JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision has been filed by accused petitioner Shobha Mai @ Shobhag Mai against the order dated 21.2.2013 as well as order dated 2.5.2013 passed by Special Judge (Anti Corruption Act) Cases, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 6/2010, State v. Shiv Singh & Ors. , whereby the learned trial Court has framed the charges against the accused petitioner for the offences under Section 13(1)(c)(d) and (2) of P.C. Act, 1988 read with Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. 2. At the stage of admission of revision petition, following arguments have been raised before me: (1) No prima facie case was against the petitioner and still he has been charged under different Sections of I.P.C. and P.C. Act, 1988, it has also been argued that no speaking order regarding framing of charge has been passed by the trial Court, (2) When sanction was refused against accused petitioner when he was in service then even after his retirement he cannot be prosecuted without sanction because he was assistant engineer posted in Municipal Council, Bikaner. 3. I have heard both the parties at the stage of admission. I would like to refer the following rulings of the Supreme Court regarding first contention advanced by the accused petitioner; Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal, 2000 Cri.L.J. (SC) 746 (1) , in this case Hon'ble Supreme Court has held after elaborately dealing with the point that reasons may not be recorded by the trial Court for framing of charges in a case instituted upon the charge-sheet filed by the Police and even then the order of framing charge cannot be quashed merely on the ground that it is cryptic. 4. In the present case, charge-sheet was filed against accused petitioner Shobha Mai under different sections of I.P.C. and P.C. Act, 1988 and he has been charged by the trial Court under the same sections of I.P.C. and P.C. Act. It may also be mentioned here that trial Court has passed an order in more than five handwritten pages at the stage of charge. After perusal of the file it cannot be said that there was no prima facie case against accused petitioner Shobha Mai before the trial Court. Hence, the first contention raised by the accused petitioner is not tenable. After perusal of the file it cannot be said that there was no prima facie case against accused petitioner Shobha Mai before the trial Court. Hence, the first contention raised by the accused petitioner is not tenable. The second contention raised by the accused petitioner was based on the following ruling of the Supreme Court; Chitranjan v. State of Orissa, 2011 Cri.L.J. 4306 . By interpreting Section 19(1)(b) of P.C. Act, 1988 in this case Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if a public servant was in public service at the time when sanction was first refused by the competent authority to prosecute him then even after he was retired at the time of submission of charge sheet, he cannot be prosecuted now without the requisite sanction. 5. This contention was also not accepted by the trial Court because admitted position in this case which comes out from the documents submitted by the parties is that the accused petitioner had been retired on 31.1.2007 and only after his retirement, on 29.3.2007 Government thought it fit that now prosecution sanction need not be given against the accused petitioner because he has already been retired. In such type of cases a public servant can be prosecuted even without sanction and hence, the second contention of accused petitioner in this regard also collapses. 6. Thus, after perusal of complete charge sheet papers and after perusal of impugned order dated 21.2.2013 as well as 2.5.2013 of the trial Court, I am of the firm view that this revision is not worth admission, which is hereby dismissed at this stage only. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court in relation to its Sessions Case No. 6/2010, State v. Shiv Singh & Ors. Revision dismissed. *******