Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.

1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the respondent no.3, whereby, the sanction has been accorded for prosecution against the petitioner in respect of crime no.87/2023 registered by respondent no.2 under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended from time to time) and sections 120-B and 420 of IPC alleging that the petitioner had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.5000/- from the complainant Late Shri Shankardas Yogi whose instance the FIR was registered on 07.04.2023.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present petition in view of subsequent development. He argued that during the pendency of the petition, the charge sheet has already been filed on 17.02.2026 and the cognizance has also been taken by the court. He further argued that the charges have also been framed on 16.03.2026, therefore, the issue of validity of order of sanction can be raised in trial and not in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the various judgments passed by the Apex Court and the judgment passed by the co-ordinate bench of this court, which are as follows:-

          B.S Waskel Vs. State of MP and Ors passed in WP No.8043/2014, Sabit Khan Vs. State of MP reported in ILR (2021) MP 1871, State of MP Vs. Virendra Kumar Tripathi reported in (2019) 15 SCC 533, Parkash Singh Badal Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2007) 1 SCC 1, State of Bihar Vs. Rajmangal Ram reportedin (2014) 11 SCC 388, CBI Vs. Pramila Virendra Kumar Agarwal reported in (2020) 17 SCC 664, Dinesh Kumar Vs. Chairman Airport Authority of India and Ors reported in (2012) 1 SCC 532.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 argued that in the case of Dinesh Kumar (supra), the Apex Court has drawn a distinction between the 'absence of sanction' and 'the invalidity of the sanction'. The court held that in the 'absence of sanction', the challenge can be made at any stage, however, in a case of challenge to the 'validity of the sanction order', once cognizance is taken by the trial court, the High Court cannot examine the question of validity of the sanction, and the same should be left open for the consideration by the trial court. The relevant para of the said judgment are as under :-

          9. While drawing a distinction between the absence of sanction and invalidity of the sanction, this Court in Parkash Singh Badal expressed in no uncertain terms that the absence of sanction could be raised at the inception and threshold by an aggrieved person. However, where sanction order exists, but its legality and validity is put in question, such issue has to be raised in the course of trial. Of course, in Parkash Singh Badal, this Court referred to invalidity of sanction on account of non-application of mind.

          10. In our view, invalidity of sanction where sanction order exists, can be raised on diverse grounds like non-availability of material before the sanctioning authority or bias of the sanctioning authority or the order of sanction having been passed by an authority not authorised or competent to grant such sanction. The above grounds are only illustrative and not exhaustive. All such grounds of invalidity or illegality of sanction would fall in the same category like the ground of invalidity of sanction on account of non-application of mind - a category carved out by this Court in Parkash Singh Badal, the challenge to which can always be raised in the course of trial.

          11. In a later decision, in the case of Aamir Jaan4, this Court had an occasion to consider the earlier decisions of this Court including the decision in the case of Parkash Singh Badal5. Ameerjan4 was a case where the Trial Judge, on consideration of the entire evidence including the evidence of sanctioning authority, held that the accused Ameerjan was guilty of commission of offences punishable under Sections 7,13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. However, the High Court overturned the judgment of the Trial Court and held that the order of sanction was illegal and the judgment of conviction could not be sustained.

          12. Dealing with the situation of the case wherein the High Court reversed the judgment of the conviction of the accused on the ground of invalidity of sanction order, with reference to the case of Parkash Singh Badal, this Court stated in Ameerjan in para 17 of the Report as follows:

          "17. Parkash Singh Badal, therefore, is not an authority for the proposition that even when an order of sanction is held to be wholly invalid inter alia on the premise that the order is a nullity having been suffering from the vice of total non-application of mind. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the said decision cannot be said to have any application in the instant case."

          13. In our view, having regard to the facts of the present case, now since cognizance has already been taken against the appellant by the Trial Judge, the High Court cannot be said to have erred in leaving the question of validity of sanction open for consideration by the Trial Court and giving liberty to the appellant to raise the issue concerning validity of sanction order in the course of trial. Such course is in accord with the decision of this Court in Parkash Singh Badal and not unjustified.

          14. Mr. Deepak Bhhatcharya submits that the appellant resides in Delhi and he would be put to grave hardship if the question of validity of sanction is left open to be decided in the course of trial as the appellant will have to remain present before the Trial Court at Ernakulam on each and every date of hearing. He, however, submits that if the personal appearance of the appellant is dispensed with, unless required by the Trial Court, the appellant will not be averse in raising the issue of validity of sanction before the Trial Judge.

          15. Mr. H.P. Raval has no objection if a direction in this regard is given by us.

          16. In view of the above contentions and the factual and legal position indicated above, we are satisfied that the impugned order does not call for any interference. Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. However, it will be open to the appellant to raise the issue of invalidity of sanction order before the Trial Judge."

4. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in the subsequent judgment passed by the co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of Sabit Khan (supra).

5. Though learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order of sanction is passed without application of mind and if the petitioner raises the issue of validity of sanction, the same may not be examined by the trial court in the light of para 22 of the judgment in the case of N.K. Sharma vs Abhimanyu reported in (2005) 13 SCC 213 which is reproduced as under:-

          "22. We have noticed hereinbefore that the appellant filed an application purported to be under Section 203 CrPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Such an application was not maintainable in view of the decision of this Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindals wherein it has been held: (SCC p. 343, para 15) "15. It is true that if a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, issues process without there being any allegation against the accused or any material implicating the accused or in contravention of provisions of Sections 200 and 202, the order of the Magistrate may be vitiated, but then the relief an aggrieved accused can obtain at that stage is not by invoking Section 203 of the Code because the Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate a review of an order. Hence in the absence of any review power or inherent power with the subordinate criminal courts, the remedy lies in invoking Section 482 of the Code."

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar (supra) we find that the present case is not a case of 'absence of sanction' but it is a case of 'challenge to the validity of the sanction' and since the cognizance has already been taken, therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this petition in the light of para 13 of the judgment.

7. Considering the liberty granted in para no.16 and 18 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sabit Khan (supra), we also grant liberty to the petitioner to raise the issue of validity of sanction before the trial Court and he will have liberty to raise the issue during the trial and establish it by leading evidence. The apprehension of the petitioner that the trial court may not consider in the light of the judgment passed in the case of N.K Sharma (supra), we find that it was a case where the Apex Court considered the scope of the review after taking cognizance of the matter. In the present case, the trial court has not examined so far the validity of the sanction, therefore, the apprehension is without basis.

With the aforesaid liberty, the present petition stands disposed of.