JUDGMENT J.P.DAS, J. - This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) assailing the order dated 26/24.08. 2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack in T.R. Case No.28 of 2015 corresponding to Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.57 of 2008 taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ‘the P.C. Act’) and Sections 468/420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the I.P.C.’) against the petitioner and others. 2. The present petitioner was working as a Superintendent Engineer in Cuttack Development Authority (in short ‘the C.D.A”) during the period 2000 to 2003. One writ application was filed before this Court vide O.J.C. No.9721 of 1999 alleging that there was misappropriation of public money by the officials of the C.D.A. in connivance with the contractors, who were entrusted with certain works by way of paying enhanced labour wages. This Court after calling for affidavits from the concerned authorities observed by the order dated 02.01.2008 that no irregularity was found out calling for any investigation. Thereafter, on 17.11.2008, D.S.P. (Vigilance) Cell, Cuttack lodged one F.I.R. with similar allegations of payment of escalated labour wages during the year 2000-2003 by officials of C.D.A. in connivance with the concerned Contractors. Pursuant to the said F.I.R., Cuttack Vigilance Case No.47 of 2008 was registered and the investigation was taken up. Shortly thereafter on 30.11.2008, the Inspector of Police (Vigilance) Cell, Cuttack lodged another F.I.R. (the present one) alleging corruption in the execution of works by the officials of C.D.A. during the period from 1999 to 2002. The present petitioner, who was an accused in the first F.I.R. challenged the registration of the said F.I.R. before this Court in CRLMC No.2815 of 2008. This Court by order dated 19.02.2010 quashed the said F.I.R. with the observation that there was no material to sustain the allegation of execution of sub-standard work or unauthorized payment. The Vigilance Department approached the Hon’ble Apex Court challenging the said order but the Hon’ble Apex Court refused to interfere with the order of this Court by its judgment dated 03.05.2011. The Vigilance Department approached the Hon’ble Apex Court challenging the said order but the Hon’ble Apex Court refused to interfere with the order of this Court by its judgment dated 03.05.2011. Thereafter, the investigation was taken up in respect of the second F.I.R. where the present petitioner was also an accused and charge-sheet was submitted on 31.03.2015 for the offences as aforesaid with the submission that the present petitioner was not sent up for trial since the sanction for prosecution against the present petitioner was refused by the Government. 3. It is alleged that despite refusal of sanction and non-submission of charge-sheet against the petitioner, learned Special Judge (Vigilance) by the impugned order dated 26/24.08.2015 took cognizance of all the offences against the present petitioner and other accused persons observing that the overt-acts allegedly committed by the petitioner had no nexus with the performance of his official duty and hence, no sanction order was necessary either under Section 19 of the P.C. Act or under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. 4. It was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that previous sanction of the appropriate authority is mandatory for prosecuting a person under Section 13 of the P.C. Act as per Section 19 of the said Act. It was further submitted that in this case, the sanction according authority after calling for the relevant records and discussing the matter with the concerned Investigating Agency refused to accord sanction by its order dated 06.01.2015, which is annexed to the application vide Annexuure-6. The correspondences calling for the records and clarifications made by the sanctioning authority have also been annexed as Annexures-7, 8, 9 and 10 showing that the entire allegations were thoroughly scrutinised and the materials were examined before refusing the sanction to prosecute the present petitioner. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it is the position of law that sanctioning authority is the best person to assess and decide as to whether necessary sanction should be granted for the prosecution or not. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it is the position of law that sanctioning authority is the best person to assess and decide as to whether necessary sanction should be granted for the prosecution or not. It is submitted that especially on the back drop of the present case that this Court has repeatedly observed in earlier applications that no irregularity was found out as to the allegation of payment of enhanced wages or approval of sub-standard works, the learned trial court definitely erred in law by observing that the alleged acts had no nexus with the official performance of the present petitioner, even though, he was working as Superintendent Engineer during the relevant period and allegedly made excess payment and ignored sub-standard works. Section 19 of the P.C. Act mandates that no court shall take cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 7, 10,11, 13 and 15 allegedly to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction. It was further submitted that the prosecuting agency has sought for sanction in respect of the entire case against the petitioner and the sanction was refused after careful consideration of the materials placed before the sanctioning authority. Thus, it could not have been said by the learned trial court that the sanction for prosecuting for offences under the Indian Penal Code was separate from sanction for the offence under Section 13 of the P.C. Act. That apart, by the impugned order, learned trial court has taken cognizance of all the offences against the petitioner, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Considering the submissions and the materials placed before the Court, I am of the view that the learned trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner in absence of required sanction mandated under the statute. 6. Accordingly, it is directed that the impugned order dated 26/24.08.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack in T.R. Case No.28 of 2015 taking cognizance as aforesaid so far as the present petitioner is concerned stands quashed. Application allowed.