JUDGMENT : 1. Both the aforesaid misc. petitions shall stand decided by this common order as they arise out of the same complaint. 2. The criminal misc. petition No. 2626/2014 has been filed by the petitioner-Man Singh against whom the complaint was filed.The criminal misc. petition No. 2057/2014 has been filed by the State of Rajasthan. 3. Both these petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the Order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bikaner vide which while forwarding the complaint direction has been issued to the investigating agency to conduct preliminary enquiry and in case, commission of any offence is found then F.I.R. shall be registered. 4. The State of Rajasthan has also challenged the Order dated 28.05.2014 vide which the application for setting aside the Order dated 11.12.2013 was dismissed on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to review its' own order. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bikaner for registering the F.I.R. against the public servant on a private complaint could not have been passed and the private complaint itself could not have been entertained in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar & ors. v. M.K. Aiyappa & ors. 2013 (4) RLW 3604 (SC) and has further stated that the direction to the investigating officer to register the F.I.R. in pursuance to a complaint filed without the copy of the sanction order was without jurisdiction. 6. Admittedly, there was no sanction in the present case. 7. In the case of Anil Kumar (supra), the High Court after hearing the parties, took the view that the Special Judge could not have taken notice of the private complaint unless the same was accompanied by a sanction order, irrespective of whether the Court was acting at a pre-cognizance stage or the post-cognizance stage, if the complaint pertains to a public servant who is alleged to have committed offences in discharge of his official duties. 8. The order of the High Court was challenged before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. 8. The order of the High Court was challenged before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. While upholding the order passed by the High Court, it was held in para 13 as under:- "Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants raised the contention that the requirement of sanction is only procedural in nature and hence, directory or else Section 19(3) would be rendered otiose. We find it difficult to accept that contention. Sub-section (3) of Section 19 has an object to achieve, which applies in circumstances where a Special Judge has already rendered a finding, sentence or order. In such an event, it shall not be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of absence of sanction. That does not mean that the requirement to obtain sanction is not a mandatory requirement. Once it is noticed that there was no previous sanction, as already indicated in various judgments referred to herein above, the Magistrate cannot order investigation against a public servant while invoking powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The above legal position, as already indicated, has been clearly spelt out in Paras Nath Singh and Subramanium Swamy cases (supra). " 9. Accordingly, the Apex Court confirmed the legal position that previous sanction was necessary even at the pre-cognizance stage and no complaint could be entertained unless it was accompanied by an order of sanction, leave alone giving a direction as was done in the present case. 10. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the matter is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment rendered in Anil Kumar and Ors. (supra). 11. Accordingly, both the misc. petitions are allowed. The impugned Orders dated 11.12.2013 as well as dated 28.05.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bikaner are set aside.