1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.

2. We have heard Sri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The petitioner is a Tehsildar. A First Information Report dated 2nd December, 2014 was lodged and after due investigation sanction was given by the competent authority on 27th April, 2016 to prosecute the petitioner in Case Crime No.1005 of 2014 under Section 420, 120-B I.P.C. read with Sections 7, 8 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Sadabad, District Hathras. Based on the said sanction order, the trial court took cognizance and issued summons on 3rd May, 2016. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Criminal Misc. Application No.37383 of 2016 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of charge sheet dated 3rd May, 2016. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the Court by an order dated 6.12.2016. The petitioner was aware at that stage that sanction was granted by the competent court on 27th April, 2016. After the dismissal of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has now filed present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the sanction order dated 27th April,2016 issued by the competent authority, namely, Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The short submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no sanction has been granted by the competent authority under Section 19 of The Prevention of Corruption Act for prosecution of the petitioner. It was contended that in the absence of sanction granted under Section 19 of the Act, petitioner could not be summoned to face trial. It was urged that sanction order dated 27th April, 2016 has been issued under Section 197 Cr.P.C. whereas the Prevention of Corruption Act specifically requires a sanction order to be issued under the said Act itself.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State, we are of the opinion that the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. For facility, the provisions of Section 19 of The Prevention of Corruption Act as well as Section 197 Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder:-

"Section 19 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.

(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction,--

(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government;

(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.

(2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),--

(a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereb