The Commissioner, Food and Principal Secretary, Food and Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal was authorized to grant sanction for prosecution against the petitioner because Article 166 of the Constitution of India empowers the Governor of the State to delegate his authority to grant sanction for prosecution to other officers and the West Bengal Rules of Business framed under Clause (3) of Article 166 of the Constitution specify the officers who are authorized to grant sanction for prosecution.

The present revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was directed for quashing the proceeding in Special Case No.3 of 2000 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Nadia-cum-learned Special Court under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and all orders passed therein including the orders dated 1.3.2000 and 21.11.2000 arising out of Kotwali Police Station Case No. 13 dated 12.1.1999.

2. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the petitioner, Bappaditya Roy while holding the post of Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supply, Krishnanagar was caught red handed at the time of receiving bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from one Paritosh Karmakar. The case was instituted against him for committing offence under Sections 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After investigation chargesheet was submitted along with purported sanction order being No. CON-69/FS dated 14.2.2000 issued by Mr. Dipak Rudra, the Commissioner, Food and Principal Secretary, Food and Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal. The petitioner challenged the propriety of the said sanction order inasmuch as the Commissioner Food and Principal Secretary, Food and Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal was not authorised to grant sanction for prosecution against the petitioner and as such the initiation of the proceeding and all subsequent actions thereon are all void, illegal and without jurisdiction. The said sanction order was not issued either in the name of the Governor of the State who is the appointing authority of the petitioner or under his order and as such the same is without the authority of law. It is stated in the revisional application that the learned trial Judge after having placed reliance on the opinion of the Legal Remembrancer of the Government of West Bengal came to the conclusion that the sanction order was valid.

3. The certified copies of the relevant orders dated 1.3 2000 and 21.11.2000 have been annexed in the file. By order dated 1.3.2000 cognizance of the offence had been taken and by the order dated 21.11.2000 Sri Dipak Kumar Saha Roy, the learned Judge, Second Special Court, Nadia came to the conclusion that the sanction order was duly passed by the Officer concerned under proper authority.

4. The xerox copy of the said sanction order has been annexed in the file and it appears therefrom that Mr. Dipak Rudra, I.A.S., Commissioner, Food and Principal Secretary, Food and Supplies Department claimed himself to be the authority competent to remove the petitioner from the office and, accordingly, he accorded sanction order under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the prosecution of the petitioner. It is true that the Governor of the State is the appointing and dismissing authority of the petitioner but the Governor of the State exercises his function through several instrumentalities and functionaries. The Commissioner, Food and Principal Secretary, Food and Supplies is one of such functionaries who performs and discharges the functions on behalf of the Governor of the State. Only the competence of the Commissioner, Food and Principal Secretary, Food and Supplies Department in according sanction for prosecution has been challenged in the present revisional application.

5. Article 166 of the Constitution of India contained the provisions that all executive actions of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor and orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in the rules made by the Governor. (Underline for emphasis)

Thus, if the sanction accorded by the State Government under the Prevention of Corruption Act is in accordance with the provisions of Article 166(1) of the Constitution, and it is duly authenticated as per Clause (2) of Article 166 as specified in the rules framed under Clause (3) of Article 166 of