JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the prosecution sanction dated 2.10.2014 granted by the State Government to launch prosecution against him for offence under Section 13(1 )(d) and (e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that In the year 2010 when the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer (Medical & Health Division) Jaipur and was having charge of some construction works being conducted at Alwar and Dausa Districts, FIR No. 375/2010 came to be registered against him on 29.10.2010 at Principal Police 1 Station, ACB, Jaipur on the premise that on 10.9.2010 when on the basis of some secret information Indica Car bearing registration No. RJ- 14-T-7971 in which the petitioner was travelling from Alwar to Jaipur was Intercepted and checked near Pooja Hotel Bye-pass Road Malakhera by the Additional Superintendent of Police ACB in the presence of two independent witnesses, a total amount of Rs. 85,900/- was recovered from the possession of the petitioner for which satisfactory explanation could not be furnished by him. As required under Section 19(1) of the Act prosecution sanction was sought by the ACB after collecting evidence during investigation conducted on the basis of the aforesaid FIR and the same was granted by the competent authority by way of impugned order dated 2.10.2014. It has not been disputed that in respect of the petitioner Minister-in-charge of the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan was the competent authority to grant the requisite sanction and at the relevant time Chief Minister was holding the charge of the aforesaid department. 3. It has not been disputed that in respect of the petitioner Minister-in-charge of the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan was the competent authority to grant the requisite sanction and at the relevant time Chief Minister was holding the charge of the aforesaid department. 3. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following grounds (1) The evidence collected by the investigating officer during investigation was placed before the concerned department and the competent officer of the same after considering the evidence so collected and the representations made by the petitioner found that it would be hard to prove the allegation made against the petitioner and it was recommended by him that it is not a fit case in which prosecution sanction as required under Section 19 of the Act is to granted, but subsequently without collecting fresh evidence and with the change of Government it was recommended that sufficient evidence is available to launch prosecution against the petitioner and by means of the impugned order prosecution sanction was granted whereas it Is settled legal position that once prosecution sanction has been refused by the competent authority, such an order cannot be reviewed and prosecution sanction cannot be granted at least without collecting fresh evidence. In the present case, the Chief Minister ordered for summoning of some more documents which were although summoned accordingly, but when fresh note-sheets for grant of sanction was prepared, the same were not considered and without application of mind sanction was granted mechanically considering the note- sheets prepared by the concerned officer. (2) It is well settled legal position that the competent authority must independently apply his mind to grant or not to grant prosecution sanction and for that purpose entire material placed before him including the evidence collected by the investigating agency during investigation as well as the representations made by the accused and the material produced by him in support of the representations must be properly considered, but in the present case no such exercise has been made by the competent authority and the sanction has been granted mechanically only on the basis of note-sheet prepared by the concerned offices more particularly without considering the fact that previously the same office recommended that it is not a fit case in which prosecution sanction is to be granted. The impugned order dated 2.10.2014 does not reflect that the representations made and the material produced by the petitioner in support of the same were also considered by the competent authority. (3) Even if the case of the prosecution is admitted for the sake of arguments even then no offence under clause (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act can be said to be made out as the essential ingredients of the aforesaid offence are entirely lacking. For an offence to be made out against a public servant under clause (d), it is essential that he by corrupt or illegal means obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage or by abusing his position as a public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage or while holding office as a public servant obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. It is thus clear that unless the public servant "obtains any" valuable thing or pecuniary advantage offence under this clause cannot be made out whereas in the present case no iota of evidence has been collected during investigation showing that the petitioner at any time "obtained" such advantage or thing. When the basic ingredient of the offence is absent how the competent authority can give prosecution sanction for such an offence and this fact alone is clear indication of the fact that it was granted mechanically without application of mind. Similarly, for an offence to be made out under clause (e), it is essential that the public servant or any person on his behalf is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. In the present case, the check period is only for one day whereas the petitioner is in Government service since 1982 and he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 2001. During his service period the petitioner has earned lacs of rupees by way of salary and, therefore, the amount of Rs. 25,000/- found in the possession of the petitioner cannot be said to be an amount which is disproportionate to his known sources of income. During his service period the petitioner has earned lacs of rupees by way of salary and, therefore, the amount of Rs. 25,000/- found in the possession of the petitioner cannot be said to be an amount which is disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was out of his home for few days for inspection purpose and it was natural for him to have in his possession some money for his personal use during this period. So far as the amount of Rs. 60,000/- is concerned, it was satisfactorily accounted for by the petitioner, but the competent authority did not properly consider the explanation furnished by the petitioner. It is not a case in which the movable and Immovable property found in the possession of the petitioner was checked and it was found that the value of the same is disproportionate to the known sources of income of the petitioner and he failed to satisfactorily account for the same. (4) The incident pertains to the year 2010 whereas the prosecution sanction has been granted with a delay of about four years for which no explanation has been furnished. It is well settled legal position that if unnecessary and unexplained delay is made for granting prosecution sanction, it vitiates the entire proceedings and it is a clear indication of the fact that it has been granted with an oblique motive only to harass the accused. 4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the cases of Mansukhlal Vithal Chauhan v. State of Gujarat reported in (1997) 7 SCC 622 , Subash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 5 SCC 86 , State of Karnataka v. Ameer Jan reported in AIR 2008 SC 108 , State of Punjab & anr. v. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti reported in (2009) 17 SCC 92 , State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen reported in (2010) 14 SCC 527 , Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman, Airport Authority of India & Anr. reported in (2012) 1 SCC 532 and Subhash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 5 SCC 86 . 5. v. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti reported in (2009) 17 SCC 92 , State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen reported in (2010) 14 SCC 527 , Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman, Airport Authority of India & Anr. reported in (2012) 1 SCC 532 and Subhash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 5 SCC 86 . 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General Shri B.N. Sandhu controverting the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner submitted that although initially the offices of the concerned department recommended that it is not a fit case in which prosecution sanction is to be granted, but the same was not approved by the competent authority and some more documents were ordered to be summoned which were accordingly called and after considering the same it was recommended that it is a fit case in which prosecution sanction is to be granted and the competent authority i.e. the Chief Minister after considering the entire material placed before her found it a fit case in which sanction is to be granted to launch prosecution for the aforesaid offence. As the initial recommendation was not approved by the competent authority and prosecution sanction was not refused it cannot be said that the competent authority reviewed only order for not granting prosecution sanction although no fresh material was collected. It was further submitted that the order of sanction is not a judicial order, but it is an administrative order and it is well settled legal position that only prima facie has to be seen whether sufficient evidence is available on record so as to grant prosecution sanction and at such stage detailed analysis of the same is not required. It was also submitted that whether the sanction order is legally tenable or not or the essential ingredients of the offence are present or not is to be seen during trial and not at this preliminary stage. Prosecution should be granted opportunity to satisfy the Court during trial that the sanction has been granted by the competent authority after due application of mind and considering entire material placed before it. 6. In support of his submissions, learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the case of Kesari Chand Sethia v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2014 (1) RLW 279 (Raj.) , Abdul Aziz Gauri v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 6. In support of his submissions, learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the case of Kesari Chand Sethia v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2014 (1) RLW 279 (Raj.) , Abdul Aziz Gauri v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2014 (3) RLW 2611 (Raj.) and Manzoor Ali Khan v. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2014 Cri.L.J.4257 (SC) 7. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the material made available on record as well as the relevant legal provisions and the case law. 8. In the case of CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal reported in 2014 Crl.L.J.930 (Supreme Court) , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "Sanction lifts the bar for prosecution. Therefore, it is not an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to the Government servant against frivolous prosecution. Further, it is a weapon to discourage vexations prosecution and is a safeguard for the Innocent, though not a shield for the guilty. There Is an obligation on the sanctioning authority to discharge Its duty to give or withhold sanction only after having full knowledge of the material facts of the case. The prosecution must, therefore, send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statement of witnesses, recovery memos; draft charge-sheet and all other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the material/document, If any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction. The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking Into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging Its duty to give or withhold the sanction. The power to grant sanction Is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public Interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction Is sought. The order of sanction should make It evident that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material. The power to grant sanction Is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public Interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction Is sought. The order of sanction should make It evident that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material. In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the Court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law." 9. It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the stage of examining the validity of sanction is during the trial and we do not propose to say that the validity should be examined during the stage of inquiry or at pretrial stage. 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh G. Jain reported in (2013) 8 SCC 119 , has held as under:- "Grant of sanction is a sacrosanct act and is intended to provide safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigations. Grant to sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence. Satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is essential to validate an order granting sanction. It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out. The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before it and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution. The prosecution may prove by ad during the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before it. If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before it and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction. The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order. If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before it and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction. The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order. An order of sanction should not be construed in a pendantic manner and there should not be a hypertechnical approach to test its validity. When there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. The flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of an accused." 11. In the case of Prakash Singh Badal & anr. v. State of Punjab & ors. reported in (2007) 1 SCC 1 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no need to obtain sanction for prosecution of a person, alleged to have been committed offences in the capacity of a public servant, where cognisance of such offences is taken after he had already ceased to hold the office in question, though he may continue to be a public servant in any other capacity at the time of taking cognisance. It was further held that question as to existence of sanction can be agitated at threshold of trial, but question as to vitiation of sanction order has to be raised during trial. It was also held that law required that before the sanctioning authority materials must be placed so that 'it can apply its mind and take a decision. Whether there is application of mind would depend on facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any generalised guidelines in this regard, the relevant date with reference to which a valid sanction is sine qua non for taking cognisance of an offence 5 committed by a public servant as required by Section 19 of the Act is the date on which the Court is called upon to take cognisance of the offence of which he is accused. Sanctioning authority is not required to separately specify each of the offences against the accused public servant. This is required to be done at the stage of framing of charge. 12. In the case of Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh & anr. Sanctioning authority is not required to separately specify each of the offences against the accused public servant. This is required to be done at the stage of framing of charge. 12. In the case of Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh & anr. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 64 , it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that grant or refusal of sanction is not a quasi-judicial function and the person for whose prosecution the sanction is sought is not required to be heard by the Competent Authority before it takes a decision in the matter. What is required 15 to be seen by the Competent Authority is whether the facts placed before it which, in a given case, may include the material collected by the complainant or the investigating agency prima facie disclose commission of an offence by a public servant. If the competent authority is satisfied with the material placed before it is sufficient for prosecution of the public servant, then it is required to grant sanction. If the satisfaction of the Competent Authority is otherwise, then it can refuse sanction. It was further held that sanction is not required if alleged corrupt act relates to office which has since been demitted by the public servant. It was also held that today, corruption in India not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very 5 foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. the magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our Preambular vision. The duty of the Court is that any anti- corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. In a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it. 13. The duty of the Court is that any anti- corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. In a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it. 13. The Single Bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Priya Ranjan Kumar Mehta v. State of Bihar reported in 2012 Cri.L.J.1395 , has held that the order of cognisance on ground of non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority cannot be assailed at the initial stage of a criminal case, that too, at the time of cognisance. This point cannot properly be examined and decided by the High Court, that too, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The plea whether the sanctioning authority at the time of according sanction had examined document/material/applied his mind or not, can only be tested during the trial when witnesses are produced, examined and cross-examined. At the initial stage of cognisance, it is not desirable for High Court to delve on such aspect. 14. In the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that sanction lifts the bar for prosecution. The grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to Government Servants against frivolous prosecutions. Sanction is a weapon to ensure discouragement of frivolous and vexatious prosecutions and is a safeguard for the innocent but not a shield for the guilty. The validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority and the fact that all the relevant facts, material and evidence have been considered by the sanctioning authority. Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction must ex-facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. This fact can also be established by extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant files before the Court to show that all relevant facts were considered by the sanctioning authority. Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction must ex-facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. This fact can also be established by extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant files before the Court to show that all relevant facts were considered by the sanctioning authority. Since the validity of "Sanction" depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation, it necessarily follows that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. The mind of the sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it to take decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration. If it is shown that the sanctioning authority was unable to apply its independent mind for any reason whatsoever or was under an obligation or compulsion or constraint to grant the sanction, the order will be bad for the reason that the discretion of the authority "not to sanction" was taken away and it was compelled to act mechanically to sanction the prosecution. 15. In the case of Subhash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 5 SCC 86 (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Court that for convicting the person under Section 13(1 )(d), there must be evidence on record that' accused 'obtained' for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by either corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant or he obtained for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. 16. In the case of State of Karnataka v. Ameer Jan reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 108 (supra), it was held that ordinarily, before passing an order of sanction, the entire records containing the materials collected against the accused should be placed before the sanctioning authority. 16. In the case of State of Karnataka v. Ameer Jan reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 108 (supra), it was held that ordinarily, before passing an order of sanction, the entire records containing the materials collected against the accused should be placed before the sanctioning authority. In the event, the order of sanction does not indicate application of mind as to the materials placed before the said authority before the order of sanction was passed, the same may be produced before the court to show that such materials had in fact been produced. 17. In the case of State of Punjab & anr. v. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti (supra), it was held by the Hon'ble Court that it is permissible for the competent authority to review an earlier sanction order but serious application of mind on the part of the authority concerned as to existence of fresh material is imperative. The reviewing authority granting sanction after a change in Government without any fresh/new materials is improper. 18. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen reported in (2010) 14 SCC 527 , it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is true that the Government in the matter go grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory power and that would not mean that power once exercised cannot be exercised again or at a subsequent stage in the absence of express power of review in no circumstance whatsoever. The power of review, however, is not unbridled or unrestricted. It seems a sound principle to follow that once the statutory power under Section 19 of the 1988 Act or Section 197 of the Code has been exercised by the Government or the competent authority, as the case may be, it is not permissible for the sanctioning authority to review or reconsider the matter on the same materials again. It is so because unrestricted power of review may not bring finality to such exercise and on change of the Government or change of the person authorised to exercise power of sanction, the matter concerning sanction may be reopened by such authority for the reasons best known to it and a different order may be passed. The opinion on the same materials, thus, may keep on changing and there may not be any end to such statutory exercise. 19. The opinion on the same materials, thus, may keep on changing and there may not be any end to such statutory exercise. 19. In the case of Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman, Airport Authority of India & anr. reported in (2012) 1 SCC 532 , it was held that where sanction : order exists, but its legality and validity is put in question, such issue has to be raised in the course of trial whereas the question of absence of sanction can, be agitated at the threshold. 20. In the case of Abdul Aziz Gauri v. State of Rajasthan & Ors reported in 2014 (3) RLW 2611 (Raj.) , a Single Bench of our High Court has held that the provisions of the Act did not exclude reconsideration or re-appraisal of the sanction order or Office-Note of discharge given by the competent authority at one stage which was never communicated to the accused. 21. In the case of Manzoor Alikhan v. Union of India (supra), it wail observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while considering the issued regarding grant or refusal of sanction, the only thing which the competed authority is required to see is whether the material placed by the investigating agency prima facie discloses commission of an offence. The competed authority can not undertake a detailed inquiry to decide whether or not this allegations made against the public servant are true. 22. On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respect parties and the material made available for my perusal as well as the relevant legal provisions and the case law, I am of the considered view that the present petition being not tenable is liable to be dismissed on the following grounds:- (1) At the time of commission of the alleged offence the petitioner vail holding the post of Executive Engineer (Medical & Health Department), Jaipur while at the time of grant of sanction he was holding the post the Superintendent Engineer, PWD, National Highway, Bikaner and, therefore although at the time of grant of sanction the petitioner was continuing to hold a post as a public servant in some other capacity, but as he already ceased to hold the office in question, there was no need to obtain the sanction top prosecute the petitioner and the question of validity of the same has become academic. (2) Material available on record shows that initially the competent officer of the concerned department merely prepared office Note-Sheets observing that the material collected during investigation is not sufficient to launch prosecution against the petitioner and it was recommended that prosecution sanction is not to be granted, but the same was not approved and sanction was not refused by the competent authority, but it was ordered that some more documents may be called. From the material made available on record It Is further manifest that In compliance of the order of the competent authority, the relevant documents were called from the Investigating agency and the competent officer of the concerned department after taking Into consideration the documents so called found that It Is a fit case In which sanction Is to be granted. It Is further clear that the competent authority after taking Into consideration the evidence collected during Investigation and the entire material placed before It, prima facie found It a fit case In which prosecution sanction is to be granted against the petitioner. Therefore, It cannot be said that the competent authority reviewed Its earlier order refusing sanction without collection of fresh evidence/material. (3) As per well settled legal position it was not expected from the sanctioning authority to undertake a detailed inquiry before granting sanction and to come to a definite conclusion that evidence has been collected sufficient to convict the petitioner. At this stage of the proceedings only prima facie is to be seen whether prosecution has to be launched against the accused or not. In the present case also the sanctioning authority has prima facie satisfied herself that it is a fit case in which prosecution sanction is to be granted. (4) Similarly, at the stage of granting sanction on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating agency only prima facie has to be seen whether the offence for which sanction has been sought is made out or not. Detailed inquiry is not required to be undertaken to see whether the requisite each and every ingredient of the offence is present or not. It is for the trial Court to find out the same after considering the evidence made available on record by both the parties during trial. The adequacy and sufficiency of the evidence required to prove the alleged offence cannot be looked at this stage. It is for the trial Court to find out the same after considering the evidence made available on record by both the parties during trial. The adequacy and sufficiency of the evidence required to prove the alleged offence cannot be looked at this stage. (5) It is not the case of absence of prosecution sanction requiring examination at the initial stage, but it is a case In which validity of the same has been challenged. In view of the well settled legal position that validity of the order of sanction is to be examined during trial, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is not tenable at this stage. The prosecutor must get opportunity during trial to prove that the sanction order expressly shows that the sanctioning authority perused the material placed before it and after consideration of the circumstances has granted sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner. During trial the prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before it. This Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 Cr.RC. cannot go into the adequacy and sufficiency of the evidence relied upon by the sanctioning authority. (6) As the grant of sanction is an administrative function, the petitioner was not required to be heard by the sanctioning authority before sanction was granted. The sanctioning authority was obliged to consider the evidence and material made available by the investigating agency. The representations and the material submitted by the petitioner was not required to be considered. The petitioner is free to submit the same before the trial Court at an appropriate stage. 23. Consequently, the petition being meritless is, hereby, dismissed at the admission stage only. The stay application also stands dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******