( 1. ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 21-5-1984 passed by the Special Judge, Mandsaur in Special Case No. 1 of 1980 whereby when the case was progressing at evidence stage the prosecutions application for permission for production of sanction for prosecution required under the Prevention of Corruption act, 1947 (for short the Act) has been allowed.

( 2. ) IN the instant case the alleged offence was committed on 16-6-1979. Challan was ready on 30-6-1979 but was filed in January 1980. Charges were framed on 7-4-1980 and the application in question was filed on 25-11-1980 stating that sanction had already been accorded in 1979 prior to the challan having been filed and due to over-Sight it could not be filed along with the challen.

( 3. ) REFERRING to the decision in State of Rajasthan vs. Daulatram (AIR 1980 SC 1314) and the decisions in Mohd Iqbal Ahmed vs. State of A. P. (AIR 1979 SC 677)and state of Rajasthan vs. Tarachand Jain (AIR 1973 SC 2131), the learned Special Judge holding that sanction was in fact in existence on the date the challan was filed, passed the impugned order. ( 4. ) THE contention sought to be canvassed by the petitioners learned counsel is that as the sanction under section 6 of the Act was not on record when the Court took cognizance, the proceedings are rendered void ab initio and in the circumstances the impugned order deserves to be set aside. .

( 5. ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the State contends that as the sanction was anterior to the Court taking cognizance of the offence, the proceedings cannot be characterised as void ab initio and the impugned order is proper.

( 6. ) THE point for decision whether the impugned order deserves to be interfered with in exercise of the discretionary revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

( 7. ) FOR prosecution of the sort sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973 (for short the Code) is not required. Section 6 of the Act bears the Court from taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 161 or section 164 or Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code, or under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3-A) of Section 5 of the Act alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction of the competent authority empowered to grant the requisite sanction.

( 8. ) IN the decision in Gadhiya B. Vallabhdas vs. State AIR 1954 Saurashtra 132 with reference to Section 5 (3) of the Act it has been pointed out that rule of law laid down therein is a departure from the normal law of the land that no person car, be convicted on a mere presumption of his having committed an offence. In paragraph 7 of the decision it has further been pointed out that in order that an accused can be tried on specific charge, a sanction has to be given at the outset. The decision further points out that it is the duty of the Judge and the Lawyers to take up the question of sanction at the earliest stage whenever public servants are charged to obtain decision thereon before proceeding to deal with the merits of the prosecution case.

( 9. ) IN the decision in R. S. Nayak vs. A. R. Antulay AIR 1984 SC 684 it has been pointed out in paragraph 19 that taking of cognizance of an offence without sanction renders the proceedings void ab initio. In the aforesaid decision it has been pointed out that the object underlying the provision regarding sanction is to save the public servant from the harassment of frivolous or unsubstantiated allegation. The terminus a quo for the requirement of valid sanction is the time when the Court is called upon to take cognizance of the offence. If by then the accused has ceased to be a public servant no sanction is necessary. A trial without a valid sanction where one is necessary under Section 6 of the Act would be trial without jurisdiction. According to the decision a valid sanction ought to be available when the Court is called upon to take cognizance of the offence.

( 10. ) IN the instant ca