ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order of sanction dated 19.03.2020 (Annexure P/18) issued by respondent No. 3 against the petitioner, the Special Case No. 01/2018 pending against the petitioner before the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Dantewada, District-Bastar (C.G.) as well as to quash and set aside the impugned charge-sheet No. 38/2016 dated 24.01.2018 (Annexure P/11) and supplementary charge-sheet No. 38-A/2016 dated 12.05.2020 (Annexure P/19). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the year 2015-2016, when the petitioner was posted and serving as a Range Officer at Sukma, District- Bastar (C.G.) in the forest department of Government of Chhattisgarh, the respondent Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Jagadalpur on a secret information that the petitioner earned and owned disproportionate properties, conducted a search operation on the house and other places allegedly owned and possessed by the petitioner. The ACB has recovered and seized certain properties and valuables allegedly belonging to the petitioner, his wife and one of his distant relatives. Based on the such recovery and seizure of disproportionate properties, Crime/FIR No. 41/2015 dated 17/07/2015 was registered against the petitioner at respondent No. 6/Anti Corruption Bureau, Jagdalpur District-Bastar (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (for short “the Act, 1988”). 3. On 04.09.2015, the respondent ACB, directed the petitioner to submit the details of his properties and a notice dated 05/02/2016 was issued to the wife of the petitioner namely Smt. Lakshmi Kaware under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. directing her to submit information in Form No. 1, 2 & 3, but, no explanation was given by the wife and relatives of the petitioner. The prosecution after collecting the evidence and materials on record and also considering that no details of income and expenditure incurred by the petitioner, the ACB has submitted final charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. for commission of offence under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act before the Special Judge (Anti Corruption) which is registered as Special Case No. 1/2018. 4. 4. It is case of the petitioner that he made several applications to the ACB, Jagdalpur between August 2015 and March 2016 including the letter dated 17.08.2015 seeking copies of various documents relating to alleged disproportionate properties seized during search operation for providing the copy of inventory, etc. and prayed for providing documents and information regarding the properties allegedly seized and also prayed for giving time for submission of suitable explanation and appropriate information after going through the aforesaid documents and information prayed for but the respondent ACB, Jagdalpur did not pay heed to any of the requests made by the Petitioner and kept the investigation on and collected information and documents from the various government departments and from certain private individuals. The petitioner in response to first letter dated 04.09.2015 issued by the ACB, Jagdalpur furnished the details of his properties and his wife's properties in two separate set of Form No 1, 2 and 3. During the investigation, the respondent ACB, Jagdalpur sought information from the Tehsildar, Mahasamund and Deputy Director, Horticulture, Mahasamund regarding the agriculture income of petitioner's wife. The Tehsildar Mahasamund, vide letter dated 29.06.2016 informed the ACB, Jagdalpur that the wife of petitioner namely Smt. Lakshmi Kawre has earned a tune of Rs. 2,83,49,416.00 (Two crore eighty three lac forty nine thousand four hundred sixteen) till the year 2015 which was the subject period of investigation of the instant case and the Deputy Director, Horticulture, District- Mahasamud, vide letter dated 03.08.2016 also provided information to the ACB, Jagdalpur regarding separate incomer of petitioner's wife namely Smt. Lakshmi Kaware during the check period amounting to Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Three crore). 5. It has been further contended that the respondent ACB prepared a report dated 14.05.2016 and submitted the same to respondent No. 3/Secretary, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs Department for obtaining sanction for prosecuting against the petitioner. It has been further contended that the Tahsildar, Mahasamund and the Deputy Director, Horticulture, District Mahasamud certifying the valid income of petitioner's wife amounting to Rs. 2,83,49,416.00 and Rs. 3,00,00,000/- her separate income from agriculture and horticulture business, they were not separated from the income of petitioner and same was calculated as being part of petitioner's income without any justification. 6. 2,83,49,416.00 and Rs. 3,00,00,000/- her separate income from agriculture and horticulture business, they were not separated from the income of petitioner and same was calculated as being part of petitioner's income without any justification. 6. It has been further contended that respondent No. 3 considering the report submitted by the respondent/ ACB, Jagdalpur issued prosecution sanction order dated 15.11.2016 and in the mean time respondent No. 3 agreed to have a re-look on the issue of sanction and vide letter dated 28/12/21016 referring to the claim of the petitioner regarding agriculture income of his wife mentioned in the representation of the petitioner and other issues directed the Director of ACB to recalculate the income of the petitioner, but the same went in vain, thus, the Petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court vide Writ Petition (Cr.) No. 331/2016 which was disposed of vide order dated 24/08/2017 issuing direction to the respondent ACB, Jagdalpur and ACB, Raipur which is reproduced herein under:- “6. Considering the fact that the case against the Petitioner is still under investigation, it would be appropriate to disposed of this case by issuing directions to the Respondent/investigating authorities in this case. Hence the Respondent no. 2 and 3 are directed to take into consideration all the documents submitted by the Petitioner in support of his case and explanation offered by him before taking any decision with respect to the filing of charge-sheet or final report as the case may be. It is made clear that while considering the documents and explanation offered by the Petitioner, the Investigation Authority need not to be influenced by any of the observations made in this order.” 7. It has been further contended that complying with the aforesaid order dated 24.08.2017 the petitioner submitted his representation on 26.08.2017 to respondent No. 6 and prayed for taking Form No. 1, 2, and 3 already submitted by him and the agriculture income of his wife which she has earned from the agriculture land situated in village Boriajhaar, District- Mahasamund and other income related to information provided by him into consideration. 8. It has been further contended that he had filed an application under section 19 of the Act, 1988 before the learned trial court which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 05.08.2018. 8. It has been further contended that he had filed an application under section 19 of the Act, 1988 before the learned trial court which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 05.08.2018. The petitioner has challenged the same before this Hon'ble Court bearing Criminal Revision No. 721/2018 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2019 and order of sanction dated 15.11.2016 was quashed with a specific direction to the ACB to obtain fresh sanction placing entire materials collected during the investigation before the sanctioning authority. 9. It has been further contended that Respondent No. 6 prepared a new report dated 22.04.2019 for obtaining fresh sanction order for prosecuting and submitted before respondent No. 3 but respondent No. 6/ ACB, Jagdalpur did not consider the representation of the petitioner submitted in compliance of order dated 24.08.2017 passed in Writ Petition (Cr) No. 331/2016 and disregarding Form No. 1, 2 and 3 of the petitioner and direction issued by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 28.12.2016 prepared report dated 22.04.2019 in cut- copy-paste form of earlier report taking no notice of the observation made by this Hon'ble Court in order dated 08/02/2019 and without giving any finding or examining the materials collected after the grant of earlier sanction during the investigation and forwarded it to respondent No. 3 for issuing fresh order of sanction for prosecuting against the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 has not taken the representation dated 05.01.2020 of the petitioner and the documents annexed therewith into consideration and on the basis of incomplete and biased report dated 22/04/2019 of the ACB, Jagdalpur granted and issued impugned order of sanction for prosecution dated 19/03/2020 (ANNEXURE P/18) against the Petitioner which can't be said to be a valid and legal sanction for the reason of same illegality and Invalidity being attached to it and causing serious prejudice to the Petitioner which has been the basis for quashing the earlier order of sanction for prosecution dated 15/11/2016 by this Hon'ble Court. 10. It has been further contended that respondent ACB, Jagdalpur submitted fresh order of sanction for prosecuting dated 19/03/2020 before the learned Special Judge, the Prevention of Corruption Act, Dantewada, District Bastar CG on 11/10/2021 along with the supplementary Charge-sheet No. 38-A/2018 dated 12/05/2020. 11. 10. It has been further contended that respondent ACB, Jagdalpur submitted fresh order of sanction for prosecuting dated 19/03/2020 before the learned Special Judge, the Prevention of Corruption Act, Dantewada, District Bastar CG on 11/10/2021 along with the supplementary Charge-sheet No. 38-A/2018 dated 12/05/2020. 11. On the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner challenges legality, validity and correctness of the impugned orders as mentioned above. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order of sanction dated 19.03.2020 has been issued by respondent No. 3 without going through the entire facts and circumstances of the case, especially the materials collected during investigation after passing the order dated 08/02/2019 by this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Revision No. 721/2018 has not been placed before the sanctioning authority and the sanctioning authority had no occasion to apply his mind on the entire facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the impugned order of sanction dated 19.03.2020 suffers from incurable, illegality and invalidity and caused serious prejudice to the petitioner occasioning the failure of justice against the Petitioner, hence, the same is liable to be quashed. He would further submit that the impugned order of sanction dated 19.03.2020 has been issued on the basis of incomplete and misleading report submitted by respondent No. 6 which is evident from the fact that the order of sanction was issued on 19.03.2020 and the supplementary charge- sheet has been submitted before the learned trial court on 11.10.2021 i.e. after lapse of more than one and half year of the date of sanction during which investigation was continued. The facts emerged in continued investigation after 19.03.2020 have not been placed before sanctioning authority rendering the impugned order of sanction for prosecution illegal and invalid as held by this Hon'ble Court while allowing the Criminal Revision No. 721/2018 in respect to earlier order of sanction for prosecution and in such situation, the impugned order of sanction has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner which amounts to a failure of justice within the purview of the section 19 of the Act 1988. 13. 13. He would further submit that the list of documents annexed and referred to in the impugned sanction order evidently reflects that no document has been collected subsequent to the date of granting first order of sanction during the continued investigation has not been placed before the sanctioning authority/respondent No. 3 meaning thereby that respondent No. 6 has again committed illegality and invalidity in the course of obtaining fresh sanction which was the sole ground taken by Hon'ble High Court in allowing the Criminal Revision No. 721/2018 and in quashing the sanction order dated 15/11/2016. 14. He would further submit that this Court in the order dated 08/02/2019 has observed as under:- "A perusal of the material available including the reply of the Respondent shows that after obtaining the order of sanction for prosecution of the Applicant on 15.11.2016, the final report in the case was filed on 24.1.2018. The material placed before this Court makes it crystal clear that a subsequent/further investigation was also carried out in the case after 15.11.2016 before filing of the final report on 24.1.2018, but the facts and circumstances emerged after the aforestated subsequent/ further investigation were not placed before the sanctioning authority by the investigating agency. Therefore, the sanction order dated 15.11.2016 cannot be said to be a sanction accorded after going through the entire facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, it is evident that the sanction for prosecution obtained on 15.11.2016" and further held that in para 8 of the order that "Since this court held above that a fresh sanction is required to obtained for prosecution of the Applicant (Petitioner), the present trial itself can not be proceeded further against the Applicant (Petitioner) and in para no. 9 that "the learned the Special Judge, shall take cognizance of the offence on filing of a fresh sanction order for the prosecution." 15. 9 that "the learned the Special Judge, shall take cognizance of the offence on filing of a fresh sanction order for the prosecution." 15. He would further submit that the aforesaid order was placed before the learned trial court on 22.02.2019 but it appears that the learned trial court misunderstood and misinterpreted the order of this Hon'ble Court and opined that the Hon'ble High Court, setting-aside the order dated 05.06.2018 of the trial court, has instructed this court to take cognizance of the matter and directed the prosecution to obtain fresh sanction from the competent department for trial of the accused/petitioner and accordingly the learned trial court directed the ACB Jagdalpur to obtain fresh sanction and submit before the court and fix the date for further proceeding of the case. 16. He would further submit that the learned trial court despite held by this Hon'ble Court that "the present trial itself can't be proceeded further against the Petitioner", (in para No.7 of its judgment) illegally and incompetently proceeded with the case almost for more than 1½ year and instead of discharging the Petitioner legally proceeded with the case waiting for fresh sanction even after losing authority and jurisdiction in the absence of valid sanction to try the case against the Petitioner. 17. He would further submit that the order-sheet dated 11.10.2021 of the learned trial court shows that the proceeding/trial against the Petitioner was kept continued despite the direction of this Hon'ble Court for taking cognizance of the offence after production of fresh sanction and despite holding that the case can't be proceeded further against the Petitioner vide order dated 08/02/2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 721/2018 and the learned trial court even after receiving and acknowledging the order dated 08/02/2019 of this Court proceeded with the trial of the case on the basis of cognizance dated 23/03/2018 but the moment the order dated 08/02/2019 was brought on the record of learned court below, the Special Judge had lost the jurisdiction and authority to proceed with the case without there being a valid sanction in view of mandatory provision of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the entire trial of the case had become non-est in eyes of law because the cognizance taken by the learned trial court has already been rendered illegal in terms of order dated 8-2-2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court. Thus entire trial has become Illegal, invalid and vitiated and it is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. 18. He would further submit that respondent No. 6 has prepared and submitted report for obtaining sanction against the petitioner on 22.04.2019 and it is further evident that sanction order was issued on 19.03.2020 meaning thereby that the request of sanction for prosecution was pending consideration before respondent No. 3 for more than 11 months and it was granted after lapse of 11 months. He would further submit that the impugned order of sanction is illegal and invalid for being issued beyond the mandatory period as prescribed in the Act, 1988 not adhering to the time limit of three months plus one month. He would further submit that prejudicial and unfair investigation has been carried by the ACB, Jagdalpur, including the separate and independent income of petitioner's wife and relative Sandeep Masih into the income of petitioner despite clearly establishing the separate and independent income by Government authorities, deviating the procedural norms and Investigation and defying the direction issued by this Hon'ble Court, not producing the entire material before the sanctioning authority, keeping Investigation continued ever after the grant of sanction and not placing the material collected in the said further investigation, violating the direction of this Hon'ble Court issued in the order dated 08.02.2019, impugned sanction order issued without proper application of mind, illegalities committed by the ACB, Jagdalpur during the investigation and the manner in which the learned trial court proceeded with the trial of the case have caused serious prejudice to the petitioner which has occasioned blatant and sheer miscarriage of justice to the petitioner and would pray for setting aside the impugned order of sanction dated 19.03.2020, the impugned charge-sheet No. 38/2016 dated 24/01/2018 and supplementary charge-sheet No. 38-A/2016 dated 12/05/2020, which are illegal, invalid, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 19. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka Vs. Nagarajaswamy reported in (2005) 8 SCC 370 , Nanjappa Vs State of Karnataka, reported in (2015) 14 SCC 186 & State of Karnataka Vs S. Subbegowda reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 911. 20. 19. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka Vs. Nagarajaswamy reported in (2005) 8 SCC 370 , Nanjappa Vs State of Karnataka, reported in (2015) 14 SCC 186 & State of Karnataka Vs S. Subbegowda reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 911. 20. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State would submit that the prosecution sanction order dated 19.03.2020 has been issued on the basis of evidence submitted by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jagdalpur (C.G.) in connection with the Crime No. 41/2015 regarding commission of the alleged offence by the petitioner. The State Government, Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (CG) after going through with the entire evidences, documents and records observed that there is sufficient and prima- facie evidence regarding commission of alleged offence by the petitioner, accordingly in exercise of the powers vested under Section 166 Part II and III of the Constitution of India, respondent No. 3 has passed the aforesaid order dated 19.03.2020, whereby the prosecution sanction has been accorded to prosecute the petitioner under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act, 1988, which is just, proper and within jurisdiction. He would further submit that it has been contended by the petitioner that the order of sanction for prosecution dated 15.11.2016 was passed, therefore, he made an application under Section 19 of the Act, 1988 before the learned trial Court and submitted that the sanction for prosecution dated 15.11.2016 cannot be said to be a valid and legal sanction, which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide it's order dated 05.08.2018. 21. He would further submit that the order for prosecution sanction against the petitioner has been passed by the competent authority, therefore, the instant petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. As far as the relief sought by the petitioner regarding one calculation is concerned, the calculation with regard to disproportionate properties has been done once, which was duly approved by the competent authority, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the calculation has been done twice, is incorrect and baseless. He would further submit that the aforesaid prosecution sanction has been accorded/granted by the competent authority after appreciation of evidence and application of mind, therefore, the aforesaid order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. He would further submit that the aforesaid prosecution sanction has been accorded/granted by the competent authority after appreciation of evidence and application of mind, therefore, the aforesaid order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. He would further submit that in the present case the charge sheet has already been filed against the petitioner before the trial Court, subsequently the charges against the present petitioner in aforementioned sections might be framed by the learned trial Court after going through the entire charge sheet and submission made on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, in such a situation, the petitioner can file a criminal revision before this Hon'ble Court, but instead of filing criminal revision the petitioner has filed the instant petition which is not maintainable under the eyes of law, because, the petitioner is having an efficacious and alternative remedy to file the said criminal revision before the Hon'ble Court. He would further submit that on the basis of prima-facie material evidences available against the petitioner, which clearly establishes involvement of the petitioner in commission of alleged offence, the prosecution sanction under Section 19(1) of the Act, 1988 vide order dated 19.03.2020 (Annexure P-13) issued by the Additional Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Law, which is just, proper and legal and the same does not warrant any interference of this Hon'ble Court and would pray for dismissal of the petition. 22. In support of his contention, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Dr. Subramaniam Swamy Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh & another reported in 2012 AIR SCW 1249. 23. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition with utmost satisfaction. 24. The issue as to whether the order granting sanction can be challenged at this stage or the objection in this regard is required to be raised by the petitioner during trial and the issue is to be decided by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence. To determine this issue it is expedient for this Court to extract Section 19 of the PC Act. “Section 19. To determine this issue it is expedient for this Court to extract Section 19 of the PC Act. “Section 19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution- (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under [sections 7, 11, 13 and 15] [Substituted 'sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15' by Act No. 16 of 2018, dated 26.7.2018.] alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction, (a) in the case of a person [who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed] [Substituted 'who is employed' by Act No. 16 of 2018, dated 26.7.2018.] in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government; (b) in the case of a person [who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed] [Substituted 'who is employed' by Act No. 16 of 2018, dated 26.7.2018.] in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with sanction of the State Government, of that Government; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office. [Provided that no request can be made, by a person other than a police officer or an officer of an investigation agency or other law enforcement authority, to the appropriate Government or competent authority, as the case may be, for the previous sanction of such Government or authority for taking cognizance by the court of any of the offences specified in this sub-section, unless- (i) such person has filed a complaint in a competent court about the alleged offences for which the public servant is sought to be prosecuted; and (ii) the court has not dismissed the complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and directed the complainant to obtain the sanction for prosecution against the public servant for further proceeding: Provided further that in the case of request from the person other than a police officer or an officer of an investigation agency or other law enforcement authority, the appropriate Government or competent authority shall not accord sanction to prosecute a public servant without providing an opportunity of being heard to the concerned public servant: Provided also that the appropriate Government or any competent authority shall, after the receipt of the proposal requiring sanction for prosecution of a public servant under this sub-section, endeavour to convey the decision on such proposal within a period of three months from the date of its receipt: Provided also that in case where, for the purpose of grant of sanction for prosecution, legal consultation is required, such period may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, be extended by a further period of one month: Provided also that the Central Government may, for the purpose of sanction for prosecution of a public servant, presecribe such guidelines as it considers necessary. Explanation. Explanation. - For the purposes of sub-section (1), the expression "public servant" includes such person- (a) who has ceased to hold the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed; or (b) who has ceased to hold the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed and is holding an office other than the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed.] (2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), (a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby; (b) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice; (c) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no Court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. (4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings. Explanation. (4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, (a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction; (b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature.” 25. From perusal of Section 19 of the PC Act, it is quite vivid that this section requires previous sanction for prosecution. Sub section (3) thereof puts a rider that absence of or any error, irregularities etc. in sanction will not be a ground to reverse a finding or sentence unless in the opinion of the Court failure of justice has in-fact occasioned thereby. Sub section (4) thereof relates to raising an objection in this regard at an early stage in the proceedings. The Act of granting sanction is an administrative function. It is imperative that the sanctioning authority must apply his mind while granting sanction and in case of challenge the prosecution is required to establish that the sanction was granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case was made out for sanction. Since the Court does not sit in appeal against the order of sanction, therefore, adequacy of material produced before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into. The elaborate discussion of material in the sanction order is not necessary and if a challenge to the sanction order on this ground is raised then the relevant material can be produced before the Court during the course of trial to establish that it was produced for consideration before the sanctioning authority. The elaborate discussion of material in the sanction order is not necessary and if a challenge to the sanction order on this ground is raised then the relevant material can be produced before the Court during the course of trial to establish that it was produced for consideration before the sanctioning authority. The issue relating to absence of sanction or the order of sanction being a nullity can be raised at the threshold but a challenge to the order of sanction on the ground that it suffers from the defect of improper application of mind or non-consideration of relevant material is required to be raised during trial and establish by leading evidence where the prosecution will also have an opportunity to produce all the relevant materials as also examine the sanctioning authority. 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Parkash Singh Badal & Another vs. State of Punjab & Others reported in (2007) 1 SCC 1 has drawn the distinction between a case where there was absence of sanction and a case where the order of sanction was vitiated on some ground and has held that where there is absence of sanction the issue can be agitated at the threshold of trial but when the sanction exists then question as to vitiation has to be raised during trial and the Supreme Court has held as under:- “29. The effect of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 19 of the Act are of considerable significance. In Sub- Section (3) the stress is on "failure of justice" and that too "in the opinion of the court". In sub-section (4), the stress is on raising the plea at the appropriate time. Significantly, the "failure of justice" is relatable to error, omission or irregularity in the sanction. Therefore, mere error, omission or irregularity in sanction is (sic not) considered fatal unless it has resulted in failure of justice or has been occasioned thereby. Section 19(1) is a matter of procedure and does not go to the root of jurisdiction as observed in para 95 of Narasimha Rao case. Sub-section (3)(c) of Section 19 reduces the rigour of prohibition. In Section 6(2) of the old Act (Section 19(2) of the Act) question relates to doubt about authority to grant sanction and not whether sanction is necessary.” 47. Sub-section (3)(c) of Section 19 reduces the rigour of prohibition. In Section 6(2) of the old Act (Section 19(2) of the Act) question relates to doubt about authority to grant sanction and not whether sanction is necessary.” 47. The sanctioning authority is not required to separately specify each of the offences against the accused public servant. This is required to be done at the stage of framing of charge. Law requires that before the sanctioning authority materials must be placed so that the sanctioning authority can apply his mind and take a decision. Whether there is an application of mind or not would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any generalised guidelines in that regard. 48. The sanction in the instant case related to offences relatable to Act. There is a distinction between the absence of sanction and the alleged invalidity on account of non application of mind. The former question can be agitated at the threshold but the latter is a question which has to be raised during trial.” 27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal reported in (2014) 14 SCC 295 has reiterated that the proper stage of examining the validity of sanction is during trial and has held as under :- “58. The most relevant issue invovled herein is as at what stage the validity of sanction order can be raised. The issue is no more res integra. In Dinesh Kumar v. Airport Authority of India this Court dealt with the issue and placing reliance upon the judgment in Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, came to the conclusion as under:-“13. In our view, having regard to the facts of the present case, now since cognizance has already been taken against the appellant by the trial Judge, the High Court cannot be said to have erred in leaving the question of validity of sanction open for consideration by the trial court and giving liberty to the appellant to raise the issue concerning validity of sanction order in the course of trial. Such course is in accord with the decision of this Court in Parkash Singh Badal .… 59. Such course is in accord with the decision of this Court in Parkash Singh Badal .… 59. Undoubtedly, the stage of examining the validity of sanction is during the trial and we do not propose to say that the validity should be examined during the stage of inquiry or at pre-trial stage.” 28. In the matter of Dinesh Kumar vs. Chairman, Airport Authority of India & Another reported in (2012) 1 SCC 532 in a case where cognizance was already taken by the trial Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the order of the High Court whereby the question of validity of sanction was left open for consideration by the trial Court by giving liberty to the accused to raise this issue in course of trial. Considering the earlier judgment in the case of Parkash Singh Badal (supra) and held as under:- “9. While drawing a distinction between the absence of sanction and invalidity of the sanction, this Court in Parkash Singh Badal expressed in no uncertain terms that the absence of sanction could be raised at the inception and threshold by an aggrieved person. However, where sanction order exists, but its legality and validity is put in question, such issue has to be raised in the course of trial. Of course, in Parkash Singh Badal, this Court referred to invalidity of sanction on account of non- application of mind. 10. In our view, invalidity of sanction where sanction order exists, can be raised on diverse grounds like non- availability of material before the sanctioning authority or bias of the sanctioning authority or the order of sanction having been passed by an authority not authorised or competent to grant such sanction. The above grounds are only illustrative and not exhaustive. All such grounds of invalidity or illegality of sanction would fall in the same category like the ground of invalidity of sanction on account of non-application of mind – a category carved out by this Court in Parkash Singh Badal, the challenge to which can always be raised in the course of trial. 11. All such grounds of invalidity or illegality of sanction would fall in the same category like the ground of invalidity of sanction on account of non-application of mind – a category carved out by this Court in Parkash Singh Badal, the challenge to which can always be raised in the course of trial. 11. In a later decision, in the case of Aamir Jaan, this Court had an occasion to consider the earlier decisions of this Court including the decision in the case of Parkash Singh Badal, Ameerjan was a case where the Trial Judge, on consideration of the entire evidence including the evidence of sanctioning authority, held that the accused Ameerjan was guilty of commission of offences punishable under Sections 7,13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. However, the High Court overturned the judgment of the Trial Court and held that the order of sanction was illegal and the judgment of conviction could not be sustained. 12. Dealing with the situation of the case wherein the High Courtreversed the judgment of the conviction of the accused on the ground of invalidity of sanction order, with reference to the case of Parkash Singh Badal, this Court stated in Ameerjan in para 17 of the Report as follows: "17. Parkash Singh Badal, therefore, is not an authority for the proposition that even when an order of sanction is held to be wholly invalid inter alia on the premise that the order is a nullity having been suffering from the vice of total non-application of mind. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the said decision cannot be said to have any application in the instant case." 13. In our view, having regard to the facts of the present case, now since cognizance has already been taken against the appellant by the Trial Judge, the High Court cannot be said to have erred in leaving the question of validity of sanction open for consideration by the Trial Court and giving liberty to the appellant to raise the issue concerning validity of sanction order in the course of trial. Such course is in accord with the decision of this Court in Parkash Singh Badal and not unjustified.” 29. In the matter of State of M.P. Vs. Such course is in accord with the decision of this Court in Parkash Singh Badal and not unjustified.” 29. In the matter of State of M.P. Vs. Virender Kumar Tripathi, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 533 in a case where the High Court had quashed the proceedings on the ground that Law & Legislative Department was required to consult parent department of the accused for want of which there was no proper sanction, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that there was no whisper or pleading about failure of justice and the stage when failure of justice was to be established was yet to be reached as the issue of failure of justice could be determined once trial commenced and evidence is led and held as under: - “9. Further, the High Court has failed to consider the effect of Section 19(3) of the Act. The said provision makes it clear that no finding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court of appeal on the ground of absence of /or any error, omission or irregularity in sanction required under sub-section (1) of Section 19 unless in the opinion of the Court a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. 10. In the instant case there was not even a whisper or pleading about any failure of justice. The stage when this failure is to be established 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 lead. In this connection the decisions of this Court in State v. T. Venkatesh Murthy [ 2004(7) SCC 763 ] and in Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab [ 2007(1) SCC 1 ] need to be noted. That being so the High Court's view quashing the proceedings cannot besustained and the State's appeal deserves to be allowed which we direct.” 30. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka vs. Ameerjan reported in (2007) 11 SCC 273 considering the issue of grant of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act has held that the sanction order must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper application of mind on the part of sanctioning authority. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka vs. Ameerjan reported in (2007) 11 SCC 273 considering the issue of grant of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act has held that the sanction order must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper application of mind on the part of sanctioning authority. The material collected during investigation which would prima facie establish existence of evidence in regard to commission of offence should be available before the sanctioning authority before the order of sanction is passed. It has further been held that if the sanction order does not indicate application of mind as to the material produced before the authority then the same may be produced before the Court to show that such a material was infact produced before the competent authority. That was a case where in appeal the High Court had reversed the judgment on the ground of invalid sanction and the sanctioning authority himself was examined before the trial Court. In this background, the Hon’ble Court held that - “10. For the aforementioned purpose, indisputably, application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority is imperative. The order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. We have noticed hereinbefore that the sanctioning authority had purported to pass the order of sanction solely on the basis of the report made by the Inspector General of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha. Even the said report has not been brought on record. Thus, whether in the said report, either in the body thereof or by annexing therewith the relevant documents, IG Police Karnataka Lokayuktha had placed on record the materials collected on investigation of the matter which would prima facie establish existence of evidence in regard to the commission of the offence by the public servant concerned is not evident. Ordinarily, before passing an order of sanction, the entire records containing the materials collected against the accused should be placed before the sanctioning authority. In the event, the order of sanction does not indicate application of mind as (sic to) the materials placed before the said authority before the order of sanction was passed, the same may be produced before the court to show that such materials had in fact been produced.” 31. In the event, the order of sanction does not indicate application of mind as (sic to) the materials placed before the said authority before the order of sanction was passed, the same may be produced before the court to show that such materials had in fact been produced.” 31. In the matter of P.L. Tatwal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2014) 11 SCC 431 , it has been held that grant of sanction is an administrative function which intend to protect public servant against frivolous and vaccacious litigation. It has further been clarified that if the relevant material is not reflected in the order, it should be capable of proof before the Court and has held that :- “12. The grant of sanction is only an administrative function. It is intended to protect public servants against frivolous and vexatious litigation. It also ensures that a dishonest officer is brought before law and is tried in accordance with law. Thus, it is a serious exercise of power by the competent authority. It has to be apprised of all the relevant materials, and on such materials, the authority has to take a conscious decision as to whether the facts would reveal the commission of an offence under the relevant provisions. No doubt, an elaborate discussion in that regard in the order is not necessary. But decision making on relevant materials should be reflected in the order and if not, it should be capable of proof before the court. 16. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the trial court should conduct a proper inquiry as to whether all the relevant materials were placed before the competent authority and whether the competent authority has referred to the same so as to form an opinion as to whether the same constituted an offence requiring sanction for prosecution. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and also order dated 27.12.2004 passed in Special Case No. 12 of 2004 by the trial court and remit the matter to the Special Judge (P.C. Act, 1988), Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh.” 32. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and also order dated 27.12.2004 passed in Special Case No. 12 of 2004 by the trial court and remit the matter to the Special Judge (P.C. Act, 1988), Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh.” 32. In the matter of State of Maharashtra through CBI vs. Mahesh G. Jain reported in (2013) 8 SCC 119 , it has been held that the adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the Court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order and that order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hyper-technical approach to test its validity. Siphoning technicalities cannot be allowed to become tool in the hands of accused and has culled out the following principles in this regard:- “14. From the aforesaid authorities the following principles can be culled out: - 14.1 It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out. 14.2 The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before it and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution. 14.3 The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before it. 14.4 Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence. 14.5 The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order. 14.6 If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before it and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction. 14.7 The order of sanction is a pre-requisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hyper-technical approach to test its validity.” 33. 14.7 The order of sanction is a pre-requisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hyper-technical approach to test its validity.” 33. In the matter of State of M.P. vs. Dr. Krishna Chandra Saksena reported in (1996) 11 SCC 439 , it has been held that where the sanction order is not ex facie illegal or invalid, the proceeding cannot be quashed. It has further been held that non- consideration of relevant documents supporting the accused while granting sanction cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings and such aspect can be examined at the stage of trial for invalidating the sanction and has held as under:- “The second ground given by the High Court was to the effect that the affidavits filed by the staff members of the clinic of the respondent were not considered by the sanctioning authority. It is true that the learned Single Judge had observed in paragraph (21) of his judgment that 'admittedly' in this case, representation of the petitioner, documents relied by him which have been lost, and the affidavits of the witnesses present on the spot who were large in number were not placed before the sanctioning authority and, therefore, the sanction granted is definitely bad in law. However it must be kept in view that without looking at the relevant documents comprised in the file which were lost during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court it would be too premature to say whether the lost documents were seen by the sanctioning authority or not before granting sanction. Even otherwise if it is found on evidence which may be led at the stage of trial that the affidavits of the staff were self-serving statements obtained by the respondent to support his case and were of such a nature that they could not adversely affect the trap evidence, then it could not be urged by the prosecution that non- consideration of such irrelevant and self-serving evidence would have affected the efficacy of the sanction. In Short all these aspects could have been better examined at the stage of trial for invalidating the sanction. In Short all these aspects could have been better examined at the stage of trial for invalidating the sanction. It is too premature at the present stage to hold that all necessary and relevant evidence must not have been considered by the sanctioning authority. It appears that the word 'admittedly' as found in paragraph (21) of the .order passed by the learned Single Judge appears to have been mentioned loosely and in an inadvertent manner. Learned senior counsel for the appellant fairly stated that the sanction order does not on the face of it indicate that the affidavits of staff members were considered by the sanctioning authority. But the recitals in the last but one paragraph of the sanction order show that the sanctioning authority was satisfied after complete and conscious scrutiny of the records produced in respect of the allegation against the accused. Now the question whether all the relevant evidence which would have tilted the balance in favour of the accused if it was considered by the sanctioning authority before granting sanction and which was actually left out of consideration could be examined only at the stage of trial when the sanctioning authority comes forward as a prosecution witness to support the sanction order if challenged during the trial. As that stage was not reached the prosecution could not have been quashed at the very inception on the supposition that all relevant documents were not considered by the sanctioning authority while granting the impugned sanction. We, therefore, hold that the twin reasons given by the learned Single Judge of the High Court for quashing the proceedings on the ground that the sanction was invalid are unsustainable and unjustified.” 34. The judgment cited by the petitioner in case of Nanjappa (supra) is distinguishable on the facts that in that case the trial has already completed and found that the said sanction order was issued by the incompetent person and thereafter it has acquitted the accused on merits whereas the accused should have been discharged. As such, the said order was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court whereas in the present case the trial has not begun and in view of the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the issues regarding non application of mind by the sanctioning authority or non consideration of materials are matters which can be examined during the trial. 35. 35. Further, from perusal of the order dated 08.02.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 721/2018 it is quite vivid that this Court has directed the Investigating Agency to obtain a fresh sanction for prosecution based on the entire facts and circumstances of the case. This Court has also directed that the Special Judge shall take cognizance on filing of a fresh order of sanction for prosecution and accordingly sanction was granted on 19.03.2020. 36. From perusal of the sanction order it is quite vivid that the sanctioning authority has considered the material regarding expenditure prior to impugned period, income of the impugned period and expenditure made by wife and his relatives on immovable properties and other valuables, thus, it has recorded its finding that the petitioner has acquired income to the tune of Rs. 7,27,61,368/- for the impugned period whereas the total income is Rs. 3,22,42,777/- which more than 125.6% and highly disproportionate as such there is prima facie evidence available for prosecution to grant sanction, accordingly, sanction has been granted on 19.03.2020. Whether the findings are correct or not and whether the materials which should not have been considered, have been taken into consideration by the sanctioning authority is a matter of evidence, where the prosecution has an opportunity to place entire materials on record and petitioner will also have an opportunity to cross-examine the sanctioning authority. Thus, at this juncture the submissions are defence of the accused which cannot be considered at this juncture while hearing petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 37. Thus, having examined the present case in the light of the above judicial pronouncements, I find that the order of sanction in the present case is not a nullity and since the petitioner is raising the issue of improper application of mind by the sanctioning authority, he will have an opportunity to raise it during the trial, therefore, the challenge to the sanction order at this stage is premature. Hence, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed, however, liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise the issue during the trial which has been raised in this petition. 38. The learned trial Court is directed to examine the validity of sanction granted by the sanctioning authority without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court and decide on its own merits.