1. The petitioner, who is a Government servant, challenges Ext. P6 order dated 17.5.2002 of the competent authority, giving sanction under S.19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecuting him for various offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are the following.

2. The petitioner is an Agricultural Assistant working under the respondents. While he was working in the office of the Krishi Bhavan, Adatt, Thrissur, he was suspended from service alongwith others on 1.12.1999 by the 2nd respondent, Director of Agriculture, by Ext. P1 order. The Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, later, registered Crime No. 2/00 on 14.3.2000 against the petitioner for offences under S.13(1)(d) read with S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also under S.420, 468, 471 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code. The First Information Report is produced as Ext. P2. The allegation against the petitioner and others is that they conspired with a lime merchant and obtained undue pecuniary advantage to them by defrauding the Government.

3. Later, the petitioner was served with Ext. P3 memo of charges and Ext. P3(a) statement of allegations alleging serious misconducts of misappropriation of Government money, forgery of official documents and cheating the Government. The petitioner submitted Ext. P4 reply. An Enquiry Officer was appointed into the allegations against the petitioner and others. It appears, the Officer has submitted his report on 15.1.2001. Pursuant to the submission of the report, some of the Officers under suspension were reinstated as evident from Exts. P5 and P5(a). The petitioner also claimed reinstatement in service. When his representations were not considered by the respondents, he filed O.P. No. 15855/02 challenging his suspension and also praying for reinstatement in service. The said O.P. is pending.

4. While so, the petitioner was served with Ext. P6 order passed by the 2nd respondent Director of Agriculture under S.19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, giving sanction for prosecuting the petitioner.

5. According to the petitioner, Ext. P8 is arbitrary and illegal. It is submitted that there is no justification to exclude the other persons named in the First Information Report from the prosecution. As per Ext. P6, it is submitted, sanction is granted to prosecute the petitioner alone. This, according to him, is arbitrary and discriminatory. It is also submitted that Ext. P6 contains offences under the Indian Penal Code also and therefore the sanction under S.197 of the Cr.P.C. is necessary. So, according to him, Ext. P6 is illegal.

6. The alleged invalidity of the sanction order is a defence available to the petitioner in the Criminal Prosecution. This, he can raise by way of defence in the criminal case.

7. The petitioner challenges Ext. P6 on various grounds. I am not going into the merits of the grounds raised against Ext. P6 as the same may prejudice him in the trial. I decline to interfere with Ext. P6 for the reason that the petitioner can raise the invalidity of that order as a defence before the trial court. It is trite law that the invalidity of a sanction order whether it be under S.19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act or under S.197 of the Cr.P.C., can be raised by the accused in the criminal trial. Such a course is also in the interest of the petitioner. An application for judicial review is a discretionary remedy which can be dismissed for various reasons. But, in a criminal trial, the accused can raise all his defences as a matter of right.

8. Even the validity of an Act or Rule or Statutory Order can be raised by way of defence in a criminal trial. If the invalidity of an Act, Ordinance or Regulation or any provision contained therein is raised in a criminal case, the trial court is competent to refer the same under S.395 of the Cr.P.C. to the High Court. If what is invol