JUDGMENT 1. - These two criminal misc. petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the grant of prosecution against them by the State Government in F.I.R. No. 286 of 2009 dated 29.10.2009 registered at Police Chowki Bundi, ACB Head Office ACD Jaipur and also for quashing the F.I.R. 2. As both these criminal misc. petitions relate to F.I.R. No. 286 of 2009 dated 29.10.1986 registered at Police Chowki Bundi, ACD Office ACD Jaipur, they are being heard together and disposed together by this common order. 3. In Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1954 of 2013, the petitioner Madan Lai Bunkar, made the following prayer: (i) By appropriate order or direction the entire record of the F.I.R. No. 286/2009 dated 29.10.2009 registered at Poilce Chowki ACB Bundi Head Office ACD Jaipur may kindly be called. (ii) By appropriate order or direction the order dated 18.3.2013, of sanction of prosecution passed by the respondent and F.I.R. No. 286/2009 dated 29.10.2009 registered at Police Chowki Bundi, ACB Head Office ACD Jaipur, lodged by the respondent be quashed and set aside qua petitioner. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. 4. In Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1955 of 2013, the petitioner Ramhans Meena, made the following prayer: (i) By appropriate order or direction the entire record of the F.I.R. No. 286/2009 dated 29.10.2009 registered at Police Chowki ACB Bundi Head Office ACD Jaipur may kindly be called. (ii) By appropriate order or direction the order dated 26.2.2013, of sanction of prosecution passed by the respondent and F.I.R. No. 286/2009 dated 29.10.2009 registered at Police Chowki Bundi, ACB Head Office ACD Jaipur, lodged by the respondent be quashed and set aside qua petitioner. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. It is clear that in Cri. Misc. Petition No. 1954 of 2013 the F.I.R. as well as the prosecution sanction dated 18.3.2013 have been challenged by the petitioner Madan Lai Bunkar qua him where as in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1955 of 2013 the F.I.R. as well as the prosecution sanction dated 26.2.2013 have been challenged by the petitioner Ramhans Meena qua him. 5. Misc. Petition No. 1954 of 2013 the F.I.R. as well as the prosecution sanction dated 18.3.2013 have been challenged by the petitioner Madan Lai Bunkar qua him where as in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1955 of 2013 the F.I.R. as well as the prosecution sanction dated 26.2.2013 have been challenged by the petitioner Ramhans Meena qua him. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners while working as officiating Vikash Adhikari (Madan Lai Bunkar) and Junior Engineer at Panchayat Samiti Keshoraipatan (accused-petitioner Ramhans Meena), District Bundi in the year 2002-2003 in relation to work of hand-pumps undertaken during drought for their installation and repairs, an enquiry was conducted by the Director Accounts Department on the basis of audit report. On that basis the Development Officer lodged an F.I.R. No. 242/2005 dated 30.7.2005 under Sections 420, 409, 406 and 120-B I.P.C. But in that F.I.R. final report was given by the Investigating Officer on account of territorial jurisdiction and matter was sent to the Anti Corruption Department (in short ACD). The ACD after preliminary enquiry registered the Case No. 81/2009. It has been alleged in the petitions that a tender notice was issued by the Development Officer and accordingly M/s. Vinayak Traders was the lowest tenderer given the contract. However, the said M/s. Vinayak Trader failed to undertake the work despite repeated reminders given to him on account of scarcity of drinking water and immediate setting up of Handpumps, the Administrative Committee of the Panchayat Samiti called a meeting on 1.3.2002. Chairperson Pradhan presided over the meeting and one person namely Pradeep Singh gave the proposal that looking to the default of M/s. Vinayak Traders, the work should be assigned to others on the same rates so that relief can be given to the people looking to the acute drought in the area. The Standing Committee consists of 5 members had taken a decision to get the work done through others on the lowest rate accepted in favour, of M/s. Vinayak Traders. The work was assigned to Ms. Kuber Marketing and thereafter it was found that the officials in connivance with M/s. Kuber Marketing Kota misappropriated a sum of Rs. 4,32,054.47/-. After proper enquiry F.I.R. No. 286 of 2009 was registered as mentioned above. The work was assigned to Ms. Kuber Marketing and thereafter it was found that the officials in connivance with M/s. Kuber Marketing Kota misappropriated a sum of Rs. 4,32,054.47/-. After proper enquiry F.I.R. No. 286 of 2009 was registered as mentioned above. On the basis of material available on record and on going through the material the Director Secondary Education Rajasthan Bikaner vide order dated 18.3.2013 issued prosecution sanction against the accused-petitioner Madan Lai Bunkar. Similarly on the basis of material available on record and going through the material Secretary to the Government and Commissioner Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan Jaipur granted prosecution sanction against the accused-petitioner Ramhans Meena. The F.I.R. and the prosecution sanctions against the accused-petitioners have been challenged in both the criminal misc. petitions. 6. Mr. Sandeep Bhagwati, learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners submitted that on the basis of the report of the Investigating Officer orders have been passed issuing sanction against the accused-petitioners for prosecution. It has been stated that at the time of investigation no technical person was available with the Investigating Officer, and the petitioner himself explained the measurement to the Investigating Officer but he did not pay any heed so far as installation of two Handpumps is concerned the petitioner shown the same to the Investigating Officer but he did not pay any heed. In this manner the order issuing sanction dated 26.2.2013 and F.I.R. are liable to be quashed and set aside. It has been argued that Vinayak Traders failed to install the Handpumps at the relevant time and one M/s. Kuber Marketing undertaken the work in the area concerned and the work was assigned at the prescribed rate of PHED on account of acute condition of drought in interest of public. It has been argued that F.I.R. reveals that ignoring all aspect as well as facts pertaining to the matter specially a decision was taken by the Standing Committee, the petitioner being targeted unnecessarily and that too when he had not taken any decision at his own or any decision in regard to the execution of work but endorse only the decision taken by the administrative committee/standing committee headed by the pradhan. It was argued that the petitioners have not taken any action rather even if any action is taken, it was in the interest of public at large. It was argued that the petitioners have not taken any action rather even if any action is taken, it was in the interest of public at large. The issue of sanction of prosecution and the F.I.R. are liable to be quashed and set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen, AIR 1978 SC 853 . Hanuman Singh Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, 2010(2) CDR 848 (Raj.) . and State v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 . C.S. Krishnamurthi v. State of Karnataka, (2005) 4 SCC 81 . Govt, of NCT of Delhi Vs. Dr. R.C. Anand, (2004) 4 SCC 615 . Shankerbhai Laljibhai Rot v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 13 SCC 487 . 7. Mr. G.S. Rathore, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has argued that after thorough investigation the Dy. Superintendent of Police Anti Corruption Bureau Bundi registered the F.I.R. and on the basis of material made available to the Director, Secondary Education Rajasthan, Jaipur and the Secretary to the Government and Commissioner, Panchayati Raj Department Rajasthan Jaipur, granted sanction for prosecution of the accused-petitioners and the same cannot be said to be per verse so as to quash and set aside in exercise of the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The misc. petitions filed by the accused-petitioners deserve to be rejected. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Before proceeding further it would be necessary to have a look at the judgment of the Apex Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64 . paras 44 to 50, held as under: 44. We may also observe that grant or refusal of sanction is not a quasi judicial function and the person for whose prosecution the sanction is sought is not required to be heard by the Competent Authority before it takes a decision in the matter. What is required to be seen by the Competent Authority is whether the facts placed before it which, in a given case, may include the material collected by the complainant or the investigating agency prima facie disclose commission of an offence by a public servant. If the Competent Authority is satisfied that the material placed before it is sufficient for prosecution of the public servant, then it is required to grant sanction. If the Competent Authority is satisfied that the material placed before it is sufficient for prosecution of the public servant, then it is required to grant sanction. If the satisfaction of the Competent Authority is otherwise, then it can refuse sanction. In either case, the decision taken on the complaint made by a citizen is required to be communicated to him and if he feels aggrieved by such decision, then he can avail appropriate legal remedy. 45. In Vineet Narain's case (1998) 1 SCC 226 : 1998 SCC (Cri.) 307 , the Court entertained the writ petitions filed in public interest for ensuring investigation into what came to be known as 'Hawala case'. The writ petition remained pending for almost four years. During that period, several interim orders were passed which are reported as Vineet Narain v. Union of India, 1996(1) SCALE (SP) 42 . Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 199 . Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1997) 4 SCC 778 . and Vineet Narain v. Union of India, 1997(5) SCALE 254 . The final order was passed in Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 226 . 46. In Vineet Narain, (1996) 2 SCC 199 , the Court referred to the allegations made in the writ petition that Government agencies like the CBI and the revenue authorities have failed to perform their duties and legal obligations inasmuch as they did not investigate into the matters arising out of seizure of the so-called "Jain Diaries" in certain raids conducted by the CBI. The Court took note of the allegation that the arrest of some terrorists led to the discovery of financial support to them by clandestine and illegal means and a nexus between several important politicians, bureaucrats and criminals, who were recipients of money from unlawful sources, and proceeded to observe: (Vineet Narain case, SCC pp. 200-01, page 3) "3. The Court took note of the allegation that the arrest of some terrorists led to the discovery of financial support to them by clandestine and illegal means and a nexus between several important politicians, bureaucrats and criminals, who were recipients of money from unlawful sources, and proceeded to observe: (Vineet Narain case, SCC pp. 200-01, page 3) "3. The facts and circumstances of the present case do indicate that it is of utmost public importance that this matter is examined thoroughly by this Court to ensure that all Government agencies, entrusted with the duty to discharge their functions and obligations in accordance with law, do so, bearing in mind constantly the concept of equality enshrined in the Constitution and the basic tenet of rule of law: "Be you ever so high, the law is above you." Investigation into every accusation made against each and every person on a reasonable basis, irrespective of the position and status of that person, must be conducted and completed expeditiously. This is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the Government agencies." 47. After examining various facets of the matter in detail, the three Judge Bench in its final order in Vineet Narain, (1998) 1 SCC 226 : 1998 SCC (Cri.) 307 observed : (SCC p. 268, paras 54-56) "55. These principles of public life are of general application in every democracy and one is expected to bear them in mind while scrutinising the conduct of every holder of a public office. It is trite that the holders of public offices are entrusted with certain powers to be exercised in public interest alone and, therefore, the office is held by them in trust for the people. Any deviation from the path of rectitude by any of them amounts to a breach of trust and must be severely dealt with instead of being pushed under the carpet. If the conduct amounts to an offence, it must be promptly investigated and the offender against whom a prima facie case is made out should be prosecuted expeditiously so that the majesty of law is upheld and the rule of law vindicated. It is the duty of the judiciary to enforce the rule of law and, therefore, to guard against erosion of the rule of law. 56. The adverse impact of lack of probity in public life leading to a high degree of corruption is manifold. It is the duty of the judiciary to enforce the rule of law and, therefore, to guard against erosion of the rule of law. 56. The adverse impact of lack of probity in public life leading to a high degree of corruption is manifold. It also has adverse effect on foreign investment and funding from the international Monetary Fund and the World Bank who have warned that future aid to underdeveloped countries may be subject to the requisite steps being taken to eradicate corruption, which prevents international aid from reaching those for whom it is meant. Increasing corruption has led to investigative journalism which is of value to a free society. The need to highlight corruption in public life through the medium of public interest litigation invoking judicial review may be frequent in India but is not unknown in other countries: R. v. Secy, of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p World Development Movement Ltd., (1995) 1 WLR 386 : (1995) 1 All ER 611 . 48. In para 58 of the judgment Vineet Narain, the Court gave several directions in relation to the CBI, the CVC and the Enforcement Directorate. In para 58 (1)(15), the Court gave the following direction: (SCC p. 270) "58. (I)(15) Time-limit of three months for grant of sanction for prosecution must be strictly adhered to. However, additional time of one month may be allowed where consultation is required with the Attorney General (AG) or any other law officer in the AG's office." 49. CVC, after taking note of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1996) Cri. Law Journal 2962 . State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, (1991) Supp. 1 SCC 222 . Superintendent of Police (CBI) v. Deepak Chowdhary, (1995) 6 SC 225 . framed guidelines which were circulated vide office order No. 31/5/05 dated 12.5.2005. The relevant clauses of the guidelines are extracted below: "2(i) Grant of sanction is an administrative act. The purpose is to protect the public servant from harassment by frivolous or vexatious prosecution and not to shield the corrupt. The question of giving opportunity to the public servant at that stage does not arise. The sanctioning authority has only to see whether the facts would prima-facie constitutes the offence. The purpose is to protect the public servant from harassment by frivolous or vexatious prosecution and not to shield the corrupt. The question of giving opportunity to the public servant at that stage does not arise. The sanctioning authority has only to see whether the facts would prima-facie constitutes the offence. (ii) The competent authority cannot embark upon an inquiry^ Judge the truth of the allegations on the basis of representation which may be filed by the accused person before the Sanctioning Authority, by asking the I.O. to offer his comments or to further investigate the matter in the light of representation made by the accused person or by otherwise holding a parallel investigation/enquiry by calling for the record/report of his department. * * * (vii) However, if in any case, the Sanctioning Authority after consideration of the entire material placed before it, entertains any doubt on any point the competent authority may specify the doubt with sufficient particulars and may request the Authority who has sought sanction to clear the doubt. But that would be only to clear the doubt in order that the authority may apply its mind properly, and not for the purpose of considering the representations of the : accused which may be filed while the matter is pending sanction. (viii) If the Sanctioning Authority seeks the comments of the 10 while the matter is pending before it for sanction, it will almost be impossible for the Sanctioning Authority to adhere to the time limit allowed by the Supreme Court in Vineet Narain's case." 50. The aforementioned guidelines are in conformity with the law laid down by this Court that while considering the issue regarding grant or refusal of sanction, the only thing which the Competent Authority is required to see is whether the material placed by the complainant or the investigating agency prima facie discloses commission of an offence. The Competent Authority cannot undertake a detailed inquiry to decide whether or not the allegations made against the public servant are true. 9. It would also be necessary to have a look at the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., which reads as under: 482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. The Competent Authority cannot undertake a detailed inquiry to decide whether or not the allegations made against the public servant are true. 9. It would also be necessary to have a look at the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., which reads as under: 482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 10. It is also necessary to have a look at the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lai & Ors . which are as under: (a) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (b) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (c) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (d) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (e) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (e) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (f) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (g) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. [305D-H; 306A-E] 11. In State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Pastor P. Raja . the Apex Court in para 11 observed as under: 11. There is another aspect of the matter which deserves notice. The F.I.R. in the case was lodged on 15.1.2005 and the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed within 12 days on 27.1.2005 when the investigation had just commenced. The petition was allowed by the High Court on 23.2.2005 when the investigation was still under progress. No report as contemplated by Section 173 Cr.P.C. had been submitted by the incharge of the Police Station concerned to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. Section 482 Cr.P.C. saves inherent powers of the High Court and such a power can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to section the ends of justice. This power can be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings pending in any Court but the power cannot be exercised to interfere with the statutory power of the police to conduct investigation in a cognizable offence. This question has been examined in detail in Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja & Anr., (2003) 6 SCC 195 where after referring to King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18 . H.N. Rishbud & Inder Singh v. The State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196 . State of West Bengal v. SN Basak, AIR 1963 SC 447 . Abhinandan Jha & Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117 . H.N. Rishbud & Inder Singh v. The State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196 . State of West Bengal v. SN Basak, AIR 1963 SC 447 . Abhinandan Jha & Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117 . and State of Bihar & Anr. v. JAC Saldanha & Ors. (1980) 1 SCC 554 . it was observed as under in para 20 of the reports:- "20. Thus the legal position is absolutely clear and also settled by judicial authorities that the Court would not interfere with the investigation or during the course of investigation which would mean from the time of the lodging of the First Information Report till the submission of the report by the Officer in-charge of Police Station in Court under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., this field being exclusively reserved for the investigating agency." This being the settled legal position, the High Court ought not to have interfered with and quashed the entire proceedings in exercise of power conferred by Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the matter was still at the investigation stage. 12. As per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64 . State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lai & Ors. (supra) and State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Pastor P. Raja (supra), I have to examine the F.I.R. and the prosecution sanction granted by the appropriate authorities in the cases of the accused-petitioners. 13. State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lai & Ors. (supra) and State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Pastor P. Raja (supra), I have to examine the F.I.R. and the prosecution sanction granted by the appropriate authorities in the cases of the accused-petitioners. 13. The extract of the F.I.R. which are necessary to be looked into read as under: " vksfMr }kjk lEiw.kZ izfdz;k esa deZpkjh@vf/kdkfj;ksa ftUgksaus "kM;a= iwoZd jktdh; jkf'k dh vkgj.k ds mns'; ls fu;eksa dh vogsyuk dj jktdh; jkf'k ds vkgj.k esa 'kkfey fodkl vf/kdkjh] dfu"B vfHk;Urk vkSj QeZ esllZ dqcsj ekdsZfVax dksVk ds f[kykQ oS/kkfud@vko';d dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dh vfHk'ks"kk dh gS vkSj rRdkyhu iz/kku }kjk Hkh fu;eksa dh vuns[kh djuk ik;k x;k gS] ऱ 20]64]236@& dh jkf'k esllZ dqcsj ekdsZfVax dksVk dks vf/kd Hkqxrku djus ds ekeys essa vksfMV }kjk mijksDrkuqlkj fodkl vf/kdkjh@deZpkfj;ksa }kjk fey ckaVdj vkgj.k fd;k tkuk O;Dr fd;k gS] lkFk gh ऱ 7]15]930@& ds gs.MiEi cUn iMs+ gS bl izdkj dh vfu;ferrkvksa ds mtkxj gksus ls QeZ ds lkFk feyh Hkxr dj jktdks'k dks futh LokFkZ ds fy;s gkfu igqapkuk ik;k x;k gSA izkFkfed tkap la[;k 81@2006 dh tkap ds nkSjku vk{ksfir gs.MiEiksa o mldh ejEer ds djk;s x;s dk;ksZa esa vfu;ferrk cjrus ds ekeyksa esa HkkSfrd lR;kiu ,oa estjesUV djokus gsrq vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;Urk tu0 Lok0 vfHk;kaf=dh foHkkx [k.M cwUnh dh v/;{rk esa rhu lnL;h; desVh xfBr dh xbZ Fkh mDr rduhdh lfefr }kjk izdj.k esa dqy 113 gs.MiEiksa esa vfu;ferrk djuk vk{ksfir Fkk muesa ls rduhdh lfefr }kjk gs.MiEiksa dh tkWap ds mijkUr vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;Urk tu Lok0 vfHk0 foHkkx [k.M cwUnh ds i= dzekad 94&96 fnukad 13-4-2009 }kjk fjiksVZ gqbZ] ftlds vuqlkj mDr gs.MiEiksa dk fcyksa ds vuqlkj e; esVsfj;y ds dqy ऱ 8]24]223]57 dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k tcfd mDr gs.MiEiksa ds ekiksa dh tkap ds vk/kkj ij e; esVsfj;y ds Hkqxrku dh jkf'k dqy ऱ 3]92]168-60 gh curh gS bl izdkj ऱ 4]32]054-97 dk vf/kd Hkqxrku gksuk izrhr gksrk gS] vr% rduhdh lfefr dh eki ,oa ewY;kadu fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj bl Lrj jkf'k ऱ 4]32]054-97 dk xcu djuk ik;k tkrk gS ftlls ;g vfHklkflr gh gS fd vU; gS.MiEiksa ds dk;ksZa esa Hkh vfu;ferrk dj vkfFkZd {kfr igqapkbZ xbZ gS] 'ks"k gs.MiEiksa dh tkap vUos"k.k ls Li"V gksxkA " 14. The excerpts of sanction of prosecution in respect of accused-petitioner Ramhans Meena read as under : eSllZ dqcsj ekdsZfVax dksVk tks Vs.Mj esa 'kkfey ugha Fkk uk gh mldh vkSj ls dksbZ vkosnu izLrqr fd;k cfYd QeZ dqcSj ekdsZfVax ds ysVj isM ij fnukad 20-2-2002 dks vkosnu fy[kdj izksijkbZVj ds tkyh gLrk{kj dj i= fcuk mldh lgefr ls fy[k dj i=koyh esa layXu fd;kA QeZ dks fcuk Lohd`fr vkns'k fcuk dk;Z vkns'k tkjh fd;s 74 gs.MiEi ,oe~ V~;wcoSy yxokdj dqy ऱ 31]96]716 dk vuqfpr Hkqxrku fd;kA blls jkT; ljdkj dks LFkkuh; fuf/k vads{k.k foHkkx {ksf=; dk;kZy; dksVk dks vads{k.k fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj gs.MiEi fuekZ.k esa ?kfV;k lkexzh dk iz;ksx gksus ls ऱ 20]64]276 dk uqdlku gqvk gSA esjs /;ku esa yk;k x;k gS fd Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks esa izkFkfed tkap la[;k 81@2006 dh tkap ds ckn vijk/k la[;k 286@2009 fnukad 29-10-2009 dks ntZ gksdj izdj.k dk vuqla/kku iqfyl v/kh{kd Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks dksVk ds vkns'k ls Jh jkts'k ;kno vfrfjDr iqfyl v/kh{kd ,0lh0ch0 pksdh cwUnh ,oa muds i'pkr~ fnukad 20-1-2011 ls vuqla/kku Jh nhun;ky HkkxZo iqfyl fujh{kd ,0lh0ch0 pksdh ckjka ds }kjk fd;k x;kA vuqla/kku ds nkSjku ,oa vU; lqlaxr vfHkys[k izkIr fd;sA gs.MiEiksa dk HkkSfrd lR;kiu djok;kA Jh vfuy dFkqfj;k izksijkbVj dqcsj ekdsZfVax dksVk ds gLrys[k ,oa gLrk{kj fookfnr i= fnukad 20-2-2002 ls ,Q0,l0,y0 t;iqj ls ijh{k.k djok;k x;kA esjs /;ku esa yk;k x;k fd vijk/k la[;k 286@2009 dh i=koyh ij ,df=r lk{;] c;ku vfHkys[kksa dk voyksdu djus ij ,oa vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ls fopkj foe'kZ djus ij eSa larq"V gwa fd Jh jkegal eh.kk iq= Hkjr yky tkfr eh.kk mez 37 lky fuoklh xzke f<+dksyh dyka rglhy liksVjk ftyk djksyh rRdkyhu] dfu"B vfHk;Urk] iapk;r lfefr ds'kojk;ikVu] ftyk cwUnh o"kZ 2002&03 esa dfu"B vfHk;Urk ds in ij inLFkkfir FksA buds }kjk esllZ dqcsj ekdsZfVax }kjk la?kkfjr fd;s x;s gs.MiEiksa dk eki fcuk LVksj ls ,0ch0 izkIr fd;s laosnu ls eaxokdj iqfLrdk ua0 3 esa QeZ }kjk izLrqr fcyksa ds vk/kkj ij gh eki iqfLrdk esa gs.MiEi dk;ksZa dk fujh{k.k fd;s fcuk ,oa 2 gs.MiEi fcuk LFkkfir gq, ewY;kadu jkf'k ntZ dj feF;k izfr"Bh dj jkT; ljdkj dks vkfFkZd gkfu ,oa esllZ dqcsj ekdsZfVax dks vuqfpr ykHk igqapkus dk iz;kl fd;k gS tks /kkjk 13 ( 1 ) ( Mh ) ] 13 ( 2 ) ih0lh0 ,DV] 1988 ,oa 120ch vkbZ0ih0lh0 ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k gSA eSa mfpr le>rh gwa fd Jh jkegal eh.kk dfu"B vfHk;Urk dks l{ke U;k;ky; esa vfHk;ksftr fd;k tkosaA " 15. The excerpts of sanction of prosecution in respect of accused-petitioner Madan Lai Bunkar read as under: " eSllZ dqcsj ekdsZfVax dksVk tks Vs.Mj esa 'kkfey ugha Fkk uk gh mldh vksj ls dksbZ vkosnu izLrqr fd;k cfYd QeZ dqcsj ekdsZfVax ds ysVj isM ij fnukad 20-2-2002 dks vkosnu fy[kdj izksijkbZV ds tkyh gLrk{kj dj i= fcuk mldh lgefr ls fy[k dj i=koyh esa layXu fd;kA QeZ dks fcuk Lohd`fr vkns'k fcuk dk;Z vkns'k tkjh fd;s 74 gs.MiEi ,oe~ V~;wcoSy yxokdj dqy ऱ 31]96]716 dk vuqfpr Hkqxrku fd;kA blls jkT; ljdkj dks LFkkuh; fuf/k vads{k.k foHkkx {ksf=; dk;kZy; dksVk dks vad{ks.k fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj gs.MiEi fuekZ.k esa ?kfV;k lkexzh dk iz;ksx gksus ls ऱ 20]64]276 dk uqdlku gqvk gSA " esjs /;ku esa yk;k x;k gS fd Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks esa izkFkfed tkap la[;k 81@2006 dh tkap ds ckn vijk/k la[;k 286@2009 fnukad 29-10-2009 dks ntZ gksdj izdj.k dk vuqla/kku iqfyl v/kh{kd Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks dksVk ds vkns'k ls Jh jkts'k ;kno vfrfjDr iqfyl v/kh{kd ,0lh0ch0 pksdh cwUnh ,oa muds i'pkr~ fnukad 20-1-2011 ls vuqla/kku Jh nhun;ky HkkxZo iqfyl fujh{kd ,0lh0ch0 pksdh ckjk ds }kjk fd;k x;kA vuqla/kku ds nkSjku ,oa vU; lqlaxr vfHkys[k izkIr fd;sA gs.MiEiksa dk HkkSfrd lR;kiu djok;kA Jh vfuy dFkqfj;k izksijkbVj dqcsj ekdsZfVax dksVk ds gLrys[k ,oa gLrk{kj fookfnr i= fnukad 20-2-2002 ls ,Q0,l0,y0 t;iqj ls ijh{k.k djok;k x;kA vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ls fopkj foe'kZ djus ,oa i=koyh ij ,df=r lk{;] c;ku vfHkys[kksa dk voyksdu djus ij esa larq"V gwa fd vijk/k la[;k 286@2009 Jh enuyky cqudj iq= :Mkjke tkfr cykbZ mez 52 lky fuoklh v.kriqjk Fkkuk vthrx<+ ftyk lhdj uoEcj 2001 ls ebZ 2002 dh vof/k esa fodkl vf/kdkjh iapk;r lfefr ds'kojk;ikVu ftyk cwUnh ds fodkl vf/kdkjh dk vfrfjDr dk;Z izHkkj gksus ds dkj.k fodkl vf/kdkjh ds :i esa dk;Zjr Fks ,oa muds }kjk vijk/k dkfjr fd;k x;k gSA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- vr% eSa ohuk iz/kku funs'kd ek/;fed f'k{kk] jktLFkku] chdkusj Jh enuyky cqudj iq= :Mkjke tkfr cykbZ mez 52 lky fuoklh v.kriqjk Fkkuk vthrx<+ ftyk lhdj] ( ewy in f'k{kk izlkj vf/kdkjh ) uoEcj 2001 ls ebZ 2002 dh vof/k esa fodkl vf/kdkjh] iapk;r lfefr ds'kojk;ikVu ftyk cwUnh ds fodkl vf/kdkjh dk vfrfjDr dk;Z izHkkj gksus ds dkj.k rRdkyhu fodkl vf/kdkjh ds :i esa dk;Zjr Fks dks jkT; lsok ls i`Fkd djus esa l{ke gwaA vr% /kkjk 19 ih0lh0,DV] 1988 esa iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Jh enuyky cqudj ewy ij f'k{kk izlkj vf/kdkjh rRdkyhu fodkl vf/kdkjh ds fo:) /kkjk 13 ( 1 ) Mh] 13 ( 2 ) ih0lh0 ,DV] 1988 ,oe~ 120ch vkbZ0ih0lh0 ;k vU; rF;ksa ls cuus okys lEcfU/kr vU; vijk/k esa ekuuh; fof'k"V U;k;k/kh'k lS'ku U;k;ky; Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e dksVk ;k vU; fdlh U;k;ky; esa izlaKku ysus dh Lohd`fr ,rn~}kjk iznku djrh gwaA " 16. Without expressing any opinion in the matter, it is clear from the F.I.R. and the prosecution sanctions issued by the appropriate authorities that misappropriation of Government funds have been done in the matter and the F.i.R. and the prosecution of sanction have been rightly issued by the appropriate authorities for proceeding against the accused-petitioners in accordance with law. The F.I.R., particularly the documents enclosed with the petitions and the arguments submitted by both the parties and cases relied upon by them and in my considered opinion at this stage in the instant case, the allegations made in the F.I.R., do clearly constitute a cognizable offence and this case does not call for the exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the F.I.R. and the prosecution sanction granted by the appropriate authorities after carefully examine the material available on record. When the offences and the ingredients therein are prima facie disclosed in the F.I.R., there is no reason to quash the F.I.R. at this stage. The jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is discretionary in nature and could not be exercised in favour of the accused-petitioners particularly when the prosecution sanctions have been granted by the appropriate authorities after evaluating the material produced before them. The cases cited by the accused-petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The arguments raised be the counsel for the accused-petitioners being devoid of merit are rejected. The rulings cited by the learned counsel are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.With these observations, the criminal misc. petitions being devoid of merit stand rejected. The stav applications also stand rejected.Petition dismissed. *******