ORDER

C.D. Parekh, J. - These are seven revisions arising out of the order dated 27-9-1968 passed by Shri H.C. Agarwal, Special Judge. (Anti-Corruption) (West), Luck-now, wherein common questions of law and fact have been agitated and are involved and can conveniently be disposed of by one single judgment.

2. In all these revisions the sanction orders (a sample of which has been reproduced in the body of the lower court's order) for the prosecution of the Applicants, for offences u/s 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947 (Act No. II of 1947) have been challenged. In some of the cases the sanction relates to offences punishable u/s 120(b) and Section 420 IPC as well. Sanction orders have been signed by the Deputy Secretary of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. The sanctions have been accorded under the provisions of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898) and Section 6(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1.947, for the prosecution of Col. Sujan Singh, Major Inder Singh and Captain Harvans Singh who were Commissioned officers in the employment of the Union of India and M.N. Mukerjee who was a civilian gazetted officer connected with Defence Department of the Government of India. The offences aforesaid were said to have been committed by these persons.

3. The charge-sheet in the cases filed against the aforesaid persons is dated 31st July, 1960 and the sanction to prosecute these persons bears the date 9th of June, 1960. On 21st of January, 1961, Col. Sujan Singh applied to the Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi, copy of which is Ex. Kha 8 and had stated certain facts and requested the Ministry necessary orders about the withdrawal of the cases against him be passed. On this application of Col. Sujan Singh, Ramanujaohari the signatory of the sanction (examined as PW in the case) made a certain notings. Hs recommended by note dated 8-8-1961 Ex. Kha 2 in Revision No. 2216 that the case against Col. Sujan Singh should be withdrawn and stated in his note that the Ministry of Law should see and advise in the matter. These notings as it appears somehow or the other came to the knowledge of the Applicants. From the notings it appeals that Ramanujachari had admitted in those notes that some of the facts were not in the report of the Delhi Special Police Enforcement (which was the investigating agency in the case). From the notings it also appears that at the time of signing the sanction order sufficient evidence did not exist to enable the Government to proceed with the prosecution and he was of the opinion after re-examining the case that the main grounds in support of the prosecution were demonstrably unsustainable in fact and thus it was possible to take a different view. Thereafter as it appears various applications were filed before the Court in which the Applicants have stated that there was no sufficient material to show that the sanctioning authority did apply its mind before granting the sanction for the prosecution of the Applicants. It has also been pointed out in these applications that the President of India did not order, sanctioning the prosecution nor the papers relating to the case were sent to him for sanction and the sanction order filed along with the charge-sheet has been signed by the Deputy Secretary of Home Ministry who had not signed them on behalf of the Central Government. On the said grounds it was stated that the sanction being invalid the cases cannot proceed and therefore, the cases be consigned.

4. The prosecution as it appears examined, one Shri K.L. Mehra ah Upper Division Clerk in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and Sri M.L. Bhalla an assistant in the Home Ministry and also examined Shri Ramanujachari, Member Board of Revenue M.P., Gwalior, who is the signatory of all the sanctions, that have been filed in the case. His notings and various other materials have been brought on record and have been proved