Hon’ble R.N. Misra, J.—Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Since these two writ petitions relate to same matter and contain same prayer, therefore, they are being disposed of together by a common order, which is being passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 13409 of 2006.

3. These writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the sanction order dated 2-5-2006 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), passed by U.P. Government for prosecuting the petitioners in crime No. 80 of 1998, under Sections 302, 330, 201, I.P.C., Police Station Pheel Khana, District Kanpur Nagar.

4. It appears from the records that the petitioners were police officials at the relevant time. On 21-4-1998, one Santosh Kumar Tripathi was arrested by Pheelkhana police for the offence, punishable under Section 398, I.P.C. and a case was registered against him alongwith four others at Crime No. 73 of 1998. Another case under Section 25 of Arms Act was also registered at Crime No. 74 of 1998 against him. This was a case registered on the F.I.R. of one Thakur Prasad for looting the Petrol Pump. It was alleged that these police officials alongwith some others had beaten Santosh Kumar Tripathi badly in the police custody and consequently, he died. On the agitation of public and intervented of political parties, a case of murder was registered. The C.B.C.I.D. investigated the case and found involvement of the present petitioners in the murder of Santosh Kumar Tripathi and submitted a very detailed report to the Government for sanctioning prosecution of the petitioners, under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The Government accorded sanction vide order dated 2-5-2006 which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said sanction order, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.

5. As is evident from both the F.I.Rs. and detailed report of C.B.C.I.D. submitted to the Government, a prima facie case under Sections 302, 330 and 201, I.P.C. was made out against the petitioners. Annexure-1 shows that the Government accorded sanction for prosecution of the petitioners after giving a deep consideration to the facts available. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that even from the report of C.B.C.I.D., no case was made out against the petitioners and there is no evidence against them. He has further argued that the sanction has been granted without applying the mind. He has cited the case of State v. Dr. R.C. Anand and another, 2004 (4) SCC 615 and Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 124, in which it has been opined by Hon’ble Apex Court that while granting sanction for prosecution, the sanctioning authority must apply its mind and there must be sufficient materials for granting sanction. Annexure-1 is a very detailed order of sanction and contents thereof show that all the aspects of the case and material available on record were considered by the sanctioning authority. It shows the application of mind. Moreover, the legal position is very clear. In the case of R. Sundarrajan v. State of Tamilnadu, 2006 Supreme 323, the Hon’ble Apex Court has given a very clear opinion regarding sanction for prosecution. The Hon’ble Apex Court has said that the Court cannot look into the adequacy or inadequacy of material before the sanctioning authority and cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the sanction order. Relevant portion of said judgment is being quoted below :

“We cannot look into the adequacy or inadequacy of the material before the sanctioning authority and we cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the sanction order. The order granting sanction shows that all the available materials were placed before the sanctioning authority, who considered the same at great details. Only because some of the said materials could not be proved, the same by its