JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. T.N. Verma, learned Spl. P.P., Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi. 3. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “(i) For quashing the order granting sanction for prosecution as contained in Memo No.246, Giridih dated 08.02.2019 (Annexure-10) whereby and whereunder Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, District Giridih granted sanction for prosecution against the petitioner under Sections 7/13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 under pressure of the higher authorities, though earlier sanction was rejected twice and the same is not in accordance with the settled the principles of law, pending before District & Additional Sessions Judge–II–cum–Special Judge (Vigilance) Dhanbad. (ii) For quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 14.02.2019 (Annexure–11) in Spl. (ACB) Case No.45/2002 corresponding Dhanbad (ACB) PS Case No.39/2002 by learned court of District & Sessions Judge–II-cum-Spl. Judge (Vigilance), Dhanbad whereby and where under, cognizance has been taken for offences under Sections 7 / 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as the same is illegal in view of the illegal sanction for prosecution and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law; (iii) During the pendency of the instant writ application, for stay of the further proceeding in Spl. (ACB) Case No.45/2002 corresponding to Dhanbad (ACB) PS Case No.39/2002 before the learned court of District & Sessions Judge–II-cum-Spl. Judge (Vigilance), Dhanbad.” Arguments on behalf of the petitioner 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the year 1983 and during the year 2002-2003, he was posted in office of In-charge, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Sadar, Giridih, when a Complaint dated 04.06.2002 was made by one Madhu Sudan Bhaiya before the Director General, Vigilance Bureau, alleging that the petitioner has demanded Rs.7,000/- as bribe for passing of the salary and payment of advance. As per the prosecution case, the said Complaint was verified on 08.06.2002 and the verification report was prepared on 10.06.2002 and an F.I.R. was registered by the Vigilance P.S., Ranchi being FIR No.39/2002 dated 10-06-2002. Thereafter, the trap team was constituted on 10.06.2002 and the trap was conducted on 11.06.2002, when the petitioner was caught red handed with the bribe money of Rs.2,000/- and the petitioner was taken into custody. 5. Thereafter, the trap team was constituted on 10.06.2002 and the trap was conducted on 11.06.2002, when the petitioner was caught red handed with the bribe money of Rs.2,000/- and the petitioner was taken into custody. 5. Thereafter, Charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner vide Charge Sheet No. 41 of 2002 dated 03.08.2002 under Section 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While submitting the charge-sheet, it was mentioned that the sanction for prosecution has been prayed for before the competent authority. The investigation of the case was complete and the prosecution was only waiting for the sanction. 6. On 01.07.2008, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Giridih, taking into account the earlier report of the then Civil Surgeon and also considering the conspiracy by virtue of which the petitioner has been falsely implicated, refused to grant sanction for prosecution against the petitioner. On 08.05.2009, the list of pending proposals for sanction of prosecution before the Directorate of Health, Jharkhand, Ranchi was forwarded to the Vigilance Commissioner wherein it was very categorically mentioned about refusal to grant sanction for prosecution, so far as the petitioner is concerned. On 25.05.2009, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Giridih reiterated his stand and accordingly, prayed for exonerating the petitioner. On 05.11.2012, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer had again refused to grant sanction for prosecution by referring to the earlier materials and had prayed for closure of the matter. On 19.07.2013, another order was passed by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Giridih discussing the entire reasons for refusal to grant prosecution sanction against the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the aforesaid sequence of events, submits that there are repeated orders refusing to grant sanction for prosecution of the petitioner and the refusal to grant sanction for prosecution was duly communicated to the respondents. 7. However, on 13.12.2018, Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Jharkhand, Ranchi wrote to the Civil Surgeon, Giridih in reference to the directions issued by the Vigilance Commissioner and show caused him for not granting sanction. 7. However, on 13.12.2018, Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Jharkhand, Ranchi wrote to the Civil Surgeon, Giridih in reference to the directions issued by the Vigilance Commissioner and show caused him for not granting sanction. Consequently, the Deputy Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department again wrote to the Civil Surgeon, Giridih to grant sanction for prosecution against the petitioner within three days and consequently, the Civil Surgeon, Giridih obtained legal opinion from the public prosecutor and accorded sanction for prosecution against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Sections 7 / 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 08.02.2019 and the learned court below took cognizance of offence against the petitioner vide order dated 14.02.2019. The sanction order dated 08.02.2019 as well as the order taking cognizance dated 14.02.2019 are under challenge before this Court. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner while advancing his arguments submitted that the law is well settled that there can be no direction upon the sanctioning authority who had earlier applied his independent mind and his discretion not to grant sanction for prosecution cannot be taken away. He submits that the sanction itself has been granted under the dictates of the Vigilance Department. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan –Vs- State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1997 SC 3400 . 9. The Learned counsel further submits that the sanction order must reflect application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. For this, he referred to the judgment passed in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerjan reported in (2007) 11 SCC 273 and submits that the impugned order granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioner reflects non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority. 10. The learned counsel submits that it is not permissible for the sanctioning authority to review or reconsider the matter on the same materials again and for this, he relies upon a judgment reported in AIR 2011 SC 404 (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nishant Sareen). The counsel submits that so far as the order declining to grant sanction for prosecution is concerned, the same has not been challenged by the Vigilance Bureau and hence, it has attained finality. Nishant Sareen). The counsel submits that so far as the order declining to grant sanction for prosecution is concerned, the same has not been challenged by the Vigilance Bureau and hence, it has attained finality. He also submits that if the Vigilance Bureau was aggrieved by the order refusing to grant sanction for prosecution, it was certainly open to the Vigilance Bureau to challenge the order refusing to grant sanction, but the grant of sanction on the basis of the same materials, which were available at the time of refusal of sanction, is not permissible by reviewing the earlier order refusing sanction and impugned order granting sanction for prosecution is wholly without jurisdiction. The learned counsel submits that in the impugned order granting sanction, no disagreement has been recorded so far as the earlier order refusing to grant sanction is concerned. Arguments of Opposite Party Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) 11. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), on the other hand, submits that the law is well settled that once the sanction for prosecution has been granted by the competent authority, the legality and validity of the order granting sanction for prosecution as well as the point as to whether the sanctioning authority has applied his mind on the materials collected during investigation available on record or not, is a matter of trial. He also relies upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Cr. Appeal No.1489-1490 of 2019 [Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) etc. –Vs- Pramila Virendra Kumar Agarwal and Another] (2019 SCC On Line SC 1265) decided on 25th September, 2019 and relies upon Para-13 thereof and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has followed the decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 1 SCC 532 (Dinesh Kumar –Vs- Airport Authority of India) wherein it has been held that the distinction between absence of sanction and alleged invalidity on account of non-application of mind and the point regarding validity of sanction or there is any defect in sanction, is essentially a matter of trial. 12. 12. The learned counsel for the opposite party also refers to the case diary and submits that the preliminary enquiry in connection with the allegation which was made by the Complainant was conducted on 08.06.2002, but the report was prepared on 10.06.2002 and on 10.06.2002, the trap team was constituted and pre-trap memorandum was prepared at about 18 hours in presence of the Complainant and all were directed to assemble at 5.00 A.M. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was caught red-handed by the trap team on 11.06.2002. 13. The learned counsel for the opposite party refers to Annexure-6 to submit that the reason for refusal of prosecution sanction has been mentioned therein by stating that on the date of the preliminary enquiry regarding correctness of the allegation made by the Complainant, the petitioner was not present on the spot and on the date of preparation of pre-trap memorandum, the Complainant could not be available and for such point, some documents showing attendance, certificate etc. were relied upon by the sanctioning authority. 14. The learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the sanctioning authority has to apply his mind on the materials which were collected during investigation of the criminal case. He submits that the earlier refusal to grant sanction for prosecution was not based on materials of the investigation of the criminal case, but was based on the allegation that the Complainant was not present at the time of preparation of pre-trap memorandum on 10.06.2002 (which are in turn based on photocopy of certain attendance register of the Complainant) and the petitioner, on the date of verification of Complaint was present in some training program and in support of this, certain order and certificate were relied upon. Thus, the materials, on the basis of which the sanction for prosecution was rejected earlier, were not the materials collected during investigation of the criminal case, but were the materials reflecting a defence version that the petitioner was not present at the time of verification of the Complaint on 08.06.2002 and the Complainant was not present at the time of preparation of pre-trap memorandum on 10.06.2002. He submits that the reason for refusal of sanction were those materials which did not form a part of the investigation of the criminal case and accordingly, the same could not have been taken into consideration while taking decision on the point of sanction for prosecution. The learned counsel for the opposite party submits that Civil Surgeon, Giridih was asked to review the matter regarding grant of sanction and the Civil Surgeon, Giridih had taken opinion from the public prosecutor and after obtaining the opinion, he applied his independent mind in the matter of grant of sanction and has granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 08.02.2019. The learned counsel submits that the opinion of the public prosecutor is not available in the present record of this writ petition. He also submits that the reason for refusal to grant of sanction for prosecution was itself, ex-facie, illegal and perverse for having taken into consideration materials beyond the records of the criminal case and accordingly, the same has been reviewed rightly. 15. The learned counsel for the opposite party also relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1186 (State of Punjab and Anr. Vs. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti) and submits that it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is no bar in reviewing the order of sanction, but the same is circumscribed by two circumstances: (a) there may be any fresh material coming up during investigation for the purposes of review (b) the sanctioning authority has failed to take into consideration a relevant fact or took into consideration an irrelevant fact. 16. The learned counsel submits that in the present case, the sanctioning authority, while refusing to grant sanction for prosecution on earlier occasion had taken into account such materials which did not form a part of the investigation by the prosecution and were irrelevant for the purposes of consideration of grant for sanction as only the materials collected during investigation are required to be considered at the time of consideration of sanction for prosecution. However, he submits that these aspects of the matter should be considered at the time of trial and it cannot be said, at this stage, that the impugned order of grant of sanction for prosecution and consequently, the order taking cognizance are bad in the eyes of law. However, he submits that these aspects of the matter should be considered at the time of trial and it cannot be said, at this stage, that the impugned order of grant of sanction for prosecution and consequently, the order taking cognizance are bad in the eyes of law. He also submits that the validity of sanction for prosecution is essentially a matter of trial. Findings of this Court 17. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that as per the prosecution case, the preliminary enquiry in connection with the allegations made against the petitioner is said to have been verified on 08.06.2002, the verifying authority reached Ranchi on 09.06.2002 and the verification report was prepared on 10.06.2002 .The pre-trap memorandum was prepared on 10.06.2002 and as per the case diary, the Complainant was also present. The trap was conducted on 11.06.2002 in which the petitioner was caught red-handed with the bribe money. 18. The order refusing to grant sanction for prosecution of the petitioner vide Letter No. 1708 dated 01.07.2008 (Annexure-3) was issued by the Civil Surgeon, Giridih and addressed to Director, Health Services, Jharkhand, Ranchi. From perusal of this order, it appears that it is based on Letter No. 112 dated 04.03.2003 of In-Charge, Medical Officer, Giridih, but the contents of this letter is not reflecting in the order dated 01.07.2008. 19. Thereafter, when certain queries were made in connection with sanction for prosecution of the petitioner, the fact about refusal to grant sanction for prosecution earlier vide Letter No. 1708 dated 01.07.2008 was reiterated and refusal of sanction for prosecution was again communicated vide order as contained in Memo No. 2125 dated 05.11.2012 issued by the Civil Surgeon, Giridih and was also communicated to various authorities including the Director, Health Services, Jharkhand, Ranchi and Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi for information and necessary action. 20. 20. The petitioner has annexed a copy of Letter dated 13.12.2018 issued by the Health Department of the Government of Jharkhand whereby a show cause has been issued to the Civil Surgeon, Giridih alleging relaxed attitude of the Civil Surgeon in the matter of grant of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner and another Letter dated 19.12.2018 which was also issued by the same authority to the Civil Surgeon, Giridih asking him to take a decision in the matter of grant of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. 21. The impugned decision granting sanction for prosecution was granted vide Memo No. 246 dated 08.02.2019 which reflects that the sanctioning authority had called for the case records from the Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi vide Letter dated 20.12.2018 which he had received on 07.01.2019 and thereafter, he had obtained legal opinion in the matter of grant of sanction for prosecution from the public prosecutor and upon receiving the opinion and being fully satisfied, he has granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. On the point of power refusing to grant sanction for prosecution 22. A letter dated 18.05.2013 was issued by Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi stating that before trap, a verification was done by an Officer of the Vigilance Department and then only, trap was laid. This is reflected from perusal of order dated 19.07.2013 (Annexure-6) issued by the Civil Surgeon, Giridih which was passed in response to the Letter dated 18.05.2013 and vide order dated 19.07.2013, the Civil Surgeon, Giridih had again refused to grant sanction for prosecution mentioning about the earlier order refusing to grant sanction for prosecution. Further, in this order, the contents of aforesaid Letter No. 112 dated 04.03.2003 issued by In-charge Medical Officer, Giridih is mentioned, which reflected the reason for refusal to grant sanction for prosecution. The reason mentioned is that on the date of verification of Complaint i.e. on 08.06.2002, the petitioner was not present at the place of verification, but was attending some training program and in support of the same, one order of the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih and one certificate that he attended the training program was attached as proof. The reason mentioned is that on the date of verification of Complaint i.e. on 08.06.2002, the petitioner was not present at the place of verification, but was attending some training program and in support of the same, one order of the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih and one certificate that he attended the training program was attached as proof. Further so far as incident of 10.06.2002 is concerned, which is the date of preparation of pre-trap memorandum, it is mentioned in the said Letter No. 112 dated 04.03.2003 that the Complainant could not be present at that time as he was present at his place of work and a copy of the attendance register was attached as proof. 23. There is no dispute that the aforesaid reasons for refusal to grant sanction for prosecution were based on certain evidences/photocopy of certain documents which did not form part of the investigation conducted by the prosecution. These are to show that the petitioner was not present on the date of verification of Complaint and the Complainant was not present at the time and place of preparation of pre-trap memorandum and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the criminal case. 24. Accordingly, it appears that the authority, while refusing to grant sanction for prosecution, had taken irrelevant materials into consideration and had refused to grant sanction as the sanctioning authority has to consider only the materials collected during investigation of the case at the stage of consideration of sanction for prosecution and the entire materials collected during investigation have to be placed for consideration. There is no scope for consideration of any defence version or defence documents at the stage of consideration of sanction for prosecution as they are matters of defence to be taken up at the stage of trial by the accused. Thus, this Court finds that ex-facie, extraneous materials were taken into consideration earlier for the purposes of refusal to grant sanction for prosecution although admittedly, the investigation was over and there was no fresh material at the time of review of the decision refusing to grant sanction for prosecution. 25. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Supdt. 25. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Supdt. of Police (C.B.I.) v. Deepak Chowdhary, (1995) 6 SCC 225 that even principles of natural justice is not required to be followed at the time of consideration of sanction for prosecution by the authority and the same is a purely administrative function to be decided on the basis of materials collected during investigation. It has been held in Para-5 as follows: - “5. We find force in the contention. The grant of sanction is only an administrative function, though it is true that the accused may be saddled with the liability to be prosecuted in a court of law. What is material at that time is that the necessary facts collected during investigation constituting the offence have to be placed before the sanctioning authority and it has to consider the material. Prima facie, the authority is required to reach the satisfaction that the relevant facts would constitute the offence and then either grant or refuse to grant sanction. The grant of sanction, therefore, being administrative act the need to provide an opportunity of hearing to the accused before according sanction does not arise. The High Court, therefore, was clearly in error in holding that the order of sanction is vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice.” 26. In the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1186 (State of Punjab and Anr. Vs. Md. Iqbal Bhatti), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that although the State in the matter of grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory jurisdiction, the same, however, would not mean that the power once exercised cannot be exercised once again. It has also been held that for exercising its jurisdiction at the subsequent stage, express power of review in the State may not be necessary as even such a power is administrative in character. 27. This Court finds that the opposite party has rightly relied upon the decision reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1186 (State of Punjab and Anr. Vs. It has also been held that for exercising its jurisdiction at the subsequent stage, express power of review in the State may not be necessary as even such a power is administrative in character. 27. This Court finds that the opposite party has rightly relied upon the decision reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1186 (State of Punjab and Anr. Vs. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti) wherein it has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is no bar in reviewing the order of sanction, but the same is circumscribed by two circumstances: (a) there may be any fresh material coming up during investigation for the purposes of review and (b) the sanctioning authority has failed to take into consideration a relevant fact or took into consideration an irrelevant fact. 28. The present case is a case where the sanctioning authority had taken into consideration irrelevant facts which did not form part of the criminal case records for the purposes of refusal to grant sanction for prosecution on earlier occasion and therefore, the exercise of power to review the order regarding sanction for prosecution in the instant case is covered by the judgment passed in the case of Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti (supra) and accordingly, at this stage, it cannot be said that the exercise of power by the authority while passing the impugned order of sanction for prosecution is without jurisdiction. The other points regarding legality and validity of sanction are essentially matter of trial. 29. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that it is not permissible for the sanctioning authority to review or reconsider the matter on the same materials again and for this, he relies upon a judgment reported in AIR 2011 SC 404 (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nishant Sareen) wherein it has been held as follows:- “12. It is true that the Government in the matter of grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory power and that would not mean that power once exercised cannot be exercised again or at a subsequent stage in the absence of express power of review in no circumstance whatsoever. The power of review, however, is not unbridled or unrestricted. It is true that the Government in the matter of grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory power and that would not mean that power once exercised cannot be exercised again or at a subsequent stage in the absence of express power of review in no circumstance whatsoever. The power of review, however, is not unbridled or unrestricted. It seems to us sound principle to follow that once the statutory power under Section 19 of the 1988 Act or Section 197 of the Code has been exercised by the Government or the competent authority, as the case may be, it is not permissible for the sanctioning authority to review or reconsider the matter on the same materials again. It is so because unrestricted power of review may not bring finality to such exercise and on change of the Government or change of the person authorised to exercise power of sanction, the matter concerning sanction may be reopened by such authority for the reasons best known to it and a different order may be passed. The opinion on the same materials, thus, may keep on changing and there may not be any end to such statutory exercise. In our opinion, a change of opinion per se on the same materials cannot be a ground for reviewing or reconsidering the earlier order refusing to grant sanction. However, in a case where fresh materials have been collected by the investigating agency subsequent to the earlier order and placed before the sanctioning authority and on that basis, the matter is reconsidered by the sanctioning authority and in light of the fresh materials an opinion is formed that sanction to prosecute the public servant may be granted, there may not be any impediment to adopt such course. 13. Insofar as the present case is concerned, it is not even the case of the appellant that fresh materials were collected by the investigating agency and placed before the sanctioning authority for reconsideration and/or for review of the earlier order refusing to grant sanction. As a matter of fact, from the perusal of the subsequent order dated March 15, 2008 it is clear that on the same materials, the sanctioning authority has changed its opinion and ordered sanction to prosecute the respondent which, in our opinion, is clearly impermissible.” 30. As a matter of fact, from the perusal of the subsequent order dated March 15, 2008 it is clear that on the same materials, the sanctioning authority has changed its opinion and ordered sanction to prosecute the respondent which, in our opinion, is clearly impermissible.” 30. This judgment is on the point that the sanctioning authority cannot review his order on the point of sanction by way of change of opinion on the same material. This judgment does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. The present case relates to consideration of materials other than the materials collected during investigation of the criminal case, to refuse sanction for prosecution and such order of refusal has been reviewed by the impugned order granting sanction for prosecution. The scope of review of the order refusing to grant sanction for prosecution is also available in a situation where it is found that the refusal of sanction for prosecution was on consideration of extraneous materials which did not form part of the case records placed for consideration of prosecution sanction. On the point of independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority 31. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan –Vs- State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1997 SC 3400 . This judgment does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of the fact that in the said case, direction was issued by the High Court to the Secretary to grant sanction for prosecution and consequently, the Secretary had no option, but to grant sanction. However, in the instant case, at this stage, prima-facie, there is no such corresponding fact to show that the sanctioning authority had no other option, but to grant sanction for prosecution and that he granted sanction for prosecution merely on account of any pressure. The records of the case, particularly the impugned order itself suggests, at this stage, that the sanctioning authority did the needful to apply his mind in the matter of sanction for prosecution by calling for the records and also by taking a legal opinion. The records of the case, particularly the impugned order itself suggests, at this stage, that the sanctioning authority did the needful to apply his mind in the matter of sanction for prosecution by calling for the records and also by taking a legal opinion. It cannot be said at this stage, that the sanctioning authority was prevented or pressurized to such an extent that he could not have and accordingly, did not apply his independent mind while granting sanction for prosecution by the impugned order. However, this aspect of the matter is also essentially a matter of trial. On the point of application of mind by the sanctioning authority on the materials collected by the prosecution during investigation of the criminal case 32. Upon perusal of the impugned order granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioner, this Court finds that the sanctioning authority not only called for the records of the case, but also took legal opinion of the public prosecutor and accordingly, prima facie, it cannot be said that the sanctioning authority had acted under the dictates of his higher authority or under the dictates of Vigilance Bureau and that he had no option, but to grant sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. The authority appears to have revisited the materials collected during investigation of the criminal case and also obtained legal opinion at the time of reconsidering the matter of grant of prosecution sanction. The legal opinion, the reference of which is mentioned in the impugned order of sanction is not available for perusal of this Court. 33. The case of State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerjan reported in (2007) 11 SCC 273 , which has been relied upon by the petitioner, does not apply in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case. Ameerjan (supra) was a case where the materials were not placed before the sanctioning authority except a report and in such circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the order of sanction for prosecution was completely illegal. 34. The impugned order in the present case, prima-facie, at this stage, reflects that materials collected during investigation of the case were placed and the sanctioning authority applied his mind on them and also sought a legal opinion. However, application or non-application of mind on the materials collected during investigation is certainly a matter of trial when the sanctioning authority will appear for examination and cross-examination. However, application or non-application of mind on the materials collected during investigation is certainly a matter of trial when the sanctioning authority will appear for examination and cross-examination. The learned counsel for the opposite party has rightly relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cr. Appeal No.1489-1490 of 2019 [Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) etc. –Vs- Pramila Virendra Kumar Agarwal and Another] (2019 SCC On Line SC 1265) decided on 25th September, 2019 and has rightly submitted that in Para-13, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has followed the earlier decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 1 SCC 532 (Dinesh Kumar –Vs- Airport Authority of India) wherein it has been held that the distinction between absence of sanction and alleged invalidity on account of non-application of mind and the point regarding validity of sanction or there is any defect in sanction, is essentially a matter of trial. Para-13 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein below for ready reference: “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. 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.” 35. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned order granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioner and is accordingly, not inclined to quash the impugned order taking cognizance of offence against the petitioner. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned order granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioner and is accordingly, not inclined to quash the impugned order taking cognizance of offence against the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed. 36. It is observed that it will certainly be open to the petitioner to cross examine the sanctioning authority who would be under a legal obligation to satisfy the court in the matter of his exercise of power in grant of sanction for prosecution, independent application of mind on the materials collected during investigation for the purposes of granting sanction for prosecution on 08.02.2019 and also whether the necessary records were placed before him or not. The observations made in this judgment are just prima facie view in order to deal with the arguments of the petitioner and these observations/findings will not prejudice the case of the petitioner before the learned court below in any manner whatsoever. 37. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 38. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are dismissed as not pressed. 39. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below. Petition dismissed.