JUDGMENT

KAILASAM. J.:— This appeal is by special leave against the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court, in criminal revision No. 18 of 1976 holding that the sanction order given for prosecuting the appellant is valid and dismissing his Revision Petition.

2. The petitioner, Parmanad Dass was appointed as a clerk in Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 15-1-1951 in the scale of Rs. 40-50 and was promoted to the scale of Rs. 50-105 on 1-9-1956. A charge of having received an illegal gratification of Rs. 15/- was brought against him and he was suspended on 22-9-1966. On 27-5-1967, the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation gave sanction for prosecution under S. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant questioned the validity of the sanction on the ground that the Commissioner was not the competent authority to grant the sanction. The Special Judge accepted the contention and found that the Standing Committee of the Municipality alone can give sanction and as the Commissioner had no powers, the sanction was not valid. Soon after on 4-5-1970, the appellant prayed for his reinstatement, and on 12-6-1970, the appellant was reinstated. The Commissioner on 17-6-1970 again wrote to the Standing Committee seeking for a fresh sanction. On 27-6-1970, the Standing Committee resolved to drop the case on the ground that it was an old case and that the accused had already been reinstated in service.

3. On 27-6-1970, Act 11 of 1970 came into force. The Act provided that the special officer appointed under the Act will exercise the powers of the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation. After the Act came into force on 29-7-1972 a memorandum in the nature of a note to the Standing Committee was prepared requesting the Standing Committee to take fresh decision on the issue of prosecution of the appellant, and for granting sanction to prosecute the appellant. On 15-5-1973, the Standing Committee by its resolution authorised the Special Officer to sign the sanction order and to send it to the Anti-corruption Bureau, Hyderabad. In pursuance of the resolution, a sanction order was passed on 16-6-1973. On 29-11-1973, the appellant was placed under suspension. On 11-12-1975, the Special Judge dismissed the petitioners objection to the validity of the sanction. The appellant filed Criminal Revision No. 18 of 1976 before the High Court against the order of Special Judge and the High Court dismissed the Revision Petition on 20-1-1976, and this appeal by special leave is against that order.

4. It was submitted that having once declined to grant sanction, a subsequent Standing Committee cannot grant sanction, on the same facts. It was contended that the grant of sanction by the Special Officer was not bona fide and was due to ulterior motive. We do not see any merit in any of these submissions. Sanction given by the Commissioner was rightly rejected by the Special Judge on the ground that the Commissioner was not competent to grant the sanction. This could not prevent a subsequent sanction being given by the Competent Authority, but the plea of the learned counsel was that the Standing Committee again considered the question but decided to drop the proceedings on the ground that it was an old case and the accused had already been reinstated in service. There could be no objection to the Standing Committee again reconsidering its decision. The validity of the sanction can only be considered at the time when it is filed before the Special Judge. We find that there could be no legal bar to the sanctioning authority revising its own opinion before the sanction order is placed before the Court.

5. On a consideration of the record which ultimately resulted in the order of the sanction, we however find that the sanction order cannot be held to be in accordance with the law. It was on 27-6-1970 the Standing Committee resolved to drop further proceedings. On the same day, Act 11 of 1970 came into force. Under section 2 of the Hyderabad Municipal Co