MODI, J.

( 1 ) WE have four criminal matters, one appeal and three revisions, all of which have been filed by the State and arise out of similar facts. The appeal arises out of the judgment dated the 25th October, 1958, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, acting as Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act (No. 2) of 1947 (hereinafter called the Act of 1947), by which Banshilal Luhadia and one other person Sumatimal were acquitted of an offence under Section 5 (2) of the Act of 1947 and for the abetment thereof respectively in case No. 8 of 1957 which was tried on the merits. By extremely brief orders of the same date but apparently based on the reasoning which was contained in the judgment in case No. 8, three similar complaints against Banshilal Luhadia in cases Nos. 6 and 5 and Sumatimal in case No. 7 of 1957, out of which revisions Nos. 29, 30 and 31 of 1959 arise respectively, were dismissed without a trial and being bad for want of previous sanction which ground was raised on behalf of the accused and upheld by the learned Special Judge in all the four cases. It would thus appear that case No. 8 of 1957 was thrown out on both grounds aft