ORDER : This matter was posted for maintainability. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel pleaded that there is a gross injustice committed to the petitioner. The sanction order passed earlier on 04.12.1998 was suppressed and by playing fraud on the Court, conviction was obtained and the same was confirmed by the high Court and special leave petition was dismissed. Further, the review petition preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. But, there is no bar in preferring the Criminal Original Petition before the High Court pointing out the fraud committed. To ascertain whether the point agitated in this original petition has been canvassed in the review petition, this Court on 12.02.2018 requested the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce the review petition. Though a serious allegation is made against the prosecution in a case where it has went up to Supreme Court and review petition was dismissed by the Apex court, the counsel did not take any care to file the order passed in the review petition in spite of granting time. 2. Today an additional typed set of paper is filed contending that a letter has received from Mr. S.R. Sethia, Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India stating that despite his best efforts, he have not been able to trace the review petition and the order passed in the review petition and he will apply for the certified copy of the review petition before the Supreme Court after Holy vacation. 3. This Court directed the Special Public Prosecutor for CBI to ascertain about the execution of the conviction passed against the petitioner/accused. To the shock of this Court, it is reported that though the conviction was confirmed by the High Court on 13.03.2012 in Crl.A.No.206 of 2006 and NBW was issued after one year to secure the petitioner on 27.03.2013, the prosecution is unable to secure him. They are not able to get any valuable information to take steps to execute the warrant. The facts surrounding the application and the conduct of the petitioner only indicates that he wants to take the judiciary for a raid and despite his conviction, he is not inclined to submit himself, to law but questioning the Judgment of conviction on a different ground which is not per se sustainable. The facts surrounding the application and the conduct of the petitioner only indicates that he wants to take the judiciary for a raid and despite his conviction, he is not inclined to submit himself, to law but questioning the Judgment of conviction on a different ground which is not per se sustainable. The prosecution agency, which claims itself as premier investigation agency of the country is unable to execute the warrant though knowing fully well about the Judgment, but some of the officers have gone to the extend of helping the fugitive by creating records so as to aid the fugitive thereby not only making mockery of his own institution but also the judiciary. 4. The Judgment of conviction rendered by the Learned Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, in C.C.No.3 of 1999 is dated 10.02.2006. The same was confirmed by the High Court in Crl.A.No.206 of 2006 on 13.03.2006. The special leave petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 16.07.2012. The review petition was also dismissed on 11.12.2012. Thereafter, this criminal original petition filed alleging fraud committed by the CBI in obtaining sanction to prosecute under Prevention of Corruption Act. Sanction is a pre-request to take cognizance, after taking cognizance, it is the merit of the prosecution evidence that matters. 5. A criminal trial which has reached its logical end through judicial process, cannot be re-opened on the ground the sanction to prosecute is non-est in law. The sanction to prosecute is pre-requisite to take cognizance and once cognizance taken by the trial Court, it is the acceptability of the prosecution evidence alone is relevant for the decision. Incidentally if there is any error, omission or irregularity result in failure of Justice, the appellate Court can reverse the finding, sentence or order of the trial Court. 6. This Court find from the averments in the petition and typed set of papers annexed to the petition as document, the criminal prosecution against this petitioner and another for offences under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 477 (A) IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, had reached its logical end after dismissal of Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, a specific contention is raised in this petition, that the sanction to prosecute the petitioner/accused was obtained by fraud and the previous sanction accorded to prosecute does not contain the name of this petitioner. In this regard, Section 19 (3) and 19 (4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, says that,- “19.....(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,- (a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby; (b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice; (c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. (4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings. Explanation:- For the purposes of this section,- (a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction; (b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature." 7. Therefore, even assuming there was a sanction order accorded earlier without the accused name in the sanction order, and second sanction order was issued by including the petitioner name, de hors of the sanction the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that the Reinvestment Plan(RIP) certificate was prepared by the petitioner as Clerk of Indian Bank, Meppedu Branch, knowing fully well that no money was deposited. The finding of the trial Court has been upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court has confirmed the conviction. 8. The finding of the trial Court has been upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court has confirmed the conviction. 8. Therefore, questioning the validity of sanction after the case reached finality on dismissal of review petition in Supreme Court is not maintainable. Hence the criminal original petition at the SR stage is rejected. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition at the SR stage is also rejected.