C.R. Sarma, J.

1. As the above cited criminal petitions have arisen out of the common order, dated 21.08.2013, involving the same questions of law, based on similar facts, for the sake of convenience and as agreed to by the learned counsel, appearing for the parties. I have heard the said criminal petitions together and propose to dispose of this set of six criminal petitions, by this common order. Smti. Renu Dutta Baruah and Smti. Asomee Dutta Baruah, as complainants, filed a complaint case being complaint case No. 02 of 2012 before the learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati bringing certain allegations relating to corruption against the petitioners, who were the public servants at the relevant time. On receipt of the said complaint, the learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati, by order, dated 21.08.2012, passed in complaint case No. 2 of 2012 came to the findings that the accusation made against the accused persons i.e. the petitioners indicated commission of the offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short P.C. Act) and the learned Special Judge, exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., forwarded the complaint petition to the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (for short 'ACB') P.S. to register a case under appropriate provision of Indian Penal Code and the provision of P.C. Act, 1988, for investigation and fixed the matter for report on 26.09.2012.

2. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners aforesaid have come up with the present quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the grounds that the impugned order dated 21.08.2012 cannot be maintained for want of sanction as required under Section 19(3) of the RC. Act, 1988, inasmuch as, the petitioners (accused persons) are public servants.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the impugned order.

Mr. N. Duta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, in criminal petition No. 578/2012, referring to the order, dated 13.05.2015, passed by this Court in Criminal petition No. 76/2014, has submitted that the present petitions are covered by the said order. On behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted that, in view of requirement of sanction, as provided by section 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988, taking of cognizance without previous sanction is unlawful and that the learned Special Judge ought not to have taken note of the private complaint without prior sanction order. It is also submitted that for passing a direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for causing investigation in respect of an offence under the P.C. Act, prior sanction is necessary and that the said requirement cannot be dispensed with even at the pre cognizance stage.

The learned senior counsel has submitted that the order passed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. without recording the reasons warranting an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is bad in law.

In view of above, the learned senior counsel has submitted that the impugned order dated 21.08.2012, is liable to be set aside and the proceedings arising thereof, are also liable to be quashed.

The learned senior counsel, in support of his contention, has referred to the decisions held in the cases of (1) Criminal Appeal Nos. 1590-1591 of 2013 (Anil Kumar & Ors. Vs. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr.), reported in (2013) 10 SCC 705, (2) (Ramdev Food Production Private Limited Vs. State of Gujarat), (3) SC, Criminal Appeal No. 781/2012 (Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley Etc.

4. Mr. S. Sarma, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, appearing on behalf of the State, referring to the Government Affidavit dated 6.10.2012, filed in criminal petition No. 578/2012, has submitted that continuation of the investigation without following due procedure of law is not permissible and that in order to protect the honest and sincere public servants,