The revision petitioners in these 26 cases are all accused in the connected cases pending trial before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode. Of these, 12 revisions are by a contractor and 14 are filed by Engineers. An FIR was filed against them on 30-9-1985 reporting that the latter, while working as Engineers of various rank for works in the Attappady Valley Irrigation Project, Agali, during the period from 24-7-1978 to 9-11-1981, they committed criminal misconduct by abusing their official positions in the matter implementing a criminal conspiracy with the contractors aforementioned by placing four supply orders dated 17-11-80, 18-12-80, 19-2-81 and 3-2-81 for 95 numbers of 200 m.m. Sluice valves in favour of M/s. Indira Engineering Corporation, Coimbatore, of which one of the accused is the Managing Partner causing loss of crores of rupees to the Government exchequer. After investigation, 13 charge sheets were filed on 10-3-1989 alleging the offences under S. 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as also Ss. 109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. On 17-7-89, the Court framed charges against the accused in the different cases. On 10-4-1996, the petitioners filed the applications before the Court in the respective cases requesting that further proceedings in the case might be stopped and the accused might be acquitted as the sanction required for their prosecution was not validly obtained. They pointed out that the sanction order relied on by the prosecution which was issued with the signature of one M. Mohankumar, Commissioner and Secretary, Vigilance Department, on 28-1-1989 was defective for very many reasons. The Court, however, did not accept the contention and found that there was no sufficient ground for dropping the further proceedings. It is challenging these orders that the appellants have come up before this Court.

The arguments advanced by the different counsel appearing in these cases were more or less similar and they can be summarised as follows :

(1) As per a single order, sanction should not have been granted for prosecuting as many as 16 persons. With regard to the facts of each case, separate orders of sanction was required.

(2) In view of the requirements in Art. 166 of the Constitution of India, sanction order should have been issued by "order of the Governor". The sanction order produced does not purport to be one issued under the orders of the Governor; but purports to be issued in the individual capacity of one M. Mohankumar, Commissioner and Secretary, Vigilance Department.

(3) As on the date of grant of sanction, namely, 28-1-89, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has come into vogue and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 stood repealed. In spite of this the sanction order purport to grant sanction invoking power under the repealed Act which in fact was extinct and for that reason the orders are bad.

(4) Sanction can be validly given only by the appointing authority. The petitioners were all employees of the Irrigation Department and hence the required sanction could have been passed only by the Irrigation Department or by the Home Department which was to deal with criminal prosecutions. The appellants, being not the employees of the Vigilance Department, the Commissioner and Secretary of that Department had no competence to grant sanction.

(5) Under the Rules of Business applicable to the Government of Kerala, the Secretary to Government, Vigilance Department, was granted authority to grant such sanctions only as per S.R.O. 482/94 notifying G.O. (Ms) No. 169/94/GAD dated 23-4-1994. The orders of sanction in the present case were issued by the Secretary more than 5 years before the Notification empowering him was issued.

(6) The sanction order produced in the case does not reveal due application of mind by the signatory to the same. Otherwise, sanction would not have been given to prosecute even retired and dead persons. The sanction