S. BARMAN ROY,C. J.

( 1 ) BY this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for quashing the order passed by the Special judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar rejecting the prayer of the petitioner under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to issue direction to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar Division to treat the said complaint being Annexure-5 as an FIR and to investigate the same and also for issuing direction to the Chief Secretary, government of Orissa, Bhubaneswar to direct the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance. Bhubaneswar Division or the Officer-in-charge of Capital Police Station, bhubaneswar to treat Annexure-5 as an FIR and also for issuing further direction to the director, Central Bureau of Investigation, new Delhi to investigate into the said allegations.

( 2 ) IN the complaint it has been inter alia alleged by the petitioner-complainant that the opposite parties being Shri Naveen patnaik, Chief Minister of Orissa; Shri kanaka Vardhan Singh Deo, Minister, Industries and Public Enterprises; Members of the Technical Committee of Industrial development Corporation of Orissa Ltd. Members of the Board of Directors of IDCOL; shri Hrushikesh Panda, CMD, IDCOL; Shri satya Prakash Nanda, the then Secretary, industries Department, Government of orissa and Proprietor and/or other members of M/s. Jindal Strips Ltd. committed offences under Sections 120-B/409/511/ 34, IPC and Section 15 of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988.

( 3 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar alleging, inter alia, that the aforesaid persons committed various offences under Sections 120-B/409/ 511/34, IPC and Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and praying for transmitting the said complaint under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. to the Officer-in-charge of capital Police Station, Bhubaneswar for registering it as an FIR and for a further direction upon the CBI to investigate the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner made various allegations in order to show that the aforesaid persons committed various offences under the aforesaid provisions of penal law while accepting the bid of M/s. Jindal Strips Ltd. for granting mining lease in its favour in respect of chromite mines situated at Tangarpada within the State of orissa.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned Advocate general contended that perusal of the complaint would reveal that it does not disclose any prima facie case of commission of cognizable offence and therefore, no FIR can be registered on that basis.

( 5 ) IT is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned special Judge (Vigilance) instead of referring the complaint of the petitioner to the police for registering it as an FIR himself took cognizance of the matter and proceeded with the enquiry under Section 200, Cr. P. C. He referred to various orders passed in this connection by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance ). He further submitted that the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) took cognizance of the offence without any sanction as required by or under Section 19 of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He, therefore, contended that as the cognizance, taken by the learned Special judge (Vigilance) is bad in law for want of appropriate sanction within the meaning of section 19 of the said Act or within the meaning of Section 197 of the Code, the same should be quashed and this Court should direct the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar to forward the complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Code to the Officer-in-charge of the concerned police Station for registering it as an FIR and for a further direction upon the CBI for investigation.

( 6 ) IT is true, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the cognizance taken by the Special J