Order : (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) 1. The instant petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 has been filed by the petitioner calling under question the order dated 07/10/2024 passed in Special Criminal Case No.03/2021 by the Special Judge ( Prevention of Corruption Act ) & 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 19 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner has been prosecuted in connection with the FIR No. 17/2020 dated 01.05.2020 registered at Police Station ACB/EOW, Raipur (CG) for offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has filed charge sheet before the Special Court and on the basis of the same the learned Special Court has framed the charges against the petitioner under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner being a public servant has agreed to receive undue benefit of Rs. 1,02,000/- in three installments from the complainant Neeraj Singh Thakur in lieu of payment of bill amount regarding cleanliness of Raipur Railway Colony in the performance of public duty and on 30/04/2020 he took thirty thousand rupees out of the said amount and obtained undue benefit. The case is pending trial before the Court below. 3. During pendency of the trial, the petitioner moved an application under section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 for discharge on the ground that PW-5 Dr. Joy Barla is not a competent authority with regard to grant of sanction for prosecution against the petitioner and the petitioner further has contended that the sanction Ex.P/23 has been issued by PW-5 under section 19(1)(c) of the Act, for which, the authority first had to be competent to remove the accused from his office, however, the PW-5 has stated that he is not appropriate authority and also stated that the appropriate authority in the case is Senior Divisional Personnel Officer. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court has not looked into the aspect that the trial is vitiated due to invalid sanction and continuance of trial would amount to complete failure of justice as Section 19 (1) of the Act specifically operates as a complete and absolute bar to any Court taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act against a public servant except with the previous sanction of the competent authority. He would next contend that the finding of the trial Court that the stage of discharge has already passed then it could have disposed of the application stating that the issue of sanction raised at this stage would be considered at the time of final arguments. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Nanjappa Versus State of Karnataka { (2015) 14 SCC 186 } and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal { (2014) 14 SCC 295 } and would pray that order dated 07/10/2024 passed by the trial court may be set aside and the application for discharge of the petitioner may be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that on appreciation of material and evidence, the trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order and which do not require any interference by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. Perusal of the documents would show that the petitioner has been prosecuted in connection with the FIR No.17/2020 dated 01/05/2020 registered at Police Station ACB/EOW, Raipur for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988. In the said case, the charges have been framed against the petitioner under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 because the petitioner being a public servant had received an illicit sum of Rs.1,02,000/- from the complainant. The petitioner has filed an application for dishcarge under Section 19 (1) of the Act, 1988 on the ground that Dr. Joy Barla (PW-5 ) is not competent authority with regard to sanction prosecution against the petitioner. The aforesaid application was rejected by order dated 07/10/2024 on the ground that since the charges have been framed and the trial is going on against the petitioner. 8. Joy Barla (PW-5 ) is not competent authority with regard to sanction prosecution against the petitioner. The aforesaid application was rejected by order dated 07/10/2024 on the ground that since the charges have been framed and the trial is going on against the petitioner. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Ratilal Bhanji Mithani Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in 1979 (2) SCC 179 , has held that once a charge is framed, the Magistrate has no power under Section 227 Cr.P.C. or any other provision of Cr.P.C. to cancel the charge. Paragraph no.28 of the aforesaid judgement is being quoted as under: "28. Once a charge is framed, the Magistrate has no power under Section 227 or any other provision of the code to cancel the charge, and reverse the proceedings to the stage of Section-253 and discharge the accused. The trial in a warrant case starts with the framing of charge; prior to it, the proceedings are only an inquiry. After the framing of the charge if the accused pleads not guilty, the Magistrate is required to proceed with the trial in the manner provided in Sections-254 to 258 to a logical end." 9. Further the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Parikh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another 2008 (10) SCC 109 , has observed that once the charge has been framed, an accused pleads not guilty then Magistrate is required to proceed with the trial to its logical end and he has no power to discharge the accused. He can either convict or acquit the accused. Paragraph no.17 of the above judgement is being quoted as below: "17. Of the two propositions raised in this appeal, the first proposition has been completely answered in Debendra Nath Padhi case regarding the trial court's power to recall its order framing charge against an accused. Having regard to the language of Sections 207 and 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while framing charges the trial court can only look into the materials produced by the prosecution while giving an opportunity to the accused to show that the said materials were insufficient for the purpose of framing charge. Having regard to the language of Sections 207 and 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while framing charges the trial court can only look into the materials produced by the prosecution while giving an opportunity to the accused to show that the said materials were insufficient for the purpose of framing charge. The decision in Satish Mehra case having been overruled in Debendra Nath Padhi case the contention of Mr Desai that the Magistrate should have reopened the matter on the basis of the documents produced by the prosecution at the instance of the accused, is no longer res integra. The question of discharge by the learned Magistrate after framing of charge does not, therefore, arise, notwithstanding the submissions advanced with regard to denial of natural justice and a fair and speedy trial as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution, which have no application whatsoever to the facts of this case." 10. Applying the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the facts of this case this Court is of the considered opinion that once a charge has been formally presented against an accused in court, a request to dismiss the case on the ground that the authority who granted permission to prosecute "sanction" was not legally competent to do so, cannot be allowed and the issue of the sanction's validity should have been raised before the charge was framed. It is also pertinent to mention here that the sanction order Annexure A/3 at para 5 reveals that the sanctioning authority is competent to remove the petitioner from his service. 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the instant CRMP stands dismissed.