( 1 ) [his Lordships after stating the facts of the case, further observed :]

( 2 ) HOWEVER, Mr. Budhbhatti, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the prosecution initiated against the appellant is without valid sanction and therefore, the entire trial held against the appellant is illegal and bad for want of proper sanction. Now, in the instant case, the Deputy District development Officer, District Panchayat, Amreli had granted sanction vide order dated 22-5-1984. Mr. L. A. Thakar, PW-2, Exhibit 14 who has been examined in the case had stated that the Director of Anti-Corruption Bureau had sought sanction vide his letter dated 30/04/1984 to prosecute the appellant. Alongwith the said letter, the case papers were also placed. After examining the same, the sanction had been granted vide Exhibit 17. Mr. Thakar in his crossexamination, has stated that the appellant was appointed by the District development Officer and the sanction to prosecute has been given by the Deputy district Development Officer. In this view of the matter, learned Counsel has raised similar contentions as were raised before the trial Court by referring to judgment given by this Court in Bachubha Ramsinhji v. Shivlal, I. P. S. , Kutch and Ors. , AIR 1970 Gujarat 180: (1970 GLR 827 ). In the said judgment, the facts were quite different from the facts of this case. In the said judgment, it was observed that fresh appointment for every promotion is required and therefore, when a Police Constable is appointed by the District superintendent of Police and if he is promoted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, then sanction should not be given by D. S. P. as it is not in consonance with Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case mr. D. N. Patel, learned Counsel for the State has contended that the appellant was appointed by the District Development Officer in the year 1965. The deputy District Development Officer was competent to remove him as a competent officer under Gujarat Panchayat Service (Appointing Authority) Rules, 1967. According to Mr. Patel these Rules were in force when the sanction was granted. Under the said Rules, the District Development Officer has been vested with the powers to appoint Gram Panchayat Secretaries over and above other categories with which we are not concerned. The appellant is Gram panchayat Secretary. In view of this it was contended that since the Deputy district Development Officer is Competent Authority to appoint Gram Panchayat secretaries under the Rules of 1967 he is also Competent Authority to remove him in view of the provisions of Gujarat Panchayat Services (Discipline and appeal) Rules, 1964. The said Rules of 1964 - schedule thereof - gives power to the Deputy District Development Officer to impose any penalty on the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. Thus, according to submission of mr. Patel, the Deputy District Development Officer who was possessing power of removal in the year 1964 and by virtue of new Rules of 1967 coming into force on the day on which the offence took place, the Deputy District develoment Officer was Competent Authority for appointment and removal of Gram Pauchayat Secretaries, it must be held that the sanction in the present case is valid and proper. At this stage before dealing with the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 6 (l) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 :"6. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution (i) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sec. 161 or Sec. 164 or Sec. 165 of the Indian penal Code (45 of 1860) or under (sub-sec. (2) or (sub-sec (3)) of Sec. 5 of this act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction - (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competiint to remove him from his office "mr. Patel also submitted that in view of the aforesaid provisions of Sec. 6 (l) (c) an