MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J.

1. By way of present revision petition, filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the order dated 18/10/2016 passed by the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Durg in Criminal Case No. 3/09, whereby the petitioner's application under Section 19 sub-Section 4 of the Prevention of the Atrocities Act, 1988 has been rejected.

2. By the said application, the petitioner prayed that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner be dropped and he be discharged as there is no valid and proper sanction for prosecution of the petitioner for alleged commission of offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1988.

3. On the allegation of the complainant that the petitioner is demanding a bribe of Rs. 5000/- towards passing of a favourable order in favour of the complainant, a trap was arranged by Anti Corruption Bureau. According to the case of prosecution, in the trap arranged, Rs. 5000/- were recovered from under the table of the petitioner and when his hands were washed in the solution of Phenolphthalein, it prima facie indicated that the petitioner handled the tainted notes. The Anti Corruption Bureau, after completion of the trap proceedings, carried investigation and filed charge-sheet against the petitioner, on the allegation of having committed offence as described above. The Anti Corruption Bureau, thereafter sought sanction for prosecution which was granted vide order dated 17/07/2009 by the Law & Legislative Affairs Department of the State of Chhattisgarh. With the said sanction for prosecution, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner. When the petitioner moved an application for examination of all the witnesses of the prosecution, who had passed the order of sanction, the Additional Secretary, Department of law and the Secretary, Department of Revenue were examined. However, the petitioner's application under Section 19(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for his discharge on the ground that the sanction is not valid and proper, was rejected by the impugned order.

4. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly the petitioner's appointing authority was the Secretary, Department of Revenue and it was proved by the evidence of the Secretary of that department that the petitioner's department had not granted sanction as no case was made out upon perusal, grant of sanction by the Secretary, Law & Legislative Affairs Department, which is not the appointing authority of the petitioner, is illegal and in violation of the provision contained under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was vehemently argued that the competent authority of the petitioner would be the Secretary of his controlling department i.e. Department of Revenue to grant sanction and once the Secretary of the Department refused to grant sanction, it was not within the province of authority of the Secretary Department of Law & Legislative Affairs to grant sanction. It is also submitted that present is a case where despite refusal of grant sanction on a given material, submitted by the Anti Corruption Bureau, a review of the matter was made by the Law & Legislative Affairs Department, which is not permissible in the law unless new material was brought to justify grant of sanction.

5. The legal issue raised by the petitioner in the present case is squarely covered by this Court in the case of Maxi Kujur v. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Revision No. 1120 of 2016 order dated 12/04/2017. In that case, an identical issue was raised that the controlling department of the accused having not granted any sanction, the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs was not competent to grant sanction. Taking into consideration the relevant provisions of law in the light of various decision of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, relevant notifications which are applica