Koshy, J.

Whether Secretary of the Vigilance Department can grant sanction under section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for taking cognizance of offences against officers who are working under other departments is the question of law referred by the learned single Judge in these appeals. In all these cases charge sheets were issued before the introduction of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and charges were framed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. Section 6 of the Act reads as follows:

“6. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.--- (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 161 or section 164 or section 165 of the Indian penal Code or under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3A) of Section 5 of this Act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction, --

(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government;

(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;

(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.

(2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central or State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed.”

3. It is the contention of the appellants that the question of sanction was raised by them before the trial court and it was not properly considered. In view of section 6(1)(b), Kerala State Government is the authority to grant sanction. All impugned sanction orders were issued on behalf of the Government of Kerala; but signed by the Secretary, Vigilance Department, though employees were working in other departments.

4. The accused in C.C.Nos.1 and 2 of 1993 (Crl.A.Nos.243 and 244 of 1995) was employed by the Labour Department. Ext.P1 sanction order is dated 16-7-1992. It starts with the heading “Government of Kerala”. The sanction order Ext.P12 reads as follows:

“AND WHEREAS, the Government of Kerala, after fully and carefully examining the evidence on record in the above case and considering the same, are satisfied that the said Sri. G. Sasidharan Nair had committed offences punishable under section 5(2) read with offences punishable under section 5(2) read with section 5(10 (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act 2 of 1947) and sections 409, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (Act No.45 of 1860) for which he should be prosecuted;

NOW THEREFORE, the Government of Kerala doth hereby accord the sanction required under clause (1) (b) of section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act No.2 of 1947) for prosecuting Sri. G. Sasidharan Nair for the offences under section 5(2) read with section 5 (1)(c) and (d) there of and also that required under sub-section (1)(b) of section 197 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (Act No.11 of 1973) for his prosecution under sections 409, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and for other offences, if any, punishable under other provisions of any law, in respect of the acts aforesaid, in a court of competent jurisdiction.

By order of the Governor,

Sd/- C.P. Nair

Commissioner & Secretary to Government.”

In Ext.P65 sanction order issued in C.C.No.10 of 1992 (Crl.A.Nos.383 and 384 of 1995), the word “By order of the Governor” is not appearing and it was signed by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Vigilance. The last portion reads as follows:

“NOW THEREFORE, the Government of Kerala hereby accord sanction required under section 6 (1)(