K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) ORDER :- This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhubaneswar, allowing a petition under S. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('code' for short) and permitting the prosecution to examine the authority sanctioning the prosecution.

( 2 ) ON the basis of the F. I. R dated 9-8-1979 lodged by an Inspector of C. B. I. and after due investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner, ex-Branch Manager, United Commercial Bank, Narasingpur, on 26-4-1980 for having committed misappropriation of cash of Rs. 7000/ -. He was charged for having committed offences under Ss. 5 (1) (c) and 5 (1) (d) read with S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). The trial commenced on 28-4-1982 and in due course 14 witness were examined on behalf of the prosecution and 15 documents were proved and exhibited Prosecution was closed on 25-9-1984, accused's statement was recorded on 21-1-1985 and arguments of both the parties were finally heard and closed on 25-3-1985. During argument it was submitted by the learned defence counsel that the order of sanction under S. 6 of the Act was not proved and the aforesaid technical defect was one of the grounds for which the petitioner was entitled to be acquitted. After close of the arguments, though on the same day, the prosecution filed a petition under S. 311 of the Code for examination of the sanctioning authority and for proving of the sanction order. The petitioner filed an objection that the court could not permit the prosecution to examine the sanctioning authority and prove the sanction order so as to fill up its lacuna. The learned Judge after hearing both parties passed the impugned order allowing the petition.

( 3 ) MR. B. S. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged that after a protracted trial and after close of arguments it was unjust on the part of the learned Judge to permit the prosecution to fill up its lacuna by examining the sanctioning authority so as to prove the sanction order. He further urged that on behalf of the defence no new material was brought in so as to enable the prosecution to meet the same by taking recourse to the provisions of S. 311 of the Code. In such circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

( 4 ) THE learned Judge relied upon AIR 1968 SC 178, Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra, and held as follows :-". . . . THE I. O. (P. W. 14) deposed that he obtained the sanction order from the Deputy General Manager (Inspection and Vigilance ). The learned P. P. submitted that a copy of the sanction order was earlier supplied to the accused. In any event, the sanction order is always in the record and the accused must be aware of its existence. So, the accused is not taken by surprise if the sanctioning order is presently proved through the sanctioning authority. Such proof of the sanction order does not amount to filling up the gaps in the prosecution case. "he concluded :". . In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I consider that examination of the sanctioning authority is. necessary for coming to a just decision in the case. . . . Hence considering all aspects of the matter, I think it is necessary in the interests of justice that the sanctioning authority should be examined as a witness in the case. "in the leading case on the subject under discussion which has been followed not only by this Court but by other High Courts of the country reported in AIR 1968 SC 178 in which the provisions of S. 540 of the old Criminal Procedure code in pari materia with S. 311 of the new Code came up for consideration, Hidayatullah, J. (as his Lordship then was) held as follows :-"section 540 is intended to be wide as the repeated use of the word any throughout its length clearly indicates. The Section is in two parts, the first part gives a discretionary power but the latter part is mandatory. The use o