JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal petition has been filed praying for quashing the charge-sheet No. 5/2018 submitted against the petitioners in S.V.C. Police Station Case No. 3/2017 under Sections 120(B)/406/468/471/409/420 IPC read with Sections 13 (2) of the P.C. Act, as well as the prosecution sanction granted under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. An FIR was lodged alleging misappropriation and release of public fund without completion of the work in respect of Na-bil Pathar Gully Control Project 2012-2013 and Telia Pathar Gully Control Project 2013-2014. Estimated cost of the above mentioned projects were Rs. 20 lakhs and Rs. 26 lakhs respectively. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the present petitioners u/s 120(B)/406/468/471/409/420 IPC read with Sections 13 (2) of the P.C. Act for misappropriation of public fund in respect of Na-bil Pathar Gully Control Project 2012-2013 and Telia Pathar Gully Control Project 2013-2014. Prosecution sanction was also accorded by the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Soil Conservation Department.

3. Aggrieved by the charge-sheet and the sanction accorded for prosecution, the petitioners have approached this court by filing the instant petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing the proceeding and also the prosecution sanction granted u/s 19 of the P.C. Act. Subsequently by filing an additional affidavit, it was also brought to the notice of this court that in the meantime, learned trial court has framed charges against the petitioners u/s 120(B)/406/468/471/409/420 IPC read with Sections 13 (2) of the P.C. Act.

4. Learned senior counsel, Mr. G. Uzir for the petitioners and learned counsel, Mr. P. Nayak for the respondent No. 2 were heard.

5. Learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. Gautam Uzir submitted that the sanction accorded by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Soil Conservation Department, was not valid, inasmuch as, the Principal Secretary was the sanctioning authority, who delegated the power to the Secretary/Deputy Secretary, which is not permissible under the law, and that the sanctioning authority accorded the sanction on extraneous consideration without applying its mind. Further contention of Mr. Uzir was that no separate sanction was accorded for the offence u/s 120(B) IPC and other offences under the Indian Penal Code, and as such, the learned Special Judge ought not to have taken cognizance and framed charges, without separate sanction u/s 197 CrPC for the offence u/s 120(B) or Section 409/406 IPC etc. Mr. Uzir in support of his submission placed reliance on the following decisions :-

(i) Mansukh Vithal Das Chauhan -Vs - State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 622.

(ii) Romesh Lal Jain -Vs- Narinder Singh Rana & Ors reported in (2006) 1 SCC 294.

6. Learned counsel, Mr. Nayak for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the sanction did not suffer from any infirmity, inasmuch as, the sanction order itself demonstrated, that the sanctioning authority has applied its mind after considering all the materials placed before it. Mr. Nayak further contended that no sanction was required to prosecute a public servant for offence of criminal conspiracy or criminal mis-appropriation of public fund. In support of his submission, leaned Solicitor General of India, Mr. Nayak placed reliance on the following decisions :-

(i) Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed -Vs.- State of Andhra Pradesh, (1979) 4 SCC 172.

(ii) Rameshlal Jain -Vs- Naginder Singh Rana And Others (2006) 1 SCC 294.

7. From the rival submission of the learned counsels following points emerged for consideration in this petition :-

(i) Whether the prosecution sanction accorded u/s 19 of the P.C. Act was bad and invalid ?

(ii) Whether a separate sanction u/s 197 of the CrPC was required for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 120(B) or Section 409/420 IPC ?

8. The basic ground of attack against the prosecution sanction appears to be non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority and that sanction was also not