As per case facts, the petitioner, accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC, sought to quash the charge-sheet and a lower court's order rejecting his discharge application. He ... argued that the sanction for prosecution was issued by an incompetent authority, a Joint Director, instead of the Managing Director who was competent to remove him, and that the competent authority had not applied its mind. The respondent contended that the adequacy of material for sanction is a trial issue, and if the sanction was approved by the Managing Director, the Joint Director's role could be a formal authentication. The question arose whether the competency of the sanctioning authority and the application of mind by the truly competent authority could be challenged at the pre-trial stage to quash the proceedings, or if these issues constituted matters of evidence to be examined during the trial. Finally, the High Court determined that the validity and competency of the sanctioning authority are matters of evidence to be established during the trial, not at the initial stages of inquiry or pre-trial. The court asserted that unless the sanction order is demonstrably ex-facie illegal or invalid, proceedings should not be quashed prematurely, especially when a prima facie case exists. The petition was dismissed, upholding that inherent powers under CrPC Section 482 should not be used to stifle legitimate prosecution.