ORDER :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

1. Heard Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-C.B.I.

3. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs :-

“for quashing of order dated 03.04.2014 passed in R.C.5(A) of 1997(D) by learned District Judge VII cum Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the charges have framed against the petitioner under sections 120-B, r/w 406, 407, 409, 420, 468 and 471 of I.P.C., and sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c)&(d) of PC Act, 1988 and entire criminal proceedings arising thereof and now pending in the court of Learned A.D.J.-VII at Dhanbad, as also the entire criminal proceeding associated with the case now pending in the court of learned ADJ VII, cum Special Judge C.B.I., Dhanbad.”

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire Lower Court Records was called for by this Court and the records are available.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits as per the present petition, the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and many other co-accused. It was further observed in the charge-sheet that necessary sanction for prosecution in respect of the other accused public servants accorded by the competent authority, in original, was enclosed along with the charge-sheet. So far as the petitioner and other two co-accused are concerned, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner, only under Sections 406, 407, 409, 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and it was also mentioned that the charge-sheet under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)&(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1988) will be filed against the petitioner, and other two co-accused only after the sanction for launching prosecution under Section 19(1)(c) of the aforesaid Act of 1988 is obtained from the competent authority.

6. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has brought on record a proceeding sheet regarding sanction for launching prosecution against the petitioner which is dated 25th January, 2002 and annexed as Annexure-4 to the main petition. The learned counsel submits that the sanction for prosecution under Section 19(1)(c) of the aforesaid Act of 1988, in respect of the petitioner, was considered and the sanction was refused. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has also been exonerated in the departmental proceedings and the order of exonerating the petitioner of the charges is also annexed along with main petition which is dated 21st September, 2004.

7. The learned counsel has submitted that the learned court below has framed charges against the present petitioner under Sections 120-B read with Sections 406, 407, 409, 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code as well as Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)&(d) of the Act of 1988 without there being any sanction for prosecution under the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1988. He submits that the order framing charge as well as the charge itself has been annexed along with the main petition which is dated 03.04.2014 and 05.04.2014 respectively.

8. The learned counsel submits that altogether eleven paragraphs regarding charges are available in the charge framed and so far as tenth charge is concerned, the name of the present petitioner has been included therein which relates to alleged offence punishable under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned counsel submits that there is no prosecution sanction against the petitioner so far as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is concerned and no case for alleged offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code is made out against the present petitioner, as the petitioner has already been exonerated from the departmental proceeding by the competent authority.

9. The learned counsel also submits t