Mukta Gupta, J.

1. The present petitions lay a challenge to the common impugned order dated 5th November, 2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI whereby he did not accept the closure report filed by the CBI and took cognizance of offences under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ‘PC Act’) and substantive offence under Section 12 PC Act against the Petitioners and M/s. Videocon Industries Limited through its Managing Director.

2. Learned counsel appearing for Sanjay Tripathi contends that the learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences punishable under PC Act despite no sanction was granted by the competent authority. Section 11, PC Act is the fulcrum of the offence of which the abetment and conspiracy is alleged. In the absence of cognizance for offence under Section 11 PC Act, no cognizance for offences under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 12 of PC Act and Section 12 PC Act could have been taken. The Petitioner is a public servant and in the absence of sanction since no cognizance for offence under Section 11 PC Act could be taken, the cognizance for offence under Section 12 PC Act is also bad in