Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1. The applicant before this Court is presently facing a trial under Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (from hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the Special Judge, Anti Corruption (CBI), Dehradun/2nd Additional District Judge, Dehradun.

2. The applicant was working as an Income Tax Officer at Dehradun. On 25.08.2010 on a trap laid by the CBI he was caught red handed taking a bribe of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) from one income tax assessee on whose complaint the trap was laid. The charge-sheet against the applicant was filed by the CBI under Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Sanction under Section 19 of the Act was obtained on 30.08.2011 and charge-sheet submitted on 02.09.2011 on which cognizance was taken by the court below on 12.09.2011. This cognizance order was earlier challenged by the applicant before this Court invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC where the contention of the applicant was that the sanctioning authority had even earlier passed an order of sanction under Section 19 of the Act on 19.11.2010, which was never placed by the CBI before the court below and only the second sanction which was taken on 30.08.2011, was placed before the court which is illegal as sanction cannot be obtained twice! More importantly it was argued that the sanctioning authority cannot review its own order which it apparently did vide order dated 30.08.2011.

3. Although there is no mention of the earlier order dated 19.11.2010. For the sake of convenience order dated 19.11.2010 was referred as a first sanction and the second order dated 30.08.2011 which will be presently referred as a second sanction which are before this Court as Annexure Nos. 7 and 10, respectively.

4. Criminal proceedings in a case related to the Prevention of Corruption Act have also to proceed in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, subject to certain modifications which have been specifically given in Section 22 of the Act itself. Ordinarily for prosecution of a public servant a sanction has to be taken from the Government under Section 197 of CrPC. All the same, there are special provisions regarding sanction in cases relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is given in Section 19 of the Act. Since primarily this Court has to look at the provision of Section 19 of the Act as the question here is whether the sanction given to prosecute the applicant was a valid sanction or not, it would be absolutely necessary that we reproduce Section 19 of the Act for a ready reference. Section 19 of the Act, reads as under:-

“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 re