( 1 ) "the petitioners in these two petitions are accused in Special Case No. 19 of 1984 of the Court of Special Judge Ahmedabad. Petitioner Habibulla Kalyani was serving as Class I Officer in the Sales Tax Department while petitioner Haribhai Patel was serving as Sales Tax Inspector. * * * * * * are reproduced below: * * * * vious sanction". x x x x x x (B) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government; (b) in the case of any other person of the authority competent to remove him from his office. Petitioner Habibulla being a Class I Gazetted Officer is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government while petitioner Haribhai being a non-gazetted officer could be removed by a competent authority other than the Government. A proper sanction under sec. 6 (1 ) (b) would be required to be issued by the State Government so far as petitioner Habibulla is concerned while sanction of the Sales Tax Commissioner would be a valid one so far as petitioner Haribhai is concerned because he can be removed from service by the Sales Tax Commissioner. It however appears. for the reasons with which we are not concerned that the sanction has been accorded in respect of both the petitioners by the State Government to prosecute them for the alleged offence. The sanction is signed by Mr. Chandramauli Additional Chief Secretary Finance Department on behalf of the Governor of Gujarat. The sanction shows signature of Mr. Chandramauli below the endorsement:"by order and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat " in the two sanctions accorded to prosecute these two petitioners. (When the charge-sheet was submitted to the Court of Special Judge against these two petitioners two different applications were submitted before the learned Special Judge. In the application Exh. 4 submitted on behalf of the petitioner Habibulla original accused No. 1 it was submitted that the matter may be adjourned because the accused wanted to challenge the validity of the sanction. In the application Exh. 5 submitted on behalf of the petitioner Haribhai original accused No. 2 it was submitted that the sanction accorded to prosecute this accused Haribhai was not a legal and valid sanction and hence the petitioner may be discharged. It was submitted in the application that the sanction is given as contemplated under sec. 6 (1) (h) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that even the Commissioner of Sales Tax is competent to accord sanction because he can remove the petitioner Haribhai from service. It was contended that only the Commissioner of Sales Tax and not the State Government was competent to accord sanction so far as petitioner Haribhai is concerned. It was also con tended in the said application that the Sales Tax Commissioner. who was competent to accord sanction for prosecuting this accused Haribhai was not willing to accord sanction and therefore. it appears that sanction was accorded by the Additional Chief Secretary. The learned Special Judge by a common order dated 12/10/1984 disposed of these two applications holding * * * * * * * * * * * and 563 of 1984 were filed before this Court by the two accused challenging the order of the learned Special Judge. The said revision applications were disposed of by Brother M. B. Shah J. on 27/11/1984 by a common order. It was contended before this Court in those revision applications that the petitioners were not challenging the sanction granted by the State Government on the ground that the State Government is not competent to grant the said sanction but what they were contending was that before granting the sanction the State Government had not applied its mind. The learned Judge while disposing of these two revision petitions. observed that whether the State Government has granted the sanction after applying its mind or not would be a pure question of