1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of F.I.R. No. 266/2007 registered against him at A.C.B., Jaipur for the offences under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C. qua him and against the order dated 27.1.2012 granting sanction for prosecuting the petitioner.

3. Succinctly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant misc. petition are that one Giriraj Joshi, Advocate (since deceased) submitted a complaint to the Collector, Chittorgarh regarding certain irregularities being committed in the execution of the construction work carried out under the Integrated Development Programme of Small and Medium Town Scheme (IDSMT Scheme) in Pratapgarh Municipal area. It was alledged that the work order was given on tender amount to the contractor despite the fact that (i) tender amount was 47.11% below the Building Schedule Rate (BSR), (ii) leveling and filling of the construction work was not proper; and (iii) Rs. 4,48,104/- was paid in excess to the contractor and thereby the Municipal Board was put to loss. The complaint thus, filed was registered by the A.C.B., Jaipur as F.I.R. No. 266/2007. The petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in this case as being Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Pratapgarh.

4. When the matter came up for grant of sanction to prosecute the petitioner, the petitioner represented his case to the D.O.P. The contention of the petitioner was that he had no part to play in the work order because the work order was granted by the predecessor in office of the petitioner. The running bills were prepared by the Junior Engineer and approved by the Executive Engineer and thereafter, were presented before the petitioner for sanction as being Executive Officer. It was contended that when the petitioner came to know that the work order has been given at the tender amount instead of lesser rate without negotiations, the petitioner upon being presented with the running bills directed reduction of 47.11% amount from the same. So far as the aspect of levelling and filling work was concerned, the contention of the petitioner before the sanctioning authority was that the said job was of the technical officers and the petitioner being the Executive Officer of the Municipality had no part to play in the technical evaluation. As regards the allegation of excess payment of amount of Rs. 4,48,104/- was concerned, the contention of the petitioner was that the Municipal Board vide resolution dated 19.5.2005 approved the work done by the contractor in excess of the tender and, therefore, the payment of the work done in excess was made to the contractor. It was further submitted that the final bill of the contractor was still pending and, therefore, the allegation that the excess payment has been made to the contractor was baseless.

5. Despite all these facts, the competent authority granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner vide order dated 27.1.2012. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant misc. petition seeking quashing of the F.I.R. impugned qua the petitioner and the order dated 27.1.2012 granting sanction.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in this case, there is no material on the record to prosecute the petitioner in relation to the allegations which have been set out in the F.I.R. It is submitted that the alleged irregularity in the grant of work order was of the year 2002 whereas the petitioner joined as Executive Officer subsequently. As regards the excess payment of the amount (47.11%), it is submitted that whatever running bills were received, an amount to the tune of 47.11% was deducted on the directions of the petitioner from the same before making the payment of the bills. As regards the allegations regarding levelling and filling are concerned, it is submitted that the job of supervision/ass