Sanction for prosecution under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is mandatory and the sanctioning authority must apply its mind to the evidence before according sanction.

JUDGMENT :

K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J. - The petitioner in this revision challenges the Judgment dated 20-4-88 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1987 wherein the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence paned by the trial court against him. The petitioner was convicted u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of she court and to pay a tine of Ra. 5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.

2. The petitioner ii a Bank Officer and his marriage was fixed with one Sukanti, but the marriage could not be gone through due to the alleged demand of a motor cycle by the petitioner. The father of Sukanti lodged an F.I.R. on 21-4-84 against the petitioner. Sanction had been given by the District Magistrate, Keonjhar by his order dated 10-6-84 after which U.I. Case No. 371 of 1984 (Trial Cane No. 843 of 1984) wag initiated against the petitioner u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Keonjbar on the basis of the prosecution report submitted by the Office-in-charge, Patna P.S. By the order dated 17-4-87, the trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till rifling of the court and to pay a fine of Rs 5.000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months as stated earlier. The said judgment of the trial court was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Keonjhar by his order dated 20-4-88 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1987. The payment of fine of Rs. 5.000/-, however, had been stayed by the Appellate Court and later by this court by its order dated 3-5-88 in Misc. Case No. 445 of 1988.

3. In this revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P.K. Misra submits that since there was no valid sanction for prosecution of the case, the whole proceeding was a nullity and the order passed by the courts below are without jurisdiction.

4. Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act reads as follows :

"4. Penalty for demanding dowry : If any person, after the commencement of this Act, demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the cafe may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable wish imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both :

Provided that no court shall lake cognizance of any offence under this section except with the previous sanction of the State Government or of such officer as the State Government may, by special or special order, specify in this behalf."

Section 4 is, however, substituted by the amending Act 63 of 1984 which came to the effect from 2-10-1985. But in the present case cognizance was taken on 15-7-84 much before the amending provision came into effect.

5. This Court has already held in a case reported in Nurun Nisha Begum Vs. Hasina Khatun and Others, that the sanction envisaged under the proviso to Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is mandatory in nature. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act similar provision regarding sanction is also provided before the cognizance of the offence under the laid Act is taken. While dealing with the according of sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Supreme Court as well at this Court have indicated that the according of sanction is not merely a formality and the sanctioning authority must have to apply his mind to the evidence on record while considering the question of according or refuging of sanction in a particular case. If there was no proper application of mind to the materials on record, and the sanctioning authority merely passed the order of sanction in terms of lection under the statute, the sanction cannot be treated as valid sanction in the eye of law and would amount to nullity and the proceeding initiated on the basis of the sanction, therefore, would be without jurisdiction.

6. The Supreme Court in a case reported in Jaswant Singh