JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Ujjawal Sinha, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. T. N. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-Anti-Corruption Bureau. 3. This revision application has been filed for the following reliefs: - That by virtue of this present application the Petitioner intends to move this Hon ble Court for setting aside the order dated 28.8.18 passed by the learned Court of Special Judge(A.C.B.) Dumka in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 34/2008 corresponding to Spl. Case No. 47/2003, by which the application Misc. Crl. Application No. 282/18 for discharge filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected, which has been lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 7/13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and this case is now pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (A.C.B.), Dumka. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order by which the discharge petition of the petitioner has been rejected on 28.08.2018 clearly indicates that the petitioner had raised the point regarding the invalidity of the sanction, in as much as, that the sanction was not accorded by the proper authority. He submits that the submission of the petitioner has also been recorded in the impugned order. He submits that the competent authority to accord sanction for his prosecution is Board of Revenue, Government of Jharkhand, but in this case, the prosecution sanction has been accorded by some other authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sanction order for prosecution of the petitioner is on record. 5. The learned counsel submits that the point regarding sanction has not been considered by the learned court below. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in S.L.P (Cr.) No.3993 of 1999 decided on 06.03.2000 (Manoranjan Prasad Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar) and submits that the sole question which was there before the Hon ble Supreme Court was, whether sanction was accorded by the competent authority under Section 19 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Hon ble Supreme Court found that there was no sanction of the competent authority, therefore, the proceeding was vitiated. State of Bihar) and submits that the sole question which was there before the Hon ble Supreme Court was, whether sanction was accorded by the competent authority under Section 19 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Hon ble Supreme Court found that there was no sanction of the competent authority, therefore, the proceeding was vitiated. The learned counsel submits that this particular judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court was placed before the learned court below, but the learned court below has simply refused to consider this judgment by stating that the judgment filed by the petitioner has no reference of any law journal. The learned counsel submits that this is ex facie erroneous approach of the learned court below. He submits that just because a judgment is not reported in a law journal, that does not mean that the same cannot be cited. He has referred to another judgment passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 14 SCC 186 (Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka) para 12 and 22 thereof, to submit that the question regarding validity of sanction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and the present petitioner raised the point regarding sanction at the stage of discharge and accordingly, the same was required to be considered by the learned court below, but the learned court below instead of considering the same and passing any order on the point, has rejected his petition for discharge. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand submits that the point regarding competence of the authority, who has granted sanction, is essentially a matter of trial. He submits that the sanctioning authority would appear before the learned court below at the stage of trial and the accused will have an opportunity to cross examine the sanctioning authority on point of his competence also and also adduce his defence evidence regarding the competence of the authority who is actually claimed to be competent to grant sanction for his prosecution. He further submits that the plea of the petitioner that the sanctioning authority is the Board of Revenue, cannot be said to be an admitted position and this dispute is itself a matter of trial. He further submits that the plea of the petitioner that the sanctioning authority is the Board of Revenue, cannot be said to be an admitted position and this dispute is itself a matter of trial. He also submits that as per the sanction order, the petitioner can be removed with the permission of the State Government and the sanction order has been passed by the order of the Hon ble Governor of Jharkhand. He further submits that the sanctioning authority is not a party before this Court to satisfy this Court regarding the competence to grant sanction for prosecution of the present petitioner. The learned counsel has referred to a judgment decided on 25th September, 2019 in Criminal Appeal No.1489-1490 of 2019 para 13, to submit that the Hon ble Supreme Court has also drawn a distinction between absence of sanction for prosecution and the validity of sanction for prosecution and the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that the validity of sanction is essentially a matter of trial. The learned counsel for the opposite partyA.C.B. refers to Para-10 of the counter-affidavit to submit that the sanction has been accorded by the competent authority. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the petitioner had raised the point before the learned court below regarding competence of the sanctioning authority and has specifically raised a point that it is the Member Board of Revenue, Government of Jharkhand, who is the sanctioning authority so far as the petitioner is concerned. However, from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that this point has not been considered by the learned court below and accordingly no finding has been recorded on this point and the petition for discharge has been rejected on other grounds. However, from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that this point has not been considered by the learned court below and accordingly no finding has been recorded on this point and the petition for discharge has been rejected on other grounds. This Court is of the considered view that once the sanction has been granted, the competence of the sanctioning authority, as to who would be the competent sanctioning authority for a particular case, is essentially a matter of trial, as the sanctioning authority has to appear before the learned court below for the purposes of satisfying the court on the point of his competence as well as other ingredients which are necessary for grant of sanction for prosecution and the petitioner will also have an opportunity to cross examine the sanctioning authority. Admittedly, the sanctioning authority is not a party before this Court and it cannot be said that it is an admitted fact that the Board of Revenue, Government of Jharkhand is the sanctioning authority for granting prosecution sanction in connection with the petitioner. It is the case of the opposite party that sanction for prosecution has been granted by the competent authority. 8. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the trial has already commenced and this Court finds it sufficient to observe that the impugned order has not decided the competence of the sanctioning authority and has not gone into the legality and validity of the sanction order. This point regarding legality and validity of sanction or regarding competence of the sanctioning authority and all other aspects are essentially a matter of trial. The point having been raised and not considered by the learned court below at the stage of discharge, will not come in the way of the plea of the petitioner challenging the sanction for prosecution granted against the petitioner at the stage of trial. 9. So far as the judgment which has been relied upon by the petitioner and was cited by the petitioner before the learned court below is concerned, this Court finds that in the said case, it was an admitted fact that the sanction was not granted by the competent authority and it was conceded by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar that the competent sanctioning authority was another person. This Court does not find any similar facts in the present case and at this stage, it is not an admitted fact that the sanctioning authority for the petitioner is the Board of Revenue, Government of Jharkhand. This itself is essentially a matter of evidence before the learned court below. Accordingly, the judgment which has been relied upon by the petitioner passed in S.L.P (Cr.) No.3993 of 1999, though cited before the learned court below and not considered, in fact, does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. 10. In the judgement reported in ( Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka, (2015) 14 SCC 186 ) in para 22 it has been held as follows: 22. The legal position regarding the importance of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is thus much too clear to admit equivocation. The statute forbids taking of cognizance by the court against a public servant except with the previous sanction of an authority competent to grant such sanction in terms of clauses (a), (b) and (c) to Section 19(1). The question regarding validity of such sanction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The competence of the court trying the accused so much depends upon the existence of a valid sanction. In case the sanction is found to be invalid the court can discharge the accused relegating the parties to a stage where the competent authority may grant a fresh sanction for the prosecution in accordance with law. If the trial court proceeds, despite the invalidity attached to the sanction order, the same shall be deemed to be non est in the eyes of law and shall not forbid a second trial for the same offences, upon grant of a valid sanction for such prosecution. 11. In the judgment passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1489-1490 of 2019, it has been held in para 13 as follows: 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 according 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. 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 a 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. 12. This Court finds that in the judgment passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1489-1490 of 2019 and relied upon by the respondent, a distinction has been made between absence of sanction on the one hand and the legality and validity of sanction on the other hand. Although, the said judgment did not specifically relate to the competence of the authority regarding grant of prosecution sanction, but the ratio of the judgment would still apply to the present case also when it is in dispute as to who would be the sanctioning authority for the petitioner. This Court is of the considered view that the competence of the sanctioning authority or otherwise is itself a matter of trial under the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. 13. Let this order be communicated to the learned court below through FAX.