1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 CrPC read with Section 27 of the PC Act, 1988 seeking discharge in CC No. 09/2006 (RC No.DAI-2004-A-0046/DLI).

2. The petitioner challenged the validity of sanction Ex.PW4/A and filed an application before learned Special Judge seeking discharge on the ground of invalidity of the sanction. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2011 which is impugned before this Court.

3. Vide impugned order, learned Special Judge held that the sanction order did not suffer from any infirmity or non-application of mind by the authority to grant sanction for prosecution. Sanction was held to be valid and application of the accused was dismissed.

4. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he was facing trial in the above noted case and during pendency of the trial, he filed an application seeking discharge on the ground of invalidity of the sanction which has been dismissed by learned Special Judge vide impugned order dated 29.11.2011. In the interregnum period his statement under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded and while answering the questions bearing No.86 to 90, also validity of the sanction and it being accorded by the authority competent to remove him, was disputed.

5. Notice of the petition was sent to CBI. I have heard Mr.H.K.Sharma, counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Sonia Mathur, APP for CBI.

6. At the outset, I would like to observe that when the case was at the stage of final arguments, Court had already heard final arguments in part, the application seeking discharge challenging the validity of sanction, was undesirable particularly in view of Section 19 (3)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

7. As per Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Special Judge is required to follow the procedure prescribed for warrant trial cases in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). The trial in a warrant case starts with framing of charge. Once charge has been framed in a warrant trial case, instituted either on a complaint or on a police report, the trial Court has no power under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) to discharge the accused. The trial Court can either acquit or convict the accused unless it decides to proceed under Sections 325 and 360 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), excepting where the prosecution must fail for want of a fundamental defect, such as want of sanction. An order of acquittal must be based upon a ‘finding of not guilty’ turning on the merits of the case on appreciation of evidence, at the conclusion of the trial.

8. The mere fact that after seeking approval from the competent authority, sanction order has been authenticated by Under Secretary, duly authorized for the said purpose under Government of India (Transaction of Business Rules), discharge could not have been sought on the ground of invalidity of the sanction order and that too at the stage when the case was fixed for final arguments.

9. In the instant case, it cannot be contended that there is no sanction at all. Infact, it is the very sanction order that has been challenged before learned Special Judge while seeking discharge which is now sought to be quashed by filing this petition.

10. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner claiming it to be bad in eyes of law and based on surmises and conjunctures on the following grounds :-

(i) On the application filed by the CBI to summon the sanctioning authority and PW-4 Under Secretary who authenticated the sanction order, they were allowed to be summoned by the Court. However, as both these witnesses were not produced, the statement of PW-4 cannot be read in evidence.

(ii) Vide order dated 27.07.2011 learned Special Judge accepted the contention of prosecuting agency that sanction has not been proved yet and ordered for recalling PW4 and also summoned the sanctioning authority. But subsequently, the evidence was closed. The application filed by the