H.L. Dattu, J. — Leave granted.

2. These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 22.4.2009 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Revision No. 821 of 2005, Criminal Revision Petition No. 966 of 2005 and Criminal Case No. 3403 of 2005, whereby the High Court has allowed the revision application and inter alia quashed the Order dated 26.4.2005 in case diary of Crime No. 165 of 2002 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Katni (hereinafter referred to as “learned Special Judge”).

3. The brief factual matrix relating to this appeal is as follows :

The respondent no. 2, Shri Raghav Chandra, who is a Commissioner of M.P. Housing Board, Bhopal along with respondent no. 3, Shri Shahjad Khan, posted as the then Collector, Katni, Jabalpur and respondent no. 4, Shri Ram Meshram, posted as the Land Acquisition Officer, M.P. Housing Board, Bhopal, whilst, discharging their functions, had allegedly entered into conspiracy and made a secret plot with Shri B.D. Gautam, the Director of Olphert Company and, subsequently, purchased the land belonging to Olphert Company at higher rates for the M.P. Housing Board, thereby, caused a financial loss of over Rs. 4 Crores to the Government. The appellant reported this alleged transaction of purchase of land by the M.P. Housing Board, alleging financial loss to the Government, to the Lokayukta, Bhopal. Subsequently, the Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta), Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as “the Lokayukta Police”) registered an FIR No. 165 of 2002 against accused respondent nos. 2 to 4, as the alleged act or conduct of the accused respondents, all working as Government Servants, amounts to an offence under Section 13 (1-d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the PCA”) and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”). Accordingly a Criminal Case No. 165 of 2002 was registered against respondent nos. 2 to 4 in the Court of learned Special Judge. However, the sanction of the Government was necessary as mandated by Section 19 of the PCA in order to prosecute the said accused respondents. Acting upon the complaint of the appellant, the Lokayukta Police, after conducting the investigation, had exonerated respondent nos. 2 to 4 of all the charges levelled against them and submitted final closure report, under Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”), to the learned Special Judge, Katni as no case had been made out to prosecute respondents. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge, Katni after hearing the respondent, appreciating the evidence on record and perusing the case diary, had rejected the closure report vide his Order dated 26.4.2005. The operative portion of the order dated 26.4.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge is extracted below :

“31. In this way from above record produced, even prima facie, it is evident that the accused had made secrete plot (durabhi sandhi) with Shri B.D. Gautam the Director of Olphert Company with conspiracy and purchased land of Olphert Company on higher rate and caused financial loss over four crores to the Government which there are sufficient grounds for taking cognizance against the accused persons.

32. Accused person Shri Raghav Chandra is posted as Commissioner of M.P. Housing Board and Shri Ram Meshram is posted as Land Acquiring Officer in M.P. Housing Board and Shri Shahjaad Khan while remaining posted as Collector, all above accused persons working as Government servant, while discharging their government duties, committed above crime-under Section 19 of Anti Corruption Act 1988, it is necessary to obtain sanction to prosecute Government Servant U/s 13 of Anti-Corruption Act. Therefore matter may be taken up seeking necessary sanction, to prosecute the accused persons Raghav Chandra, Shri Ram Meshram and Shahjaad Khan to prosecute them under Section