ORDER This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 28 of 2013 (Special Case No. 29 of 2013), including the order dated 20.9.2013, whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been taken against the petitioner. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant had completed the work of digging of a pond, estimated cost of which was Rs. 1,37,000/- but he was paid only a sum of Rs. 80,000/-. Rest of Rs. 57,000/- was not paid to the petitioner. When the complainant approached to the petitioner for taking payment, he was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 16,000/- as bribe. The matter was reported to the Vigilance. On verification of the allegation, when it was found to be true, a team was constituted who laid a raid at the time when the money was paid to the petitioner, it was recovered from the pond. 3. On such allegation, a case was registered as Vigilance P.S. Case No.28 of 2013 for the offences under Section 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On completion of investigation, when charge sheet was submitted after procuring sanction for prosecution, cognizance of the offences as aforesaid was taken vide its order dated 20.9.2013 which is under challenge. 4. Mr. S.N. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Administrative Department of the petitioner happens to be the AHD and Fisheries Department and the Secretary of said Department is the appointing authority, who in terms of the provision, as contained in Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is competent to accord sanction for prosecution but in the instant case, sanction has been accorded by the Secretary, Department of Law (Judicial), Government of Jharkhand, by virtue of the note appended to Rule 53 (1)(c) of the Rules of the Executive Business but that note had been amended which has not been taken into account and therefore, the order granting sanction is illegal and cannot be sustained in the eye of law in view of the decision rendered in a case of State of Goa Vs. Babu Thomas { (2005) 8 SCC 130 ). 5. Babu Thomas { (2005) 8 SCC 130 ). 5. Learned counsel further submits that not only that, order according sanction for prosecution by the Secretary, Department of Law (Judicial) is nullity but it has occasioned prejudice to the petitioner, as he had never taken into account while according sanction of the inquiry report submitted by the Director, Fisheries Department showing work being incomplete and thereby the allegation of the complainant was found to be false and also of the fact that the work could be completed only after the case was lodged and that had the matter been placed before the Secretary AHD and Fisheries Department, he would have considered all these aspects of the matter and under the circumstances, the case of the petitioner has certainly been prejudiced and thereby the order granting sanction warrants to be quashed. 6. The impugned order being bad is fit to be set aside, as the sanctioning authority never seems to have applied its mind and if that is so, it cannot be sustained in view of the decision rendered in a case of State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerjan { (2007)11 S.C.C. 273 }. 7. As against this, Mr. Jai Prakash, learned A.A.G., appearing on behalf of the State, by referring to Section 19 (3)(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, submits that no finding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge warrants to be reversed or altered on the ground that the sanction order issued under sub-section (1) of Section 19 suffers from any irregularity, error or omission unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby, which proposition has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases and recently in a case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Rajmangal Ram (AIR 2014SC 1674). 8. Further, it was submitted that so far point relating to failure of justice is concerned, it needs to be addressed during trial and not at this stage, as only by adducing evidence that would be established or could be rebutted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases, referred to above, has been quite categorical in holding that this point is to be appreciated during trial when the parties lead their evidences. 9. Learned A.A.G. did point it out that in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases, referred to above, has been quite categorical in holding that this point is to be appreciated during trial when the parties lead their evidences. 9. Learned A.A.G. did point it out that in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Rajmangal Ram (supra), submission had been advanced on behalf of the accused that the sanction has never been granted by the parent department but by the Law Department. That plea was dispelled with by the Court keeping in view the provision contained in Section 19(3) (4) of Prevention of Corruption Act by holding that merely because there is any omission, error or irregularity in the matter of according sanction, that does not affect the validity of the proceeding unless the court records the satisfaction that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in failure of justice. Same is the situation here and, therefore, the order granting sanction never warrants to be interfered with by this Court. 10. The ground on which the impugned order has been sought to be quashed is that the petitioner was under the control of AHD and Fisheries Department and as such the Secretary, Department of Law (Judicial) being not an appointing authority is not competent to accord sanction for prosecution in terms of Section 19(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Here in the instant case, the Secretary, Department of Law (Judicial) has issued the order granting sanction in the name of the Governor which seems to have been issued in consonance with note appended to Rule 53 (1)(c) of the Rules of the Executive Business. 11. However, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, that note, reference of which has been given hereinabove, seems to have been substituted through a resolution dated 3rd July, 1993 by the following clause: “All kinds of order regarding prosecution shall be issued by the Law (Judicial) Department after the orders have been obtained in accordance with Rule 32(a)(xix).” 12. Said amended clause, according to the petitioner, has not been taken into account by the Secretary, Department of Law (Judicial). Even if it has not been taken into account, that would be, at best, an error or irregularity which does not affect the validity of the proceeding in terms of the provision, as contained in Section 19(3)(4) of Prevention of Corruption Act, unless it results into a failure of justice. Even if it has not been taken into account, that would be, at best, an error or irregularity which does not affect the validity of the proceeding in terms of the provision, as contained in Section 19(3)(4) of Prevention of Corruption Act, unless it results into a failure of justice. 13. At this stage, the provision of Section 19(3)(4) of Prevention of Corruption Act needs to be taken notice of which reads as follows: 19(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. Explanation – For the purposes of this section, - (a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction; (b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature.” 14. Explanation – For the purposes of this section, - (a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction; (b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature.” 14. A combined reading of sub-sections (3) and (4) makes the position clear that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no finding, sentence and 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. 15. It be noted that explanation (a) to sub-section (4) does stipulate that error includes incompetency by the authority to grant sanction. Meaning thereby that even if the order granting sanction is assailable on the ground that the authority is incompetent to grant sanction, it cannot be interfered with by the court unless it is shown that the said defect/irregularity has resulted into failure of justice. The aforesaid proposition has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of State of Police Inspector vs. T. Venkatesh Murthy { (2004) 7 SCC 763 } which view has been reiterated subsequently in a case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Virendra Kumar Tripathy { (2009) 15 SCC 533 } and recently in a case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Rajmangal Ram (AIR 2014SC 1674). 16. Further Their Lordships in a case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Rajmangal Ram (supra) has been pleased to observe that to consider the plea of prejudice, appropriate stage would be a trial when the parties would be leading evidences. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this application and hence, this application stands dismissed.