JUDGMENT Dr. D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. - This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to quash the order of taking cognizance offence dated 21.08.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore in T.R. No.340 of 2007 as well as the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner. FACTS. 2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the prosecution is that during the year 1995-96 the petitioner was the Divisional Forest Officer, Keonjhar and the co-accused Aswini Kumar Mohanty was the Range Officer, Anandpur Forest Range.A forest road was proposed to be constructed from Gayalmunda to Hatichpal under Anandapur Forest Range and a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- was allotted for the said purpose. The project was submitted by the present petitioner to the Conservator of Forest and the same was approved. Time to time money was allotted by the present petitioner to the co-accused, Aswini Kumar Mohanty, Range Officer for execution of the work. Sri Aswini Kumar Mohanty allegedly did not perform the standard of work and obtained false vouchers from the Contractors and other labourers through Forester and Forest Guards, who were also prosecuted by showing total expenditure of Rs.2,16,226/-. 3. When there was huge public clamour about the execution of substandard work, the petitioner asked the Assistant Conservator of Forest to verify the work and to submit a report. Though the latter submitted a report, but the present petitioner without paying any heed to the said report of the Assistant Conservator of Forest, directly placed money with the co-accused, Aswini Kumar Mohanty and passed all the bills/vouchers submitted by the Range Officer. As such, the above amount was found to have been paid by not undertaking the work of the road property. Hence, the State Vigilance after due investigation submitted charge-sheet for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called “the Act”) and Sections 409, 468, 477/120-B of the I.P.C. Learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore vide order dated 21.8.2004 took cognizance of the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) (d) of Act. SUBMISSIONS. 4. Mr. SUBMISSIONS. 4. Mr. S.K. Mund, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of taking cognizance for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) (d) of the Act against the present petitioner does not lie on merit inasmuch as no prima facie case is established against him. He submitted that in every occasion funds were released for road construction in favour of the Forest Range Officer with copy to Assistant Conservator of Forest with a request to inspect the field and put up objection, but the Assistant Conservator of Forest did not make any objection. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the Range Officer submitted vouchers towards execution of the work, the petitioner sanctioned the amount in absence of any adverse report of the Assistant Conservator of Forest, but took the undertaking from the co-accused Aswini Kumar Mohanty to the effect that if any amount is paid unreasonably, the same would be recovered from him. When the Assistant Conservator of Forest reported about the substandard work and misappropriation of amount, the present petitioner recommended against the Range Officer to proceed against him departmentally and he was proceeded with departmentally. The petitioner has also initiated proceeding against the Forester and Forest Guard. Therefore, there is no merit on the allegation made against the petitioner as he has no role to play in the misappropriation of any amount for the road work. Besides, sanction of prosecution was not there on the date of taking cognizance of the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) (d) of the Act. Hence, the impugned order passed against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. He has relied upon the decision reported in the case of State of Goa v. Babu Thomas, AIR 2005 SC 3606 . 6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the State Vigilance Department submitted that in spite of the report of the Assistant Conservator of Forest with regard to the commission of irregularities and misappropriation of money by preparing false vouchers by the Range Officer, the petitioner accepted the vouchers prepared by the Range Officer and made full payment of Rs.2,16,226/- for which prima facie case against the present petitioner is well established. According to him, the technical wing and the staff of the State Vigilance have also inspected the site and examined the records and found that excess payment of Rs.1,02,853.92 was made. The petitioner without any proper investigation or inquiry hurriedly passed the vouchers or expenditure only by taking an undertaking from the Range Officer, which shows that he has got mens rea or intention to commit such offence as alleged against him. No only this but also, he is involved in Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No.59 of 2002, 59 of 2004, 60 of 2004 and 61 of 2004. In Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No.59 of 2002 after completion of investigation, charge-sheet No.34 dated 13.8.2007 under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (e) of the Act has been submitted. In Sambalpur Vigilance P:.S.Case No.59 of 2004 and 60 of 2004 and 61 of 2004, irregularities like falsification of records and misappropriation of Government money during execution of RDF Planning under Dhama Forest Range was detected and the matter was referred to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Forest and Environment Department, Bhubaneswar for initiation of Departmental Proceeding against the petitioner. 7. Learned Counsel for the State further submitted that the State Government after perusal of the documents, accorded sanction on 16.5.2001 under Section 197 (1), Cr.P.C. and forwarded the proposal to the Government of India on the same day after according sanction under Section 19 (1) (a) of the Act against the present petitioner. Necessary action from the Government of India was also made on 28.4.2004. 8. It is also submitted that charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner on 19.9.2001, but cognizance of the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) (d) of the Act was taken on 21.8.2004.Thus, proper sanction was there while cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioner by the learned Special Judge while the file was put up for taking cognizance of the offence against the present petitioner, 8 sheets of sanction order was submitted, but two sheets were not available for which later on Xerox copy of the sanction order was submitted on 3.1.2009.Since the sanction has already been made prior to passing of the order of taking cognizance and the same was very much available in the record, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no merit. He has reliled upon the decision reported in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2005 SC 359 , wherein it is clearly observed that the accused has no right to produce any material at the time of framing of charge or taking cognizance of offence and issuance of process against the accused, for which objection, if any, to the submission of charge-sheet by the petitioner can only be raised at the time of trial to show him as not guilty.Hence, he has prayed to reject the petition. 9. The main points for determination :- (i) Whether there is prima facie case against the present petitioner made out ? (ii) Whether prosecution is bad due to want of any sanction ? DISCUSSIONS. 10. This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. The materials available on record have to be verified to find out (i) whether there is abuse of process of the Court or (ii) whether for arriving at a just decision of the case, the impugned order requires interference. 11. It is admitted fact that the petitioner was the Divisional Forest Officer during 1995-96 at Keonjhar.The case diary and the police papers clearly show that time to time money has been released by the present petitioner while allegedly working as Divisional Forest Officer, Keonjhar for undertaking construction work of the road in question. The statements of the witnesses also show that the co-accused, Aswini Kumar Mohanty, the then Range Officer, Forest Guards and Forester have obtained the LTI and signature from the labourers with less payment or no payment. 12. It is revealed from the statement of Duryodhan Behera, the then Assistant Conservator of Forest that for the substandard work, he has reported to the Divisional Forest Officer against the Range Officer, but that was not considered and on the other hand, the Range Officer assaulted him. It is only asserted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Assistant Conservator of Forest has not performed his duty by verifying the road and unnecessarily blaming the Range Officer and consequently the present petitioner. But it appears that the Assistant Conservator of Forest was entrusted with the work of verification and he had found many departures. The documents have also been seized. But it appears that the Assistant Conservator of Forest was entrusted with the work of verification and he had found many departures. The documents have also been seized. The Assistant Engineer, Technical Team of the Vigilance Department have also been supporting the F.I.R. The materials collected by the prosecution no doubt make out a case of falsification of documents including vouchers and loss of Rs.2,16,226/- to the Government for the substandard work executed by the Forest Department while petitioner was acting as Divisional Forest Officer, Keonjhar. These vouchers are not of one day, but continuously for several days. So, the act of the present petitioner cannot be said to be independent one, but can be said to be prima facie sharing intention of the Range Officer, Aswini Kumar Mohanty and other forest officials, who are also co-accused persons. 13. It is only contended by the learned Counsel for the present petitioner that the petitioner has taken an undertaking from the Range Officer that in case of any false vouchers or any defalcation of any amount, it will be recovered from him is a ground of defence. The petitioner has no connivance with the Range Officer and he has started proceeding against the Range Officer and all such other defence can be taken at the time of framing of charge or trial. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Debendra Nath Padhi (supra) in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 have observed thus : “11. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39 ) considering the scope of Section 227 and 228 of the Code, lt was held that at the stage of framing of charge, it is not obligatory for the Judge to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. At that stage, the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion, at the initial stage of framing of charge, is sufficient to frame the charge and in that event it is not open to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 12. Strong suspicion, at the initial stage of framing of charge, is sufficient to frame the charge and in that event it is not open to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 12. In Superintendent and Ramembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and others (1980) 1 SCR 323 ) a three-judge Bench held that the Magistrate at the stage of framing charges had to see whether the facts alleged and sought to be proved by the prosecution prima facie disclose the commission of offence on general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating police officer (emphasis supplied). Though in this case the specific question whether an accused at the stage of framing of charge has a right to produce any material was not considered as such, but that seems implicit when it was held that the Magistrate had to consider material placed before it by the Investigating Police Officer. 13. In State of Delhi v.Gyan Devi and others (2000) 8 SCC 239 ) this Court reiterated that at the stage of framing of charge the trial court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the Court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. 14. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. S.B. Johari and others (2000) 2 SCC 57 ) it was held that the charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted, cannot show that the accused committed the particular offence. In that case, there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. 15. In State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj and Others (1997) 4 SCC 393 ) it was held that at Sections 227 and 228 stage the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution stages as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. 16. The decisions proceed on the basis of settled legal position that the material as produced by the prosecution alone is to be considered and not the one produced by the accused. x xx x x (emphasis supplied) 14. With due respect to the aforesaid decision, it is clear that the view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satish Mehta v. Delhi Administration, (1996) 6 SCC 766 has been overruled and it is clear that the material as produced by the prosecution alone at the time of taking cognizance or at the stage of framing of charge is to be considered and not the one produced by the accused. Hence, any sort of contention with regard to the defence of the petitioner can be agitated before the learned trial Court. 15. Not only this, but also in earlier occasion, the petitioner has travelled to this Court where he has challenged the order of taking cognizance by the learned Special Judge in an offence amassing disproportionate of assets, but this Court has not interfered with the order of the lower Court. It is only an addition of the fact that there are also vigilance cases against him where he has to face the same. Similarly in the instant case, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie material against him for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) (d) of the Act. Thus, point No. (i) is answered accordingly. POINT NO.2. 16. So far as want of sanction is concerned, the lower Court records show that charge-sheet under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) (d) of the Act was received on 17.1.2004 against the present petitioner and other accused persons and the same was sent by the learned C.J.M. to the learned Special Judge. On 21.8.2004 learned Special Judge after perusal of the records, took cognizance of such offences and issued process against the present petitioner and other accused persons. On 3.1.2009 attested Xerox copy of the sanction order dated 28.4.2004 was received against the petitioner being produced by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. 17. On 21.8.2004 learned Special Judge after perusal of the records, took cognizance of such offences and issued process against the present petitioner and other accused persons. On 3.1.2009 attested Xerox copy of the sanction order dated 28.4.2004 was received against the petitioner being produced by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. 17. Now question arises whether the order of sanction was there before passing the order of taking cognizance. No doubt, the trial Court record shows that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests issued sanction of prosecution against the co-accused, Aswini Kumar Mohanty on 22.12.1999 and on 15.5.2001 the State Government in General Administration Department issued sanction order of the State Government to prosecute against the present petitioner. Thereafter, sanction for the prosecution has also been made by the respective officers for prosecution of other officials. It appears that since the petitioner was a member of the Indian Forest Service, the matter was sent to the Ministry of Environment Forest, Government of India and sanction order from the Ministry was passed on 28.4.2004 and the same was conveyed to the Director-cum-Addl. D.G., Vigilance on 31.5.2004. No doubt 8 sheets of sanction order were received by the Court on 21.8.2004. Whether there were 6 sheets or 8 sheets as per he submission of both the counsel is immaterial when sanction order from the State Govenment as well as the Central Governmen was there prior to the date of taking cognizance, which was admittedly passed on 21.8.2004. So, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was no sanction order before taking of cognizance of the offence is indefensible. Thus, point No. (ii) is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION. 18. In terms of the above discussion, the impugned order of taking cognizance of the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) (d) of the Act dated 21.8.2004 in T.R. Case No.340 of 2007 by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore cannot be said to be without application of judicial mind to the case of the prosecution. There is nothing found that the prosecution or investigating officials are inimical to the petitioner. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of taking cognizance and further proceeding against the petitioner. As such, petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. 19. There is nothing found that the prosecution or investigating officials are inimical to the petitioner. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of taking cognizance and further proceeding against the petitioner. As such, petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. 19. it is made clear that learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore, while deciding the case on merit, would not be influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. However, he would decide the case on merit within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the LCR from this Court along with a copy of this judgment on the basis of the materials available before him. The CRLMC is disposed of accordingly. The registry is directed to send the CLR along with a copy of this judgment to the Court below forthwith. CRLMC disposed of.