H.S. Chaturvedi, J.

[1] I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of my learned brother, Mulla J.

[2] Om Prakash, who has come up in revision, was a divisional accountant in the Sarda Canal, Sitapur section, and in that capacity he was entrusted with Government monies. On an inspection of the accounts by the Accounts Officer, it was discovered that certain sums of money amounting to Rs. 1,491/9/- had been embezzled by the applicant. He reported the matter to the officers of the can at department, who handed over the case to the police with the result that, after investigation, the applicant was prosecuted for offences under Section 409 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. He was tried in the Court of Sri Abul Maqtadir, a Magistrate of the first class, Sitapur. At the trial, the applicant pleaded that he should have been prosecuted and tried for an offence under Section 5(1)(c), Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947) and not under the general law. The other plea raised was that the applicant could not be prosecuted without previous sanction of the Accountant General, and as no sanction had been obtained, it vitiated the trial. The defence plea found favour wi