A.L.BAHRI, J.

1. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar on 1/09/1982 passed the impugned order acquitting Sunder Singh and others, accused for want of sanction required under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the further observation that the prosecution would be at liberty to launch the prosecution against the accused after obtaining the necessary sanction. The State has come up in appeal.

2. On 25/01/1972 Shri Amar Singh, a P.C.S. Officer of the State, while acting as Audit Officer of Societies at Amritsar made the report that Rajinder Singh, Chairman and other officials of Amritsar Central Co-operative Bank got sanctioned loan to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000.00 after preparing fake credit files in the name of Puran Singh etc. In this report, the total amount embezzled was to the tune of Rs. 2,35,000.00 for which details were given therein. On the basis of this report, a case was registered with the police on 15/05/1972. After investigation was completed, report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure was filed in the Court on 13/10/1978. The trial Magistrate furnished copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution to the accused on 5/07/1979 and subsequently framed charges against them under Sections 409, 465, 467, 471 and Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code. The trial proceeded and the prosecution produced 11 witnesses. It was at that stage that an application was filed on behalf of the accused on 31/07/1982 stating therein that the prosecution has not procured and produced the sanction of the prescribed authority as required under Section 196-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code and the case could not proceed. On that application, the impugned order was passed. Section 196 of the Code reads as under:-

"Prosecution for offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence:-

(1) No Court shall take cognizance of - (a) any offence punishable under Chapter VI or under Section 153-A (Section 295-A or sub-section (1) of Section 505) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or

(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, or

(c) any such abetment, as is described in Section 108-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or the State Government. "

Sub-sections (I-A) and (2) read as under.-

"No Court shall take cognizance of- (a) any offence punishable under Section 153-B or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), or

(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate.

(2) No Court shall take cognizance of the offence of any criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), other than a criminal conspiracy to commit (an offence) punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, unless the State Government or the District Magistrate has consented in writing to the initiation of proceedings; Provided that where the criminal conspiracy is one to which the provisions of Section 195 apply, no such consent shall be necessary."

The aforesaid provision, as amended, came to force w.e.f. 23/09/1978. Otherwise, in sub-section (2) the words "cognizable offence" appeared, which have been substituted by the words "an offence" as per amendment dated 18/12/1978. The Division Bench of this Court in Nasib Singh V/s. State of Punjab, (1972) 74 Pun LR 585, where for some of the offences, sanction of the appropriate authority was required, held that without sanction even for other offences, case could not proceed. The aforesaid view was followed in Hari Chand Jain V/s. State of Punjab, 1982 Chand Cri C (HC) 183. It is on the basis of these decisions that the impugned order was passed by the trial Magistrate.

3 The contention of Shri S. K.