JUDGMENT : Aravind Kumar, J. All these petitions are taken up together for consideration and disposal as common question of facts and law are involved. 2. In Crl.P.No.7864/2015 sanction order dated 09.10.2015 -Annexure-A passed by first respondent as required under Section 19(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, (for short 'Act') sanctioning to prosecute the petitioner has been called in question. 3. In W.P.No.11379/2017 and W.P.No.15034/2017 petitioner (Smt.Khaji Nafeesa) has sought for quashing of the order dated 08.12.2016 whereunder interlocutory application (I.A.No.14) filed by the petitioner for discharge has been rejected. She has also sought for quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.450/2015. said petitioner has also filed Crl.P.No.7864/2015 for quashing the sanction order dated 09.10.2015 and consequential order dated 03.11.2015 whereunder summons has been issued to her. 4. W.P.Nos.14901/2017 and 15492/2017 have been filed by accused No.6 (Sri.Veerabadraswamy) to set aside the order dated 08.12.2016 passed in C.C.No.450/2015, whereunder I.A.No.14 filed by him under Section 227 of Cr.P.C for discharge came to be dismissed. RE: W.P.No.15034/2017, W.P.No.11379/2017 and Crl.P.No.7864/2015: 5. Petitioner in these petitions has been arraigned as accused No.5 in Spl.C.C.No.450/2015. The gist of the case of prosecution is that, against accused No.1 to 3 a case came to be registered based on a complaint dated 25.04.2014 lodged by Sri. L.B. Prabhakar, Deputy General Manager, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Bangalore whereunder it had been alleged that accused persons had entered into criminal conspiracy during 2010-2013 at Bellary, Hospet and other places and they had caused loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs.605.80 Lakhs and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves in the matter of sanction and disbursement of certain loans based on forged and fabricated documents. It was further alleged that pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, fixed deposit amount of Rs.38 Crores kept in the Bank was at the instance of A2 and in lieu of it they had paid Rs.20 Lakhs as commission to the petitioner. It is further alleged that A2 had paid the commission in cash at the residence of the petitioner (A5) in the presence of her father and A4 then BUDA Chairman had convinced her to accept the amount. It is further alleged that A2 had paid the commission in cash at the residence of the petitioner (A5) in the presence of her father and A4 then BUDA Chairman had convinced her to accept the amount. It was also alleged that petitioner had made accused No.1 for purposes of getting subsidy loan in the name of petitioner's brother and at that time A1 introduced petitioner to A2 and to her brother and had been informed that he would arranged all the documents for getting loan of Rs.15 Lakhs in favour of petitioner's brother. Hence, alleging these facts established the role played, prosecution against petitioner came to be initiated after obtaining the sanction as required under Section 19(1)(b) of the Act. 6. I have heard the arguments of Smt. Khaji Nafeesa, party appearing in person and Sri.B.Prasanna Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing for CBI. 7. Smt. Khaji Nafeeza party appearing in person in support of her contentions and grounds urged by her in W.P. No. 11379/2017 and W.P. No. 15034/2017 has contended that reading of entire charge sheet material does not disclose any offence against her and only allegation made against her is that she had transferred amount of MUDA to the tune of Rs.38.00 Crores to Allahabad Bank which is factually incorrect as could be evidenced from the report of her successor dated 07.07.2018 whereunder he had intimated the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary that during the period indicated thereunder petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.10.50 Crores under two deposits of Rs.5.00 Crores and Rs.5.50 Crores and all the remaining Rs.23.95 Crores has been deposited by her predecessor Sri. B.L. Narayan who undisputedly is not an accused. She would submit that even according to the prosecution the conspiracy relates to the period from 2010 to 2013 and she had assumed charge only on 02.02.2013 as Commissioner of MUDA and all loans came to be sanctioned prior to her taking charge. She would also submit that no sanction as required under Section 6 of the Delhi Police Establishment Act and under Section 179 of Cr.P.C. has been obtained and the sanction order Annexure E dated 09.10.2015 which has been relied upon by the prosecution is not only contrary to the said provisions but it is granted by a person who is not competent to sanction. It is also contended that Chief Minister on behalf of Government of Karnataka being the competent authority to sanction prosecution is no material to indicate that file relating to grant of sanction of prosecution either having been perused by the Chief Minister or the Chief Minister having accorded approval for necessary sanction being accorded by the appropriate Government as required under Section 19 of P.C. Act and there being no valid sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. which is mandatory and condition precedent for proceeding against her and as such by relying upon the following judgments she has prayed for quashing of entire proceedings including quashing of the order of sanction. (1) B. SAHA AND OTHERS VS. M.S. KOCHAR, (1979) 4 SCC 177 : AIR 1979 SC 1841 : (2) BALAKRISHNA PILLAI VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER, (1996) AIR SC 901: 1996 SCC (1) 478R. (3) GOKULCHAND SWARKADAS MORARKA VS. THE KING, (1948) 50 BLR 399: (4) ASHOK TSHERING BHUTIA VS. STATE OF SIKKIM, CRL.A. NO. 945/2003,25.02.2011 (SUPREME COURT) 8. Per contra Sri. Prasanna Kumar, learned panel counsel appearing for the respondent by reiterating grounds urged in the statement of objections filed in respective petitions would support the case of the prosecution and contends that primafaice material on record would disclose there are good grounds and sufficient material to proceed against the accused and as such he prays for dismissal of the petitions. FINDINGS IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7864/2015 9. In Crl.P.No.7864/2015 petitioner has sought for quashing of the sanction order as already noticed hereinabove. The original file relating to sanction accorded to prosecute the petitioner, has been made available by Sri.Prasanna Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for CBI. Same has been perused by this Court threadbare. A perusal of sanction order dated 09.10.2015 would clearly indicate that the then Chief Minister who is the competent authority to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioner had perused the records and on being satisfied that there are sufficient material to proceed against accused, has accorded sanction by considering the entire facts of the case. The note sheet in the original file on perusal would disclose that preceding grant of sanction entire details relating to the role of the petitioner and the necessity to accord sanction for prosecuting petitioner, has been put up for consideration, examination and approval by the competent authority. The note sheet in the original file on perusal would disclose that preceding grant of sanction entire details relating to the role of the petitioner and the necessity to accord sanction for prosecuting petitioner, has been put up for consideration, examination and approval by the competent authority. It is thereafter, sanctioningcum- competent authority on being satisfied that allegations made against petitioner are sufficient enough to prosecute petitioner has granted approval and sanction. The relevant paragraphs of the note sheet is extracted herein below for immediate reference: xxxxxxxxxxxxx As such contention of petitioner that there has been non application of mind or the relevant material had not been placed before the sanctioning authority for consideration would not hold water and as such the contention raised in this regard stands rejected. Hence, this Court find there is no infirmity committed in that regard. FINDINGS IN W.P.Nos.15034/2017 & 11379/2017 10. Now turning my attention to the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the proceedings as well as prayer for setting aside the order dated 08.12.2016 rejecting her application (I.A.No.14) filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge and consequently proceedings being dropped, when considered in the background of charge sheet material, it tilts in favour of the prosecution and as such, her prayer cannot be granted for the reasons indicated herein below. 11. The prayer for quashing of the proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction or extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court would arise when there is no material whatsoever to frame the charge against an accused and thereby if the accused is directed to undergo the ordeal of trial it would be an exercise in futility and would not subserve the ends of justice. On the other hand, if there are triable material which would disclose that incriminating material relied upon by the prosecution is to be examined by weighing such material after trial, then in such circumstances quashing of proceedings would not arise. Likewise, probable defence the accused may set up during the course of trial would also not be in the domain of consideration of a plea for quashing or discharging the accused. At the time of framing of charge trial judge would not examine the charge sheet material by a microscopic lens or evaluate such material or to find out whether prosecution if continued against the accused would lead to the conviction or not. 12. At the time of framing of charge trial judge would not examine the charge sheet material by a microscopic lens or evaluate such material or to find out whether prosecution if continued against the accused would lead to the conviction or not. 12. Insofar as claim of petitioner that her name does not find a place either in the complaint or in the FIR and only during course of investigation she has been arraigned as accused and communication dated 24.01.2018-Annexure-B by Allahabad Bank to CBI was relating to the period anterior to her assuming charge as Commissioner BUDA on 02.02.2013 and as such continuation of proceedings against her is not called for though at first blush looks to be attractive but factually it not be so, for reasons more than one; firstly, it requires to be noticed that as per the charge sheet material petitioner had withdrawn deposits earlier made in Pragathi Gamina Bank and re-deposited the same in Allahabad Bank. It is alleged by the prosecution that petitioner at the instance of accused No.2 who acted as a mediator/arranger for such deposits and he has revealed that petitioner had received commission as bribe at her residence near Nandi school through her father Mohammed Ismail to the tune of 20 Lakhs. It is also further alleged that accused No.2 in conspiracy with accused No.1 had arranged documents to facilitate the brother of petitioner in obtaining subsidy loan and subsequent to registration of FIR by CBI, said loan account was closed. 13. The statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation has also revealed complicity of the petitioner, primafacie. Perusal of the statement of C.W.7-K. Manjunath would disclose that he along with B. Kumar accused No.2, B. Chandrashkear, C.W.20 and K. Srinivas had gone to the residence of petitioner and at the point of time A- 2 had telephoned to one Mr. Santhosh (C.W.45) to bring cash of Rs.2 Lakhs to the residence of commissioner near Nandi school. C.W.7 has further stated that Santhosh C.W.45 had given Rs.2 Lakhs to accused No.2 which was wrapped in newspaper and thereafter A-2 went inside the residence of petitioner who was then commissioner of BUDA to hand over Rs.2 Lakhs cash to her father Mohammed Ismail. C.W.7 has further stated that Santhosh C.W.45 had given Rs.2 Lakhs to accused No.2 which was wrapped in newspaper and thereafter A-2 went inside the residence of petitioner who was then commissioner of BUDA to hand over Rs.2 Lakhs cash to her father Mohammed Ismail. He has also stated that petitioner had stated that he would issue cheque for Rs.5 Crores for the purpose of fixed deposit to be made at Allahabad Bank. This statement of C.W.7 is supported by the statement of C.W.20, C.W.45, C.W.8, C.W.22, C.W.33, C.W, .36, C.W.2 and C.W.50. In the light of aforestated statements of witnesses and charge sheet material disclosing that said material requires to be evaluated after trial, prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted. FINDINGS IN W.P.No.14901/2017 C/W W.P. No.15492/2017 (FILED BY SRI. VEERABADRA SWAMY A6 & A4 IN RESPECTIVE CASES I.E., SPL.C.C.No.450/2015 AND SPL. C.C.No. 507/2015) 14. Insofar as, prayer made by the petitioner (accused No.6 in W.P.No.14901/2017) deserves to be rejected for the reasons already assigned in W.P.Nos.15034/2017 and 11379/2017 relating to accused No.5. Even otherwise, prayer of the petitioner is yet again examined on merits, notwithstanding the findings recorded or opinion expressed in W.P.Nos.15034/2017 and 11379/2017 (relating to accused No.5). 15. Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.6 in Spl.C.C.No.450/2015 and it is alleged by the prosecution that while petitioner was working as Commissioner BUDA at relevant point of time he had entered into criminal conspiracy along with accused Nos.2 to 5 and accused No.1 to cheat Allahabad Bank and in furtherance of it, accused No.2 had selected poor persons like coolies, labourers, mason, auto/taxi drivers, plastic sellers, second hand cloth sellers, agriculturist, house wives, road side hoteliers, etc. as entrepreneurs not having technical and work experience in the specified field for the purposes of obtaining loans from the Bank. It was further alleged by the prosecution that accused No.2 used to exert influence and pressure on the petitioner to issue letter for recommending sanction of subsidy and soft seed capital from Directorate of Industries and Commerce and as such petitioner in conspiracy with accused No.2 had issued letter to the Directorate that he had visited the units and said units are technically and economically viable though they were non existent. It is further alleged that petitioner used to received Rs.7,500/- per application which fact had been supported by the statements furnished by CW7 and CW45. It is further alleged that petitioner used to received Rs.7,500/- per application which fact had been supported by the statements furnished by CW7 and CW45. It is also alleged that on the basis of such fabricated reports, other accused persons in conspiracy with each other had sanctioned 38 loans and they had withdrawn the loans so sanctioned from the bank accounts of loanees by cash. 16. Insofar as, Spl.C.C.No.507/2015 which is the subject matter of W.P.No.15492/2017 the allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that he had issued letter to the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Head Office, Bengaluru, intimating that he had inspected the Units and they were existing, technically and economically they are viable and thereby directing the Bank Manager to sanction the loan. It is further alleged that petitioner by communication dated 15.05.2015 had intimated the Directorate of Industries and Commerce that 21 Units were financed by Allahabad Bank, Hospet and they were eligible for Equity Fund/Soft Seed Capital and Venture Capital Fund and as such requested to release the funds for the Units so financed by the Bank. 17. In this background, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner which is to the effect that petitioner has nowhere stated that he had inspected the Unit personally and he had only examined the application and report given by the appraiser, based on which petitioner had given his opinion, which has been erroneously interpreted by the prosecution as though petitioner himself having examined the Unit, requires to be considered for the purposes of rejection for the reasons indicated herein below. 18. At the stage of framing of charge the Court would not examine the proof of charge sheet material. As to whether the accused has committed an offence, if called upon to face trial, would only be the issue for consideration. If the charge sheet material were to remain uncontroverted and yet it may not lead to conviction would be a good ground for discharge or quashing of the proceedings. The probable defence the accused may place at the time of trial would not be in the domain of consideration of the prayer for discharge. 19. If the charge sheet material were to remain uncontroverted and yet it may not lead to conviction would be a good ground for discharge or quashing of the proceedings. The probable defence the accused may place at the time of trial would not be in the domain of consideration of the prayer for discharge. 19. In the background of aforesaid discussion, it can be noticed in Spl.C.C.No.450/2015 statements of CW7 and CW45 has been recorded during the course of investigation by the prosecution, which revealed that petitioner used to receive Rs.7,500/- per application for clearing the files. Though petitioner may have not been arraigned as an accused in the FIR or in the complaint, that by itself would not be a ground to disbelieve the case of the prosecution and the charge sheet material, which indicates the role of the petitioner as emerged while investigating disentitle the petitioner to seek for discharge. In fact, petitioner in his statement has admitted of having issued the report to the Bank. The charge sheet material would also disclose that accused No.1 as the Bank Manager of Allahabad Bank without conducting pre-sanction of inspection and post-sanction or inspection had issued reports to the Bank. Petitioner herein had issued reports in respect of such Units which was in conformity with the report of accused No.1 which prima facie establish meeting of minds and conspiracy with each other and as such trial court has rightly rejected the prayer for discharge. 20. Insofar as, Spl.C.C.No.507/2015 is concerned, the allegation is identical and similar as made out in Spl.C.C.No.450/2015. In fact, CW24 has clearly stated the role of the petitioner insofar as it relates to issuing of letters to Addl. Director, Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Bengaluru, for release of Soft Seed Capital fund for the Units financed by the Bank. The needle of suspicion against the petitioners pointing out towards the guilt of accused No.4 petitioner on the basis of the charge sheet material is sufficient enough to proceed for framing of charge and as such the learned trial Judge has rightly not acceded to the prayer of the petitioner. 21. The needle of suspicion against the petitioners pointing out towards the guilt of accused No.4 petitioner on the basis of the charge sheet material is sufficient enough to proceed for framing of charge and as such the learned trial Judge has rightly not acceded to the prayer of the petitioner. 21. Valiant attempt made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to seek for discharge of the accused by relying upon several documents would all be in the domain of defence evidence, which cannot be looked into at the stage of framing of the charge and it would definitely be open for the petitioner to prove the said documents in the event of petitioner intending to rely on the said documents at the time of trial. 22. In both the writ petition a plea has been raised with regard to non obtaining sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The acts of cheating or misappropriation of funds or fabrication of documents, would not be a part of the official duty of any public servant and thereby such acts would not attract provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. and as such contention raised in that regard also cannot be accepted. 23. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) W.P.Nos.15034/2017,11379/2017 and Crl.P.No.7864/2015 filed by accused No.5 (Smt.Khazi Nafeesa) in Spl.C.C.No.450/2015, are hereby dismissed. (ii) W.P.Nos.14901/2017 and 15492/2017 filed by accused Nos.6 and 4 (Sri.V.N.Veerabhadraswamy) in Spl.C.C.Nos.450/2015 and 507/2015 respectively, are hereby dismissed.