J.B. Pardiwala, J.

By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 25th October 2016 passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Surat, below Exhibit-1 in the Criminal Inquiry Case No.6 of 2016.

2. The facts giving rise to this application may be summarised as under:

2.1. The applicant herein filed a private complaint in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Ac, 1988 and Sections 120B, 177, 182, 193, 196, 197, 199, 203, 204, 406, 409, 420, 423, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477 read with 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was lodged against in all nineteen persons. Since a neat question of law has been raised, I need not go into the nature of the allegations levelled in the complaint.

3. Upon such complaint being filed in the Court concerned, the same was registered as the Criminal Inquiry Case No.6 of 2016.

4. The learned Special Judge dropped the inquiry as he noticed that along with the complaint, there was no order of sanction passed by a competent authority under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act, 1988"). The learned Special Judge placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar v. M.R. Aiyappa and another [(2013) 10 SCC 705]. The learned Special Judge observed in para 5 as under:

"If we peruse the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar v. M.R. Aiyappa reported in 2013(10) SCC 705, this Court notices that, in the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the case of private complaint against the public servant under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, where the order was passed by the Magistrate for investigation of complaint by the police under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, without previous sanction under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In such a background, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that requirement to obtain sanction is mandatory requirement once the Court notices that there is no previous sanction. The Magistrate cannot order investigation against the public servant by invoking power under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under these circumstances, this Court cannot order investigation against the opponents and hence, this application deserves to be rejected."

5. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Special Judge referred to above, the applicant has come up with this application invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Submissions on Behalf of The Applicant:

6. Mr. A.B. Pandya, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant vehemently submitted that the learned Judge committed a serious error in law in passing the impugned order. The learned counsel submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar (supra) could be termed as 'per incuriam', as many other judgments having a bearing on the issue were not considered by the Apex Court. The learned counsel submitted that neither the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 nor the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 says that a "sanction" from the competent authority is necessary for the purpose of police investigation into any offence under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the question of sanction would arise only after the process of investigation is complete and the Investigating Agency has prepared a charge sheet or a police report under Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the word "cognizance", as figuring in Section 19 of the Act, 1988, has nothing to do with the power of the Court to order police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. To put i