JUDGMENT Pankaj Bhandari, J. - Petitioners have preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 15.12.2015 passed by Special Judge & Special Court (ACD) Cases (Prevention of Corruption Act), Alwar, whereby Court has taken cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Section 13(1)(C)(D) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, bars the Courts from taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7,10,11,13 & 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant without the previous sanction of the Appropriate Authority. 3. It is also contended that Kailash Sharma was a contractor and since there was no previous sanction to prosecute Shri R.D. Garg, J.E.N. Municipal Council. Municipal Council and Court has discharged P.K. Jain, the then Executive Engineer, Alwar, combined with the fact that kailash Sharma was not a public servant. There was no justification in taking cognizance against Kailash Sharma. It is contended that order impugned is improper and incorrect. 4. Counsel has placed reliance on (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 64, Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh & Anr., Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 705, Chitran Das v. State of Orissa AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2893 & R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 684, where in Apex Court after discussing the provision of the Act has concluded that the protection provided to a public servant is of paramount importance for protecting a public servant who has acted in good faith while performing his duty. In order that the public servant may not be unnecessarily harassed, it is obligatory on the part of the executive authority to protect him, if law requires sanction and the Court proceeds against a public servant without sanction, the public servant has a right to raise the issue of jurisdiction as the entire action may be rendered void ab initio. 4.1 The Investigating Officer was summoned by the Court to ascertain as to whether sanction has been obtained with regard to Shri-R.D. Garg. 5. Mr. Saleh Mohd., Deputy S.P. Anti Corruption Department is present in person in the Court, who states that prosecution sanction has not been obtained with regard to R.D. Garg till date. 4.1 The Investigating Officer was summoned by the Court to ascertain as to whether sanction has been obtained with regard to Shri-R.D. Garg. 5. Mr. Saleh Mohd., Deputy S.P. Anti Corruption Department is present in person in the Court, who states that prosecution sanction has not been obtained with regard to R.D. Garg till date. However, it is contended that sanction was refused by the Municipal Board but one member of the Board objected to the refusal of the sanction. 5.1 I have considered the contentions. 6. Section 19 of the Act clearly bars the Court from taking cognizance against the public servant except with the previous sanction. Investigation in this case started way back in the year 2011. Closure report was filed before the Court on 26.07.2014 for the reason of absence of sanction. The Court below discharged P.K.Jain, Executive Engineer on the ground that there was no valid sanction. Learned court below without their being any valid sanction to prosecute with regard to R.D.Gard has proceeded to take cognizance ignoring the mandate of Section 19 of the Act. The impugned order of cognizance therefore cannot be sustained. 7. As far as Kailash Sharma is concerned, admittedly he is not a public servant and in the impugned order, there is nothing mentioned as to why cognizance is being taken against him under Section 13 of the Act which pertains to criminal misconduct by a public servant. Taking of cognizance against a contractor under Section 13 (1)(c)(d) & 13(2), thus cannot be sustained. 8. The impugned order deserves to be and is accordingly set aside and quashed. The petitioners are discharged. 9. Revision petition is accordingly allowed. Stay application stands disposed.