Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Tarachand Jain:

• Case Details and Background: The case is a Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1970 filed by the State of Rajasthan against Tarachand Jain, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate in Rajasthan, who was convicted by a Special Judge for accepting bribes under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (!) (!) . The High Court had set aside the conviction, declaring the trial null and void due to the alleged lack of valid sanction for prosecution (!) (!) .
• Allegations and Evidence: The respondent was alleged to have accepted illegal gratification (Rs. 500 in marked currency notes) from an accused in a pending passport case and other sums concealed in his house (!) (!) (!) (!) . A trap was laid, and the bribe was recovered (!) (!) .
• Sanction Dispute: The core legal issue was the validity of the sanction for prosecution. The Special Judge initially held the sanction invalid because it was issued by the Chief Minister, whereas he believed only the Governor could sanction the prosecution of a state officer (!) (!) (!) . The High Court, in a Division Bench judgment dated October 5, 1962, reversed this, ruling that the Chief Minister was competent to accord sanction without prior reference to the Governor (!) (!) .
• Binding Precedent: The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench judgment of the High Court dated October 5, 1962, was binding on subsequent proceedings in the same criminal matter, preventing the High Court from re-litigating the issue of the Chief Minister's authority to grant sanction (!) (!) (!) .
• Evidence of Application of Mind: Although the prosecution failed to prove on the face of the sanction order that the Chief Minister applied his mind to the facts, the Supreme Court found that the witness Umraomal, an Office Superintendent, stated in cross-examination that the Chief Minister had signed the sanction (!) (!) . The Court ruled that this statement was material evidence that the High Court had overlooked, satisfying the requirement that the sanctioning authority applied its mind (!) .
• Burden of Proof: The burden rests on the prosecution to prove that the requisite sanction was obtained, including proof that the sanctioning authority applied its mind to the specific facts of the case (!) . While it is desirable for facts to appear on the face of the sanction, extraneous evidence can suffice if facts are not explicitly stated (!) (!) .
• Final Ruling: The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the case to the High Court for disposal on merits, noting that the matter was very old and expected the High Court to dispose of it early (!) (!) .