A sanction for prosecution under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act must be based on a consideration of the facts constituting the offence and the sanctioning authority must apply its mind to the facts before according sanction.

( 1 ) DEEWAN Chand appellant, a booking clerk at Laksar railway station, Northern Railway, in the year 1964 has been convicted Under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (c) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 3 years by an order dated 30-3-1979, passed by Special Judge Anti-Corruption, West U. P. Lucknow.

( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution very briefly stated was: There were three booking clerks at Laksar railway station. They used to work in three shifts or 8 hours each. In case the card-board tickets were not available, the booking clerks could issue paper tickets. There used to be books of blank paper tickets. There are 3 foils of each blank paper ticket. In one book there are 50 sets of blank paper tickets. The books which were issued for the railway stations of the Northern Railway are called local blank paper tickets. The tickets which are issued for railway stations on the Railways other than Northern Railway are called foreign blank paper tickets. During the period 7-7-1964 to 20-10-1964, the appellant is said to have issued 43 blank paper tickets relating to stations of the Northern Railway as well as the stations of the other Railway. The first foil of the paper book is sent to the Accounts Officer, Delhi. The second foil is given to the passenger. The 3rd foil called record foil is maintained at the issuing railway station. The appellant issued 2nd foil to the passengers mentioning correct destination station and correct fare. But in the first and 3rd foils, he mentioned another destination and less fare. In this way the appellant is said to have misappropriated a total sum of Rupees 638. 94.

( 3 ) CHETAN Swarup Jain, Inspector of Accounts, P. W. 1 checked the records at Laksar railway station in October, 1964, On seeing 5 blank paper tickets Nos. 314636 to 314640, he felt suspicious. He brought the suspicion to the notice of the Accounts Officer. Thereafter he made enquiry into the paper tickets issued by the booking clerks of Laksar railway station, The matter was then brought to the notice of the C. B. I. Sri B. Nath Superintendent of Police C. B. I. Lucknow, recorded a report dated 24-3-1965 and deputed Sr. R. N, Sinha, Deputy superintendent of Police C. B. I, to investigate into the matter. Sri R. N. Sinha interrogated Ram prasad, P. W. 36 Chief Booking Clerk, Laksar only. The investigation was then entrusted to W. U. Farooqi, Inspector, C. B. I. , P. W. 35. During investigation he obtained the admitted writings including first and third foils of the appellant as well as his specimen writing. These writings along with the disputed passenger foils were sent to Sri. S. K. Jain, P. W. 37 Government examiner of questioned documents, Government of India, Hyderabad for examination. Sri W. U. Farooqi then obtained sanction for the prosecution of the appellant from Sri P. Sahai, General manager, Northern Railway. The sanction was accorded on 28-4-1966, Ex. Ka-41. Thereafter the case was filed before the Special Judge.

( 4 ) THE appellant did not admit the allegations. He did not even admit that the passenger foils in question were issued by him and were in his handwriting and under his initials,

( 5 ) THE prosecution examined 37 witnesses. The appellant examined two witnesses.

( 6 ) THE Special Judge did not accept the contention of the appellant that the sanction for his prosecution was not valid. The Special Judge believed the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and found that the passenger foils were in the handwriting of the appellant. Therefore the special judge convicted the appellant.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant urged:

(1) The passenger foils in question were not in the handwriting of the appellant. They did not bear his initials, The evidence of Ramanand Sharma and S. K. Jain, handwriting expert in respect of the passenger foils being in the handwriting of the appellant was not believable. There was no other evidence to fasten the guilt u