ORDER : Rathnakala, J. 1. The petitioner is challenging the complaint dated 5.7.2013 in P.C.R. No. 51/2013 and the order dated 18.2.2015 passed by the Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act') in taking cognizance against him in respect of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act and also the FIR in Crime No. 11/2015 dated 21.2.2015. 2. As the facts unfurl, the complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner herein, who was the then Minister for Large and Medium Scale Industries, Sri B.S. Yeddyurappa/the Former Chief Minister of Karnataka and other private persons. 3. The allegations in its essence was, the Government of Karnataka declared the land in between White Field and Electronic City, Bangalore, as I.T. Corridor during the year 2000-2001. Accused Nos. 3 to 9 were the residents of Delhi and were engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala and Gutka. Though they were not agriculturists, they purchased agricultural land at Devarabisanahalli in violation of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The KIADB by initiating proceedings forfeited the lands purchased by accused Nos. 3 to 9 to an extent of 500 and odd acres and issued Final Notification in respect of 434 acres covering the land lying adjacent to the Ring Road between Sarjapur Road and Marathahalli in the villages of Bellandur, Devarabisanahalli, Kadabisanahalli and Kariammana Agrahara for the purpose of development of Information Technology. However, the accused Nos. 3 to 9 managed to get back the forfeited lands and claiming to be the promoters of Vikas Telecom, Supreme Build Cap Private Limited and Royale Fragrance Pvt. Ltd., submitted projects before the State Level Single Window Agency; without verifying the genuineness of their claim, an extent of 106.25 acres of land was allotted to M/s. Vikas Telecom to put up an I.T. Park, Hotel, Convention Centre, Shopping Mall, R&D Centre, I.T. Training/Engineering College, residential and commercial apartments; 40,00,000 sq.ft. land was allotted in favour of M/s. Supreme Build Cap to put up an IT Park and an extent of 29 acres of land was allotted to M/s. Royal Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. This was only for the sake of the business interests of accused Nos. 3 to 9. land was allotted in favour of M/s. Supreme Build Cap to put up an IT Park and an extent of 29 acres of land was allotted to M/s. Royal Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. This was only for the sake of the business interests of accused Nos. 3 to 9. The authorities of KIADB in collusion with the petitioner, who was the then Minister for Industries initially notified 500 acres of land and selectively excluded large portion of the land and restricted the acquisition to 434 acres. Vide Government Notification dated 13.2.2004 and 21.6.2006, lands are denotified at his instance and also at the instance of second accused. On the direction of the petitioner, Sy. No. 49 of Devarabisanahalli, Sy. Nos. 38/2, 38/3, 38/4, 38/5, 38/7, 38/8, 38/9 and 38/10 totally measuring 6 acres 14 guntas of Amani Bellandur Khane are selectively denotified. The complainant further alleges against other Former Ministers and Chief Ministers that they denotified lands and diverted for residential purpose. The first accused has purchased many denotified lands. Beneficiaries have floated Rules and encroached some lands. Accused No. 1 in the capacity of public servant from the year 2002 to 2005 misused the official powers and has committed the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, which is punishable under Section13(2) of the Act. 4. The learned Special Judge after giving audience to the complainant finds that the there is prima facie material for investigation and has referred the matter to the Superintendent of Police for investigation against the petitioner and the Former Chief Minister. 5. Sri. Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, the petitioner was a Minister for Large and Medium Scale Industries, Government of Karnataka, from 17.12.1994 to 20.1.1998 and from 17.10.1999 to 28.5.2004. As on the date the lands are alleged to have been denotified, the petitioner was not the Minister. The acquisition proceedings and allotment of land in favour of M/s. Vikas Telecom, M/s. Supreme Build Cap Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Royale Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. were challenged by none other than the father of the complainant in Writ Petition No. 49979/2003 and connected matters; in the said petitions, fraud and colourable exercise of power were the allegations among others. The said Writ Petitions were dismissed vide order dated 28.1.2004 by upholding the acquisition proceedings and the allegation of fraud played in the acquisition proceedings was negatived. The said Writ Petitions were dismissed vide order dated 28.1.2004 by upholding the acquisition proceedings and the allegation of fraud played in the acquisition proceedings was negatived. The Infosys Technologies Limited on its own withdrew from purchasing the land. The Government of Karnataka issued notification dropping acquisition of certain lands of Bellandur village. P. Narayanappa/father of the complainant herein along with others challenged the order in W.P. No. 49979/2003 and connected matters, which came to be dismissed. Writ Appeal No. 1535/2004 and connected matters, challenging the said order were also dismissed by upholding the acquisition proceedings and allotment of land in favour of M/s. Vikas Telecom Limited. Very P. Narayanappa had filed Writ Petition No. 17539/2004 and connected matters, challenging the acquisition in favour of M/s. Vikas Telecom Limited and M/s. Royale Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that the lands are not utilized for the designated purpose and also alleged malafides in the allotment process that transpired through Single Window System. The KIADB vide its meeting dated 30.4.2004 decided to refund the amount to M/s. Infosys Technologies Limited. The Chief Executive Officer of KIADB addressed a letter dated 5.10.2004 to the Principal Secretary to Government, Commerce and Industries Department expressing his concern about acquisition proceedings in favour of 19 industries approved by the State through Single Window Agency and requested the Government to check the credential of the industry before allotting the land. In this regard, there was a discussion held on 13.12.2004 between the Principal Secretary, Commissioner for Industrial Development, CEO and Executive Manager of KIADB, Managing Director, Karnataka Udyog Mitra and others and it was decided to go ahead with the acquisition. The Government issued notification for deletion of acquisition of certain lands at Bellandur. Aggrieved by the order passed in Writ Petitions, Civil Appeal No. 3540/2006 was filed before the Supreme Court of India, which came to be dismissed. Since this Court in its Order dated 6.3.2013 in W.P. No. 17539/2004 and connected matters has held that there is no illegality in acquisition of the land for the ultimate benefit of single entity, the allegations now made in respect of the acquisition proceedings do not stand. The Writ Appeal No. 2898/2013 against the order in W.P. No. 17539/2004 and connected matters by P. Narayanappa was dismissed for non- prosecution. 6. The Writ Appeal No. 2898/2013 against the order in W.P. No. 17539/2004 and connected matters by P. Narayanappa was dismissed for non- prosecution. 6. Learned Counsel continues with his submissions that, the Sessions Judge in his order has taken note of the Gazette Notification dated 13.2.2004 and 21.6.2006 whereby certain lands are denotified, but as on the said date, the petitioner was not the Minister for Industries. The notification of 13.2.2004 was under Section 28(1) of K.I.A.D.B. Act and it excludes some of the lands from acquisition and it is not a deletion. This notification was also in the purview of this Court in W.P. No. 49979/2003 and connected matters, one of which is filed by P. Narayanappa/father of the complainant. The learned Special Judge has lost sight of the office note in the Entry No. 347 that M/s. Infosys Technologies Limited vide letter dated 3.2.2004 voluntarily withdrew from pursuing acquisition formalities for their own reason and sought for refund of the deposit amount. Hence, the KIADB in its 257th meeting dated 30.4.2004 decided to refund the amount to M/s. Infosys Technologies Limited. The complainant was very well aware of the subsequent developments that, in response to a letter of the C.E.O., KIADB, the Principal Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Industry and Commerce wrote back to the CEO of KIADB, seeking information about the status of acquisition proceedings in favour of 19 industries. On 13th December 2004, there was a discussion between the Principal Secretary to the Government, Secretary to the Government, Commissioner for Industrial Development and Director for Industries and Commerce, CEO and EM, KIADB, Managing Director of Karnataka Udyog Mitra and others. In that meeting it was decided that acquisition process has to be completed expeditiously. Despite the same, the complainant produced the selective documents only along with his complaint. Above all, the petitioner's actions during his tenure as Minister of Industries is called in question, he being a public servant within the meaning of Section2(c) of the Act, 1988, thereby entitled for protection of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court, the Court could not have entertained the complaint without previous sanction of the State Government as per the mandatory provision of Section 19(1) of the Act. The learned Special Judge has acted on the misleading facts averred in the complaint; registration of complaint has seriously affected petitioner's reputation and it is required to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of process of law. 7. In reply, Sri. Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that, the respondent No. 2 herein is a prompt public spirited person and not indulged in any illegal activity and is not at wrecking vengeance against the petitioner. Though it is true that his father filed W.P. Nos. 51126-27/2003, Writ Appeal No. 1535/2004 connected with 1595-1605/2004 and the acquisition proceedings are upheld, he has collected all the material and documents to establish the fraud played by this petitioner behind the screen. On a perusal of these records only, the Special Court felt that an investigation is necessary and has referred the matter for investigation. During the pendency of the Writ Appeal No. 2898/2013 (challenging the order of dismissal of W.P. Nos. 17539-40/2004 challenging the acquisition in favour of M/s. Royale Fragrance Pvt. Ltd.), the father of this complainant expired and the petition was not disposed of on merits, but it was dismissed at the stage for non-compliance of offence objection. Now the complainant and his brothers have filed applications to recall the above said order. The private complaint is not only in respect of acquisition pertaining to lands owned by the complainant and his family, but relates to acquisition of land in the villages lying in the I.T. Corridar. All the contentions presented by the petitioner cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The complainant as a responsible citizen is highlighting the colossal fraud and abuse of power by the petitioner in collusion with co-accused. He is only an informant. If the documents relied by the petitioner are sufficient to prove his innocence, naturally the Investigating Officer would file a 'B' report. The very returns filed by the petitioner before the Election Commission would disclose the amount of wealth he has amassed. This is a part of the wealth diverted in the name of the Trust, Partnership firms, Companies of his children, etc. Mere upholding of the acquisition by this Court will not presuppose that there was no fraud in the post-acquisition allotment, denotification of land from acquisition, etc. This is a part of the wealth diverted in the name of the Trust, Partnership firms, Companies of his children, etc. Mere upholding of the acquisition by this Court will not presuppose that there was no fraud in the post-acquisition allotment, denotification of land from acquisition, etc. In Writ Petition No. 17539/2004 and connected matters, this Court had noticed that one of the project companies/Vikas Telecom had hived of its project at Rs. 800 crores and it was for the KIADB to take action. But KIADB itself permitted the sale of the project. 9. Learned Senior Counsel while addressing on the requirement of sanction for prosecution submits that, at the stage of referring the matter for investigation the Special Judge is not taking cognizance. It is pre-cognizance stage and Section 19(1) of the Act and pre-requisite of sanction for prosecution is at the stage he applies his mind to the police report after investigation and no illegality is committed by the Special Judge in referring the matter to investigation. Relying on the judgment in the case of Srinivas Gundluri and Others vs. Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation and others, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 206 , learned Counsel submits that while proceeding under Section156(3) of the Code, the Magistrate is only required to read and find out whether a cognizable offence is made out or not and if made out, he would direct for police investigation. No error is committed by the Learned Magistrate in referring the matter for investigation. This Court will not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to scuttle the investigation. 10. It emerges from the order under consideration that, the Special Court on perusal of the complaint averments and on giving its audience to the complainant's Counsel has held that there is no concrete material that accused Nos. 3 to 10 influenced accused No. 1 in commission of the offence, but found that there is prima facie material touching the alleged acts committed by this petitioner and the second accused Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa, Former Chief Minister. While landing to such opinion, the learned Special Court has placed its reliance on document Nos. 10 to 12, which are the Xerox copies of I.T. policy published by Government, Gazette Notification dated 13.02.2014 and proceeds of denotification respectively. B.S. Yeddyurappa, Former Chief Minister. While landing to such opinion, the learned Special Court has placed its reliance on document Nos. 10 to 12, which are the Xerox copies of I.T. policy published by Government, Gazette Notification dated 13.02.2014 and proceeds of denotification respectively. The learned Special Judge invokes his jurisdiction to refer the matter for investigation to find out whether said approval by the petitioner is in accordance with law or not. Further, while stressing upon the letter of the Chief Executive Officer of KIADB whereby it was expressed that the denotification needs reconsideration, holds that it is also a matter which equally needs investigation. While holding so, the Special Judge is not clear as to in respect of which offence prima facie material is available on record. He overlooks that there is no specification as to what properties the petitioner or his men have acquired out of denotified land and by how much he enriched himself. 11. The underlining question here is, there is categorical allegation in the complaint that this petitioner being the Former Minister of Industries in collusion with accused Nos. 2 to 10 acted dishonestly and fraudulently and in conspiracy with each other to loot the valuable lands for their personal benefits, indulged in the acts of manipulation of records, exercise of undue influence and cheating, but accused Nos. 3 to 10 are dropped having found no proof against them by the very same order. That being so, how the investigation can be proceeded against two accused persons only leaving aside alleged co-conspirators? The Investigating Agency, with half story in their hand, are now called upon to target two accused persons only, discerning the allegation about involvement of the co-accused. 12. It appears that the Special Judge without examining the documentary proof annexed to the complaint has placed his reliance on the documents-10 to 12 as the proof of complaint allegation. But document No. 10 is the I.T. Policy published by the Government and it has nothing to do with complaint allegations. Document No. 11 are the two Gazette Notifications; one is dated 21.6.2006 and another is dated 13.2.2004. Admittedly, the petitioner was not the Minister as on 21.6.2006. The notification of 13.2.2004 is not the denotification but the notification issued under Section 28(1) of KIADB Act. Document No. 12 is the proceedings of denotification. Document No. 11 are the two Gazette Notifications; one is dated 21.6.2006 and another is dated 13.2.2004. Admittedly, the petitioner was not the Minister as on 21.6.2006. The notification of 13.2.2004 is not the denotification but the notification issued under Section 28(1) of KIADB Act. Document No. 12 is the proceedings of denotification. The learned Special Judge relies on the item No. 347 of this document as the approval for denotification. It is a misreading of the document. The item No. 347 pertains to the period subsequent to the tenure of the petitioner as the Minister for Large and Medium Scale Industries. Item Nos. 160 to 274 of this document pertain to tenure of the petitioner as the Minister for Large and Medium Scale Industries wherein lands are denotified. The beneficiaries of this notification are not in the array of the accused persons in the complaint. No material is shown that by these notifications, the petitioner had pecuniary advantage for himself. 13. The main allegation in the complaint is the allotment of land in favour of M/s. Vikas Telecom, Supreme Build Cap Private Limited and Royale Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. The documents produced by the petitioner confirm that the complainant's father fought the acquisition of these lands unsuccessfully upto Supreme Court. The legality of the acquisition having been upheld by judicial pronouncements, the complainant cannot paint criminal complexion to the very same transaction. He cannot express ignorance of the legal battle fought by his father in the matter unsuccessfully. Definitely, the principles of res judicata would apply so far the allegation of malafides in acquiring the lands are concerned. Suppressing the material facts about the previous litigations, he is using the Criminal Court as his instrument for criminal prosecution. M/s. Infosys Technologies Limited for whose benefit the land in Bellandur was acquired voluntarily rescinded as could be noticed from the records. In its judgment in the case of Rajib Ranjan and Others vs. R. Vijaykumar, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 513 , the Apex Court on finding that the complainant after losing battle in civil litigation filed complaint for the offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860, held that the complaint amounted to misuse and abuse of law and quashed the complaint. 14. The allegation is that the petitioner has committed offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. 14. The allegation is that the petitioner has committed offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Before exercising its jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., the learned Judge ought to have put the matter on scale to verify whether the complaint allegations even if assumed to be true and correct, is able to bring home the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act? For the better appreciation of the facts on hand, let me recite clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 13and sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. "13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant. - (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,- (a)...... (b)...... (c)...... (d) if he,- (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or (e)...... (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than four years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine". 15. Sub-section 2(d) being the penal provision, the learned Judge ought to have examined whether any of sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 13have semblance to the matrix placed before him. The complaint lacks material particulars like, what is that valuable thing or pecuniary advantage the petitioner has obtained by corrupt or illegal means and to what extent? from whom? and when? Any administrative action taken by a public person if can be tainted with aspersions woven with filaments of imagination, for personal reasons, and the Magistrate without applying his mind refers the same for police investigation, the public servant will be the victim of unnecessary police investigation and harassment even before cognizance of the offense is taken by the Court. 16. The reference of a complaint for Police investigation is an important stage. 16. The reference of a complaint for Police investigation is an important stage. Consistently the Apex Court and the High Courts have held that while exercising the power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to order for investigation. An order of investigation without application of mind of the Magistrate is without jurisdiction. (Jamuna Singh and Others vs. Bhadai Shah, AIR 1964 SC 1541 ; Gopal Das vs. State of Assam, AIR 1961 SC 986 ; P.R. Venugopal vs. S.M. Krishna, the Chief Minister of Karnataka and others, 2003(6) KLJ 507; Guruduth Prabhu and Others vs. M.S. Krishna Bhat, 1999 Cri.L.J. 3909; Maksud Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat, (2008) 5 SCC 668 and Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. State of U.P. & others, AIR 2015 SC 1758 . 17. In the judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 in the matter of State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, the Apex Court categorized certain circumstances in which the High Court can exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings relating to cognizable offence to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Two of the categories among others are (i) 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 constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by the Police Officers under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. except under an order of the Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. Present complaint qualifies under both the categories. It could never have been the intention of our lawmakers that, a speculative complaint be made against a person and later if possible something could be fished out against him. Though the learned Special Judge has gone through the complaint allegation, he has missed the track in not finding out how the allegations of manipulation of records, exercise of undue influence, cheating etc. can sustain without the bone of material particulars. Though the learned Special Judge has gone through the complaint allegation, he has missed the track in not finding out how the allegations of manipulation of records, exercise of undue influence, cheating etc. can sustain without the bone of material particulars. The learned Special Judge in ordering investigation to dig out whether the notification approved for denotation is in accordance with law or not is transgression of jurisdiction vested with him under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., which calls for examination of complaint, and his satisfaction that the complaint allegation coupled with documentary material disclose the commission of cognizable offence. 18. By his order the Special Judge is at probing legality or otherwise of action taken. While doing so, he has lost sight of one important fact that the petitioner being a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c)(viii) of the Act and the acts alleged pertain to his public duty within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act, he has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint without previous sanction of the State Government under Section 19 of the Act and to take cognizance against him in respect of the offence under Section 13 of the Act. The rival submission on behalf of the respondents that at the stage of the referring the matter for police investigation, sanction is not the pre-requisition, is not the correct proposition for discussions to follow. 19. The Apex Court in Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 64 , considered the issue as to at what stage the question regarding sanction would arise as below: "34. The argument of the learned Attorney General that the question of granting sanction for prosecution of a public servant charged with an offence under the 1988 Act arises only at the stage of taking cognizance and not before that is neither supported by the plain language of the section nor the judicial precedents relied upon by him. Though, the term 'cognizance' has not been defined either in the 1988 Act or the Cr.P.C., the same has acquired a definite meaning and connotation from various judicial precedents. In legal parlance cognizance is "taking judicial notice by the court of law, possessing jurisdiction, on a cause or matter presented before it so as to decide whether there is any basis for initiating proceedings and determination of the cause or matter judicially". 64. In legal parlance cognizance is "taking judicial notice by the court of law, possessing jurisdiction, on a cause or matter presented before it so as to decide whether there is any basis for initiating proceedings and determination of the cause or matter judicially". 64. I also entirely agree with the conclusion of learned brother Singhvi, J., that the argument of the learned Attorney General thatquestion for granting sanction for prosecution of a public servant charged with offences under the 1988 Act arises only at the stage of cognizance is also not acceptable. In formulating this submission, the learned Attorney General substantially advanced two contentions.The first contention is that an order granting sanction is not required to be filed along with a complaint in connection with a prosecution under Section 19 of the P.C. Act. The aforesaid submission is contrary to the settled law laid down by this Court in various judgments. (emphasis supplied) 64.1. Recently a unanimous three judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Paras Nath Singh, [ (2009) 6 SCC 372 ], speaking through Justice Pasayat and construing the requirement of sanction, held that without sanction: "6.....'10.....The very cognizance is barred. That is, the complaint cannot be taken notice of. According to Black's Law Dictionary the word 'cognizance' means 'jurisdiction' or 'the exercise of jurisdiction' or 'power to try and determine causes'. In common parlance, it means taking notice of. A court, therefore, is precluded from entertaining a complaint or taking notice of it or exercising jurisdiction fit is in respect of a public servant who is accused of an offence alleged to have been committed during discharge of his official duty." 64.2. The other contention of the learned Attorney General is that in taking cognizance under the P.C. Act the Court is guided by the provisions under Section 190 of the Code and in support of that contention the learned Attorney General relied on several judgments." 20. Thus, it was laid down that the order of granting sanction needs to the filed along with the complaint in connection with prosecution under Section 19 of the Act. In Birendra K. Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in (2008) 1 SCC 498, the Apex Court held that while dealing with Section 197 of Cr.P.C., without a sanction order, the complaint cannot be entertained. In Birendra K. Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in (2008) 1 SCC 498, the Apex Court held that while dealing with Section 197 of Cr.P.C., without a sanction order, the complaint cannot be entertained. Yet in another case, General Officer Commanding vs. CBI in Crl.A. No. 257/2011, the Apex Court summed up the law on the point at para No. 55, as below: "Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue of sanction can be summarized to the effect that the question of sanction is of paramount importance for protecting a public servant who has acted in good faith while performing his duty. In order that the public servant may not be unnecessarily harassed on a complaint of an unscrupulous person, it is obligatory on the part of the executive authority to protect him..... If the law requires sanction, and the court proceeds against a public servant without sanction, the public servant has a right to raise the issue of jurisdiction as the entire action may be rendered void ab-initio for want of sanction". 21. This Court in the case of B.V. Acharya vs. N. Venkateshaiah and another in W.P. No. 14047/2012 (GM-RES) D.D. 3.8.2012, following the principles covering the area, has held that private complaint not accompanied by the sanction order from the competent authority, the order of the learned Special Judge will have to be held as without jurisdiction. Endorsing the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the above case, it needs to be ascertained in the present case also that the learned Special Judge has acted without jurisdiction in referring the complaint which did not accompany the sanction order from the competent authority. 22. Once it is held that the order under consideration is without jurisdiction, it is void-ab-initio and any consequential proceedings will not stand and it is a fit case to intervene under the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 23. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The complaint dated 5.7.2013 so far this petitioner herein is concerned, registered in PCR No. 51/2013 and the order dated 18.2.2015 passed by the XXIII Additional City Civil and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act at Bangalore in referring the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., are hereby quashed.