ORDER

Rusia, J:-

Since the controversies involved in the above cases are between the same parties, with the joint request of the parties, they are analogously heard and decided by this common order. Facts of Review Petition No.612 of 2024 are narrated hereunder:-

1. The Special Police Establishment has filed this Review Petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking review of the order dated 4.3.2024, whereby the W.P. No.24499 of 2019 has been allowed and the order dated 17.9.2019 (Annexure-P/1), whereby the sanction for prosecution granted by the State has been quashed on the ground that the Sanction Authority has no power to reconsider / review the matter again on the same material.

2. As per the contents of FIR, on 31.7.2013 the complainant – Kailash submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment (in short 'SPE'), Ujjain about the illegal demand raised by Mrs Sayyad Zarina Ali (respondent No.1). As per the complaint, respondent No.1, while working as Patwari demanded an amount of Rs.500/- towards illegal gratification for preparing new revenue book (Rin Pustika). The complainant had already paid Rs.200/- and he was not willing to pay the remaining amount of Rs.300/-. The complainant was given a digital voice recorder to record the conversation with respect to the payment of the bribe. After recording the conversation, again a written complaint was filed on 2.8.2013 before the S.P., Lokayukt. Thereafter, a trap was organized, which remained successful on 2.8.2013 according to SPE.

3. As per the Trap Panchnama, tainted money amounting to Rs.300/- was handed over to respondent No.1, which she handed over to her husband namely Sayeed Sabir Ali (Government Teacher) who kept the same in his pocket. The fingers of respondent No.1 and her husband both were dipped in the solution and the solution turned pink. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against respondent No.1 and her husband. They all were arrested and released on bail. The necessary investigation was completed, by recording statements of witnesses and a request was sent for a grant of sanction to the Sanctioning Authority. Vide order dated 17.3.2015, the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department declined to grant sanction for prosecution.

4. Thereafter, the matter was sent to the Law and Legislature Department, in which the Law secretary recorded his distending note and opined that it was a fit case for granting sanction. Again, a request was sent for the grant of sanction of prosecution of respondent No.1 – Smt. Sayyed Zarina Ali and her husband Sayyed Sabir Ali, who was working as Lecturer in the Government Higher Secondary School, Jamner, Kalapipal, under section 13(i)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act & section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. After considering all the material available on record, vide order dated 17.9.2019, sanction has been granted. Hence, respondent No.1 filed W.P. No.24499 of 2019 before this High Court challenging the validity of the order dated 17.9.2019.

5. A reply was filed by the Special Police Establishment and vide order dated 4.3.2024, writ petition came to be allowed on the ground that no fresh material was produced by the SPE before the Government to get the sanction and from perusal of subsequent order dated 17.9.2019, it is clear that on the same material, the Sanctioning Authority has changed its opinion and granted sanction to prosecute respondent No.1 which is impermissible and accordingly, quashed the impugned order dated 17.9.2019.

6. After the aforesaid order passed by the High Court, the called Smt. Sayyed Zarina Ali for recording the voice sample. When she did not grant permission for voice sampling, Deputy Superintendent of Police SPE vide letter dated 2.7.2024 threatened her to initiate the process for cancellation of bail. An application dated 2.7.2024 to that effect has been filed before the concerned Special Judge seeking permission to record the