed by the Apex Court in a recent decision rendered in State of M.P. v. Harishankar Bhagwan Prasad Tripathi (2010) 10 SCC 655), it was held that while granting sanction the officer concerned is not required to indicate that he had personally scrutinised the file and had arrived at the satisfaction for granting sanction. In this case only, it was pointed that sanctioning authority is not obliged to afford opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer before according sanction. 6. Still, learned Senior Counsel, while making reference to the decision of the Apex Court in State of T.N. v. M.M. Rajendran (1998) 9 SCC 268 , has strenuously contended that the sanction was rightly held to be invalid as it was accorded on the basis of the report of Investigating Agency only. 6. Still, learned Senior Counsel, while making reference to the decision of the Apex Court in State of T.N. v. M.M. Rajendran (1998) 9 SCC 268 , has strenuously contended that the sanction was rightly held to be invalid as it was accorded on the basis of the report of Investigating Agency only. In that case, it was observed that even a detailed report forwarded by the Vigilance Department could not be held to be the complete record required to be considered for grant or refusal of the sanction. However, in the instant case, Ravindra Sharma clearly stated that the CBI had forwarded all the relevant documents to his office. The sanction order (Ex.P-1) contains reference to the fact that the record of investigation included statement of witnesses scribed by the investigating officer and statements of Neeraj Singh Thakur and Shivdasan Menon recorded by the Magistrate. Thus, the decision in M.M. Rajendran's case is distinguishable on facts as, in the present case, all the relevant facts necessary to satisfy the mind of the sanctioning authority were placed before it. In an identical situation, the Apex Court, in C.S. Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka (2005) 4 SCC 81 , has pointed out that the proof that all the particulars were placed before sanctioning authority for due application of mind would be required when the sanction order is not a speaking one. 7. Furthermore, as propounded in State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 and re-affirmed in Superintendent of Police (C.B.I) v. Deepak Chowdhary AIR 1996 SC 186 , according of sanction is an executive act and validity thereof cannot be tested in the light of principles applicable to quasi-judicial orders. 8. This apart, as indicated already, the checking squad comprised of CBI as well as Railway officials. Moreover, the case was based on recovery of excess amount for which the explanation tendered by the respondents was not found to be reasonably plausible. Against this backdrop, the sanctioning authority, at the time of granting sanction, was obviously aware of all the facts constituting the offences as well as the probable defences. 9. Thus, viewed from any angle, the sanction (Ex.P-1) was perfectly valid and legal. Learned trial Judge, therefore, has completely misdirected herself in releasing the respondents on the ground of invalidity thereof. In our considered opinion, it is a fit case requiring interference under the revisional jurisdiction. 9. Thus, viewed from any angle, the sanction (Ex.P-1) was perfectly valid and legal. Learned trial Judge, therefore, has completely misdirected herself in releasing the respondents on the ground of invalidity thereof. In our considered opinion, it is a fit case requiring interference under the revisional jurisdiction. The fact that a considerable period of more than 12 years has already elapsed after the incident in question does not assume significance (See. Krishnamurthy's case (above). 10. In the result, the revision stands allowed. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for decision on merits in accordance with law. Needless to say that nothing contained herein except concerning the point of sanction would influence the trial Court's decision on merits. 11. The respondents are directed to appear before the trial Court on 25.04.2011 at 11 a.m. positively for participating in the further proceedings of the trial. Revision allowed.