A sanction for prosecution under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act must show the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction of the sanctioning authority. The prosecution must prove the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority either by producing the original sanction or by adducing evidence aliunde.

T.R. Handa, J.—The Special Judge, Mandi, vide his judgment dated 30-4-1981 convicted the present appellant under Section 5 (1) (c) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.

200. Vide the same judgment the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 420 and 468 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100 on each count. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has approached this Court in appeal under Section 374, Cr. P.C.

2. The charge under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Act of which the appellant was convicted was founded on the allegations that the appellant in his capacity as a public servant while posted as Accounts Clerk in the Hydle Investigation Division No. III, Mandi and in such capacity entrusted with Rs. 213.95 pertaining to the T.A. Bill of Shri I.D. Gupta, Overseer, had on 23rd October, 1969 dishonestly and fraudulently mis-appropriated or otherwise-converted to his own use the proceeds of the said T.A. Bill. The charge under Section 420, I.P.C. was founded on the allegations that on or about the same time and place, the appellant had cheated the Executive Engineer, Hydle Investigation Division No III, by dishonestly inducing him to deliver Rs, 213.95 to the appellant and which was the property of the said Executive Engineer. The third charge under Section 468, I.P.C. was founded on the allegations that the appellant had on or about aforesaid date and place forged an entry in the bill register of his office showing that the T.A. bill of Rs. 213.95 had been returned by the Treasury Officer with some objection though the amount of that T.A. bill had actually been encashed by the appellant.

3. Further details of the facts leading to the prosecution and conviction of the appellant need not be mentioned as in my opinion this appeal must succeed on a short point of law as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.

4. The point of law raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the entire trial as also the conviction of the appellant is bad for want of a valid sanction under Section 6 of the Act which was a pre-requisite for the prosecution of the appellant. It is by now well settled that in the absence of a valid sanction under Section 6 of the Act, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio and any conviction recorded in such proceedings would be without jurisdiction and a nullity. The point, therefore, which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and which calls for consideration is whether there was any valid sanction accorded by the competent authority in the instant case for the prosecution of the appellant.

5. According to the prosecution, the sanction for prosecution of the appellant had been accorded by the Chief Engineer (Projects) H.P.S.E.B. who was the authority competent to remove the appellant. This sanction accorded by the Chief Engineer and relied upon by the prosecution is found at Ex. PW 12/A. This sanction order Ex. PW 12/A was proved on the record by Shri R.L. Kalia, an Upper Division Clerk of the office of the Chief Engineer who appeared as PW-12 and who claimed to identify the signatures of Shri S.R. Shah, the then Chief Engineer, on this office order. The Chief Engineer, who accorded this sanction, however, was not examined. Nor is there any other independent evidence on the record to show as to in what circumstances and on what considerations the Chief Engineer accorded sanction for the prosecution of the appellant. I am tempted to reproduce the language of this so called sanction order Ex. PW 12/A. "HIMACHAL PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD (Confidential) OFFICE ORDER Whereas it is alleged that Sh. Beharl Lal Gupta, Accounts Clerks (now Head Clerk) while functioning as Accounts Clerk on or about (1) 1969/12/71. And whereas the said acts constitute an offe