JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. 1. This Writ Petition is at the instance of the 4 th accused in C.C.No.24/2014 and C.C.No.25/2014 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode. The reliefs prayed for herein are as follows: “a) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 Sanction Order No. B3/20404/2002 dated 25-11-2013 issued by the 6th respondent. b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 Sanction Order as against the petitioner. c) Dispense with translation of vernacular documents. d) Issue such other writ, order or direction this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor representing State of Kerala in detail. Perused Ext.P3 order and the relevant materials, including the final report produced by the writ petitioner. 3. The petitioner herein is the 4 th accused in C.C.Nos.24 and 25 of 2014, on the files of Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act, 1988' for short) as well as under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short) by the accused. This crime was originally registered in the year 2002 as V.C.No.3 of 2002. The prosecution allegation is that accused Nos.1 to 14, while working as Assistant Teachers of Thodannur U.P School during the academic year 1995-96 and 1996-97, being public servants, abused their official positions and committed criminal misconduct by hatching criminal conspiracy among themselves. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, they forged and falsified school records, made bogus admissions on the basis of forged transfer certificates in respect of 56 students and marked false attendance in the attendance register/registers so as to inflate the roll strength of the students of the above school with fraudulent intention to avoid division fall and to retain the post of teachers causing financial loss to the Government. In continuation of the said acts, the accused teachers had drawn salary, which they were not entitled. In continuation of the said acts, the accused teachers had drawn salary, which they were not entitled. According to the prosecution, Rs.3,09,130/- as pay and allowances for 4 teachers, who were artificially retained by reckoning bogus admission and Rs.510.50 by way of maintenance grant allotted to Thodannur U.P. School. Thus a total amount of Rs.3,09,641/- was alleged to be misappropriated by the accused. 4. Even though this crime was registered in the year 2002, in respect of an occurrence that took place in the year 1997, the final report was filed only in the year 2014 due to the delay in obtaining the FSL report and other related documents to prove forgery and falsification as alleged. 5. In this petition the prayer is to quash Ext.P3 sanction issued by the sanctioning authority to prosecute the petitioner, who is the 4 th accused in this case. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per Ext.P4 Government Order dated 08.11.1996, the Government ordered to retain all aided teachers rendered surplus consequent on the division fall and reduction of posts during the staff fixation of the current academic year, i.e 1996-1997. Therefore, none of the offences would be attracted and the prosecution sanction issued is erroneous and is to be interfered. 6. Whereas it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that, in this matter after framing charge the matter is scheduled for examination of witnesses starting from 17.12.2025 and at this juncture in order to stall the trial in a serious case, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the sanction which, in fact, was issued as early as on 25.11.2013, i.e. a period of 12 years before and, therefore, this Writ Petition filed solely with intention of delaying the trial already scheduled, lacks bona fides. That apart, on a perusal of Ext.P4, it could be seen that the Deputy Director of Education, Kozhikode, issued Ext.P3 sanction after verifying the prosecution records, applying her mind, on satisfying that the prosecution of the accused persons, who had forged and falsified the records for the purpose of misappropriating an amount of ?3,09,641/-, was necessary. Therefore, Ext.P3 sanction cannot be interfered with even on merits. 7. Therefore, Ext.P3 sanction cannot be interfered with even on merits. 7. While appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is relevant to note that as per Ext.P4 Government Order the Government had issued order and thereby an opportunity was given to the Headmasters/Headmistress' of the schools to remove the forged admissions and also to avoid disciplinary actions. However that Government Order would not save the criminal culpability of the teachers including the petitioners, who willfully forged transfer certificates and made admissions of bogus students with a view to retain the teachers strength and thereby misappropriated Rs.3,09,641/- towards - the pay and allowances of the teachers and Rs.510/ towards the maintenance grant of the school. At the outset, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the challenge against Ext.P3 is not at all bona fide because the same was raised just six to seven days before the commencement of the examination of the witnesses, in a case where examination of witnesses scheduled to commence from 17.12.2025 even though Ext.P3 was issued 12 years before. So, the prayers in the petition are much belated and the same itself is a reason to deny the relief sought for. 8. Ignoring the delay, when considering the challenge against Ext.P3 on merits, apart from pointing out Ext.P4 Government Order, nothing has been substantiated by the petitioner to show any infirmity in Ext.P3 order of sanction. 9. It is settled law that while issuing sanction, the sanctioning authority must apply its mind to the prosecution records after verifying the same and form an opinion as to whether prosecution sanction is to be given or not. The very intent of getting prosecution sanction is to avoid false implication of innocent public servants in criminal cases. However, that doesn't mean that when criminal culpability of public servant was found by the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority on verification of prosecution records and application of mind, interfering with the said well reasoned order is unnecessary and counterproductive. Applying the said legal principles, on a perusal of Ext.P3 order, it could be gathered that the sanctioning authority carefully examined the materials placed before her and, by applying her mind, she found that the allegations therein made out the offences alleged warranting prosecution and accordingly the sanction was issued. Therefore, Ext.P3 sanction order doesn’t suffer from any infirmity to interfere with the same as payed for. Therefore, Ext.P3 sanction order doesn’t suffer from any infirmity to interfere with the same as payed for. Thus none of the prayers in this Writ Petition are liable to be allowed. 10. In view of the matter, this Writ Petition (Crl.) would necessarily fail and is accordingly dismissed. 11. The Special Court is specifically directed to complete the examination of witnesses already started and dispose of the cases as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the same. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode, for information and compliance.