JUDGMENT : Heard the parties through Video Conferencing. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as the Cr. M.P. No. 395 of 2008 is concerned, in view of the subsequent development in the case, and challenges made in Cr. M.P. No. 547 of 2010 by same petitioners in respect of the same case, the prayer made in Cr. M.P. No. 395 of 2008 has become infructuous. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 395 of 2008 is dismissed as infructuous. 3. So far as Cr. M.P. No. 547 of 2010 is concerned, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that originally the criminal miscellaneous petition was filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 18.12.2009 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi in Special Case No. 6A of 1999 arising out of Vigilance P.S. case no. 29 of 1999 whereby and whereunder, even after acceptance of the final form, learned Special Judge ordered for further investigation in the case. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that during pendency of the case, charge sheet was submitted and Sanction for prosecution, which earlier was refused by the competent authority, has subsequently been granted hence, vide order dated 31.08.2018 in this Cr.M.P. No. 547 of 2010, the petitioners were permitted to make additional prayer for quashing the sanction order dated 02.06.2010 as well as the charge sheet dated 31.12.2013 and during the pendency of this case, the cognizance has also been taken by learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi and vide order dated 10.12.2021, this court allowed IA no. 5435 of 2021, which was filed with a prayer to allow the prayer of the petitioners to incorporate the additional prayer of quashing the order taking cognizance dated 01.02.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance (Special), Ranchi in Special Case No. 06(A) of 1999 as well as directing issuance of summons to the petitioners under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. 4. The brief facts of this case is that the petitioner no. 1 being the Executive Engineer and the petitioner no. The brief facts of this case is that the petitioner no. 1 being the Executive Engineer and the petitioner no. 2 being the Assistant Engineer of the Department of Road Construction, Jharkhand, Ranchi along with the co-accused persons, hatched up a criminal conspiracy and committed criminal misconduct by misusing their official position, got the joint office building of Mines and Minerals Department, Doranda, Ranchi constructed by using sub-standard materials and as a result of which, the roof of the said building collapsed and there is further allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners prepared forged documents and they were involved in embezzlement of huge amount of government money and cheating also; for their wrongful gain as well as for wrongful gain of the co-accused persons and corresponding wrongful loss to the State Exchequer. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that after investigation of the case, these two petitioners were not sent up for trial due to lack of sanction order for their prosecution, as the same was refused by the competent authority and the said final form was accepted vide order dated 20.01.2009 but subsequently, the Investigating Officer of the case, made a prayer before learned Special Judge that sufficient evidence against four accused persons are available, hence further investigation of the case under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure be permitted and vide order dated 18.12.2009, learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi allowed the prayer for further investigation. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no justifiable reason for further investigation of the case as earlier also, the investigation was going on for a period, not less than eight years and learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi has allowed the prayer for further investigation arbitrarily, in a routine manner and the same amounts to recalling or reviewing of the order dated 20.01.2009 passed by the predecessor Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi who accepted the final form submitted by the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that when the competent authority refused to grant the sanction for prosecution of the petitioners, there was no justification on the part of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi to order for further investigation of the case. 6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that when the competent authority refused to grant the sanction for prosecution of the petitioners, there was no justification on the part of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi to order for further investigation of the case. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors. Versus The State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in Criminal Appeal Nos. 478-479 of 2017 dated 16.10.2019, the paragraph 9, 21, 28 and 43 of which reads as under : “9. The question of law that therefore arises in this case is whether, after a charge-sheet is filed by the police, the Magistrate has the power to order further investigation, and if so, up to what stage of a criminal proceeding. 21. What is recognised by this decision is that in the circumstance that the Magistrate does not agree with the police report, he may order further investigation -which is done in his capacity as a supervisory authority in relation to investigation carried out by the police. 28. In Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah (1997) 7 SCC 614 , this Court dealt with a case in which the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the “CBI”) had submitted a closure report. It then quoted from a Three Judge Bench judgment in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Anr. (1985) 2 SCC 357, in which this Court stated that a Magistrate, in dealing with a report from the police under Section 173, can adopt one of three courses -(1) he may accept the report and drop the proceedings; or (2) he may disagree with the report, take cognizance of the offence and issue process; or (3) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under Section 156(3). The Court then went on to hold that where objections have been furnished by the complainant, i.e. the Union Public Service Commission, against the closure report of the police, the Magistrate could, in exercise of powers under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, direct the CBI to further investigate the case and collect further evidence keeping in view the objections raised by the complainant (see paragraph 13 therein). 43. 43. We, therefore, set aside the impugned High Court judgment insofar as it states that post-cognizance the Magistrate is denuded of power to order further investigation. However, given that the facts stated in the application for further investigation have no direct bearing on the investigation conducted pursuant to the FIR dated 22.12.2009, we uphold the impugned High Court judgment insofar as it has set aside the judgment of the Second Additional Sessions Judge dated 10.01.2012 which had ordered further investigation, and also the consequential order setting aside the two additional interim reports of the IO Munshi. So far as Criminal Revision Application No.346 of 2011 is concerned, we set aside the impugned High Court judgment which remanded the matter to the revisional court. Consequently, the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 23.04.2016 upon remand is also set aside, rendering Special Criminal Application No. 3085 of 2016 infructuous.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. Mr. Sahani further submits that since by a reasoned order dated 30.04.2005, the government declined to sanction prosecution under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., 1973 but as after further investigation in the matter, the Investigating Officer sought sanction for prosecution and the Secretary-cum Legal Remembrancer, Law (Judicial) Department, Government of Jharkhand purported to have granted sanction for prosecution interalia of the petitioners but he is not the competent authority to issue such sanction hence continuance of prosecution against the petitioners is bad in law. In this respect, Mr. Sahani relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab & Anr. Versus Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti in Civil Appeal no. 4969 of 2009 dated 31.07.2009 and also the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Nishant Sareen, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 527 as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court in Cr. Misc. Case no. 44151 of 2008 in the case of Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar dated 03.03.2011. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the second charge sheet dated 31.12.2013 is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. Misc. Case no. 44151 of 2008 in the case of Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar dated 03.03.2011. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the second charge sheet dated 31.12.2013 is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the cognizance order dated 01.02.2021 does not record the subjective satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi rather the same has been passed mechanically, in a routine manner, without taking into consideration that the earlier sanction for prosecution was refused, hence, it is submitted that the order dated 18.12.2009 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi in Vigilance (Special) Case No. 6A of 1999 arising out of Vigilance P.S. case no. 29 of 1999, sanction order dated 02.06.2010 passed by the Secretary-cum Legal Remembrancer, Law (Judicial) Department, Government of Jharkhand, charge sheet dated 31.12.2013 and the cognizance order dated 01.02.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi be quashed. 9. Ms. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. vehemently opposes the prayer made by the petitioners and submits that in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has set aside the portion of the judgment of High Court impugned before it, so far as it stated that post cognizance, the Magistrate is denuded of power to order further investigation and by now, it is a settled principle of law that as fundamentally, justice not only has to be done but also must appear to have been done, hence the residuary jurisdiction of a Court to direct further investigation by the investigating agency in appropriate cases cannot be denied. 10. It is next submitted by Ms. Shrestha, learned Spl. PP that an Investigating Officer is not a legal expert hence, the verbatim of his requisition for re-investigation cannot be over emphasized to set aside the order for further investigation on any technical ground when otherwise the order for further investigation is in accordance with law, hence, it is submitted that there is no illegality in passing order for re-investigation in this case by learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi. 11. So far as the contention of the petitioner about the illegality in passing of the order of sanction for prosecution is concerned, it is submitted by Ms. Shrestha, learned Spl. 11. So far as the contention of the petitioner about the illegality in passing of the order of sanction for prosecution is concerned, it is submitted by Ms. Shrestha, learned Spl. PP that it is a settled principle of law that errors of sanction order can be raised only at the full dress trial of the case and certainly a sanction for prosecution cannot be quashed at the pre-trial stage, hence, the prayer for quashing the sanction order for prosecution, is pre mature and at the most, the petitioners can take that plea during the trial of the case. 12. So far as the prayer for quashing the charge sheet is concerned, it is submitted by Ms. Shrestha that after further investigation of the case, the competent authority has found sufficient materials to sanction the prosecution and under such circumstances, sanctioning of prosecution cannot be termed as ‘review’ rather, it is a fresh order passed on fresh materials placed before the sanctioning authority and upon finding the fresh materials, the charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioners as well, hence, there is no illegality in the charge-sheet submitted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau in this case. 13. So far as the prayer for quashing the cognizance is concerned, it is submitted by Ms. Shrestha, learned Spl. PP that the learned court below has categorically mentioned the materials placed before it in the said order by which cognizance has been taken; prior to taking cognizance in the matter and there is no illegality in the same as well. Thus, it is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that this petition being without any merit be dismissed. 14. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that Section 173 (8) of Code of Criminal Procedure permits further investigation when fresh facts come to light or defective investigation is detected in course of trial, as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 2004 (5) SCC 347 paragraph 12 and 13 of which reads as under : 12. reported in 2004 (5) SCC 347 paragraph 12 and 13 of which reads as under : 12. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code permits further investigation, and even dehors any direction from the court as such, it is open to the police to conduct proper investigation, even after the court took cognisance of any offence on the strength of a police report earlier submitted. All the more so, if as in this case, the Head of the Police Department also was not satisfied of the propriety or the manner and nature of investigation already conducted. 13. In Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) it was observed by this Court that further investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because cognisance has been taken by the court. When defective investigation comes to light during course of trial, it may be cured by further investigation, if circumstances so permitted. It would ordinarily be desirable and all the more so in this case, that the police should inform the court and seek formal permission to make further investigation when fresh facts come to light instead of being silent over the matter keeping in view only the need for an early trial since an effective trial for real or actual offences found during course of proper investigation is as much relevant, desirable and necessary as an expeditious disposal of the matter by the courts. In view of the aforesaid position in law, if there is necessity for further investigation, the same can certainly be done as prescribed by law. The mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation if that would help the court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial as well as effective justice. We make it clear that we have not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the case. In the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has categorically stated that even post cognizance, which is not the present case, the Magistrate has the power for further investigation in appropriate cases. 15. After carefully going through the records, this Court finds that vide order dated 18.12.2009, learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi has ordered for fresh investigation only after the I.O. intimating him about the fresh materials being available. 15. After carefully going through the records, this Court finds that vide order dated 18.12.2009, learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi has ordered for fresh investigation only after the I.O. intimating him about the fresh materials being available. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the order, more so because, after fresh investigation upon finding fresh materials, the charge-sheet has already been submitted and the cognizance of the offence has already been taken by the learned Magistrate. 16. So far as the prayer for error in sanction of prosecution is concerned, it is settled principle of law that errors in sanction of prosecution, can only be appreciated during trial of the case and at the pre-trial stage, only absence of sanction of prosecution can be considered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of C.B.I. Vs. Mrs. Pramila Virendra Kumar Agrawal & Another (Cr. Appeal No. 148990 of 2019) date of the judgment 25.09.2019 has held as under in paragrapgh-13 :- 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”. (Emphasis Supplied) But this is not the case of absence of sanction of prosecution rather it is a case of error in sanction of prosecution. (Emphasis Supplied) But this is not the case of absence of sanction of prosecution rather it is a case of error in sanction of prosecution. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that petitioners are at liberty to raise the errors in sanction of prosecution during the trial and for that reason, this Court is not inclined to quash the sanction order of prosecution. 17. So far as the prayer for quashing the charge-sheet and cognizance order is concerned, perusal of the record reveals that after finding fresh materials, the charge-sheet has been submitted and the cognizance order shows that learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi has applied his mind and basing upon the materials placed before him, he passed the order mentioning the allegations against the petitioners made in the charge sheet. There is specific allegation against the petitioners, the petitioner no. 1 being the Executive Engineer and the petitioner no. 2 being the Assistant Engineer of the Department of Road Construction, Jharkhand, Ranchi, along with the co-accused persons, hatched up a criminal conspiracy and committed criminal misconduct by misusing their official position, got the joint office building of Mines and Minerals Department, Doranda, Ranchi constructed by using sub-standard materials and as a result of which, the roof of the said building collapsed and there is further allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners prepared forged documents and they were involved in embezzlement of huge amount of government money and cheating also; for their wrongful gain as well as for wrongful gain of the co-accused persons and corresponding wrongful loss to the State Exchequer. Hence, this Court do not find any justifiable reason to quash either the charge sheet or the cognizance order dated 01.02.2021 passed in this case. 18. Accordingly, this petition being without any merit is dismissed and in view of the disposal of the petition, the interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of. 19. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Court concerned forthwith.