SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

1. The instant revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner Sohan Lal Singathia being aggrieved of the order dated 28.09.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court, Anti Corruption Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 01/2016 whereby, the learned court below directed framing of charges against the petitioner and the co-accused persons for the offences under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of the IPC.

2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was posted as a Patwari in the district Sri Ganganagar at the relevant point of time. An FIR No. 429/2012 came to be registered against the petitioner and the co-accused persons for the above offences with the allegation that they had indulged in criminal misconduct while carrying out mutation of a disputed chunk of agricultural land in relation whereof, certain litigations were pending in the revenue courts. Before the result of investigation could be submitted, the petitioner superannuated from his post. Charge-sheet came to be filed against the petitioner, Rameshwar Lal Joshi, the then Tehsildar (since retired), Shishpal Singh Girdawar and Jagdish Rai Girdawar, being the public servants involved in the offences and Barkhadas being the beneficiaries of the fraudulent transaction. The matter was taken up by the learned Special Court for consideration of charges and a detailed order was passed on 28.09.2016 directing framing of charges against the petitioner for the offences mentioned above. The said order is under challenge in the instant revision.

3. Though the impugned order was challenged on numerous grounds but, while arguing the matter, the basic thrust of arguments advanced by Shri Jagga, learned counsel representing the petitioner, was that the prosecution did not procure a sanction for prosecuting the petitioner in this case as warranted by Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 19 of the prevention of Corruption Act and thus, the court could not have taken cognizance against the petitioner and his trial is vitiated. He relied upon the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of R. Balakrishna Pillai vs. State of Kerala and Another, AIR 1996 SC 901 and State of Punjab vs. Labh Singh, 2015 (1) RLW 236 (SC) and implored the Court to set aside the impugned order on the ground that no sanction to prosecute the petitioner was procured by the investigating agency before submitting the charge-sheet against him.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and urged that procurement of prosecution sanction is only essential where, the charge-sheet is filed against a retired government servant for the offences under the Indian Penal Code committed by the public servant while discharging his official duty. He contended that no sanction is required for prosecuting a public servant for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act if he has superannuated and ceased to be a public servant before submission of charge-sheet. On these grounds, he implored the Court to dismiss the revision.

5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and have gone through the material available on record.

6. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, suffice it to say that the trial court has considered in detail, the entire factual matrix available on record and the material collected by the investigating agency in support of the charge-sheet and recorded sound and substantial reasons concluding that sufficient evidence is available to put the accused up for trial and hence, this Court is of the view that as the due satisfaction as warranted by Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the trial court in the impugned order, the same is not liable to be interfered on merit.

7. Now coming to the legal aspect of the matter i.e. whether the trial court could have taken cognizance and proceeded against th