ORDER : Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance. 2. Initially, this application was filed for quashing of the order dated 28.11.2014 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, in Special Case No.25 of 2013 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.24 of 2013) whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the ground that the case was investigated by the Inspector in relation to Officer of gazetted rank, though the Inspector had never been authorized to investigate the case either by general letter or by the specific order. 3. The said ground taken on behalf of the petitioner is devoid of any merit, as by virtue of Notification No.3343 dated 21.07.2012, the Inspector has been authorized by the State to make investigation of the offences under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. The other ground, which was taken on behalf of the petitioner is that charges were framed by the court, without taking into account the certain documents which were there on the record establishing that the petitioner had never put forth any demand before the complainant and if there has been no demand of any illegal gratification, the prosecution cannot be maintained. Further submission, which was advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that sanction for prosecution has never been accorded by the competent person and that too, sanction has been accorded without application of mind. 5. So far submission, regarding non-consideration of material is concerned, said submission appears to be devoid of any merit. 6. I, having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance, do find that the trial court, after taking into account the entire case, rightly framed the charges. 7. 5. So far submission, regarding non-consideration of material is concerned, said submission appears to be devoid of any merit. 6. I, having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance, do find that the trial court, after taking into account the entire case, rightly framed the charges. 7. So far submission relating to defect in the sanction order is concerned, that cannot be interfered with at this stage, in view of Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under Section 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which, inter alia, make it clear that any error, omission or irregularity in the grant of sanction will not affect any finding, sentence or order passed by a competent court unless in the opinion of the court a failure of justice has occasioned, which proposition has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Rajmangal Ram reported in AIR 2014 Supreme Court 1674 [: 2014(2) JLJR (SC) 324]. 8. In view of the aforesaid proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise the issue relating to sanction and also other issues, as has been indicated above during trial. 9. Thus, I do not find any merit in this application and hence, it is dismissed.