7. A combined reading of sub-sections (3) and (4) makes the position clear that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code no finding, sentence and order passed by a Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that court a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.

8. Clause (b) of sub-section (3) is also relevant. It shows that no court shall stay the proceedings under the Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice.

9. Sub-section (4) postulates that in determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice, the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings.

10. Explanation appended to the section is also of significance. It provides, that for the purpose of Section 19, error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction.

11. The expression "failure of justice" is too pliable or facile an expression, which could be fitted in any situation of a case. The expression "failure of justice" would appear, sometimes, as an etymological chameleon (the simile is borrowed from Lord Diplock in Town Investments Ltd. v. Deptt. of Environment [(1977 (1) All.E.R. 813 : 1978 AC 359 : 1977 (2) WLR 450 (HL)]. The criminal court, particularly the superior court, should make a close examination to ascertain whether there was really a failure of justice or it is only a camouflage. (See Shamnsaheb M.Multtani v. State of Karnataka [ 2001 (2) SCC 577 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 358 ].

14. In the instant case neither the trial court nor the High Court appear to have kept in view the requirements of sub-section (3) relating to question regarding "failure of justice". Merely because there is any omission, error or irregularity in the matter of according sanction, that does not affect the validity of the proceeding unless the court records the satisfaction that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in failure of justice. The same logic also applies to the appellate or revisional court. The requirement of sub-section (4) about raising the issue at the earliest stage has not been also considered. Unfortunately, the High Court by a practically non-reasoned order, confirmed the order passed by the learned trial Judge. The orders are, therefore, indefensible. We set aside the said orders. It would be appropriate to require the trial court to record findings in terms of clause (b) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) of Section 19.

15. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent."

9. The only dispute in these cases is that A.1 is the Forest Ranger, and so, the appointing authority is the State Government and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, is not the competent person to prosecute the accused. But, there is no quarrel over the competency of P.W.1 Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, for according sanction to prosecute A.2 and A.3 Foresters.

10. As per the dictum laid down by the Apex Court, the order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the facts and there should have been proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. In these cases, on the basis of the report submitted by the investigating officer, P.W.1 Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, accorded sanction. While perusing the sanction order, it is seen that it contains the reasons and P.W.1 Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, has mentioned as to what are the materials he perused while according sanction and the sanction accorded by him is in accordance with law. Further, the sanction orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document