( 1 ) THESE are four criminal revision petitions bearing No. 49/92, 50/92, 51/92 and 52/92 preferred by Central Bureau of Investigation against the order dated September 4, 1991 passed by Shri V. S. Aggarwal, Special Judge, Delhi, whereby he declined to grant permission to the Central Bureau of Investigation for the closure of the case against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as to petitioner for convenience ). All the four petitions are being taken up together as the common questions of law and facts are like to arise while disposing them of. Brief facts which led to the filing of the present petitions are as under: that the petitioner registered a case against the respondents herein under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for sake of brevity ). However, during the course of ivestigation the petitioner could not collect sufficient evidence under the Sections alluded to above to file a charge-sheet agaisnt the respondents. Consequently, in the circumstances stated above, the petitioner applied to the Special Judge for closure of the case and submitted a report under Section 173 Cr. P. C. in connection therewith.

( 2 ) THE learned Special Judge declined to grant the prayer of the petitioner and directed them to approach the sanctioning authority for obtaining the sanction under Section 6 (1) of the Act before applying for the closure of the case vide his order dated September 4, 1991.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED and dis-satisfied by the said order the petitioner have approached this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S. Lal has vehemently contended before this Court that the learned Special Judge fell into a grave error by coming to the conclusion that a permission under Section 6 (1) of the Act was needed before the Court could accept the final report According to the learned counsel there was no condition precedent In fact, permission under Section 6 (1) of the Act was needed to take cognizance of the case and it was not applicable to those discerning few cases where the investigating agency comes to the conclusion that there was no sufficient material to prosecure the case and, as such, wants to close the case. Since we are concerned with the construction of Section 6 (1) of the Act the provisions of Section 6 (1) can be adverted to with profits:-

"6 (1); No Court shall take cognizance of an offernce punishable under section 161 (or section 164) or section 165 of the Indian Penal Code or under sub-section (2) (or sub-section (3a)) of section 5 of this Act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous santion. "

( 3 ) IT is amply clear from the relevant provisions of law alluded to above that the above section operates as a bar for the Court to take cognizance of an offence falling within the domain of the sections, referred to in Section 6 (1) of the Act. The legislatures in their wisdom framed the said Section in order to protect the public servant from harassment at the hands of unscrupulous litigants. The said Section serves as a cloak of protection for the public servants. However, when the investigating agency is of the view that either there is no evidence or there is meagre evidence for the submission of a chage-sheet, in those discerning few cases, I feel the Special Judge cannot direct the petitioner to obtain sanction under Section 6 (1) of the Act. I am fully fortified in my above view by the observations of High Court of Patna reported in Pancham Singh v. The State, AIR 1967 Patna 416, wherein it has been held as under:-

"the second contention of Mr. Gyoti Narayan was that the police was not competent to submit any charge-sheet against the petitioner in the absence of the previous sanction required by Section 6 of the Prevention of Corrpution Act. This section lays down that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable u