( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by an order of dropping the proceedings on the ground that there was no valid sanction against the accused who stood his trial before the learned Special Judge Rajkot in Special Case No. 9 of 1976 passed on 15th November 1977 the State has preferred this appeal.

( 2 ) SEVERAL issues were raised by the learned Special Judge including an issue as to whether previous valid sanction of the authority competent to remove the accused from the office as provided under sec. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (the Act) was secured and though the learned Judge on other issues came to the conclusion that the prosecution had established that the accused demanded and accepted the illegal gratification and committed the offence of criminal misconduct as defined under sec. 6 of the Act on the technical ground with regard to the sanction he held that there was no legal and valid sanction accorded by the authority competent to remove the accused from service as provided under sec. 6 of the Act and therefore the proceedings were vitiated and he ordered them to be dropped. Hence this appeal by the State.

( 3 ) NOW in the instant case what happened was that a meeting of the Gujarat Electricity Board which is the competent authority to appoint as well as remove the accused was convened on 24th February 1979 as is evident from the minutes of the proceedings at Ex. 23. It is also evident that on the agenda. the subject was Suspension of Shri S. S. Ambawani Superintending Engineer (Construction) Gondal and specifically the question with regard to sanction to prosecute was not set out. But it appears that the Board after considering the question of suspension and deciding to approve and ratify the earlier suspension order passed on 17th February 1976 which order had been issued after getting the concurrence of the full time members present then decided that as and when the A. C. B would prosecute the accused under the provisions of the Act and the I. P. Code the Board was required to give sanction under sec. 6 (1) (c) of the Act and it was observed that it was necessary for the Board to delegate powers to the Chairman to accord such sanction for prosecution of the accused and the Board ultimately passed a resolution delegating the powers to the Chairman to accord sanction for prosecuting the accused under the provisions of the Act and of the Indian Penal Code whenever asked for by the A. C. B.

( 4 ) THE Board is a statutory corporation established under the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 and as sec. 12 of the said Act provides"the Board shall be a body corporate by the name notified under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 5 have perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire and hold property both movable and immovable and shall by the said name sue and be sued". IT would be thus clear that the sanction required to be granted under the Act should be a sanction granted by the Board itself by a decision taken by the Board itself and in the absence of any such power authorising the Board to delegate its powers to accord sanctions the Board would not be competent to delegate such powers to sanction prosecution under the Act. Under the Act as provided under sec. 6 (1) (c)"no court shall take cognizance of an offence Punishable under sec. 161 or sec. 165 of the Indian Penal Code or under sub-sec. (2) or sub-sec (3-A) of sec. 5 of this Act alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with previous sanction (a) x x x (b) x x x (c) in the case of any other person of the authority competent to remove him from his office. THE sanction therefore required would be of the Board which is the authority competent to remove the accused from his office.

( 5 ) MR. Bhairaviya the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that the learned Judge erred in taking too technical a view of the matter and in dropping the proceedings on the ground of absence of a valid sanction because in that instant case it was