ORDER : Since the issue involved in all these Criminal Revision Cases is same, they are being heard and disposed of together by way of this common order. 2. These Criminal Revision Cases are filed challenging the order dated 31.10.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.3071 of 2019, Crl.M.P.Nos.1633 and 1823 of 2021 in C.C.No.19 of 2013 by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. The brief facts of the case are that the ESIC works for the Operation Theatre block and Library-cum-Conference Hall at ESI Hospital, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad were irregularly entrusted to the Fisheries Department and to accused No.1, and that advances and payments were made into accounts controlled by accused No.1 yielding wrongful gain and loss to ESIC; after investigation a charge-sheet and a later supplementary charge-sheet were filed naming public servants, including the petitioners/accused Nos.8, 10 and 12, for offences under Sections 120-B, 201, 409, 420, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c)/(d) of the PC Act; the prosecution relied on documentary files (notably File No.1156 and other records) showing correspondence, bank transfers and notings and pointed to ban-orders and follow up communications (ban dated 30-04-2007 and related notes) which the prosecution said were not effectively implemented, thereby enabling accused No.1 to continue works and withdraw monies; each petitioner moved to be discharged under Sections 239/227/228/239 Cr.P.C. (variously) on grounds such as absence of mens rea, absence of material linking them to overt acts, timing (many entrustments pre- dated their tenure), and lack of sanction for prosecution of retired officers, while the trial court after hearing the parties found that the oral and documentary material produced with the charge-sheets raised sufficient grave suspicion, i.e., a prima facie case and therefore dismissed the discharge applications, holding that whether the acts were bona fide or mala fide required a full trial. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present Criminal Revision Cases. 3. Heard Sri B. Sudharshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri A. Sumanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.775of 2022, Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri V. Rohit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Crl.R.C.Nos.893 and 894 of 2022 and Sri T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appearing on behalf of the respondent - State. 4. 4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the client of the petitioners had been wrongly arraigned and that no prima facie case existed against them and that the original entrustment and most of the material events had occurred before the petitioner assumed the relevant post, so the acts could not be attributed to the petitioner, that only a very small number of documents actually bore the signature or initials of the petitioners (and those entries were attestations or routine official notings, not authorisations), and that the reliance of the prosecution on voluminous documents was irrelevant because the overt acts specifically alleged against the petitioners were confined to a narrow set of files (for A-10, essentially File No.1156 / Documents 90–91). They further submitted that the ban orders (dated around 30-04-2007 / 11-05-2007) had been issued or circulated and that the petitioner had taken steps to implement or communicate the ban; that the conduct, where shown, fell within discharge of official duties and therefore required sanction (or at least did not disclose criminal intent); and that the amendments to Section 19 of the PC Act could not be used to retroactively create a bar, particularly because the charge- sheet/supplementary sheet pre-dated the amendment and the law at the time of filing governed the proceedings. He prayed the Court to discharge the petitioner because, on plain reading of the charge-sheet and documents, there was no material to proceed against him and any disputed inferences should be left to a full trial. 5. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI submitted that a detailed investigation had produced substantial oral and documentary evidence linking the petitioners to the conspiracy and to derelictions of supervisory duty which facilitated the misappropriation and execution of substandard works by A-1. He argued that the prosecution had framed charges after careful investigation and that the material appended to the charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet (including original ESIC files, bank records, correspondence and endorsement notings) collectively established strong prima facie evidence of criminal conspiracy, cheating and criminal breach of trust together with offences under the PC Act. He argued that the prosecution had framed charges after careful investigation and that the material appended to the charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet (including original ESIC files, bank records, correspondence and endorsement notings) collectively established strong prima facie evidence of criminal conspiracy, cheating and criminal breach of trust together with offences under the PC Act. He pointed out that the petitioners had handled or had access to the relevant files (for example handling the file containing the ban-order notings and other notings), and that inaction or failure to ensure compliance with the ban, failure to supervise the works and allowing financial transactions to proceed could amount to offences not protected by official duty. On the sanction point he submitted that the charge-sheet was validly filed (supplementary charge-sheet dated 05-07-2018) and that the amendment to Section 19 could not be permitted to frustrate prosecution where the investigation and charges disclosed criminality; in short he urged that the materials raised grave suspicion which could only be tested in a full trial, and therefore the discharge petitions were rightly dismissed. 6. Having regard to the rival submissions made, and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the allegations against these petitioners are that they did not communicate the ban order to accused No.1. The contention of petitioners is that the ban order was with the concerned Minister for a period of three months and there is no such negligence on their behalf as it was made clear that after receiving file from the concerned Minister, they communicated the same to accused No.1, and thereafter the ESIC granted funds directly to Accused No.1 which itself would show that there is no such conspiracy or negligence by petitioners. 7. On going through the record, it is seen that primary allegations are leveled against accused No.1 and in the supplementary chargesheet the petitioners are arrayed as accused. Originally, the case of prosecution is that accused No.1 is involved in criminal activities by misusing public funds of ESIC and that sub standard work was done by petitioners who are Chief Secretaries of different Departments, and during that period the ban order was in the office of concerned Minister for a period of three months and once they received the ban order, it was communicated to accused No.1 by the petitioners. That apart, the petitioners contend that the trial Court could not have validly taken cognizance because the acts alleged were part of their official duties and required prior sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, which, according to them, was absent. They further contended that the later amendment to Section 19 could not apply retrospectively to justify cognizance. The prosecution countered that cognizance was proper since the charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet were filed when no sanction was required for retired officials, and the amendment could not be used to defeat prosecution supported by sufficient material. However, it is to be noted that whatever the law was when the investigation took place and charge sheets were filed, there is existence of subsequent law. Though it is contended that cognizance is necessary and sanction can be taken at any stage of the case, mere not obtaining sanction on the date of cognizance is not a ground to discharge petitioners, whereas, it is seen that allegations against accused No.12 are that he had not communicated the ban order to accused No.1 within time, to which it was averred that the same was with the concerned Minister for a period of three months, and once the same was received, the communication was proceeded with. However, at this stage it is relevant to record that in spite of receiving communication, the ESIC delivered funds, and that being so, it cannot be held that petitioners were also part of the alleged conspiracy along with accused No.1 and indulged in criminal activity. 8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, and petitioners are entitled to be discharged. 9. Accordingly, these Criminal Revision Cases are allowed, setting aside the orders dated 31.10.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3071 of 2019, Crl.M.P.Nos.1633 and 1823 of 2021 in C.C.No.19 of 2013 and discharging the petitioners from the charges leveled against them. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.