Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 863 (PAT)

Dhaneshwar Pandit v. State of Bihar

2013-07-24

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER All these writ petitions arise out of Vigilance P.S.Case No.8 of 2004 dated 28.7.2004 instituted under sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477A, 409, 418, 420, 218, 109,119, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Penal Code) and 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the P.C. Act”). The prayers made in the writ petitions in paragraph 1 are as under:— Cr.W.J.C. No.442 of 2012 “1. That by way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner craves indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for grant of following reliefs:— (i) For issuance of an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of letter no.137 dated 28.4.2011 to the extent it relates to the petitioner, whereby the Bihar State Electricity Board has accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner and other officers of the Board. (ii) For issuance of a consequential order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent, Bihar State Electricity Board to consider the matter, regarding according of sanction afresh, in the facts and circumstances of this case in accordance with law. (iii) For any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is found to be entitled under the law in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” Cr.W.J.C. No.251 of 2011 “1. That by this writ application, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s), order(s) for the following reliefs. (i) For quashing the entire criminal prosecution including the First Information Report of the Vigilance P.S, Case No.08 of 2004 dated 28.7.2004 giving rise to Special Case No.11 of 2004, pending in the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna as being wholly illegal against the petitioner. (ii) For any other appropriate relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled to in the following facts and circumstances of this case.” Cr.W.J.C. No.219 of 2011 “1. That by this writ application the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s), order(s) for the following reliefs. (i) For quashing the entire prosecution including the first information report of the Vigilance Police Case No.08/2004 giving rise to Special Case No.11/2004, pending in the court of the Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna. That by this writ application the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s), order(s) for the following reliefs. (i) For quashing the entire prosecution including the first information report of the Vigilance Police Case No.08/2004 giving rise to Special Case No.11/2004, pending in the court of the Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna. (ii) For any other appropriate relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled to in the following facts and circumstances of this case. (iii) That the petitioner submits that the pendency of the case is an abuse of the process of the court apart from being mollified and baneful to the fundamental rights of the petitioner including the right of life and is also in breach of at the provisions of the P.C. Act.” Cr.W.J.C. No.940 of 2011 “1. That, by way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner craves the indulgence of this Hon’ble court for grant of the following reliefs:— (i) Issuance of an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 28/4/2011 whereby the Board has accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner. (ii) Issuance of an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing request dated 19/8/2011 whereby Dy. S.P. of Vigilance Department has requested the Chairman, JSEB to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioner in Vigilance P.S. Case No.08/04. (iii) Issuance of an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing request dated 19/8/2011 whereby Inspector General, Vigilance has requested the Chairman JSEB to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioner in Vigilance P.S. Case No.08/04. (iv) Issuance of an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the entire proceeding against the petitioner appertaining to Vigilance P.S. Case No.08/04. (v) Any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioners may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.” Cr.W.J.C. No.794 of 2011 “1. That by this writ application the petitioners seek indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s), order(s) for the following reliefs. (i) For quashing the entire Criminal prosecution including the First Information Report of the Vigilance P.S. Case No.08/2004 dated 28.7.2004 giving rise to Special Case No.11 of 2004, pending in the court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna as being wholly illegal against the petitioner. (ii) To quash the sanctions order bearing letter no.137 dated 28.4.2011. (i) For quashing the entire Criminal prosecution including the First Information Report of the Vigilance P.S. Case No.08/2004 dated 28.7.2004 giving rise to Special Case No.11 of 2004, pending in the court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna as being wholly illegal against the petitioner. (ii) To quash the sanctions order bearing letter no.137 dated 28.4.2011. (iii) For any other appropriate relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled to in the following facts and circumstances of this case.” Cr.W.J.C. No.1241 of 2011 “1. That by this application the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for the following reliefs:— (i) For quashing the First Information Report of Vigilance P.S.Case No.08 of 2004 giving rise to Special Case No.11 of 2004, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna. (ii) For quashing of the order dated 26.8.2011 passed in Special Case No.11 of 2004 by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna by which cognizance for the offence under section ………… has been taken against the petitioner and others. (iii) For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled to in the following facts and circumstances of the case.” Cr.W.J.C. No.946 of 2011 “1. That by this writ application the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s), order(s) for the following reliefs:— (i) For quashing the entire prosecution including the First Information Report of the Vigilance Police Case No.08/2004 giving rise to Special Case No.11/2004 pending in the court of the Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna. (ii) For any other appropriate relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case including stay of further proceeding in Special Case No.11/2004 pending in the court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna.” Cr.W.J.C. No.714 of 2011 “1. That by this writ application the petitioners seek indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s) order(s) for the following reliefs:— (i) For quashing the entire prosecution including the first information report of the Vigilance Police Case No.08 of 2004 giving rise to Special Case No.11/2004, pending in the courts of the Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna. (ii) For any other appropriate relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled to in the following facts and circumstances of this case. (ii) For any other appropriate relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled to in the following facts and circumstances of this case. (iii) That the petitioners submit that the pendency of the case is an abuse of the process of the court apart from being mollified and baneful to the fundamental right of the petitioners including the right of life and is also in breach of at the provisions of the P.C. Act.” 2. During the pendency of the writ petitions the petitioners in Cr.W.J.C. No.794 of 2011 and the petitioner in Cr.W.J.C. No. 946 of 2011 filed I.A. No.1381 of 2012 and I.A. No.1412 of 2012 respectively and prayed for quashing the order dated 26.8.2011 passed in the aforesaid case by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna whereby and whereunder he has taken cognizance of the offences alleged in the FIR. Similarly, in Cr.W.J.C. No.714 of 2011, the petitioners have brought on record the order dated 26.8.2011 taking cognizance of the offences and the order according sanction for prosecution by filing supplementary affidavit and have prayed for quashing both the orders. 3. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, learned counsel for the vigilance and learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board. The respondents vigilance and the Bihar State Electricity Board have filed their counter affidavit separately in each of the cases. 4. The prosecution case, in short, as disclosed in the written report dated 28.7.2004 addressed to the Officer-in-charge, Vigilance Police Station, Patna, is that in course of preliminary enquiry it transpired that tenders were invited on 28.10.1995 for purchase of 55 pieces of 132 KV Isolators valued Rs.57,00,000/- (fifty seven lacs), but after completing formalities of tenders, quantity of articles were increased and decision was taken for purchase of 90 pieces of 132 KV Isolators and with respect to which purchase order no.2 dated 18.2.1997 is said to have been issued. M/s Hindustan Electrical & Switch Gear Corporation, Patna (in short known as “M/s HESCO”) was asked to supply 45 sets of 132 KV Isolators and vide Purchase Order No.3 dated 18.2.1997. M/s Elite Light Engineering Company, Patna (in short known as “M/s ELCO”) was asked to supply 45 sets of 132 KV Isolators. 5. The further case of the prosecution is that on 28.10.1995 tenders were invited for purchase of 50 pieces of 33 KV Isolators, which according to the informant, were valued Rs.20,00,000/-. M/s Elite Light Engineering Company, Patna (in short known as “M/s ELCO”) was asked to supply 45 sets of 132 KV Isolators. 5. The further case of the prosecution is that on 28.10.1995 tenders were invited for purchase of 50 pieces of 33 KV Isolators, which according to the informant, were valued Rs.20,00,000/-. It is said that after completing formalities of the tenders, quantity of 33 KV Isolators were increased and vide Purchase Order No.10/97 dated 27.3.1997 M/s HESCO, Patna was asked to supply 29 sets of 33 KV Isolators, whereas vide Purchase Order No.12/1997 dated 27.3.1997 M/s ELCO, Patna was asked to supply 30 sets of 33 KV Isolators. 6. The further case of the prosecution is that with respect to purchase order no.10 dated 27.3.1997 M/s HESCO was ordered to supply 29 sets of 33 KV Isolators. Accordingly, M/s HESCO manufactured 29 sets of Isolators as per terms and conditions of the purchase order. It informed the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) to inspect the materials, pursuant to which the Chief Engineer (Transmission) of the Board vide letter issued under memo no.1273 dated 12.8.1997 made an order to inspect and examine the Isolators, which was done by Sri M.K.Sinha, the Electrical Executive Engineer (Transmission) and Sri Bhim Prasad, the Assistant Electrical Executive Engineer (Transmission) of the Board Headquarter. They submitted their inspection report in which they confirmed the materials as per the assigned specification. The inspection report was approved on 25.9.1997. It is alleged that on approval of the inspection report by the Chief Engineer (Transmission), M/s HESCO, Patna was directed under memo no.1578 dated 17.10.1997 and amended memo no.1667 dated 4.11.1997 to deliver 29 sets of 33 KV Isolators at the Circle Store of Assistant Executive Engineer (Transmission), Fatuha. It is alleged that 29 sets of 33 KV Isolators were sent to Fatuha where Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava was the Assistant Executive Engineer, who received the materials and asked for drawing and test certificate of the materials. Thereafter, in spite of reminders when drawing and test certificate etc. It is alleged that 29 sets of 33 KV Isolators were sent to Fatuha where Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava was the Assistant Executive Engineer, who received the materials and asked for drawing and test certificate of the materials. Thereafter, in spite of reminders when drawing and test certificate etc. were not made available then Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava, the Assistant Executive Engineer issued SRV Nos.385984 and 385985 dated 10.3.1998 mentioning in it about the objections and short comings in respect to those 29 sets of 33 KV Isolators and thereafter the said Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava, the Assistant Executive Engineer and Sri Ram Briksha Jha, Senior Store Keeper received those Isolators in store. The said Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava further mentioned in the SRV that a deduction should be made from the bill of supplier for late and defective supply of goods. 7. The further case is that in respect of certain irregularities in the purchase of some defective Isolators, the authorities of the Board vide letter no.2853 dated 13.4.1998 directed the Member (Finance) to enquire into the matter and Sri S.P.Seth, the then Member (Finance) of the Board started enquiry and as per direction of Sri S.P.Seth, Member (Finance), Sri R.K.Sinha, the Chief Engineer, Transmission (O & M) made inspection of 33 KV Isolators at Mithapur and submitted his report. In the said inspection certain defects were pointed out in 33 KV Isolators. 8. The further case of the prosecution is that enquiry report revealed cheating at large scale in supply of Isolators to the Board. The deficiencies mentioned in the report of Sri S.P. Seth, Member (Finance) with respect to Isolators tallied on several points with the faults detected with respect to SRV of Isolators issued by Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava, the Assistant Executive Engineer. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations made by the informant Vigilance P.S. Case No.8 of 2004 dated 28.7.2004 was registered against altogether 23 named accused persons. 10. It is to be noted here that the petitioners in Cr.W.J.C. No.251 of 2011 and Cr.W.J.C. No.219 of 2011 have prayed for quashing of the FIR. The petitioner in Cr.W.J.C. No.442 of 2012 has prayed for quashing of the order granting sanction for prosecution. The petitioner in Cr.W.J.C. No.940 of 2011 has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the sanction order. The petitioner in Cr.W.J.C. No.442 of 2012 has prayed for quashing of the order granting sanction for prosecution. The petitioner in Cr.W.J.C. No.940 of 2011 has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the sanction order. The petitioners in Cr.W.J.C. No.794 of 2011, Cr.W.J.C. No.124 of 2011, Cr.W.J.C. No.946 of 2011 and Cr.W.J.C. No.714 of 2011 have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution including the FIR, sanction order and the order taking cognizance. 11. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that the FIR in question is misconceived. There is nothing on record on the basis of which it can be said that the goods supplied by the suppliers were of sub standard quality. In course of investigation nothing cogent could come to suggest involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offence. The sanction order to prosecute the petitioners is wholly arbitrary, illegal and mala fide and the sanctioning authority did not apply his mind to the facts of the case and accorded sanction for prosecution mechanically. 12. Learned counsel further submitted that non-application of mind while granting sanction for prosecution would be evident from the fact that a common sanction order for prosecuting the petitioners has been issued and, thus, it can very well be presumed that the sanctioning authority did not consider the existence of incriminating evidence collected by the prosecution against each of the accused persons separately. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the vigilance submitted that the allegations made in the FIR do constitute a cognizable offence and, as such, the same cannot be quashed. He further submitted that on conclusion of investigation the investigating officer has already submitted police report under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure pursuant to which finding a prima facie case to be made out the learned Special Judge, Vigilance has already taken cognizance of the offence vide order dated 26.8.2011. 14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Electricity Board submitted that the order granting sanction for prosecution has been issued after proper application of mind by the competent authority. 15. 14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Electricity Board submitted that the order granting sanction for prosecution has been issued after proper application of mind by the competent authority. 15. Having heard the parties and perused the records, I find that the specific allegation against Dhaneshwar Pandit, the petitioner in Cr.W.J.C. No.442 of 2012 is that while he was working as Executive Engineer, Transmission Central Store, Namkum at Ranchi, he received 12 sets of 132 KV Isolators supplied by M/s ELCO against purchase no.3 dated 18.2.1997 issued by the Board and on receipt of the same, SRV no.110409 dated 20.10.1997 was issued on the basis of which Rs.3,48,166/- was paid to M/s ELCO. 16. The specific allegation against Braj Kishore Dwivedy, the petitioner in Cr.W.J.C. No.251 of 2011 is that while being posted as Electrical Superintending Engineer at the Headquarter of the Board he recommended for amendment in purchase order no.10 of 1997 for replacing the word stainless steel nuts and bolts to mild steel nuts and bolts. 17. The specific allegation against Shree Kishore Prasad, the petitioner in Cr.W.J.C. No.219 of 2011 is that while being posted as an Assistant Electrical Engineer (Transmission) in the Board at Patna, the Chief Engineer (Transmission) directed him and Ram Kripal Singh, the Electrical Executive Engineer vide memo no.1272 dated 12.8.1997 to inspect and examine the sample of 132 KV Isolators to be supplied by M/s HESCO. They made inspection from 27.9.1997 to 29.9.1997 and submitted the inspection report on 29.9.1997 wherein they held the materials to be as per specification and standard prescribed in the purchase order. However, subsequently, several defects/deficiencies in quality and with respect to specification were found in Isolators as per enquiry report of Sri S.P.Seth. 18. The specific allegation against Arun Kumar Jha, the petitioner in Cr.W.J.C. No.940 of 2011 is that while being posted as an Assistant Engineer Transmission Circle Store, Deoghar, he received certain sets of 33 KV Isolators. However, while receiving the Isolators he did not pay any heed to the terms and conditions of the purchase order. He did not demand the copy of test certificate or drawing of the materials from the Chief Engineer (Transmission) for comparison before receiving the materials in the store. Thus, he received sub standard Isolators in store and issued SRV on the basis of which Rs. 1,67,738/- was paid to the firm M/s ELCO. 19. He did not demand the copy of test certificate or drawing of the materials from the Chief Engineer (Transmission) for comparison before receiving the materials in the store. Thus, he received sub standard Isolators in store and issued SRV on the basis of which Rs. 1,67,738/- was paid to the firm M/s ELCO. 19. The specific allegation against Ram Pati Pandey @ R.P.Pandey and K.L.Choudhary, the petitioners in Cr.W.J.C. Nos.794 of 2011 is that in effecting the sale of defective Isolators they recommended for alteration of specification of nuts and bolts in the purchase order and only after such alteration the defective materials were supplied. 20. The specific allegation against Ram Kripal Singh, the petitioner in Cr.W.J.C. No.1241 of 2011 is that while being posted as Electrical Executive Engineer, Transmission Division, Khagaul, he was directed to inspect the Isolators to be supplied by the Chief Engineer (Transmission). Pursuant to the aforesaid direction he made inspection between 6.8.1997 to 19.8.1997 and submitted report on 23.8.1997 in which he had held that Isolators were of standard quality and as per specification. 21. The specific allegation against Nanheshwar Sinha, the petitioner in Cr.W.J.C. No.946 of 2011 is that while being posted as Electrical Executive Engineer, Central Transmission Store, Zone-2, Muzaffarpur he received 21 sets of 33 KV Isolators at the central store without obtaining copy of test certificate or drawing of the supplied materials from the Chief Engineer (Transmission) for comparison before receiving the materials in the store. He issued SRV No.35667 dated 28.10.1997 on the basis of which Rs.4,49,018/- was paid to M/s ELCO. 22. The specific allegation against Mithilesh Prasad @ M.K.Sinha and Bhim Prasad, the petitioners in Cr.W.J.C. No.714 of 2011 is that they were directed to inspect and test 29 sets of Isolators to be supplied by M/s HESCO. They inspected the Isolators and submitted their report in which they held that Isolators were as per specification pursuant to which 29 sets of 33 KV Isolators were supplied to the Circle Store, Fatuha. However, subsequently, they were found of inferior quality. 23. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, I find that the allegations made in the FIR do attract ingredients of the offences punishable under the Penal Code and the P.C. Act. However, subsequently, they were found of inferior quality. 23. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, I find that the allegations made in the FIR do attract ingredients of the offences punishable under the Penal Code and the P.C. Act. The police has already concluded the investigation of the case and submitted chargesheet in the case. The learned Special Judge, Vigilance, after going through the police report and the documents submitted therewith found a prima facie case to be made out under various provisions of the Penal Code and the P. C. Act and thus, took cognizance of the offences alleged. In that view of the matter, neither the FIR nor the order taking cognizance can be held to be bad or fit to be set aside. 24. I further find that initially the FIR was instituted against altogether 23 accused persons. However, on conclusion of investigation only 12 accused persons were sent up for trial. Out of them at the time of taking cognizance only two namely, Shree Kishore Prasad (petitioner in Cr.W.J.C. No.219 of 2011) and Arun Kumar Jha (petitioner in Cr.W.J.C. No.940 of 2011) were in service. All the other petitioners had retired on attaining the age of superannuation. 25. So far as challenge to the order granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioners is concerned, in Prakash Singh Badal and another Vs. State of Punjab and others since reported in (2007)1 SCC 1 the Apex Court has clearly held that no sanction would be necessary under section 19 of the P.C. Act, if public servant ceases to continue as public servant at the time when cognizance is taken. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court no sanction for prosecution under the P.C. Act is required for prosecuting those who had already retired on attaining the age of superannuation. 26. Moreover, while granting sanction application of mind is a question of fact which is to be proved by evidence. Without affording opportunity to the sanctioning authority, it cannot be said that he has not applied his mind while passing the sanction order. 26. Moreover, while granting sanction application of mind is a question of fact which is to be proved by evidence. Without affording opportunity to the sanctioning authority, it cannot be said that he has not applied his mind while passing the sanction order. The facts on the basis of which sanction has been granted might appear on the face of sanction order and, if not, it might be proved by independent evidence that sanction was accorded for prosecution after those facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority. I am also of the view that where offences alleged were similar and were part of an alleged larger conspiracy passing of a common sanction order would be justified. There is no law which prescribes that sanction order should always be separate in respect of each accused of the case. 27. From the pleading of the petitioners it is evident that it is not a case in which the court has proceeded in absence of sanction order. In Prakash Singh Badal and another Vs. State of Punjab and others (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court while drawing distinction between the absence of sanction and invalidity of sanction expressed in no uncertain terms that question of absence of sanction could be raised at the inception and threshold by an aggrieved person. However, where sanction order exists, but its legality and validity is put in question, such issue has to be raised in course of trial. 28. In Dinesh Kumar Vs. Chairman, Airport Authority of India and another since reported in (2012) 1 SCC 532 the appellant was being prosecuted for the offences punishable under the P.C.Act. The sanctioning authority granted sanction to prosecute the appellant. The sanction order was challenged by the appellant in the High Court in a writ proceeding. During the pendency of the application, the Central Bureau of Investigation submitted chargesheet and the Special Judge took cognizance of the offence and summonses were issued against the appellant. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition. Against the order of Single Judge, the appellant preferred an intra court appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the intra court appeal observing that it was open to the appellant to question the validity of sanction order during the trial on all possible grounds and C.B.I. could also justify the order of granting sanction before the trial Judge. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the intra court appeal observing that it was open to the appellant to question the validity of sanction order during the trial on all possible grounds and C.B.I. could also justify the order of granting sanction before the trial Judge. The appellant challenged the order passed by the Division Bench before the Apex Court. The Apex Court taking into consideration the fact that since cognizance of the offence had already been taken against the appellant by the trial Judge dismissed the appeal. The Apex Court further held that the High Court cannot be said to have erred in leaving the question of validity of sanction open for consideration by the trial court and giving liberty to the appellant to raise the issue concerning validity of sanction order in course of trial. 29. It is also well settled by now that the privilege of immunity from prosecution without sanction extends only to act which can be shown to be done in discharge of official duty, or to purport to be done in such discharge; but an offence arising out of abuse of official position by an act not purporting to be official act does not require sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question in regard to sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C can also be raised at the stage of trial. 30. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Prakash Singh Badal and another Vs. State of Punjab and others (supra) and Dinesh Kumar Vs. Chairman, Airport Authority of India and another (supra) I am of the view that it would not be proper for this court at this stage to give any finding on the question of validity of sanction order. The allegations made in the FIR do constitute a cognizable offence. The learned Special Judge, on conclusion of investigation, after taking into consideration the materials collected by the investigating agency has found a prima facie case for the offences punishable under the penal Code and the P.C.Act. In that view of the matter, the FIR and/or the order taking cognizance of the offence cannot be quashed. 31. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ applications being devoid of any merit, are dismissed. 32. In that view of the matter, the FIR and/or the order taking cognizance of the offence cannot be quashed. 31. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ applications being devoid of any merit, are dismissed. 32. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise the question of validity of sanction order in course of trial at appropriate stage. In case, such an application is filed, the same shall be considered on its own merits without being prejudiced in any manner by the observations made hereinabove.