ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.:–Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, learned Standing Counsel, C.B.I.

2. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 31.08.2006 issued by the Director General, Council for Advancement of People’s Action and Rural Technology, New Delhi (for short CAPART) whereby sanction has been accorded under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecution of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in connection with R.C. No.22(A)/ 2005 (Special Case No.25/ 2005).

3. Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned dated 31.08.2006 was passed by the authority, who is not competent to remove the petitioner from office. He contended that as per the CAPART Bye-Laws, it is the Executive Committee and not the Director General, CAPART, who could have accorded sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. According to him, the grant of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner by the then Director General, who was not the appropriate or the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution has resulted into failure of justice. Further, in view of non-appreciation of the fact that the petitioner has not performed any act, which is in violation of CAPART rules and guidelines yet is being proceeded with and is facing the rigors of trial due to perfunctory and superficial investigation, the continuation of his trial before the Court against him in absence of a valid sanction would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.

4. Per contra, Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the C.B.I. has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present application. He has contended that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court challenging the order taking cognizance. He had also challenged the order by which the trial Court had declined to discharge him from the case. In both applications filed by the petitioner before this Court point of sanction was raised, but those applications were dismissed. He contended that the orders passed earlier by this Court were never challenged in appeal before the Supreme Court. In that view of the matter, those orders have attained finality. He has contended that the successive application challenging the order of cognizance on the point of illegality in grant of sanction for prosecution is impermissible in law.

5. On merits, he has submitted that in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Vs. Chairman, Airport Authority of India and another, since reported in (2012) 1 SCC 532, any objection relating to invalidity of sanction order is to be raised during trial and not before this Court by way of filing an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has further contended that the trial of the case is at its fag end. Almost all the witnesses have been examined and, at this belated stage, it would not be proper for this Court to test the legality or otherwise of the order granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioner.

6. In reply, Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the applications filed by the petitioner earlier before this Court questioning the legality of sanction order were never disposed of on merit. According to him, since those applications were not decided on merit, there would be no bar in raising the issue of illegality in the sanction order from stage to stage. He has further contended that quashing of criminal proceeding in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on ground of invalidity of sancti