JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the prosecution sanction has been accorded to prosecute the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)D and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the PC Act') read with Section 120- B IPC while exercising powers under Section 19 of PC Act. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.07.2011, Sawaila and Suresh Kumar (hereinafter to be referred as 'the complainants') submitted a report before the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalore (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Dy.SP, ACB, Jalore') while alleging that on 20.07.2011, petitionerShankar Lal Gehlot, Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Bhinmal came to their houses and threatened them that their houses, are encroachments, therefore, he would demolish them. He asked them to give him illegal gratification of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- for each house for not demolishing their houses. PetitionerShanker Lal Gehlot was persisting with his threat to demolish their houses, therefore, both the complainants submitted a report before the Dy.SP, ACB, Jalore that they are not desirous to give the illegal gratification to the petitioner. 2. On the basis of report submitted by both the complainants, verification proceedings were arranged. It is further alleged by the prosecution that during the course of verification proceedings, the demand of bribe was verified in the voice recording carried out in presence of Teja Ram, Constable of Anti Corruption Bureau. On 22.07.2011, a trap was arranged and after summoning two independent witnesses, the voice recording was replayed in their presence and it was found that the accused-petitioner had instructed the decoy to pass on the bribe money to Surender Singh, Driver. Both the complainants presented the currency notes worth Rs. 60,000/- each to the I.O. as bribe money to be given to Surender Singh, Driver. After the necessary formalities, the trap party reached Bhinmal and on enquiry regarding whereabouts of Surender Singh, it was found that he was sitting in the garden of Municipality Board, Bhinmal, then the micro tape recorder was started and the decoy along with two witnesses were sent to meet him and to pass on the currency notes. After the necessary formalities, the trap party reached Bhinmal and on enquiry regarding whereabouts of Surender Singh, it was found that he was sitting in the garden of Municipality Board, Bhinmal, then the micro tape recorder was started and the decoy along with two witnesses were sent to meet him and to pass on the currency notes. After some time, when two decoy came back and informed the Dy.SP, ACB, Jalore (Trap Laying Officer) (hereinafter to be referred as 'the T.L.O.') that the Driver Surender Singh had refused to accept the bribe money then the T.L.O. instructed the decoy to talk to petitioner and try to pass on the tainted money to him. In that proceedings it is further revealed that the petitioner refused to make any conversation with the decoy due to citing night time. The trap was accordingly postponed to 23.07.2011. 3. On 23.07.2011, again the trap proceedings were arranged and the decoys were sent to the house of petitioner. On reaching the house, the decoys came back to the T.L.O. and informed him that petitioner was not available and he had instructed Surender Singh to receive the bribe money. It is further informed by the decoys that Surender Singh met them and told that he would not accept the money directly and also instructed them to pass on the tainted currency notes to one Prabhu Ram, who was working as Driver on contract basis with the Municipality, Bhinmal. After receiving this information, the trap party reached the rental house of Prabhu Ram at Nimbali Bera, Bhinmal and Constable Sohan Ram was sent along with two decoys with instructions to witness. After some time, as per instruction, when Constable Sohan Ram gave the pre-arranged signal by making a call to T.L.O. then the T.L.O. reached the house of Prabhu Ram at Nimbali Bera, Bhinamal along with members of trap party and it was found that Sawai Singh and two others were sitting on a cot in the open chowk of Prabhu Ram's house. The tape recorder was taken by T.L.O. from Sawailal and on an enquiry Sawailal told that as per the instructions given by Surender Singh, the tainted currency notes worth Rs. 60,000/- were given to Prabhu Ram, who was working as Driver on contract basis with the Municipality, and Prabhu Ram had given the tainted currency notes to Khangara Ram for counting them. 4. 60,000/- were given to Prabhu Ram, who was working as Driver on contract basis with the Municipality, and Prabhu Ram had given the tainted currency notes to Khangara Ram for counting them. 4. On an enquiry made from Prabhu Ram, he informed that Surendra Singh called him a little earlier and told him that petitioner instructed Sawai Lal to give Rs. 60,000/-, which should be taken by Prabhu Ram. He further told that when Executive Officer come back, he would be relieved of the money. Prabhu Ram further informed the T.L.O. that he took the money from Sawai Lal and gave the same to Khangara Ram for counting. He counted the money and on seeing the vehicle of trap party laid the money on the cot lying in the chowk. 5. On being enquired, Khangara Ram told the T.L.O. that he was working as labour on the well of Prabhu Ram and a little while ago, Sawai Lal had come there to meet Prabhu Ram and they were having talks, regarding which he was unaware. He further told the T.L.O. that Prabhu Ram called him and gave him a bundle of notes of denomination of Rs. 1000/- for counting, therefore, he counted the same as per the instruction of Prabhu Ram and found to be Rs. 60,000/- and on seeing the trap party he laid the notes on the cot. Suresh Kumar, the second decoy has also corroborated these facts. 6. Thereafter, Prbhu Ram was instructed to make a call to Surender Singh in relation to these transactions but he refused. It is stated that wash of the hands of Prabhu Ram and Khangara Ram were taken and the same turned pink. The tainted notes were seized and ultimately the officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau apprehended Surender Singh, Prabhu Ram and Khangara Ram. When Surendra Singh and Prabhu Ram were confronted about bribe money, they requested to be excused for their mistake. The petitioner allegedly took the shield of suffering from cardiac problem and managed to escape from the clutches of Anti Corruption Bureau Officials on the ground of going to Ahmadabad. 7. When Surendra Singh and Prabhu Ram were confronted about bribe money, they requested to be excused for their mistake. The petitioner allegedly took the shield of suffering from cardiac problem and managed to escape from the clutches of Anti Corruption Bureau Officials on the ground of going to Ahmadabad. 7. In relation to the above incident, the FIR No.285/2011 was registered at Police Station CPS Jaipur Year 2011, District Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalore against the petitioner and other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)D and 13(2) of PC Act read with Section 120-B IPC. 8. The Investigating Agency, after concluding the investigation has sent he matter for granting prosecution sanction against the petitioner, who was working as the Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Bhinaml at the time of incident. The respondent No.2-Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur has granted prosecution sanction to prosecute the petitioner vide impugned order, against which the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 9. It is to be noticed that at the time of admission of this writ petition it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent No.2-Director, Directorate, Local Self Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur has refused to grant prosecution sanction against the petitioner on 04.07.2013, however, later on, the same authority has reviewed its order and has granted prosecution sanction against the petitioner vide impugned order. 10. Taking into consideration the said arguments made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court has passed the following order on 17.12.2013:- "A copy has been submitted by petitioner Shanker Lal Gehlot in this case which is said to have been taken from the Website of Anti-Corruption Bureau of Rajasthan, Jaipur and in which 38 cases of Urban Development and Local Self Bodies Department have been mentioned and in this list at S.No.23, it has been mentioned that in relation to FIR No. 285/2011 in trap case relating to Shanker Lal Gehlot (Executive Officer) and Surendra Singh (driver) of Municipality, Bhinmal, a prayer for granting prosecution sanction was sent by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 9.5.2013 to Director, Local Self Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur but by letter dated 4.7.2013 prayer for granting prosecution sanction was refused by that officer. It has been submitted that later on, prosecution sanction against Shankar Lal Gehlot was granted in the matter on 10.10.2013 by the Director (Local Self Bodies). It has been submitted that later on, prosecution sanction against Shankar Lal Gehlot was granted in the matter on 10.10.2013 by the Director (Local Self Bodies). Copy of letter of prosecution sanction has been filed as Annex. 12 by the petitioner. Copy of earlier letter by which the prosecution sanction was refused has not been filed by the petitioner but he seeks time to file the copy of that letter also. In the interest of justice, the petitioner is hereby directed to procure and submit the copy of that earlier earlier letter also in this Court on 15.1.2014. On that day, if he is not able to submit that copy then he will not be entitled for any interim relief thereafter. Till 15.1.2014, Anti-Corruption Bureau will not be authorised to file any charge-sheet against accused-petitioner Shankar Lal Gehlot on the basis of the prosecution sanction granted to them on 10.10.2013. This petition may be finally disposed of at the stage of admission itself, so issue notice of this petition as also to that of the stay petition to all the three respondents and notice be issued to Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur also, returnable on 15.1.2014. A copy of this order be sent by speed post to the AntiCorruption Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur also so that the Anti-Corruption Department may also file relevant papers in the matter to assist the court on 15.1.2014." 11. It is to be noted that till date, no letter or order by which the prosecution sanction was refused, has been filed by the petitioner, however, the stay order, of restraining the Anti Corruption Bureau from filing charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner on the basis of the prosecution sanction dated 10.10.2013, is extended on every date and is continuing till today. 12. In the reply to the writ petition, respondents have came out with a case that on the website of the Local Self Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, the information of not granting of prosecution sanction vide order dated 04.07.2013 is not in relation to the petitioner but in relation to Surnder Singh Driver because the competent authority, in the case of Surender Singh, Driver, Municipality, Bhinmal has refused to grant prosecution sanction against him. 13. It is asserted on behalf of the respondents that the prosecution sanction against the petitioner has never been refused by the competent authority before passing of the impugned order. 13. It is asserted on behalf of the respondents that the prosecution sanction against the petitioner has never been refused by the competent authority before passing of the impugned order. From the above facts, it is clear that the prosecution sanction against the petitioner has never been refused by the competent authority rather the same was granted by the impugned order. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that before granting prosecution sanction for prosecuting the petitioner, the competent authority had not applied its mind and, therefore, the prosecution sanction is bad in the eye of law. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the prosecution sanction against co-accused Surender Singh, Driver has been refused by the Municipal Board, Bhinmal, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 15. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Local Self Department has vehemently opposed this writ petition and submitted that there is no illegality in granting prosecution sanction against the petitioner because the competent authority, after taking into consideration the entire material collected by the Investigating Agency against the petitioner and after having discussions with the Investigating Officer, has granted prosecution sanction. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2014) 14 SCC 295 while considering the fulfillment of requirement before granting prosecution sanction has held as under :- "15. Consideration of the material implies application of mind. Therefore, the order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same. If the sanction order on its face indicates that all relevant material i.e. FIR, disclosure statements, recovery memos, draft charge-sheet and other materials on record were placed before the sanctioning authority and if it is further discernible from the recital of the sanction order that the sanctioning authority perused all the material, an inference may be drawn that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law. 16. In view of the above, the legal propositions can be summarised as under: 16.1. 16. In view of the above, the legal propositions can be summarised as under: 16.1. The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements 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. 16.2. 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. 16.3. 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. 16.4. 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. 16.5. 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." 17. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out that the Investigating Agency has failed to sent the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including FIR, statements of witnesses, draft charge-sheet and all other relevant material. 18. Though, in this writ petition, the petitioner has taken a ground that before granting prosecution sanction the respondent No.2 has not applied its mind but has failed to point out that which of the material or record was not available with the sanctioning authority or which of the material or record has not been considered by him while granting prosecution sanction against the petitioner. 19. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the sanctioning authority has taken into consideration the relevant material and applied its mind. 20. In view of the above discussions, I don't find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.