JUDGMENT :

Robin Phukan, J.

1. This petition, under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is preferred by Shri Marnya Ete, S/o. Late Gomar Ete, R/o Village-Darka, P.O./P.S.-Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh for quashing the impugned supplementary Charge-Sheet, dated 19.09.2012, in connection with SIC (VIG.) P.S. Case No. 06/2007, under Sections 120 (B)/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (1)(c) (d) & 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 and the impugned order, dated 10.10.2012, in Spl. (Vig.) (T) Case No. 05/2012, passed by the learned Special Judge, North Lakhimpur. It is to be mentioned here that vide impugned order the ld. Special Judge, North Lakhimpur has taken cognizance of the offence and issued summon to the petitioner to appear before him to stand trial, without prosecution sanction.

2. The factual background leading to filing of this criminal petition is briefly stated as under:-

"In the year, 2007, the Special Investigation Cell (SIC), Vigilance, Itanagar registered several cases against various officials of the District Food and Civil Supplies, Directorate of the Food and Civil Supplies and Deputy Commissioners of East Siang, West Siang and the Upper Siang districts including the present petitioner in connection with Spl. (VIG) P.S. Case No. 06/2007, under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 13 (1) (c) (d) & 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. The allegation levelled against the officials is that Levy Sugar is not enlisted as an item of Hill Transport Subsidy (HTS) claims, under the Hill Transport Subsidy Schemes, but despite being so, during the period from 1999 to 2004, those officials entered into a criminal conspiracy with the carriage contractors and got false HTS bills passed in respect of transportation of Levy Sugar fraudulently from the Food Corporation of India (for short, 'FCI') and thereby causing wrongful loss to the State Exchequer to the tune of crores of rupees and wrongful gain to the carriage contractors by illegally abusing their official position. As such, they are guilty of criminal misconduct. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and the same culminated in submission of Charge-Sheet No. 2, dated 16.07.2010, before the learned Special Judge, North Lakhimpur, Assam against different officials. It is to be mentioned here that the name of the petitioner finds no mention in the said Charge-Sheet. But, subsequently, the investigating officer submitted a supplementary Charge-Sheet, dated 19.09.2012, against the petitioner and other officials. It is also stated that the allegation of misconduct levelled against the accused petitioner relates to the discharge of his official duties as Deputy Commissioner and the same took place during his tenure as such, and hence the investigating authority for the prosecution of the petitioner, sought for prosecution sanction, under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 from the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, vide letter No. SIC/VIG/17/PRO-SAN/05-10 dated 12.07.2010. But, the request for prosecution sanction, in respect of the petitioner was rejected by the competent authority, vide letter No. VIG-132/15, dated 28.09.2015, after assessment of the materials placed before it and finding no prima facie case made out against the petitioner. On receipt of the same, the investigating agency has communicated the same to the learned Special Judge, North Lakhimpur vide letter No. SIC/VIG/PS/FIR-06/2007, dated 07.10.2015. But, despite absence of prosecution sanction from the competent authority, the learned Special Judge, North Lakhimpur has taken cognizance of the offence against the accused petitioner and summoned him to stand trial, vide order dated 10.10.2012.

3. Being highly aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10.10.2012, passed by the learned Special Judge, North Lakhimpur, Assam in Spl. (Vig.) (T) Case No. 05/2012, which is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside and quashed, the petitioner has approached thi