JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. Crl.M.C.No.5862/2025 has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash Annexure A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in Crime No.01/2019 of VACB, Kannur, now pending as C.C.No.11/2021 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery. The petitioner herein is the 1 st accused in the above case. 2. Crl.M.C No.4795/2025 has been filed by the 2 nd accused in the above case seeking the following prayer: “Quash the Final Report in Crime No.VC 01/2019/KNR dated 08.04.2019 in CC No.11/2019 before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery and all further proceedings.” 3. Similarly, O.P.(Crl.) No.272/2022 has been filed by the 3 rd accused in the above case under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayers: “i. Allow this Original Petition (Criminal) by setting aside Exhibits-P1 & P2. (i)(a) Issue an order declaring that in the absence of a valid sanction required to be obtained under section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act as against accused No.1 and 2, the final report as per Exhibit P2 is not valid in law and is required to be declared so. ii. Issue such other appropriate order or direction that may be deemed to be just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, for which favor the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the records, relevant statements and documents produced. 5. In this case, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act’ for short) as well as under Sections 120B , 468, 471 and 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) by accused Nos.1 to 3. The allegation in a nutshell is that the 1 st accused, who had been working as a High School Assistant (Social Science) in Aided Higher Secondary School, Kadambur, under the Education District, Kannur, on the premise of getting an appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (History) in M.I.M. Higher Secondary School, Perode, Kozhikode, without doing the job of HSA (Social Science) in Kadambur school, worked in M.I.M. H.S.S., Perode. Thereafter, records were forged on the premise that she had worked in Kadambur school with connivance of the 2 nd accused, the Headmistress, and the 3 rd accused, the Manager of the school, as part of conspiracy hatched between them and thereby, the 1 st accused obtained Rs.1,84,212/- (Rupees one lakh eighty four thousand two hundred and twelve only) as illegal pecuniary gain. 6. While challenging the final report, it is pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the 3 rd accused that, in this case, sanction to prosecute accused Nos.1 to 3 was issued by the Personal Assistant to the District Education Officer, holding the additional charge of Kannur. According to the learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 3, the competent authority to grant sanction under Section 19 (1)(c) of the PC Act is the District Education Officer, Kannur. Since the sanction was granted by the Personal Assistant to the District Education Officer, per se, the same is illegal and accordingly, acting on the said sanction, cognizance taken by the Special Court for the said offences is illegal. The learned senior counsel for the 3 rd accused argued further that insofar as the maintenance of attendance and drawing of salary, the 3 rd accused, the Manager, has no role. Therefore, none of the offences would attract as against the 3 rd accused and the entire proceedings as against the 3 rd accused would require quashment. 7. In response to this argument, the learned Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that in the matter of sanction an error was committed by the Investigating Officer and therefore, the sanction, at the instance of the District Education Officer to be obtained and he prayed for appropriate orders as per law. 8. The learned senior counsel for the 3 rd accused brought to the attention of this Court to Annexure A8, the order in BA No.3268/2019 dated 21.06.2019, wherein this Court considered the bail plea of the 1 st accused. In paragraph No.2 of the order, the learned Single Judge expressed some reservations about the sustainability of the prosecution case on the allegations raised. In paragraph No.2 of the order, the learned Single Judge expressed some reservations about the sustainability of the prosecution case on the allegations raised. It was observed by the learned Single Judge that, if at all the factual allegations were true, it was possible to proceed with disciplinary action against the teacher and if she received salary without working at the School, but working somewhere else unauthorisedly, the salary received by her would have to be recovered by way of appropriate disciplinary action.That apart, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the 3 rd accused further that, as per the prosecution allegations, during the period between June, 2016 to November, 2016, Snija V.P. was appointed on daily wages in place of the 1 st accused. However, Annexure P3 order No.B4/2727/2016 dated 23.11.2020, in O.P(Crl)272/2022, would show that the approval sought for by the Manager regarding appointment of Snija V.P. was refused. Thus, the argument of the learned senior counsel for the 3 rd accused is that, in fact, nobody was appointed in the place of the 1 st accused. According to him, the 1 st accused had taken only one day’s leave on the premise of attending interview in M.I.M. Higher Secondary School, Perode and she continued to work in Kadambur School itself, for which salary was drawn and therefore, the entire prosecution allegations are baseless. 9. Similar argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the 2 nd accused, who is the Headmistress of HSS, Kadambur, and it is pointed out that, in this matter, to the knowledge and understanding of the 2 nd accused, the 1 st accused did not work in any other school during the relevant period. Therefore, merely relying on the statements of some teachers, without support of any materials, it is difficult to fasten criminal culpability on the 2 nd accused. The learned counsel for the 1 st accused also argued in similar terms, referring to the allegations. According to him, the statements of the previous Headmistress of Kadambur school and a teacher therein, who now retired, and the students of M.I.M.HSS itself would not suffice to meet the requirements of the offences and there is no misappropriation of funds or there is no allegation that the 1 st accused worked in M.I.M.HSS and received the salary thereof. According to him, the statements of the previous Headmistress of Kadambur school and a teacher therein, who now retired, and the students of M.I.M.HSS itself would not suffice to meet the requirements of the offences and there is no misappropriation of funds or there is no allegation that the 1 st accused worked in M.I.M.HSS and received the salary thereof. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 3 is concerned, it is specifically pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that, the statement of CW17, the Principal of M.I.M. Higher Secondary School, Perode, would go to show that the 1 st accused worked in the Higher Secondary Wing of M.I.M.School in between June, 2016 to November, 2016 and thereafter, during the said period, she reached the school on almost all days and took classes for the students. Thereafter, on 13.11.2016, the Manager of the said school appointed her. Apart from the statement of CW17, the learned Public Prosecutor given emphasis to the statement of CW22, who is none other than the clerk of M.I.M.H.S.S., Perode. According to CW22 also, the 1 st accused informed her that she would leave the school after the end of March, 2016 and according to CW22, it is mandatory for the teachers to attend cluster meeting and it is the duty of the Manager to inform absence thereof. In the cluster meeting during the relevant period, the 1 st accused did not attend, as she was permitted by the Headmistress and the Manager to go to M.I.M.HSS, Perode. It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor further that CW9 to CW14 are the students of M.I.M.HSS and they gave statements in support of the prosecution case, positing the fact that the 1 st accused worked in the school during the period from June, 2016 to November, 2016. Referring to Section 13 (1)(d), the penal provision regarding obtainment of undue amount, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that, thus the prosecution records would go to show that the allegations as to commission of the above offences are made out, for which trial is necessary, and in such a case, quashment on merit could not be considered. 10. 10. In this case, as regards the sanction issued by the Personal Assistant to District Education Officer to prosecute accused Nos.1 to 3 is concerned, the same found to have been issued by a totally incompetent authority. Since the sanction issued was challenged at the earliest point of time, after taking cognizance of the matter, before framing of charge, the same is liable to be addressed by this Court. Thus, it is held that the challenge raised by accused Nos.1 to 3 in regard to the impropriety of the sanction issued by the incompetent authority would succeed and therefore, for the said reason, cognizance of the case by the special judge is liable to be set aside. 11. Coming to the other allegations, whether the prosecution materials would substantiate the commission of offences under Sections 120B , 468, 471 and 420 of IPC as well as under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act by accused Nos.1 to 3, it is necessary to look into the prosecution records in tune with the argument tendered by both sides. 12. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the witness statements specifically pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor. CW17, in this case, is the Principal of M.I.M.H.S.S. as on 29.05.2019 and he gave statement to the police that he had been working as Principal in M.I.M.H.S.S. starting from June, 2004. According to him, the 1 st accused was appointed to the school in the history department on 30.11.2016 and before that, she worked in the school in between June, 2016 and November, 2016. Further, he stated that it was so done as directed by the Manager, M.I.M.HSS, Perode. But she started to sign in the attendance register only from 30.11.2016, after her appointment. One Manoj Kumar.P., who worked as a clerk in Kadambur school, gave statement that he prepared statement to adjust the PF arrears of UPSA from June, 2016 onwards and the file was produced by the Headmistress before the Vigilance. During 2016, the 1 st accused did not attend the cluster meeting. Apart from that, in the place of the 1 st accused, from June 2016, when the school was opened, the Manager appointed Smt. Snija V.P. and the said appointment was forwarded for approval to D.E.O., Kannur. During 2016, the 1 st accused did not attend the cluster meeting. Apart from that, in the place of the 1 st accused, from June 2016, when the school was opened, the Manager appointed Smt. Snija V.P. and the said appointment was forwarded for approval to D.E.O., Kannur. According to him, the arrear bill from June 2006 pertaining to the 1 st accused was delayed as instructed by Smt. Smitha teacher (Headmistress of Kadambur School). Further, the revised scale also not allotted to the staff, including the 1 st accused, as instructed by the Manager, Muralidharan and the Headmistress, Smt. Smitha. Rs.4,000/- was paid per month by the Manager to the teachers who did not get approval. According to CW22, during the period between June, 2016 and November, 2016, the class earlier taken by the 1 st accused was taken by Smt. Snija V.P. and during this period, the 1 st accused worked at M.I.M.H.S.S. school, for which the Manager and Smt. Smitha P.M. gave assistance to the 1 st accused and in return the 1 st accused entrusted her half salary to Smitha teacher and it was done by the 1 st accused since she was permitted to mark attendance in the register by the Manager and the Headmistress as they received half of her salary. According to CW22, all deals of the school could be possible only with the Manager's consent. It is relevant to note that, apart from the statements of CW17 and CW22, the statements of CW9 to CW14, the students who studied at M.I.M.H.S.S. Perode during the period between June, 2016 to November, 2016 also were recorded by the Investigating Officer. CW9 stated that while she was studying for plus two course in M.I.M.H.S.S., Perode, the 1 st accused was her class teacher and the Principal in this school was one Moidu. She stated further that starting from June 2016 onwards the 1 st accused took history class for them and she joined in the plus one course in the year 2016. Similar statements were also given by witness Nos.10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, who attended the class taken by the 1 st accused during the period from June, 2016 to November, 2016. Similar statements were also given by witness Nos.10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, who attended the class taken by the 1 st accused during the period from June, 2016 to November, 2016. Even though it is argued by the learned senior counsel for the 3 rd accused in particular that the Manager has no role in the matter of granting leave and encashing salary, when the statement of CW22 read along with the other statements, it would through light on the fact that everything in the school would happen only with the knowledge and consent of the Manger. In fact, in this case, records would show that the 1 st accused did not work in Kadambur school from June 2016 till November, 2016 and she was allowed by the Manager and the Headmistress to work in M.I.M.H.S.S., Perode and she worked there. In addition to that, the Manager appointed Smt. Snija.V.P. in the place of the 1 st accused and she worked there in the place of the 1 st accused, though later, her appointment was not approved by the Government. In such a case, the role of the 3 rd accused as well as the 2 nd accused, along with the 1 st accused in obtaining salary without doing job by falsely signing in the attendance register is well made out prima facie. In fact, 18 the said amount was not entitled by the 1 st accused and therefore, the amount received was illegal gratification provided under Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act. It is true that, in Annexure A8, the bail order passed by this Court, in paragraph No.2, a learned Single Judge of this Court observed, as argued by the learned senior counsel for the 3 rd accused. In fact, at the time, based on the FIR and preliminary materials, the observation made by the learned Single Judge has no bearing when the prosecution materials in toto, along with the facts discussed would show commission of offences by accused Nos.1 to 3 prima facie. That apart, the said observations have no binding effect otherwise. Even I feel that the observation was so made at the extreme preliminary stage for the purpose of considering the bail plea alone and such observations have no binding or deterrent effect in future proceedings. 13. That apart, the said observations have no binding effect otherwise. Even I feel that the observation was so made at the extreme preliminary stage for the purpose of considering the bail plea alone and such observations have no binding or deterrent effect in future proceedings. 13. Having appraised the rival submissions, it is held that on merits, quashment of the final report would not succeed. 14. As I have already pointed out, for want of sanction, the cognizance taken by the Special Court would not sustain and therefore, the cognizance of this matter as against all the petitioners is set aside and the matter relegated back to the stage of pre-cognizance. 15. In the decision in State of Mizoram v. C.Sangnghina reported in AIR 2018 SC 534 , the Apex Court considered the procedure when the accused was discharged due to lack of proper sanction and in paragraph No.14 to 16, the Apex Court held as under: "14. In light of the above principles, considering the case in hand, even before commencement of trial, the respondent/accused was discharged due lack of proper sanction, there was no impediment for filing the fresh/supplementary charge sheet after obtaining valid sanction. Unless there is failure of justice on account of error, omission or irregularity in grant of sanction for prosecution, the proceedings under the Act could not be vitiated. By filing fresh charge sheet, no prejudice is caused to the respondent nor would it result in failure of justice to be barred under the principles of "double jeopardy". 15. Under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. Section 300 CrPC lays down that a person once convicted or acquitted, cannot be tried for the same offence. In order to bar the trial of any person already tried, it must be shown (i) that he has been tried by a competent court for the same offence or one for which he might have been charged or convicted at that trial, on the same facts; (ii) that he has been convicted or acquitted at the trial; and (iii) that such conviction or acquittal is in force. Where the accused has not been tried at all and convicted or acquitted, the principles of "double jeopardy" cannot be invoked at all. 16. Where the accused has not been tried at all and convicted or acquitted, the principles of "double jeopardy" cannot be invoked at all. 16. The whole basis of Section 300 (1) CrPC is that the person who was tried by a competent court, once acquitted or convicted, cannot be tried for the same offence. As discussed earlier, in the case in hand, the respondent/accused has not been tried nor was there a full-fledged trial. On the other hand, the order of discharge dated 12-9-2013 passed by the Special Court was only due to invalidity attached to the prosecution. When the respondent/accused was so discharged due to lack of proper sanction, the principles of "double jeopardy" will not apply. There was no bar for filing fresh/supplementary charge sheet after obtaining a valid sanction for prosecution. The Special Court once it found that there was no valid sanction, it should have directed the prosecution to do the needful. The Special Court has not given sufficient opportunities to produce valid prosecution sanction from the competent authority. The Special Court erred in refusing to take cognizance of the case even after production of valid prosecution sanction obtained from the competent authority and the High Court was not right in affirming the order of the Special Court. The Special Court and the High Court were not right in holding that the filing of the fresh charge sheet with proper sanction order for prosecution was barred under the principles of "double jeopardy". 16. The sum and substance of the decision in C.Sangnghina’ case (supra) is that even before commencement of trial, the respondent/accused was discharged due to lack of proper sanction, there was no impediment for filing the fresh/supplementary charge sheet after obtaining valid sanction. By filing fresh charge sheet, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent nor would it result in failure of justice to be barred under the principles of "double jeopardy”. By filing fresh charge sheet, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent nor would it result in failure of justice to be barred under the principles of "double jeopardy”. Although under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once and as per Section 300 CrPC, a person once convicted or acquitted, cannot be tried for the same offence, in order to bar the trial of any person already tried, it must be shown (i) that he has been tried by a competent court for the same offence or one for which he might have been charged or convicted at that trial, on the same facts; (ii) that he has been convicted or acquitted at the trial; and (iii) that such conviction or acquittal is in force. Where the accused has not been tried at all, neither convicted nor acquitted, the principles of "double jeopardy" could not be invoked at all. Thus when the accused was discharged due to lack of proper sanction, the principles of "double jeopardy" will not apply and there is no bar for filing fresh/supplementary charge sheet after obtaining a valid sanction for prosecution. On filing fresh report with sanction, the Special Court shall proceed with the same and to take cognizance of the matter. 17. Going by the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the investigating officer is at liberty to re-file the final report after taking back the final report from the Special Court along with proper sanction, and in such event, the Special Court has to accept the same and proceed further in accordance with law. Accordingly, these petitions stand disposed of as indicated above. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this common order/judgment to the special court forthwith.