JUDGMENT H.P. Sandesh, J. - This criminal revision petition is filed praying this Court to set aside the order dated 05.04.2011 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in Special Case No.21/2008 and direct the Trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that Karnataka Lokayuktha police have submitted a charge-sheet against the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption act, 1988. The allegation against the respondent-accused is that, he being a Public Servant working as Junior Town Planner in the office of the Bangalore International airport Development authority, has demanded a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- for issuing No Objection Certificate for conversion of certain lands situated in Kannamangala and Poojenahalli Villages in Devanahalli Taluk and he was caught red-handed while demanding and accepting the bribe amount from the complainant on 15.09.2006 and the tainted currency notes were also recovered from the possession of the accused. 3. The respondent-accused has filed an application under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988 read with Section 239 of Cr.P.C. praying the Trial Court to discharge him on the ground that there is no valid sanction to prosecute as contemplated under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988. It is also contended that, while according sanction, the sanctioning authority has not applied the mind and order of sanction granted by the Hon'ble Chief Minister is not an order in the eye of law and the same is not in conformity with Section 19 of the act and the same has been resisted by the petitioner by filing objections and the very validity of the sanction has been challenged and in that regard, P.W.1 has been examined before the Trial Court and the sanction order is also marked as Ex.P1. The respondent-accused, opposing the detailed objection contended that, sanction has been granted after perusing the material on record. The Trial Court, considering the contentions of the respective parties, allowed the application and discharged the respondent-accused and liberty is given to the petitioner-complainant to initiate fresh proceedings, after obtaining valid sanction, keeping in mind the observations made in the order. Being aggrieved by the order of allowing the application and discharge, the present revision petition is filed. 4. The Trial Court, considering the contentions of the respective parties, allowed the application and discharged the respondent-accused and liberty is given to the petitioner-complainant to initiate fresh proceedings, after obtaining valid sanction, keeping in mind the observations made in the order. Being aggrieved by the order of allowing the application and discharge, the present revision petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha Police forwarded the entire case file along with covering letter to the Urban Development Department requesting for according sanction to prosecute the accused. The Sub-ordinate staff prepared the notes and placed the same before the Hon'ble Chief Minister, who during the relevant time was holding the Portfolio of Urban Development. The Hon'ble Chief Minister affixed his signature on the note sheets and thereafter, proceedings was initiated. It is also contended that the material was also placed before the Under Secretary and thereafter, the same was authenticated by P.W.1 and sanction order is also issued in accordance with the transaction of business rules and Ex.P1-sanctiion order clearly disclose that, all the material aspects were considered. The counsel would also submit that, P.W.1 in his evidence has narrated regarding issuance of sanction and requirement of sanction under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption act is a matter of procedure and the same does not go to the root of the jurisdiction. The very reasoning given by the Trial Court that no valid sanction is an erroneous order and the sanction order disclose the facts that there had been application of mind and the material on record had been examined by the sanctioning authority, before according sanction. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 5. The counsel, in support of his argument, relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in the case of STaTE OF MaDHYa PRaDESH VS. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 5. The counsel, in support of his argument, relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in the case of STaTE OF MaDHYa PRaDESH VS. VIRENDER KUMaR TRIPaTHI reported in (2009) 15 SCC 533 and brought to the notice of this Court, paragraph Nos.8 to 10 and contend that, unless any failure of justice, the question of allowing the accused not to face the trial and discharging him is erroneous and the stage when this failure is to be established is yet to be reached since the case is at the stage of framing of charge whether or not failure has in fact been occasioned was to be determined once the trial commenced and evidence was led. 6. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in the case of STaTE (aNTI-CORRUPTION BRaNCH), GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI aND aNOTHER VS. DR. R.C. aNaND aND aNOTHER reported in (2004) 4 SCC 615 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.11 and 12, wherein the apex Court discussed with regard to the act of ratifying, confirmation and sanction and also observed that the sanctioning authority has to only see whether the facts disclosed in the complaint prima facie disclose commission of an offence or not. 7. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in the case of STaTE BY POLICE INSPECTOR VS. T. VENKaTESH MURTHY reported in aIR 2004 SC 5117 , wherein also the apex Court held that accused can be discharged and only the Court has to see whether it has occasioned failure of justice and Court discharge accused only on finding that sanction was not given by appropriate authority. The fact that plea about defective sanction was raised at belated stage was also not considered and held that discharge is not proper. 8. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in the case of HEM CHaND VS. STaTE OF JHaRKHaND reported in (2008) 5 SCC 113 , wherein the apex Court has held that it would only see whether prima facie case is made out and whether a case of probable conviction for commission of offence is made out on the basis of the materials found during investigation should be its concern. 9. STaTE OF JHaRKHaND reported in (2008) 5 SCC 113 , wherein the apex Court has held that it would only see whether prima facie case is made out and whether a case of probable conviction for commission of offence is made out on the basis of the materials found during investigation should be its concern. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring the judgments (supra) would vehemently contend that the very reasoning given by the Trial Court that the sanction is not valid cannot be accepted and in paragraph Nos.55 and 56 of the note sheet, details are given and sanction order also contains the details of each and everything. Hence, it requires interference of this Court, 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-accused would vehemently contend that the Trial Judge meticulously considered the material on record and in paragraph Nos.55 and 56 of the note sheet, it is mentioned that a request is received to accord sanction and nothing contains in the said note sheet which is marked as Ex.P2 and the petitioner also relying upon the document Ex.P1-sanction order would contend that, no doubt, the sanction order contains the details of the case on hand, but before giving sanction, the sanctioning authority has to apply his mind and the same is not done and no details of the case is mentioned, when the papers were presented before the sanctioning authority and even the Secretary of the concerned department also not applied its mind while placing the papers before the Hon'ble Chief Minister and these are the aspects which have been considered by the Trial Court. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent in support of his argument, relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in the case of C.B.I. VS. aSHOK KUMaR aGGaRWaL reported in 2014 aIR SCW 472, wherein the apex Court has held that, while sanctioning to prosecute, the sanctioning authority has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of whole record placed before it and sanction order should show that authority has considered all relevant facts and applied its mind. The prosecution is under obligation to place entire record before the sanctioning authority and satisfy Court that authority has applied its mind. The Court also should see whether the authority has applied its mind and sanction cannot be granted on the basis of the report given by some other officer or authority. 12. The prosecution is under obligation to place entire record before the sanctioning authority and satisfy Court that authority has applied its mind. The Court also should see whether the authority has applied its mind and sanction cannot be granted on the basis of the report given by some other officer or authority. 12. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in the case of NaNJaPPa VS. STaTE OF KaRNaTaKa reported in 2015 aIR SCW 4432, wherein the apex Court has taken note of Section 19 and Sub-sections 3 and 4 of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption act. The Trial Court found sanction to be invalid and held that should have discharged accused, instead of acquitting him in terms of Section 19(3). 13. The learned counsel for the respondent referring these judgments would contend that the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the sanction is invalid and the Trial Court rightly given liberty to obtain valid sanction and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. Hence, it does not require any interference of this Court. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and also on perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (1) Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in discharging the respondent-accused for want of valid sanction and committed an error in giving liberty to the petitioner-complainant? (2) What order? POINT NO.(1) 15. Having considered the material on record, it is not in dispute that a case has been registered against the respondent-accused, based on the trap laid in the atria Hotel in Bengaluru on 15.09.2006 and accused was caught red-handed while taking bribe money. Hence, sanction was sought. Having perused the note sheet in terms of Ex.P2, no doubt, detailed sanction order is issued in terms of Ex.P1, after according sanction by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, who was having Portfolio during the relevant time, but the fact is that, before giving sanction, the relevant material has to be placed before the sanctioning authority. 16. On perusal of the document, Ex.P2-note sheet, particularly in paragraph Nos.55 and 56, except stating that a request is received for sanction, nothing is mentioned with regard to the details of the case and even the brief note as to the facts of the case is also missing. 16. On perusal of the document, Ex.P2-note sheet, particularly in paragraph Nos.55 and 56, except stating that a request is received for sanction, nothing is mentioned with regard to the details of the case and even the brief note as to the facts of the case is also missing. However, only reference is made that a letter is received from the Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha Police seeking for sanction and facts of the case has not been stated. The note sheet only refers to the letter received and the same is placed for approval. The note sheet also disclose that the Secretary having perused the note sheet, made an order 'may be agreed with' and the Secretary has also not looked into the material on record and instead passed an order 'may be agreed with' and the Hon'ble Chief Minister has initialed the same. 17. The Trial Court, while passing the order has taken note of the material on record and in paragraph No.8, taken note of the fact that in paragraph Nos.55 and 56 of the note sheet, the case worker has only referred to the request received from the additional Director General of Police, Lokayuktha and the Joint Secretary approved the said note on 11.06.2007 and the Secretary of the department approved the said note on 16.06.2007 and the matter was finally placed before the Hon'ble Chief Minister, who has put his initials. 18. The Trial Court, in paragraph No.9 has also held that the Joint Secretary has only agreed with and the Secretary only accord that the notes found in paragraph Nos.55 and 56 of Ex.P2 and hence, comes to the conclusion that it does not disclose application of mind by the sanctioning authority. The Trial Court also further observed that greater responsibility lies on the Senior officers of the department to verify the materials placed by the Lokayuktha and also taken note of the evidence of P.W.1 in paragraph No.10. 19. It is important to note that P.W.1 admits that the said note sheet was prepared on his instruction, but he does not know, who prepared it. 19. It is important to note that P.W.1 admits that the said note sheet was prepared on his instruction, but he does not know, who prepared it. I have already pointed out that in the note sheet, except stating with regard to the request received from the additional Director General of Police about according sanction, nothing is mentioned and even the brief facts of the case and the documents received are also not referred in the note sheet. 20. When such being the factual aspects of the case, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant that the order impugned is erroneous. It is settled law that, before giving sanction, the sanctioning authority has to apply its mind and it also an obligation on the part of the sanctioning authority to discharge his duty to give or withhold sanction, only after having full knowledge of the material facts of the case. 21. I have already pointed out that, nothing is on record to show that the sanctioning authority, before according sanction was having full knowledge of the material facts of the case and the protection was given to the Government Servant against frivolous prosecution. Hence, the judgment of the apex Court in ashok Kumar aggarwal's case relied upon by the respondent-accused aptly applies to the case on hand. 22. It is also important to note that, in Nanjappa's case, the apex Court has held that, if sanction is invalid, the Trial Court should have discharged the accused, instead of acquitting him. In the case on hand also, the respondent-accused was discharged for want of sanction and liberty is given to the petitioner-complainant to obtain valid sanction as observed in the order. 23. When such being the factual aspects of the case, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in passing such an order. In the case on hand also, the respondent-accused was discharged for want of sanction and liberty is given to the petitioner-complainant to obtain valid sanction as observed in the order. 23. When such being the factual aspects of the case, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in passing such an order. No doubt, the principles laid down in the judgment referred (supra) by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Hem Chand's case, the apex Court held that sanctioning authority has to take note of the material collected by the Investigating Officer and whether the same prima facie disclose to proceed against the accused, but, in the case on hand, nothing is mentioned in paragraph Nos.55 and 56 of the note sheet, except referring the fact that a request is received from the additional Director General of Police to accord sanction to prosecute the respondent-accused. Though the same was prepared on the instructions of P.W.1, he has deposed that he does not know who prepared the same. apart from that, nothing is mentioned with regard to the prima facie case against the respondent-accused, except mentioning with regard to receiving the letter seeking for sanction. 24. Hence, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Trial Court has passed an erroneous order in discharging the respondent-accused. I have already pointed out that, liberty is given to the petitioner-complainant to obtain valid sanction and proceed in accordance with law and not fully discharged the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any merits to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court. accordingly, I answer point No.(1) as 'negative'. POINT NO.(2) 25. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is dismissed. Liberty given by the Trial Court in favour of the complainant to proceed against the respondent after obtaining the valid sanction is unaltered.