Prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 requires sanction under Section 19 of the Act. Prosecution without obtaining such sanction is an abuse of process.

1. - This petition under Section , Cr.P.C. read with Section , Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 14th May, 1992 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Jaipur in Case No. 262/1988, in pursuance of which charges under Section (1)(dx2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Sections 420 and 477-A, [PC were framed against the petitioner on 1st August, 1992.

2. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was working as Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur during 1981 to 1985. Official Telephone No. 45538 was installed at his residence, wherefrom certain trunk- calls were made. It is alleged that certain trunk-calls were recorded in the register as if the calls were for official purposes and thereby a loss of Rs. 856/- was caused to the Government and the Government was cheated and the petitioner derived the benefit of a sum of Rs. 856/-. On this basis, when the petitioner was sought to be prosecuted and the matter came up before the Court, arguments were heard on the question of charge by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Jaipur and, with regard to three trunk-calls made on 2.1.1982, 11.2.1982 and 9.3.1983, he found that the bills of Rs. 12/-, Rs. 12/- and Rs. 6/- were received and the same had been wrongly certified in the trunk-call register, as a result thereof the payment of these three calls amounting to Rs. 30/- had been made out of the Government fund. It has been further ordered by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases that according to the provisions of Section , Cr.P.C. three offence of the same nature in the span of one year are to be tried together and the charge is to be framed against the petitioner for that purpose under Sections 420 and 477-A, IPC read with Section (1)(dx2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. With regard to the trunk-calls made after 9.3.1982, it has been ordered that it will be open for the prosecution to prosecute the petitioner separately. On the basis of this order dated 14.5.1992, the Special Judge, Anti -Corruption Cases framed charge against the petitioner with regard to three trunk-calls made on 2.1.1982, 11.2.1982 and 9.3.1982, fora sum of Rs. 12/-, Rs. 12J-and Rs. 6/- i.e. Rs. 30/- in all, under Sections 420, 477-A, IPC and Section 5(1)(dX2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It has been submitted by Shri Bajwa that a sum of Rs. 30/- had been deposited much prior to the action taken against the petitioner on criminal side as soon as the audit objection was pointed out. Shri Bajwa has assailed the aforesaid order dated 14th May, 1992 and the charge framed against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 477-A, [PC and Section (1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on more than one grounds, including the ground that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted in want if sanction. Shri Bajwa has argued that the amount involved in this case is only a sum of Rs. 30/-, which too has been deposited on the day when the cognizance was taken against the petitioner. Even on the day when the charge was framed, the petitioner was very much in the Govern meat service and, therefore, he could not he prosecuted for want of sanction under Section of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Shri Bajwa has also placed for my perusal a photostat copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 12th April, 1991 in the case of Mali Ram v. State of Rajasthan (Special Leave to Appeal (Cr.) No. 1856-57 of 1989) , against the judgment dated 8th August, 1989 of the Rajasthan High Cowl, Jodhpur. It was the case in which the Supreme Court considered the willingness on the part of the petitioner to replenish the amount of Rs. 43,114/-to the Commissioner of Income-tax Department and observed that in default of payment as aforesaid, the order of the High Court will stand and Special Leave to Appeal itself was disposed of on these premises, as under

"Without entering into the merits as to whether the High Court can refer such a case from a Court which lost its jurisdictio