JUDGMENT Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/1973 (Cr PC) challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 11-02-2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Guwahati in Special Case No. 3/2007 framing charge against the petitioner under Section 120B/420 IPC as well asunder Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 13(1)(d) of the said Act. The further prayer made is to quash the entire proceedings of Special Case No. 3/2007. In this case, FIR was registered on the basis of source information. As per the allegation in the FIR, Shri K. Ganesh, the then Chief General Manager, North East Task Force, Department of Telecommunication, Government of India alongwith a few officers of the said department had entered into a criminal conspiracy with M/S Telemats India Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company of New Delhi and dishonestly purchased 14 numbers of solar power systems for a sum of Rs. 155.99 lakhs without calling for tenders, to be installed at various places in Nagaland and Manipur during the year 1996-97 and also paid Rs. 5.21 lakhs extra as transportation charge, thereby causing undue pecuniary loss to the Government and corresponding unlawful gain to the said company. The further allegation made in the FIR is that no security money/bank guarantee was obtained from the said company though the same is the requirement for purchases above Rs. 25 lakhs. 2. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). investigated the case. In the course of the investigation, it was found that the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), presently a Government of India Undertaking, was a Government Department prior to the year 2000 and known as the Department of Telecommunication (DOT). Within the DOT, there was a unit called the Task Force in Guwahati. The main function of the Task Force was to construct microwave stations, install equipments and commission ultra high frequency link to provide transmission connectivity to different microwave stations in the north eastern region and to hand over the microwave stations to the concerned departments when completed. 3. The Task Force had to procure materials from different sources to carry out the aforesaid works. The Task Force was headed by the Chief General Manager (CGM), who was the competent authority responsible for the purchase of materials. 3. The Task Force had to procure materials from different sources to carry out the aforesaid works. The Task Force was headed by the Chief General Manager (CGM), who was the competent authority responsible for the purchase of materials. At the relevant time i.e. during the period from 26-09-1996 to 06-09-1997, Shri K. Ganesh was posted and functioned as the CGM, Task Force, North East Circle, Guwahati. The investigation revealed that during the said period there was no full-fledged materials management department in the Task Force, Guwahati, Therefore, all the process for purchase of materials were initiated through the Divisional Engineer of Telecom (Planning). Shri P.K. Dewriary was the Divisional Engineer of Telecom (Planning) during the relevant period. 4. The investigation revealed that during the period 1996-97, Shri K. Ganesh, the then CGM, Task Force, North East Circle, Guwahati, Shri P.K. Dewriary, the then Divisional Engineer of Telecom (Planning), Task Force, North East Circle, Guwahati, M/S Telemats India Private Limited, New Delhi and Shri Pradeep Gadhwani, Director of the said M/S Telemats India Private Limited had entered into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, purchased 14 Nos. of solar power systems by violating the existing norms without floating tender, at a higher rate than the market price on a false plea of the rate being approved by the Department of Telecommunication for installation at different microwave stations as an alternative to electric power supply in the North East Circle. Only 6 solar power systems out of the 14 so purchased were installed, the remaining 8 still lying unused at different stores of the BSNL. 5. The investigation further revealed that the solar power systems were available in the market at lower rate but Shri K. Ganesh dishonestly did not enquire about it and purchased the same at higher rate. According to the investigation, the requisition for the purchase of the solar power systems did not originate in the normal course but was initiated under the instruction of the CGM Shri K. Ganesh. 6. It was also revealed that M/S Telemats India Private Limited offered to supply the solar power systems to the Task Force at Guwahati at the rates allegedly approved by the Department of Telecommunication to a different firm M/s Central Electronic Limited, New Delhi. 6. It was also revealed that M/S Telemats India Private Limited offered to supply the solar power systems to the Task Force at Guwahati at the rates allegedly approved by the Department of Telecommunication to a different firm M/s Central Electronic Limited, New Delhi. In support of their offer, M/S Telemats India Private Limited submitted a copy of the letter issued by the Department of Telecommunication. Shri K. Ganesh without calling for tenders, purchased the solar power systems on the basis of the said letter, violating the existing departmental norms and procurement procedure. The investigation disclosed that Shri K. Ganesh had exceeded his financial powers and purchased the materials from the above company with a dishonest intention to provide pecuniary advantage to the said company without taking any security from the said company. 7. The investigation revealed that during November, 1996 to April, 1997, the Task Force, Department of Telecommunication, Guwahati paid a total amount of Rs. 1,46,26,230/- to the above company for the procurement of the solar power systems, including an amount of Rs. 5.20 lakhs on account of transportation charge. For making the above payments, 8 Nos. of cheques were issued in favour of the aforesaid company. All the proceeds of the cheques were credited in the account of the above company in the Corporation Bank, G.K. II, M-34 Shopping Centre, New Delhi maintained in the name of Shri Pradip Gadhwani. 8. According to the prosecution, the sum total of the investigation revealed acts of omission and/or commission on the part of the following accused persons viz., (1) Shri K. Ganesh, (2) Shri P.K. Dewriary, (3) M/s Telemats India Private Limited (4) Shri Pradip Gadhwani, prima facie constituting offences under Section 120B/420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Accordingly, the charge-sheet was submitted against the aforesaid accused persons. Since the petitioner Shri K. Ganesh had already retired from service and is a private person, therefore the CBI did not obtain prosecution sanction contending that sanction for prosecution is not required. 9. The aforesaid case has beer registered as Special Case No. 3/2007, State (CBI) v. Shri K. Ganesh and 3 others. Since the petitioner Shri K. Ganesh had already retired from service and is a private person, therefore the CBI did not obtain prosecution sanction contending that sanction for prosecution is not required. 9. The aforesaid case has beer registered as Special Case No. 3/2007, State (CBI) v. Shri K. Ganesh and 3 others. The learned Special Judge by the order dated 11-02-2011 was of the view that there are grounds for presuming that the above named accused persons had committed an offence punishable under the aforesaid provisions of law for causing loss to the tune of Rs. 1,46,26,230/- to the Department of Telecommunication during the period from November, 1996 to April, 1997. 10. Heard Mr. Z. Kamar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.N. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, CBI. 11. Mr. Kamar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had retired from the service of the BSNL on 26-09-2005 whereas the FIR was lodged on 02-01-2007 and the charge sheet submitted on 12.03.2009. He further submits that no prosecution sanction was obtained under Section 197, Cr PC for proceeding against the petitioner. Therefore, the Learned Counsel submits that the learned trial Court had erred in taking cognizance of the matter against the petitioner by framing charge against him under Section 120B/420 IPC. He, therefore, contends that the criminal trial cannot proceed against the petitioner in so far the offences under the Indian Penal Code in concerned. He, however, fairly concedes that under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, no sanction is required for prosecuting retired public servants. On merit, Mr. Kamar submits that the approach of the CBI was selective inasmuch, as two other persons who were investigated alongwith the petitioner, namely, Shri G.S. Julka and Shri Ajay Kamal have not been sent up to face trial. According to the Learned Counsel, they were not charge sheeted as because they are still in service, for which, sanction would be required for their prosecution. He further submits that the CBI waited for the petitioner to retire from service and thereafter filed the FIR with the sole intention to avoid the requirement of obtaining prosecution sanction. He also submits that there was neither any criminal intention on the part of the petitioner nor any pecuniary less caused to the Department. He further submits that the CBI waited for the petitioner to retire from service and thereafter filed the FIR with the sole intention to avoid the requirement of obtaining prosecution sanction. He also submits that there was neither any criminal intention on the part of the petitioner nor any pecuniary less caused to the Department. He, therefore, submits that there is no basis for framing charge against the petitioner, who is the accused No. 1, and prays for setting aside the order dated 11-02-2011 as well as for quashing the proceedings of Special Case No. 3/2007. 12. Mr. P.N. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, CBI, on the other hand, supporting the order dated 11.2.2011 submits that the learned trial Court had applied its mind after detailed perusal of the materials on record and, thereafter, framed charge against the petitioner. He submits that there is no infirmity in the said order of the trial Court and, therefore, prays for dismissal of the present petition. He also refers to and relies on the affidavit in opposition filed by the CBI. 13. To appreciate the rival submissions, let us examine the provisions of Section 197, Cr PC as well as that of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. As per Section 197, Cr PC, when any person who is or was a public servant not removable from his office without the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence accept with the previous sanction of the Central Government in the case of a person who is or was employed with the Central Government and of the State Government in case of a person who is or was in the employment of the State Government. 14. Likewise, under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Courts are restrained from taking cognizance of an offence punishable under various sections of the said Act in the case of a public servant in employment except with the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove him from his office. 14. Likewise, under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Courts are restrained from taking cognizance of an offence punishable under various sections of the said Act in the case of a public servant in employment except with the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove him from his office. As per Sub-Section (3) of Section 19 of the said Act, notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr PC, 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 that there was no sanction or on the ground that there is any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted, unless the Court comes to the view that a failure of justice has been occasioned thereby. On the aforesaid grounds, the Courts are also restrained from staying the proceedings under the said Act. 15. From the language employed in the two provisions, it becomes clear that for offences under the Indian Penal Code, sanction is required for prosecuting a public servant even after he ceases to be a public servant. In other words, the protection under Section 197, Cr PC is available to both serving public servants as well as to those who have ceased to be public servants if they are sought to be prosecuted for offences under the Indian Penal Code. On the other hand, no sanction is required for prosecuting a person who is no longer a public servant for offences under the Prevention of Corruption. Act, 1988. 16. The Apex Court in the case of R. Balkrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, AIR 1996 SC 901 had observed that the protection under Section 197, Cr PC is needed as much after retirement of the public servant as before retirement. The Apex Court observed that the expression was came to be employed in Section 197 after the expression is to make the sanction applicable even in cases where a retired public servant is : sought to be prosecuted. 17. However, the Apex Court clearly highlighted the distinction between offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and offences relating to public servants under the Indian Penal Code in so far prosecution sanction is concerned. 17. However, the Apex Court clearly highlighted the distinction between offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and offences relating to public servants under the Indian Penal Code in so far prosecution sanction is concerned. In the case of Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar and others;, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 557 , the Apex Court has held that the correct legal position is that an accused facing prosecution for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot claim any immunity on the ground of want of sanction, if he ceased to be a public servant on the date when the Court took cognizance of the said offences. But the position is different in cases where Section 197, Cr PC has application. 18. Again, in the case of P.K. Choudhury v. Commander, 48 BRTF (GREF), reported in (2008) 13 SCC 229 , the Apex Court held that Section 197, Cr PC unlike the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act postulates obtaining an order of sanction even in a case where the public servant has ceased to hold office. 19. It is seen from the materials on record that the petitioner has been charged with commission of offence under the Indian Penal Code i.e. Sections 120 and 420 as well as under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 i.e. under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d). According to the charge sheet, since the petitioner had left the service sanction for prosecution is not required. From the record, it is seen that the petitioner had retired from service on 26-09-2005, the FIR was lodged on 12-01-2007 and the charge sheet submitted on 12-03-2009. The learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence on 11-02-2011 and there after framed the charge against the petitioner on 08-03-2011. 20. In view of the settled legal position regarding sanction for prosecution as discussed above, I am of the view that in the absence of any sanction, the petitioner cannot be proceeded against for the offences under the Indian Penal Code. But there is no bar for the trial Court to proceed against the petitioner for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 21. But there is no bar for the trial Court to proceed against the petitioner for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 21. Coming to the contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the materials on record do not justify framing of charge against the petitioner, let us examine the two relevant legal provisions i.e. Sections 226 and 227, Cr PC Under Section 227, if after consideration of the case record and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for doing so. But under Section 228, if after such consideration and hearing, the Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, which is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he shall frame a charge in writing against the accused. When such a charge is framed, it shall be read and explained to the accused, who shall be asked as to whether he pleads guilty to the offence charged or claims to be tried. 22. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid two provisions clearly reveal a crucial difference in the two provisions. In the case of discharge, the Judge is required to record his reasons for doing so whereas there is no such requirement of recording reasons while framing charge. 23. The law on the subject has by now more or less well crystallized. The purpose of Sections 227 and 228, Cr PC is to ensure that the Court should be satisfied that the accusation made against the accused is not frivolous and that there is some material for proceeding against the accused. At the time of framing charge, the question which confronts the Court is as to whether the materials on record, if unrebutted, are such that a trial against the accused can be sustained. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing charge exists. At the stage of framing charge, the probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into. As noticed above, an order for framing charge need not contain reasons. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing charge exists. At the stage of framing charge, the probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into. As noticed above, an order for framing charge need not contain reasons. However, from the order framing the charge, it should be discernible that the Court had not proceeded mechanically in framing the charge and that it had looked into the materials brought on record. That would be a sufficient requirement of Section 228, Cr PC. 24. The Apex Court in the case of Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368 , after considering the various authorities about the ambit and scope of Sections 227 and 228, Cr PC, summed up the following principles. 21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge: (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227, Cr PC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. (ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (iii) The Court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court any basis infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a proving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge wilt, be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. 25. Having noticed the legal position governing Sections 227 and 228, Cr PC, let us now examine how the learned trial Court has dealt with the matter. From the order dated 11-02-2011, it appears that the learned trial Court considered the statements of Shri Dharmeswar Das, reared Divisional Engineer of the Task. Force, Shri Chakradhaj Kachari, Junior Telecom Officer, Shri Moyangar, Accounts Officer, Dimapur and Shri C.T. Singh, a Telecom staff, which are part of the investigation record. The learned trial Court also perused the police report and all documents submitted alongwith the same under Section 173, Cr PC and heard the Learned Counsels for both the sides. Force, Shri Chakradhaj Kachari, Junior Telecom Officer, Shri Moyangar, Accounts Officer, Dimapur and Shri C.T. Singh, a Telecom staff, which are part of the investigation record. The learned trial Court also perused the police report and all documents submitted alongwith the same under Section 173, Cr PC and heard the Learned Counsels for both the sides. On a cumulative assessment of the above, the learned trial Court took the view that there are grounds to presume that the accused persons had committed an offence punishable under Section 120B/420, IPC as well as under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 13(1)(d) of the said Act. Accordingly, the learned trial Court framed the following charge against the petitioner :-- I, Sh. A.K. Das, B.Sc, LLB, Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Guwahati. Hereby charge you, Sh. K. Ganesh, the then Chief General Manager, Task force, Deptt. of Telecom..... accused. As follows : Firstly, that you on or about the period from November, 1996 to April, 1997 agreed to do an illegal act with M/s Telemats India Pvt. Ltd. by illegal means and paid a total sum of Rs. 1,46,26,230/-towards the cost of Solar Power System including the transportation charge for Rs. 5.20 lacs through 8 numbers of RBI cheques issued in favour of M/s Telemat India Pvt. Ltd. totaling to an amount Rs. 1,46,26,230/- and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC and within my cognizance. Secondly, that you on or about the period from November, 1996 to April, 1997 cheated the Deptt. of Telecommunication by dishonestly making payment of Rs. 1,46,26,230/- towards the cost of Solar Power System including the transportation charge for Rs. 5.20 lacs through 8 numbers of RBI cheques and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and within my cognizance. Thirdly, that you during the period from 1996 to 1997 being public servant working as the then Chief General Manager, NE task force, BSNL, committed misconduct by illegal and corrupt means for obtaining pecuniary advantage by abusing your official position paid a sum of Rs. 1,46,26,230/- towards the cost of Solar Power system including the transportation charges of Rs. 5.20 lacs through 8 numbers of RBI cheques issued in favour of M/S Telemats India Pvt. Ltd. vide cheque No. (1) G 42 6502 dt. 31-03-97 for Rs. 1,46,26,230/- towards the cost of Solar Power system including the transportation charges of Rs. 5.20 lacs through 8 numbers of RBI cheques issued in favour of M/S Telemats India Pvt. Ltd. vide cheque No. (1) G 42 6502 dt. 31-03-97 for Rs. 2,245,460/-, (2) cheque No. G 42 6537 dt. 17-04-97 for Rs. 3222,450/-, (3) cheque No. G 42 7405 dt. 19-06-97 for Rs. 21,48,300 consolidated (Rs. 7857764 = 2148300 + 5709464), (4) cheque No. (not quoted) for Rs. 11,16,150.00 consolidated (Rs. 2824797 = 11,16,150.00 + 1608647), (5) cheque No. 237163 dtd. 12-02-98 for Rs. 11,40,475/-, (6) cheque No. 236551 dtd. 28-10-97 for Rs. 42,96,600/- consolidated (Rs. 5402526 = 4296,600.00 + 1105926/-, (7) cheque No. G 42 6528 dtd. 11-04-97 for Rs. 1,27,000/-, (8) cheque No. 236572 dtd. 13-11-97 for Rs. 3,30,000.00 totalling to Rs. 1,46,26,230/- and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within the cognizance of this Court. The charges as framed above having been read over and explained to the accused person, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Sd/- illegible 08-03-2011 (A.K. Das) Special Judge, CBI Assam, Guwahati 26. The arguments advanced by Mr. Kamar are matters of defence of the accused person and are to be considered at the time of the trial. There are serious allegations of defalcation of Government money and it cannot be said at this stage that there is no material for framing the charge against the petitioner. Therefore, I am in agreement with the view taken by the learned trial Court in this regard. 27. In view of the above, there is no infirmity in the order dated 11-02-2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Guwahati in Special Case No. 3/2007 in so far the charge against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is concerned. However, for the reasons indicated above, the learned Special Judge is restrained from proceeding against the petitioner for the offences under the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, this Criminal Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. It is, however, made clear that any observation made in this judgment or in the impugned order will not influence the learned trial Court while conducting the trial, which shall decide the case on its merit, as expeditiously as possible. No cost.