M. VENUGOPAL, J.

1. The Petitioner/A2 has focused the present Criminal Original Petition, praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the records in Spl. C.C. No. 4 of 2006 on the file of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Coimbatore and to quash the same.

2. According to the Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A2, the Petitioner's husband, is presently an Advocate and earlier he was serving as Commissioner of Municipality from the year 1976 and further he was promoted as Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Tiruppur. Further, during the year 1997-1999, the Petitioner's Husband was serving as Director of Tamilnadu Institute of Urban Studies, Coimbatore. From the year 1999-2004, he served as Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Salem.

3. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A2, contends that according to the Respondent, during the period from 18.08.1999 to 28.06.2004, the Petitioner/A2 with the connivance and abetment of her husband had committed a criminal misconduct and that a case was registered during the year 2003 against them and they were arrayed as A1 and A2 in respect of the purported offence under Section 109 IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A2 submits that Petitioner/A2, had not abetted her husband A1 and further, she had not committed any misconduct. Also, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A2, takes a plea that the Respondent had filed a charge sheet against the Petitioner/A2 and her husband A1 before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Coimbatore in Spl. C.C. No. 4 of 2006, after a lapse of three years period without necessary sanction.

5. Advancing his arguments, the Learned counsel for Petitioner/A2, strenuously contends that in the instant case on hand there is no prior sanction, which is a mandatory requirement in terms of Section 197 of Cr. P.C. and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

6. Added further, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A2 proceeds to submit that the authority concerned was to act both in terms of Cr. P.C. and in terms of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the said Act is a sacrosanct one and strictly the ingredients of Section 197 Cr. P.C. and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are to be followed.

7. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A2, projects an argument that the Petitioner/A2, is a House wife and including her in the malicious charge sheet frivolously had invaded her 'Fundamental Right' and also destructed her personal freedom.

8. Expatiating his submission, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A2 contends that the trial Court had committed an error in taking cognizance of the offence without prior sanction from the competent authority.

9. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A2, submits that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner/A2's husband viz. A1, were on the basis of anonymous petition and undue influence developed by his colleagues and the same are not sustainable in the eye of Law.

10. That apart, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner/A2, that A1, is an Income Tax Assessee and he is maintaining satisfactory accounts for his income. Also, that the Petitioner/A2, is also maintaining satisfactory accounts and she has a PAN card bearing No. AEEPG400N.

11. The primordial submission of the Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A2 is that the trial Court had framed charges against the Petitioner/A2 without prior sanction and the same is liable to be set aside by this Court in furtherance of substantial cause of justice.

12. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A2 takes a stand that the Respondent/ Prosecution had left out 18 years of income, but had taken into consideration only 10 years of income and as such the calculation made by the Respondent is an illegal one.

13. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A2 brings it to the notice