JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tiwary, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. T. N. Verma, counsel appearing on behalf of A.C.B. 3. This petition has been filed for the following relief: - “for quashing/setting aside the entire criminal case instituted as against the present petitioner including the order dated 31.03.2017 passed in Vigilance Case No. 5 of 2017 arising out of Vigilance (Hazaribagh) P.S. Case No. 12 of 2016, wherein the learned Special Judge, A.C.B., Hazaribagh has been pleased to take cognizance of the offence under section 7/13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corrutpion Act, 1988 as against the present petitioner in Vigilance Case No. 5 of 2017, arising out of Vigilance (Hazaribagh) P.S. Case No. 12 of 2016, presently pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-XII-cum-Special Judge, A.C.B., Hazaribagh.” I.A. No.9176/2019 4. I.A. No.9176/2019 has been filed for setting aside the order of sanction granted by the Engineer in chief vide Memo No.1541(s) dated 16.3.2017 alleging to be non-judicious. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances the challenge to order of sanction is being considered along with this petition and accordingly I.A. No.9176/2019 is treated as a part of the main petition. I.A. No.9176/2019 is disposed of. Cr. M. P. No. 2502 of 2017 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the merits of the entire case, submits that the present petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer, Jharkhand Police Housing Corporation Limited at the relevant point of time and the complainant of the present case had made an allegation before the Vigilance Bureau that the petitioner was demanding 2% i.e. Rs. 24,000/- for enhancing the final bill to the tune of Rs. 12,03,818/- and as the complainant was not willing to pay the same, he made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau at Hazaribagh. The learned counsel submits that on the basis the complaint, a trap was laid against the present petitioner and it is alleged that the petitioner was caught in the trap. 7. 12,03,818/- and as the complainant was not willing to pay the same, he made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau at Hazaribagh. The learned counsel submits that on the basis the complaint, a trap was laid against the present petitioner and it is alleged that the petitioner was caught in the trap. 7. The learned counsel while advancing his argument has submitted that there are three points which are involved in this case: - (a) The investigation of the case was handed over to one Inspector and in view of Section 17 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Inspector is not the authorized Officer to carry out the investigation of the case and accordingly, the entire criminal case against the petitioner, is vitiated. (b) The informant himself had filed a writ petition before this Court for the purposes of realization of the pending bills and in the writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed by the concerned Department indicating that the petitioner did not complete the work within due time and the matter is still pending before this Court. The complainant instead of pursuing his matter in the writ petition, has falsely implicated the present petitioner. (c) The order of sanction for prosecution as challenged vide I.A. No.9176/2019 is fit to be set aside as entire materials were not placed before the sanctioning authority for consideration and it reflects non application of mind. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner wile elaborating his arguments submits that the sanction order granted vide Memo No. 1541 (S) dated 16.03.2017 by the Engineer in Chief, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi itself indicates that the materials were not placed before the Sanctioning Authority for the purposes of sanction and accordingly the sanction order itself is a piece of complete non application of judicial mind and therefore, the entire criminal proceeding is vitiated. He further relied upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 14 SCC 295 (Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal) Para 13, 14 and 15 to submit that the manner in which the sanction is to be given in a criminal case, has been duly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submits that the order taking cognizance and the entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioner, is fit to be set-aside. He further submits that the order taking cognizance and the entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioner, is fit to be set-aside. The learned counsel submits that in the instant case, a counter affidavit has been filed, wherein a notification of the State Government dated 21.07.2012 has been annexed, by which it has been mentioned that the Inspector of Police Department has been empowered for the purposes of investigating the offence under Sections 7 to 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned counsel has submitted that such empowerment could not have been done. He further submits that there is no requirement for him to challenge the said notification as the entire investigation of the present case, is wholly without jurisdiction. 9. Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 10. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that so far as the order of grant of sanction vide Memo No. 1541 (S) dated 16.03.2017 is concerned, the same has been challenged in I.A. No. 9176 of 2019 filed by the petitioner and the specific case of the present petitioner is that the order of sanction has been granted without applying judicial mind and it has been alleged that the materials were not placed before the sanctioning authority. 11. Upon perusal of the judgment which has been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 14 SCC 295 (Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal), this Court finds that it has been clearly held in Para 16.5 of the said judgment that 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. This Court further finds that in Para-59 of the aforesaid judgment, it has been clearly held that undoubtedly, the stage of examining the validity of sanction is during the trial and the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly indicated in the judgment that they did not propose to say that the validity should be examined during the stage of inquiry or at pre-trial stage. Para 16 and para 59 of the said judgment are quoted as under: “16 In view of the above, the legal propositions can be summarized 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.” “59. Undoubtedly, the stage of examining the validity of sanction is during the trial and we do not propose to say that the validity should be examined during the stage of inquiry or at pre-trial stage.” 12. Further in the recent judgment which has been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Etc. vs. Mrs. Pramila Virendra Kumar Agarwal & Anr. Etc., (Criminal Appeal No.1489-1490 of 2019 dated 25.9.19) it has been clearly held that validity of sanction has to be considered at the stage of trial and there is a distinction between absence of sanction for prosecution and alleged illegality of sanction for prosecution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 13 has referred to the judgment passed in the case of Dinesh Kumar vs. Chairman, Airport Authority of India (2012) 1 SCC 532 . Para 13 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under: “13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 13 has referred to the judgment passed in the case of Dinesh Kumar vs. Chairman, Airport Authority of India (2012) 1 SCC 532 . Para 13 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under: “13. Further the issue relating to validity of the sanction for prosecution could have been considered only during trial since essentially the conclusion reached by the High Court is with regard to the defective sanction since accordingly to the High Court, the procedure of providing opportunity for explanation was not followed which will result in the sanction being defective. In that regard, the decision in the case of Dinesh Kumar Vs. Chairman, Airport Authority of India, (2012) 1 SCC 532 relied upon by the learned Additional Solicitor General would be relevant since it is held therein that there is a distinction between the absence of sanction and the alleged invalidity on account of non-application of mind. The absence of sanction no doubt can be agitated at the threshold but the invalidity of the sanction is to be raised during the trial. In the instant facts, admittedly there is sanction though the accused seek to pick holes in the manner the sanction has been granted and to claim that the same is defective which is a matter to be considered in the trial.” 13. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that legality or validity of the sanction for prosecution is not to be appreciated at this stage and this may be raised by the petitioner at the stage of trial. There is no dispute that sanction for prosecution of the petitioner has been received. 14. So far as the plea of the petitioner regarding investigation of the case by the Inspector of Police is concerned, this Court finds that as per the provisions of Section 17 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, there is a specific provision in the proviso to the said section that the State Government may by general or special order, empower a Police Officer not below the rank of Inspector of Police to investigate such offence under the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1988. This Court finds that admittedly the present investigation has been done by an Officer of the rank of Inspector of Police and further the respondent in the counter affidavit has annexed a copy of the notification dated 21.07.2012, which has been issued by the State Government in exercise of power under Section 17 of the aforesaid Act of 1988. Accordingly, this Court finds that the present investigation, which has been conducted by the Inspector of Police, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction Further this said notification issued by the State Government which has been annexed in the counter affidavit, is not under challenge before this Court. Accordingly, the plea of the petitioner that the entire investigation is wholly without jurisdiction, is rejected. 15. So far as the plea of the petitioner regarding pendency of the writ petition in connection with bills is concerned, this Court finds that the same itself is a point of defence, which cannot be appreciated at this stage. This Court is of the further view that merely because a writ petition has been filed for realization of bills, that by itself cannot be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceedings at the stage of cognizance of offence. 16. This Court further finds that in the status report which has been received from the learned court below, the discharge petition of the petitioner which was filed on 03.11.2017, has been rejected vide order dated 16.09.2019 and neither the petition for discharge, nor the order refusing to discharge the petitioner, is on record. 17. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the aforesaid findings, this Court does not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. 18. However, it is observed that dismissal of this petition will not prejudice the case of either parties before the learned court below. 19. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also dismissed as not pressed. 20. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX’.