JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal revision has been filed under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 20.06.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (C.B.I.) Raipur in Special Case No. 4/11 whereby Learned Special Judge dismissed the application filed by the applicant under the provisions of Section 309 of the CrPC and listed the matter for recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 2. Facts of the case in short are that the applicants are employees of Central Government and at the relevant time they were posted as Inspector in the Railway Protection Force, Bilaspur Division. On 08.05.2010 one suspect was taken into custody by the applicant No. 2 in connection with the registration of FIR at Post Pendra, District Bilaspur. The FIR was registered on the allegation of theft regarding railway path with the help of others and the same was sold to Santosh Sahu @ Banty resident of Nagpur Maharashtra. It is also case of the prosecution that the applicants after found that Santosh Sahu was already in custody in connection with same allegation and was in jail at Raipur and the applicants have demanded bribe of Rs. 2 lakhs from brother-in-law of Santosh Sahu namely Nilesh Sahu to protect him. It is also case of the prosecution that the CBI has also recovered money from applicants which they have demanded as bribe from the Nilesh Sahu. Accordingly, as per provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 after obtaining sanction from the competent authority on 05.11.2011, the CBI has submitted charge-sheet before the CBI Court, Raipur for commission of offence under Sections 7,13 (1)(d), 13(2) PC Act, 1988 and 120 of the IPC which was registered as Special Criminal Case No. 4 of 2011. 3. The applicants have raised objection regarding legality and property of the sanction granted to the CBI to prosecute the applicants and the same was rejected by CBI Court on 26.02.2013. Being aggrieved with this order, the applicants have preferred criminal Revision which was registered as CRR No. 149 of 2013. This Court on 05.09.2013 has set aside the order and directed the learned trial Court to decide question of validity of sanction after affording an opportunity to the prosecution to adduce evidence relating to the material which found the basis for grant of sanction by the appropriate authority. 4. This Court on 05.09.2013 has set aside the order and directed the learned trial Court to decide question of validity of sanction after affording an opportunity to the prosecution to adduce evidence relating to the material which found the basis for grant of sanction by the appropriate authority. 4. Thereafter, learned Special Judge CBI, Raipur has allowed the prosecution to examine the evidence with regard to the sanction thereafter the learned Special Judge, CBI Raipur vide order dated 31.07.2017 has dropped the proceedings, by recording its finding that the prosecution has not proved grant of valid sanction against the accused by the sanctioning authority as the authority has not applied its independent mind and dropped the proceedings against the accused. But granted liberty to the prosecution agency to proceed afresh against the accused person after obtaining necessary sanction if so desired. 5. The prosecution has obtained fresh sanction on 17.12.2018 against the accused, thereafter accused has moved an application under Section 309 of the CrPC before the learned Special Judge, Raipur for adjournment of proceedings on 11.04.2019 as well as stopping the proceedings mainly contending that the fresh sanction has been given by the authority without production of any reliable evidence which is based for reconsideration of sanction order on which the trial Court has already given its finding, therefore, continuation of proceeding is contrary to the provisions of law. It has been further contended that the trial Court has already considered the evidence, documents collected by the CBI, as such subsequent sanction is against the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India as it amounts to double jeopardize. It has also been contended that once the sanction has been refused/ set aside by the Court it cannot be reviewed unless new material evidence or reason is assigned. It has been further contended that one of the accused Kashiram Yadav has already been retired, as such grant of sanction for the accused who has already been retired is illegal and would pray for dropping of the proceedings. 6. It has been further contended that one of the accused Kashiram Yadav has already been retired, as such grant of sanction for the accused who has already been retired is illegal and would pray for dropping of the proceedings. 6. Learned trial Court considering the provision of Section 19(2) of the PC Act as well as order passed by the trial Court on 31.07.2017 has rejected the application by recording its finding that the new sanction has been granted by the CBI as per the order of the trial Court, as such so far as obtaining fresh sanction there is no illegality but whether the sanctioning authority has relied upon the earlier material or new material or whether the sanctioning authority has applied its mind or not, whether the sanction was legal or not requires evidence for determination. Even otherwise, all the submissions raised by the accused are his defense which cannot be considered at this stage as it requires appreciation of evidence and consideration of material placed before it. Accordingly it has rejected the same on 20.06.2019 and fixed the matter for recording of the evidence on 04.07.2019. Being aggrieved with this order, the applicants have preferred this Criminal Revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the order passed by the learned Court of Special Judge is illegal and contrary to the law. He would further submit that learned Special Judge failed to consider the provisions of Cr.P.C. that if the new sanction order has been obtained by the CBI, the proper procedure was to file supplementary charge-sheet and comply with the provision of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. not only that the procedure for obtaining sanction has to be initiated from initial stage. He would further submit that no material has been placed by the CBI to justify new sanction despite direction of the trial Court, therefore, continuation of the proceeding by the same court on same issue is in violation of the provision of Cr.P.C. as well as Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that by impugned order learned trial Court reviewed its own order which is beyond its jurisdiction and thus would pray for quashing of order as well as dropping of the proceedings. 8. He would further submit that by impugned order learned trial Court reviewed its own order which is beyond its jurisdiction and thus would pray for quashing of order as well as dropping of the proceedings. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the prosecution complied with the order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the trial Court, by which it has granted liberty to the prosecution to proceed afresh against the accused persons, after obtaining necessary sanction. Accordingly, fresh sanction has been obtained on the basis of material collected by them as such, there was no need to file supplementary charge sheet against the accused and there is no violation of Article 20 (2) of the constitution of India and would pray for dismissal of the proceedings. 9. This Court vide its order dated 10.07.2019 has stayed the proceedings till the next date of hearing which is continued till today. Thereafter, CBI has moved an application for urgent hearing of the matter on 11.07.2024 which was considered by this Court and the matter was heard finally. 10. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court. 11. From the submission made by both the counsels the point emerged for determination by this Court is whether the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application under Section 309 of the CrPC filed by the accused is legal or not. 12. For determining the point raised in the case, it is necessary for this Court to extract Section 19 of the Act which is as under as it stood in the year 2011. Section 19- are reproduced herein below:- “19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution. 12. For determining the point raised in the case, it is necessary for this Court to extract Section 19 of the Act which is as under as it stood in the year 2011. Section 19- are reproduced herein below:- “19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution. — (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under sections 7,11,13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction save as otherwise provided in the (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 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 in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the 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. (2) ---------- (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.— 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.” 13. Now this court examined the submission made by counsel for the applicant that grant of second sanction is violative of Article 20 of the constitution of India is being considered by this Court, it is well settled legal position of law that if previous sanction is invalid under Section 19 (1) of the PC Act 1988 and second sanction is obtained, it cannot be violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India or Section 300 CrPC as if trial is vitiated due to absence of valid sanction, Court trying it will lack jurisdiction for such trial and entire trial proceedings would be invalid and nonest in law, as such grant of second sanction cannot be violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. This issue has come up for consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanjappa vs. State of Karnataka 2015(14) SCC 186 in paragraph 21 and 22 has held as under;- 21. In B. Saha & Ors. vs. M.S. Kochar (1979) 4 SCC 177 , this Court was dealing with the need for a sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. and the stage at which the question regarding its validity could be raised.This Court held that the question of validity of an order of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. could be raised and considered at any stage of proceedings. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in K. Kalimuthu vs. State by DSP (2005) 4 SCC 512 where Pasayat, J., speaking for the Court, held that the question touching the need for a valid sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. need not be raised as soon as the complaint is lodged but can be agitated at any stage of the proceedings. The following observation in this connection is apposite: 15. “The question relating to the need of sanction under Section 197 of the Code is not necessarily be considered as soon as the complaint is lodged and on the allegations contained therein. This question may arise at any stage of the proceeding. The question whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage. Further, in cases where offences under the Act are concerned the effect of Section 19, dealing with question of prejudice has also to be noted.” 22. The legal position regarding the importance of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption is thus much too clear to admit equivocation. The statute forbids taking of cognizance by the Court against a public servant except with the previous sanction of an authority competent to grant such sanction in terms of clauses (a), (b) and (c) to Section 19(1). The question regarding validity of such sanction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The competence of the court trying the accused so much depends upon the existence of a valid sanction. In case the sanction is found to be invalid the court can discharge the accused relegating the parties to a stage where the competent authority may grant a fresh sanction for prosecution in accordance with law. If the trial Court proceeds, despite the invalidity attached to the sanction order, the same shall be deemed to be non-est in the eyes of law and shall not forbid a second trial for the same offences, upon grant of a valid sanction for such prosecution. 14. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicants that since second sanction has been obtained in violation of the order of the trial Court on 31.07.2017 as such the sanction is illegal. This submission is being considered by this Court. 14. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicants that since second sanction has been obtained in violation of the order of the trial Court on 31.07.2017 as such the sanction is illegal. This submission is being considered by this Court. It is well settled legal position of law that whether the sanction has been obtained in violation of earlier order of the trial Court or no fresh matter has been considered or the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind to attack the validity of second sanction requires evidence and consideration of the material. The applicants have various occasions for challenging the validity of sanction order in the trial also, even after final conclusion of the trial also and even in the appeal, thus at this juncture the application filed under Section 309 CrPC was premature. The availability of opportunity to the accused as well as requirement of ascertain the validity of sanction has come up for consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Of Maharashtra Tr.C.B.I vs Mahesh G.Jain 2013 (8) SCC 119 wherein Hon’ble Supreme court has held as under:- 8. In Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1997[4] SCC 172 this Court lucidly registered the view that it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting an offence and the same should be done in two ways; either (i) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (ii) by adducing evidence aliunde to show the facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. It is well settled that any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio. 9. In Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.) v. Deepak Chowdhary and others[5] it has been ruled that the grant of sanction is only an administrative function, though it is true that the accused may be saddled with the liability to be prosecuted in a court of law. What is material at that time is that the necessary facts collected during investigation constituting the offence have to be placed before the sanctioning authority and it has to consider the material. What is material at that time is that the necessary facts collected during investigation constituting the offence have to be placed before the sanctioning authority and it has to consider the material. Prima facie, the authority is required to reach the satisfaction that the relevant facts would constitute the offence and then either grant or refuse to grant sanction. 10. In C.S. Krishnamurthy vs. State of Karnataka 1995 (6) SCC 295 it has been held as follows: - “...sanction order should speak for itself and in case the facts do not so appear, it should be proved by leading evidence that all the particulars were placed before the sanctioning authority for due application of mind. In case the sanction speaks for itself then the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is apparent by reading the order.” 11. In R. Sundararajan v. State by DSP, SPE, CBI, Chennai 2006 (12) SCC 749 while dealing with the validity of the order of sanction, the two learned Judges have expressed thus: - 14. “it may be mentioned that we cannot look into the adequacy or inadequacy of the material before the sanctioning authority and we cannot sit as a court of appeal over the sanction order. The order granting sanction shows that all the available materials were placed before the sanctioning authority who considered the same in great detail. Only because some of the said materials could not be proved, the same by itself, in our opinion, would not vitiate the order of sanction. In fact in this case there was abundant material before the sanctioning authority, and hence we do not agree that the sanction order was in any way vitiated.” 12. In State of Karnata v. Ameerjan 2007 (11) SCC 273 it has been opined that an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner. But, it is also well settled that the purpose for which an order of sanction is required to be passed should always be borne in mind. Ordinarily, the sanctioning authority is the best person to judge as to whether the public servant concerned should receive the protection under the Act by refusing to accord sanction for his prosecution or not. 13. Ordinarily, the sanctioning authority is the best person to judge as to whether the public servant concerned should receive the protection under the Act by refusing to accord sanction for his prosecution or not. 13. In Kootha Perumal vs. State 2011(1) SCC 491 through Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption[9], it has been opined that the sanctioning authority when grants sanction on an examination of the statements of the witnesses as also the material on record, it can safely be concluded that the sanctioning authority has duly recorded its satisfaction and, therefore, the sanction order is valid. 15. Again the Hon’ble Supreme court has examined the issue regarding stage of validity of sanction order can be raised by the accused in case of C.B.I vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal 2014(14) SCC 295 wherein the Hon’ble Court has held in paragraph 58 to 59 as under:- 58. The most relevant issue involved 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. Chairman Airport Authority of India and Anr. AIR 2012 SC 858 , this Court dealt with an issue and placing reliance upon the judgment in Prakash Singh Badal and Anr. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1274 , 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. 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 pretrial stage. 16. 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 pretrial stage. 16. Considering the facts and law on the subject it is quite vivid that no evidence has been led on the issue of validity of the second sanction and the application was filed alleging certain shortcoming or irregularities and illegality in granting sanction which are the defense of the accused which cannot be considered by this Court while deciding the criminal revision in view of bar imposed in Section 397/401 of the CrPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court has examined the revisional power of High Court as per Sections 397/401 of Cr.P.C and held that the scope of interference is extremely limited and it should be exercised very sparingly and only where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous and there is non- compliance of provisions of law or the finding recorded by the trial court is based on no evidence or material evidence ignored or judicial discretion is exercise arbitrarily or perversely. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsingh Kishorsinh Rao reported in 2023 (4) Crimes 146 (SC) has considered the power of revision of the High Court. 17. The similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of K. Ravi vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another in Criminal Appeal No. 3598/2024 decided on 29.08.2024. Thus, in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that the stand taken by the applicants is their defense which cannot be ascertained in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the cases of Dilipsingh Kishorsinh Rao and K. Ravi (supras), I am of the view that the submission made by the applicants regarding quashing of the order dated 20.06.2019 and further proceedings pending before the Special Court CBI in Special Case No. 4/2011 deserves to be rejected and it is held that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application under Section 309 of the CrPC for dropping of the proceedings. Thus, the point determined by this Court is answered against the applicants and criminal revision is dismissed. 18. Consequently, the interim order passed by this Court on 10.07.2019 is vacated. The trial Court is directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with the law. Accordingly the instant revision is dismissed.