JUDGMENT & ORDER : Rajnish Kumar, J. Heard Sri Nandit K. Srivastava and Sri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel representing the petitioner and Sri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, learned counsel representing the C.B.I. 2. This petition by an accused named in the First Information Report No. RC AC1 2018 A 0001, dated 02.02.2018, under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7, 11 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that appropriate action against the Investigating Officer of the case and the Superintendent of Police be ordered to be taken for alleged irregularities committed by them in not following the statutory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also the provisions of C.B.I. Manual. Another prayer has been made in the writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 02.04.2018, passed by the court of learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, C.B.I., Central, Lucknow along with the subsequent order dated 16.04.2018. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he may be permitted to withdraw the prayer No. (ii). The said prayer, thus, is rejected as not pressed. 4. Primary submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that pursuant to the First Information Report dated 02.02.2018, without completing the investigation, a charge sheet has been filed on 59th day from the date the petitioner was taken into custody, just to deprive him of the benefit of the proviso (a) appended to Sub-section (2) of Section 167, Cr.P.C. It has also been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the provisions contained in the C.B.I. Manual, it was mandatory for the Investigating Officer/C.B.I. to have obtained sanction for prosecuting the petitioner first, before filing of the charge sheet and having not done so, the respondents have, in fact, created camouflage on the statutory right of the petitioner flowing from Sub-section (2) of Section 167, Cr.P.C. For the aforesaid illegal act, the prayer has, thus, been made for issuing appropriate direction to the authorities concerned to take appropriate action against the Investigating Officer and Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. as well. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to para 10.28 of Chapter 10 of the C.B.I. Manual, which is extracted herein below: "After completion of investigation, the FR-I shall be prepared by the I.O. The Law Officer will give his recommendation through the FR-II. The Superintendent of Police would, thereafter, either pass final orders in respect of the cases within his competence or obtain orders from the Competent Authority by sending his recommendations to the DIG concerned. After receipt of orders of the Competent Authority, if it is decided to prosecute the accused, necessary sanction for prosecution u/s 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Section 197 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, if any required, may be obtained by the Branch SP by sending as SPs Report and the relevant records to the Competent Authority. On receipt of the sanction, the Investigating Officer will prepare a self-contained draft charge-sheet giving details of investigation conducted and evidence/charges against each accused person in respect of each allegations. The said draft charge sheet shall be vetted by the Law Officer of the Branch and the Branch SP and also by the DIG in important cases and would, thereafter, be finalized and signed by the I.O. and forwarded to the Court by the SP along with the statements of listed witnessed and original relied-upon documents/articles and the sanction for prosecution, under Section 173, Cr.P.C." 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid provision contained in C.B.I. Manual is to be followed mandatorily by the Investigating Officer which, in unambiguous terms, provides that after completion of investigation, it is only on receipt of the sanction that the Investigating Officer is required to prepare a draft charge sheet which is to be vetted by the Law Officer and the Superintendent of Police concerned and also by the DI.G. in important cases and it is only thereafter that such draft charge sheet shall be finalized and signed by the Investigating Officer and will thereafter be forwarded to the court. 7. Sri Nandit K. Srivastava has submitted before the court that in the instant case the aforesaid procedure enumerated in paragraph 10.28 of Chapter 10 of the C.B.I. Manual has not been followed, inasmuch as admittedly, at the time when the charge sheet has been forwarded to the court against the petitioner the prosecution sanction was not obtained. 7. Sri Nandit K. Srivastava has submitted before the court that in the instant case the aforesaid procedure enumerated in paragraph 10.28 of Chapter 10 of the C.B.I. Manual has not been followed, inasmuch as admittedly, at the time when the charge sheet has been forwarded to the court against the petitioner the prosecution sanction was not obtained. He has, thus, stated that the Investigating Officer has acted in complete derogation of the prescriptions available in paragraph 10.28 of Chapter 10 of the C.B.I. Manual and has, thus, acted not only illegally but in fact such an act of the Investigating Officer has deprived the petitioner of his right to claim bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. Submission is that without obtaining sanction for prosecution, charge sheet could not have been filed and in the instant case, though there is no prosecution sanction till date, however, the charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer on the 59th day from the date the petitioner was arrested just to defeat and render the proviso (a) appended to Sub-section (2) of Section 167, Cr.P.C. otiose. In respect of his submission that provisions of C.B.I. Manual are statutory in nature and they are to be necessarily followed by the Investigating Officer in case any F.I.R. is being investigated by the C.B.I., reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineet Narain and others Vs. Union of India and another, (1998) SCC(Cri) 307. 8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashikant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others, (2007) 1 SCC(Cri) 406 and also in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2015) 1 SCC(Cri) 344. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the direction No.12 of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Vineet Narain, which have been summarized in paragraph 58 thereof. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2015) 1 SCC(Cri) 344. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the direction No.12 of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Vineet Narain, which have been summarized in paragraph 58 thereof. Direction No.12 as per the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is that C.B.I. Manual is based on statutory provisions of the Cr.P.C. and provides essential guidelines for the functioning of the C.B.I. and, therefore, it is imperative that the C.B.I. adheres scrupulously to the provisions in the Manual in relation to its investigative functions, like raids, seizure and arrests. Further direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that any deviation from the established procedure should be viewed seriously and severe disciplinary action should be taken against the officials concerned. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the direction Nos. 13 and 15 given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case, according to which the Director, C.B.I. is responsible to ensure filing of the charge sheet in courts within the stipulated time-limits and the matter should be kept under constant review of the C.B.I. Further direction is that time-limit of three months for grant of sanction for prosecution must be strictly adhered to. However, additional time of one month may be allowed where consultation is required with the Attorney General or any other law officer in the Attorney General's office. 11. Petition has vehemently been opposed by Sri Amerjeet Singh Rakhra, learned counsel representing the CBI, who has argued that there is no illegality in the action challenged herein. 12. So far as the directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineet Narain are concerned, they are salutary and C.B.I. and its officials/officers are bound by the same, however, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they are statutory in nature and therefore, violation thereof would result in any of the violations of any statutory right of an accused. The C.B.I. Manual is basically a compilation of the executive instructions and guidelines issued for the purposes of guiding its officials/officers in relation to discharge of their functions in the matters relating to the investigation/inquiry/prosecution etc. 13. The C.B.I. Manual is basically a compilation of the executive instructions and guidelines issued for the purposes of guiding its officials/officers in relation to discharge of their functions in the matters relating to the investigation/inquiry/prosecution etc. 13. There cannot be any doubt that any guidelines issued internally by an Organization or a Government Department needs to be followed and adhered to without any deviation, however, giving them the status of a statute, in our considered opinion, would not be permissible and accordingly, the argument that the violation of any such guideline will result in denial of any statutory right of an accused in such matters also appears to be highly mis-conceived. 14. In the instant case, the First Information Report was lodged on 02.02.2018 and the petitioner was arrested on the same day i.e. on 02.02.2018. Charge sheet appears to have been filed on 30.03.2018, which was forwarded to the court on 02.04.2018. The court after perusing the charge sheet on 02.04.2018 has passed the order that since till the said date sanction for prosecution was not obtained, no cognizance of the offence could be taken. The Court accordingly fixed the next date as 16.04.2018 for further proceeding for taking cognizance of the offence. 15. On 16.04.2018, it was observed by the court below that the prosecution sought some more time for procuring the sanction of prosecution and accordingly the matter has now been ordered to be listed before the court below on 30.04.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention to the charge sheet forwarded to the court by the Investigating Agency, wherein it has been stipulated that investigation is open under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. to look into the various other transactions and on the basis of such stipulation made in the charge sheet, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact the investigation in the matter was not complete and, therefore, before completion of the investigation, incomplete charge sheet could not have been filed and by doing so the Investigating Officer has only created a camouflage so as to deprive the right of the petitioner of being enlarged on bail mandatorilly in terms of the provision contained in proviso (a) appended to Sub-section (2) of Section 167, Cr.P.C. 16. The aforesaid submission though appears to be attractive, however, on deeper probe and analysis, we find it to be baseless which merits rejection. 17. Section 173(8) empowers the Investigating Agency to conduct further investigation in respect of an offence after filing police report under Section 173(2), Cr.P.C. before the court/Magistrate. It further empowers the Investigating Officer that upon such further investigation, the Investigating Agency shall be well in its jurisdiction to file further report/reports regarding such evidence and such report will be treated to be a report under Sub-section (2) of Section 173, Cr.P.C. The Legislature in its wisdom has enacted in Sub-section (8) of Section 173, Cr.P.C. to meet the exigency where even after completion of the Investigation and filing of the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., it comes to the notice of the Investigating Agency that there are certain evidences in relation to the offence which has already been investigated and in respect of which the report under Section 173(2), Cr.P.C. has already been forwarded to the court/Magistrate. The object of such a provision empowering the Investigating Officer to further investigate and collect evidence has been made in Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. only to strengthen the prosecution and to ensure that guilty is brought to the justice. 18. Merely because the C.B.I. in the instant case while forwarding the charge sheet makes a mention that investigation is open under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. would not mean that charge sheet is incomplete. Even if, such a mention of Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. was not made in the charge sheet, the recourse to Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. was always available to the Investigating Agency. In this view of the matter, we again find ourselves unable to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case incomplete charge sheet has been filed. 19. The only question which now remains to be considered is as to whether merely because the charge sheet in this case has been filed before the court without obtaining requisite sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, would it result in denial of the statutory right of the petitioner of being enlarged on bail mandatorily under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. or not. 20. 20. Obtaining sanction for prosecution is a pre-condition of taking cognizance of an offence in terms of the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act said to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction of the authorities enumerated therein. There is no provision, neither any such provision has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which prohibits even filing of the charge sheet in absence of sanction for prosecution. We may further observe that non-adherence to the provisions of the C.B.I. Manual would not be deemed to be violation of any statute or any other provision made by or under a statute. 21. As observed above, C.B.I. Manual is primarily a compilation of executive instructions for internal guidance of the officials/officers while they discharge their duties in relation to enquiry/investigation/prosecution. 22. In terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineet Narain, it is for the departmental authorities to look as to whether alleged non-adherence to the provisions of the C.B.I. Manual would entail any mis-conduct on the part of the officer or not and consequential departmental action. It lies exclusively in the domain of departmental authorities and out side the ambit of this Court. We are of the considered opinion that any direction as has been prayed for by the petitioner in this petition at his instance cannot be issued by us in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 23. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed.