JUDGMENT 1. - This Cr. Writ Petition under Section 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed against the prosecution sanction which has been granted de-horring the entire legal provisions. 2. The relevant facts necessary for disposal of the petition are that FIR No. 202/2008 has been registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Narsi S/o Ram Swaroop was trapped on the instance of complainant. Voice test of present petitioner has been conducted and two times, negative report was filed. Thereafter, voice samples were again sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory (in short CFSL), Delhi for examination wherein it has been opined that possibility of similarity cannot be denied. Thereafter, the Excise Commissioner has opined that no case is made out for according the prosecution sanction which was further strengthened by the order of Secretary, Finance and it was observed by the Secretary, Finance that in given circumstances, prosecution sanction cannot be issued and it was sent to Additional Chief Secretary, (Home). 3. After considering the material on record, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) declined to accord sanction and refusal for the same has been informed to the Commissioner Excise vide letter dated 17.8.2012. Thereafter, Additional Director General, ACB wrote some letter on which the meeting of the concerned authorities held on 20.11.2012 and it has been stated in the note sheet that report of C.S.F.L. was not available to the concerned authority and without considering that report, the orders for refusal of sanction has been ordered, hence the matter may be reviewed after considering the report of CSFL, Delhi and thereafter prosecution sanction has been awarded against the present petitioner which has been challenged on the above grounds by the present petitioner.On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order of granting prosecution sanction. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant and perused the impugned order. 5. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant and perused the impugned order. 5. The present petitioner has placed reliance on the law laid down in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen, (2010) 14 SCC 527 wherein it has been held: "It is true that the Government in the matter of grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory power and that would not mean that power once exercised cannot be exercised again or at a subsequent stage in the absence of express power of review in no circumstance whatsoever. The power of review, however, is not unbridled or unrestricted. It seems to us sound principle to follow that once the statutory power under Section 19 of the 1988 Act or Section 197 of the Code has been exercised by the Government or the competent authority, as the case may be, it is not permissible for the sanctioning authority to review or reconsider the matter on the same materials again. It is so because unrestricted power of review may not bring finality to such exercise and on change of the Government or change of the person authorised to exercise power of sanction, the matter concerning sanction may be reopened by such authority for the reasons best known to it and a different order may be passed. The opinion on the same materials, thus, may keep on changing and there may not be any end to such statutory exercise." 6. In the light of the above, in the present case, the matter has been designed as if some material has not been looked into by the authorities while declining the grant of prosecution sanction and in the light of CSFL report, it has been reviewed but copies of the earlier note sheets have been placed on record by the petitioner which are taken under the Right to Information Act reveals that Finance Secretary has specifically mentioned in his note sheet that in FSL report, Jaipur, the negative report was filed and voice was different and in CFSL, Delhi report there was only probability of similarity and also has considered that the present petitioner has not been trapped. Naresh has not supported the fact that the present petitioner has taken or demanded any money and no work of complainant was pending with the present petitioner and sanction was refused on the same material on which it was reviewed and contrary order of awarding sanction has been passed without obtaining any fresh material and no plausible reason has been recorded by the sanctioning authority for according the sanction. 7. There is no dispute about the legal position that the sanctioning authority can review its order if some new material or facts have been placed on record but here in the present case, earlier when the material was considered by the various authorities, the report of CFSL was available and it was considered and hence on the same material, review of the matter is improper and impermissible and matter is squarely covered by the law laid down in Nishant Sareen (supra) and followed in Mahaveer Prasad v. State of Raj., SB Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2625/2012 decided on 9.10.2012 .In view of the above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.1.2013 whereby prosecution sanction has been awarded qua the present petitioner is quashed and set aside. *******