The directions given in the Vineet Narain case, which fixed a time limit for granting sanction to prosecute, have binding effect and should be strictly complied with. The concept of deemed sanction applies in the absence of any legislative amendment. The trial court must carefully consider the facts and form an opinion on the prima facie case before proceeding with prosecution.

1. Short question for consideration before this Court in this petition is-

Whether trial Court is competent to proceed with the case on the basis of deemed sanction to prosecute the accused,if prosecution sanctioned is not accorded by competent authority/State within the period of four months in terms of the direction issued by Apex Court in Vineet Narain and another Vs. U.O.I. and another (1998 SCC(Cri) 307) ?

2.Brief facts for deciding this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. are that Central Bureau of Investigation ( for short "CBI") registered a case of criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, using forged documents as genuine, criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act') against Mohammad Syed Kasim Raza and fifteen others for the alleged food grain scam. The CBI investigated the matter and submitted charge-sheet in this matter in the court of special Judge, Anti Corruption (West), U.P. Lucknow against the petitioner and others. CBI after conclusion of investigation asked for prosecution sanction to prosecute the petitioners and some other accused. The State Government granted sanction against some of the accused but no order has been passed in regard to prosecution sanction so far as the petitioner is concerned. CBI in this case filed a copy of letter sent to the Chief Secretory, State of U.P. on 13.7.2012. by which sanction was sought against petitioner Sashikant Prasad. The Government has not taken any decision in regard to prosecution sanction so far as petitioner is concerned in spite of aforesaid letter. On account of inaction on the part of State Government, CBI submitted charge-sheet arising out of RC 0062010A0027/14.12.2012 in the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption (West) CBI, Lucknow against the petitioner and other co-accused under Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. And 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge-sheet has been submitted after registration of crime under the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Lucknow on 30.12.2010 in Writ Petition No. 10503 of 2009 (M/B) (Vishwanath Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India). The charge-sheet was submitted in the trial court in the light of thee Judgement delivered in Vineet Narain and others Vs. Union of India and another, 1998 SCC (Cri) 307, wherein time limit was fixed by the Apex Court to take decision for grant or refusal of sanction to prosecute person concerned. The period fixed in Vineet Narain's case (Supra) had already expired, but the government has not taken any decision. Hence in this case the court deemed that sanction has been accorded on account of default of State Government to take decision in the matter and issued process against accused including the petitioner to appear before court vide order dated 4.12.2012. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order this petition has been filed.

3.Heard the learned Counsel for Petitioner and the learned Counsel for CBI and also learned AGA.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Apex court in a recent matter (Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5027 of 2013) considered the aspect of section 197 Cr.P.C and held that even in the case of a retired government servant, sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. is also required. The Apex Court by an interim order stayed the prosecution of the petitioner and on the strength of this interim order it has been contended that to prosecute the government servant sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. is also required. It is further submitted that in Vineet Narain's case (Supra), the Apex Court issued certain directions and for implementation and suggested the Governments to carry out necessary amendment in the light of the directions in the statute book, but the legislature h