JUDGMENT Prashant Kumar, J.-In this application, petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.09.2001 passed by Special Judge, (Vigilance) Ranchi, in Special Case No. 15 of 2001, whereby he took cognizance of offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as Act) against petitioner. 2. Sri Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that aforesaid order is without jurisdiction, as there is no sanction for prosecution by the competent authority under Section 19 of the Act. He submits that section 19(1) of the Act puts an embargo on the power of the courts from taking cognizance of offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 of the Act, without previous sanction of authority having power to remove public servant. It is submitted that admittedly petitioner is a public servant and was posted as Circle Officer at Block Office Manika, Latehar. It is submitted that petitioner was appointed by State Government on the recommendation of Public Service Commission. Thus, he could be prosecuted only on the basis of sanction order issued by the State Government. Accordingly, it is submitted that impugned order cannot be sustained. 3. On the other hand Sri Rajesh Kumar, G.P.-V appearing for the State Government submits that according to Section 19(3) of the Act, any finding or order arrived by Special Judge cannot be reversed or altered by a court of appeal on the ground of absence of sanction order, unless it is shown that a failure of justice had occasioned. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 4. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of case. It is stated that there is no sanction order on the date of passing of impugned order. It further appears from Annexure-3 (certified copy of orders dated 24.09.2001 and 8.10.2001) that even after passing of impugned order, sanction order had not been received in the court below. This fact has not been denied in the counter-affidavit. 5. Section 19 of the Act runs as follows:- 19. It further appears from Annexure-3 (certified copy of orders dated 24.09.2001 and 8.10.2001) that even after passing of impugned order, sanction order had not been received in the court below. This fact has not been denied in the counter-affidavit. 5. Section 19 of the Act runs as follows:- 19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.-(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 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 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 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 proceedings 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. 6. From plain reading of aforesaid provision it appears that clause-1 of Section 19 of the Act put an embargo on the power of courts from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 7,10,11,13 and 15 of the Act without sanction of competent authority. The submission of learned counsel for the State that in view of the provisions contained in Section 19(3) of the Act order of cognizance cannot be reversed is on the teeth of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Goa versus Babu Thomas reported in (2005) 8 SCC 130 . In the aforesaid case, their Lordships after considering similar arguments at paragraph no. 11 of the judgment had held as follows:- “Referring to the aforesaid provisions, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the Court should not, in appeal, reverse or alter any finding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge on the ground of the absence of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless the Court finds that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. In this connection, a reference was made to the decision of this Court rendered in the case of State v. T. Venkatesh Murthy. Reference was also made to the decision of this Court in the case of Durga Dass v. State of H.P. where this Court has taken the view that the Court should not interfere in the finding or sentence or order passed by a Special Judge and reverse or alter the same on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless the Court finds that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. According to the counsel for the appellant no failure of justice has occasioned merely because there was an error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required because evidence is yet to start and in that view the High Court has not considered this aspect of the matter and it is a fit case to intervene by this Court. We are unable to accept this contention of the counsel. The present is not the case where there has been mere irregularity, error or omission in the order of sanction as required under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act. It goes to the root of the prosecution case. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 clearly prohibits that the Court shall not 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 as stated in clauses (a),(b) and (c). 7. In Manoranjan Prasad Choudhary versus State of Bihar, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 688 their Lordships held that in absence of order of sanction, order of cognizance cannot be sustained. 8. In view of the aforesaid binding precedents, impugned order cannot be sustained because same was passed in absence of sanction order. Accordingly, I allow this application and quash the impugned order. 9. However, I made it clear that it is open for the court below to proceed against petitioner after receipt of sanction order. Learned G.P.-V shall communicate this order to the competent authority for necessary action.