ORDER Rusia, J:- Since the controversies involved in the above cases are between the same parties, with the joint request of the parties, they are analogously heard and decided by this common order. Facts of Review Petition No.612 of 2024 are narrated hereunder:- 1. The Special Police Establishment has filed this Review Petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking review of the order dated 4.3.2024, whereby the W.P. No.24499 of 2019 has been allowed and the order dated 17.9.2019 (Annexure-P/1), whereby the sanction for prosecution granted by the State has been quashed on the ground that the Sanction Authority has no power to reconsider / review the matter again on the same material. 2. As per the contents of FIR, on 31.7.2013 the complainant – Kailash submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment (in short 'SPE'), Ujjain about the illegal demand raised by Mrs Sayyad Zarina Ali (respondent No.1). As per the complaint, respondent No.1, while working as Patwari demanded an amount of Rs.500/- towards illegal gratification for preparing new revenue book (Rin Pustika). The complainant had already paid Rs.200/- and he was not willing to pay the remaining amount of Rs.300/-. The complainant was given a digital voice recorder to record the conversation with respect to the payment of the bribe. After recording the conversation, again a written complaint was filed on 2.8.2013 before the S.P., Lokayukt. Thereafter, a trap was organized, which remained successful on 2.8.2013 according to SPE. 3. As per the Trap Panchnama, tainted money amounting to Rs.300/- was handed over to respondent No.1, which she handed over to her husband namely Sayeed Sabir Ali (Government Teacher) who kept the same in his pocket. The fingers of respondent No.1 and her husband both were dipped in the solution and the solution turned pink. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against respondent No.1 and her husband. They all were arrested and released on bail. The necessary investigation was completed, by recording statements of witnesses and a request was sent for a grant of sanction to the Sanctioning Authority. Vide order dated 17.3.2015, the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department declined to grant sanction for prosecution. 4. Thereafter, the matter was sent to the Law and Legislature Department, in which the Law secretary recorded his distending note and opined that it was a fit case for granting sanction. Vide order dated 17.3.2015, the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department declined to grant sanction for prosecution. 4. Thereafter, the matter was sent to the Law and Legislature Department, in which the Law secretary recorded his distending note and opined that it was a fit case for granting sanction. Again, a request was sent for the grant of sanction of prosecution of respondent No.1 – Smt. Sayyed Zarina Ali and her husband Sayyed Sabir Ali, who was working as Lecturer in the Government Higher Secondary School, Jamner, Kalapipal, under section 13(i)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act & section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. After considering all the material available on record, vide order dated 17.9.2019, sanction has been granted. Hence, respondent No.1 filed W.P. No.24499 of 2019 before this High Court challenging the validity of the order dated 17.9.2019. 5. A reply was filed by the Special Police Establishment and vide order dated 4.3.2024, writ petition came to be allowed on the ground that no fresh material was produced by the SPE before the Government to get the sanction and from perusal of subsequent order dated 17.9.2019, it is clear that on the same material, the Sanctioning Authority has changed its opinion and granted sanction to prosecute respondent No.1 which is impermissible and accordingly, quashed the impugned order dated 17.9.2019. 6. After the aforesaid order passed by the High Court, the called Smt. Sayyed Zarina Ali for recording the voice sample. When she did not grant permission for voice sampling, Deputy Superintendent of Police SPE vide letter dated 2.7.2024 threatened her to initiate the process for cancellation of bail. An application dated 2.7.2024 to that effect has been filed before the concerned Special Judge seeking permission to record the voice sample by SPE. On 6.8.2024, learned Special Judge had registered the applications and directed respondent No.1 to submit a reply. 7. Now, Mrs Sayyed Zarina filed W.P. No.21239 of 2024 before this Court challenging the action of SPE, Ujjain that once the sanction has been quashed by this Court, therefore, she cannot be prosecuted, hence, there is no use in taking voice sample. 8. So far as W.P. No.21239 of 2024 is concerned, it is correct that if Smt. Sayyed Zarina Ali does not want to give the voice sample, so adverse inference can be drawn. 8. So far as W.P. No.21239 of 2024 is concerned, it is correct that if Smt. Sayyed Zarina Ali does not want to give the voice sample, so adverse inference can be drawn. The Prosecution Agency cannot threaten for cancellation of bail, for which there is a separate provision for filing of appropriate application before this Court. Therefore, the action of the SPE in W.P. No.21239 of 2024 is wholly unjustified. 9. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against respondent No.1 and her husband. They all were arrested and released on bail. Smt. Sayyed Zarina is not the only accused in this crime, her husband who is also a Government employee is arrayed as an accused with the aid of section 120-B of the IPC. As per the prosecution story, the tainted money was received by Smt. Sayyed Zarina Ali and handed over the same to her husband which recovered from his pocket. 10. Before considering the first application for a grant of sanction, a representation was called from Smt. Sayyed Zarina Ali. The Additional Secretary considered the reply submitted by Smt. Sayyed Zarina Ali which is reproduced in paragraph – 4 of the order dated 17.3.2015, according to which she admits that she handed over Rs.300/- in her hand by the complainant which she threw on the floor and thereafter, the complainant took out the money and gave it her husband which he kept in his pocket. Prima facie, there is an admission on her part about handing over the money to her and received by her husband. Prima facie, there is an admission on her part about handing over the money to her and received by her husband. Paragraph-4 of the order dated 17.3.2015 is reproduced below:- ^^4- vijk/k iathc) gksus ds i'pkr vukosnd Jherh lS;n tjhuk vyh ifr Jh lkfcj vyh iVokjh gYdk uEcj 32] 34 dkykihiy ftyk 'kktkiqj ds }kjk fnukad 7-4-2014 dks vH;kosnu izLrqr dj ;g fuosnu fd;k fd mDr gYds ds xzke iapk;r ekanyk [ksMh ds iwoZ ljiap Jh 'kadjyky firk ekaxhyky xzkeh.kksa ds chŒihŒ,yŒ jk'ku dkMZ o o`)k voLFkk isa'ku QkeZ >wBs cuokdj xyr rjhds ls iVokjh ls fjiksVZ yxokuk pkgrs FksA bl ckcr Jherh lS;n tjhuk vyh iVokjh us mDr vkosnu i=ksa ds laca/k esa ;g dgk fd vkosnu dh ekSds ij tk¡p dj iqf"V djus ds ckn QkeksZ ij fjiksVZ yxk nwaxh] ;g djus ij Jh 'kadjyky iwoZ ljiap vR;f/kd xqLlk gks x;s ,oa muls ;g dgk fd eSa rqEgs >wBh fj'or ds izdj.k esa Qlok nwWaxkA ;gk¡ ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd f'kdk;rdrkZ Jh dSyk'k firk ckcwyky pekj] xzke iapk;r ekanyk [ksMh dh ljiap Jherh js'keckbZ iRuh Jh dSyk'k tks iwoZ ljiap 'kadjyky ds ;gka uksdj o gkyh dk dk;Z djrk gS fnukad 2-8-2013 dks muds ikl dSyk'k firk ckcwyky _.k iqfLrdk izkIr djus gsrq rglhy dk;kZy; dkykihiy vk;k Fkk ml le; os dEI;wVj viMs'ku dk dk;Z dj jgh Fkh rc mUgsa ckgj cqyokdj Jh dSyk'k firk ckcwyky pekj] us _.k iqfLrdk dh ekax dh rc Jherh lS;n tjhuk vyh }kjk dgk x;k fd esjs }kjk _.k iqfLrdk rS;kj dj nh xbZ gS fdUrq ml ij rglhynkj ds gLrk{kj ugha gq, gSA blh chp ekuuh; eq[;ea=hth dk nkSjk dk;Zdze Fkk] nkSjk lekIr gksus ds i'pkr ,d&nks fnu ckn _.k iqfLrdk ysdj tkukA ;g dgus ij Jh dSyk'k firk ckcwyky pekj] us mudk gkFk Jherh lS;n tjhuk vyh ds gkFk esa dqN :i;s fn;s Jherh tjhuk us vius vH;kosnu esa ;g Li"V fd;k gS fd og :i;s muds }kjk ogh ij Qsd fn;s ,oa dgk fd _.k iqfLrdk 'kklu dh vksj ls fu'kqYd cukbZ tkrh gS blds i'pkr Jh dSyk'k firk ckcwyky pekj] us mDr :i;s tehu ls mBkdj muds ifr Jh lkfcj vyh ds ikl tkdj dgk fd ;s :i;s esMe }kjk Hksts x;s gS vki bUgsa j[k yhft;s ,oa tcju mDr jkf'k :i;s 300@& mudh tsc esa j[k fn;s x;sA Jh lkfcj vyh }kjk Hkh mDr jkf'k ugha yh xbZ vkSj mUgsa tehu ij Qsd fn;s x;s blh chp ogka ij yksdk;qDr dh Vhe vkbZ vkSj mlds i'pkr Jherh lS;n tjhuk vyh ,oa muds ifr Jh lkfcj vyh dks yksdk;qDr Vhe us fcBkydj nksuksa ifr iRuh ds gkFk /kqyok;s ftlls ikuh dk jax xqykch fudykA^^ 11. Thereafter, the Sanctioning Authority also observed that the amount of Rs.300/- is very small and it was not expected Patwari to demand and accept such a small amount, therefore, on these two grounds, the sanction for prosecution was refused which is per se illegal. After refusal of sanction on 17.3.2015, the matter was placed before the Law Department and the Law Secretary recorded its distending note and forwarded the file for grant of sanction to the Administrative Department. On the second occasion, the Department rightly considered that her husband is also one of the accused, who is also a Government employee as the tainted money was recovered from his pocket. In the first order, there was no such consideration about the involvement of the husband of respondent No.1 being a Government employee. 12. Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the SPE submitted that so far as the prosecution against the husband is concerned, sanction has been granted, if that be so, the husband of Smt. Sayyed Zarina Ali cannot be tried with the aid of section 120-B of the IPC, if there is no sanction for her prosecution. Therefore, there was a change in the circumstances for granting sanctions for prosecution. Hence, there is an error on the face of the record, therefore, the order of dismissal of the writ petition needs to be reviewed. 13. Apart from the above as per Circular dated 5.9.2014 issued by the General Administration Department, after the refusal by the Administrative Department / Parent Department one copy is liable to be sent to the Law & Legislature Department and if the Law & Legislature Department differs with the opinion, then again the file is liable to be sent to the Administration Department for reconsideration. Paragraphs –3, 4 & 5 of Circular dated 5.9.2014 are reproduced below:- ^^3½ izdj.k dk ijh{k.k dj iz'kkldh; foHkkx ;fn ;g ikrk gS fd izdj.k vfHk;kstu dh Lohd`fr ds ;ksX; gS] rks og izdj.k dh izkfIr ls 45 fnu dh vof/k ds Hkhrj vfHk;kstu dh Lohd`fr tkjh dj] mls vUos"k.k vfHkdj.k@O;fDrxr ifjoknh dks izsf"kr djsxk rFkk Lohd`fr vkns'k dh ,d izfr fofèk vkSj fo/kk;h dk;Z foHkkx dks Hkh vxzsf"kr djsxkA 4½ ;fn iz'kklfud foHkkx izdj.k dks vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr ds ;ksX; ugha ikrk gS] rks og vius izdj.k fu"d"kZ lfgr izdj.k dks 30 fnu ds Hkhrj fof/kd vfHker gsrw fof/k vkSj fo/kk;h dk;Z foHkkx dks izsf"kr djsxkA 5½ fof/k vkSj fo/kk;h dk;Z foHkkx izdj.k dk ijh{k.k dj] iz'kkldh; foHkkx ls izdj.k dh izkfIr ls 15 fnol dh vof/k esa] iz'kkldh; foHkkx dks vius fyf[kr ldkaj.k vfHker ls voxr djk,xkA^^ 14. Therefore, there is a provision for reconsideration by the Administrative / Parent Department after the adverse opinion in favour of the sanction is given by the Law Department. It is not a case where only the change of material is liable to be considered for review or recalling of the order, but the Law & Legislative Department did not agree with the first refusal for sanction by the Administrative Department. 15. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 4.3.2024 passed in W.P. No.24499 of 2019 is hereby recalled and as a consequence of it and in view of the above discussion, Writ Petition has no substance and merit and the same is (W.P. No.24499 of 2019) hereby dismissed. 16. Hence, R.P. No.612 of 2024 is allowed and W.P. No.21239 of 2024 is allowed in part. Let a signed copy of this order be kept in the record of the writ petition also.