JUDGMENT : M.P. Singh, J. The appellant Rajdeo Prasad Srivastava was sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment in addition to a sentence of fine of Rs.100/-, in default to 3 months' further imprisonment under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (briefly 'the Act') and he was further sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code by the Special Judge; Bhagalpur. The sentences were ORDER :ed to run concurrently. 2. The case for the prosecution was that the appellant was working as a Survey Amin in village Dumrawn Survey camp within police station Amupur in the district of Bhagalpur. On 16th of April, 1970, P.W. 7, Ramdeo Sharma submitted a petition before the Settlement Officer to the effect that his father had taken settlement of 1 Bigha 16 Kathas 6 Dhurs of land of Khata no. 316 in Mauza Dumrawn in 1944 from the ex-landlord and he was in possession of that land. He further stated in his petition that during the recent Khanapuri survey operation the appellant had wrongly entered this land in the name of 'Bihar Sarkar'. P.W. 7, Ramdeo Sharma and his brothers approached the appellant and one Survey Inspector named Sheo Shankar Singh and made a request to them to enter their names in the Khanapuri in place of 'Bihar Sarkar'. It is said that the appellant and the said Survey Inspector demanded a bribe of Rs.500/- for making correction. That petition was sent to the S.D.O., Banka. The S.D.O. issued search warrant for the personal search of the appellant and of the inspector of survey camp and he also directed the D.S.P. to accompany the Magistrate' Piter Aind (P.W. 2) to catch the survey staff in case they were found taking bribe. Thereafter the D.S.P. along with the Magistrate went to Amarpur. P.W. 7, Ramdeo Sharma met them in Amarpur at about 4 p.m. and reported that the appellant and the Survey Inspector were ready to accept the bribe for making the necessary correction in the survey paper. P.W. 7 then produced ten rupees G.C. notes before the Magistrate. The Magistrate (P.W. 2) made initial on those currency notes and returned them to P.W. 7, Ramdeo Sharma. Thereafter P.W. 7 went to village Dumrawn along with Probationer A.S.I., Rajendra Prasad Singh (P.W. 5) and the Company Commandar (P.W. 10) in plain dress. P.W. 7 then produced ten rupees G.C. notes before the Magistrate. The Magistrate (P.W. 2) made initial on those currency notes and returned them to P.W. 7, Ramdeo Sharma. Thereafter P.W. 7 went to village Dumrawn along with Probationer A.S.I., Rajendra Prasad Singh (P.W. 5) and the Company Commandar (P.W. 10) in plain dress. P.W. 7 handed over the signed notes to his brother, Debit Lal Sharma (P.W. 6) who along with P.Ws. 5 and 10 went to the Survey camp. P.W. 6, Uchit Lal Sharma gave the sum of Rs.50, namely, the five, 10 rupees currency notes to the appellant in presence of P.W. 5, Rajendra Prasad Singh the probationary A.S.I. and in presence of the Company Commander Bachaspati Yadav (P.W. 10). At that time the D.S.P., the Magistrate and the Police Inspector were sitting in the District Board Dispensary at village Dumrawn. They were informed by P.W. 10, Bachaspati Yadav about the fact that the appellant had accepted Rs.50/- as bribe. These persons went to the survey camp. P.Ws. 5 and 10 pointed out the appellant to them. Thereafter the D.S.P. disclosed his identity and also the identity of the Magistrate and showed the search warrant to the appellant. On search the appellant was found to be in possession of the five G.C. notes. A search list was prepared on the spot. The defence of the appellant was that the alleged G.C. notes were not recovered from his pocket. He denied guilt. 3. The prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10, out of whom P.W. 6 Debit Lal Sharma and P.W. 7 Ramdeo Sharma are the persons from whom the bribe had been demanded. They had filed the petitions before the Settlement Officer on the 16th of April, 1970 on the basis of which the trap was later laid, P.Ws. Rajendra Prasad Singh and Bachaspati Yadav (P.Ws. 5 and 10 respectively) are the persons who went alongwith P.W. 6 Uchit Lat Sharma to the survey camp in the first instance and in whose presence the bribe was given to the appellant. Remaining witnesses, namely P.W. 2, Piter Aind Magistrate, P.W. 3, Jagannath Prasad Gupta Inspector of Police and P.W. 8, Dip Lal Rajak D.S.P. were members of the raiding party who were informed about the taking of bribe by P.Ws. Remaining witnesses, namely P.W. 2, Piter Aind Magistrate, P.W. 3, Jagannath Prasad Gupta Inspector of Police and P.W. 8, Dip Lal Rajak D.S.P. were members of the raiding party who were informed about the taking of bribe by P.Ws. 5 and 10 and who went to the spot after having been so informed. There is thus overwhelming evidence on record to show that the appellant had accepted Rs.50/- as bribe. Relying upon the evidence of these witnesses, the Special Judge held that the appellant accepted a sum of Rs.50/- a as bribe for making the necessary correction in the survey record paper. 4. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant before this Court is that the sanction granted by the Settlement Officer’ for prosecution of the appellant was invalid in law and so the cognizance taken was illegal and the trial was vitiated. In my opinion, this contention has force and it must be, accepted, as valid. The sanction ORDER :is. Ext. 1. It runs thus : OFFIC OF THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER BHAGALPUR No. 111/ C. Dated, Bhagalpur the 11 November, 1970. From: Sri K.K. Saha, Settlement Officer, Bhagalpur. To The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Banka, Dist. Bhagalpur. Sub:- Permission for C.S. against accused Sri Rajdeo Prasad Srivastava, Amin in Amarpur P.S. Case No. 8(4)70 U/s 161 IPC and 5 P.C. Act of 1957. Sir, With reference to your memo no. 3209/G dated 10.8.70 on the subject mentioned above, I am herewith according sanction to the prosecution of Sri Rajdeo Prasad Srivastava a survey Amin employed under Bhagalpur Settlement u/s 6(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as the Settlement Officer is the appointing authority of the said public servant. An extract copy (attested) of his posting from Halka no. 27-A to Halka no. 30-A of Amarpur Anchal is enclosed herewith for needful Yours faithfully, Sd/- Illegible 10.11.70 Settlement Officer." The aforesaid ORDER :clearly makes a reference to memo no. 3209/G dated 10.8.70. It was on the basis of that letter that the sanction was granted under Section 6(c) of the Act. That memo is Ext. 2 and it runs as under: "Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Banka (Bhagalpur). Memo No. 3209/G dated, Banka, the 10th August, 70. To The District Settlement Officer, Bhagalpur Through: Proper Channel. Reference - Amarpur P.S. case no. 8(4) 70 U/s 161 IPC and 5 P.C. Act or 1957. That memo is Ext. 2 and it runs as under: "Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Banka (Bhagalpur). Memo No. 3209/G dated, Banka, the 10th August, 70. To The District Settlement Officer, Bhagalpur Through: Proper Channel. Reference - Amarpur P.S. case no. 8(4) 70 U/s 161 IPC and 5 P.C. Act or 1957. Subject:- Permission for C.S. against accused Sri Rajdeo Pd. Srivastava, a survey Amin. Sir, The investigation of the case is complete and the prima facie case has been made out against accused Sri Rajdeo Pd. Srivastava a Survey Amin (Survey camp Bhagalpur). According to Prevention or Corruption Act necessary permission from appointing authority of a public servant or the owner of the employee is necessary. Therefore I request you to kindly give necessary permission for submission of C.S. against the above accused." Sd/- Illegible (Deeplal Rajak) Dy. S.P. Banka." It is clear that neither in the aforesaid memo nor in the sanction ORDER :any fact relating to the offence, in question, has been stated. P.W.1, Kamal Kant Saha was the Settlement Officer who granted a sanction. He merely deposed at the trial that he granted the selection on the basis of memo' no. 3209. He proved the sanction Ext. 1. He did not say in his evidence that he considered the relevant facts before granting the sanction. In his cross-examination be said that he had not seen the paper relating to the bribe. The only other witness relevant on this point is P.W. 4 Braj Kishore Kumar, who was them the D.S.P., and had taken charge of the case from another D.S.P., namely, Deeplal Rajak (P.W. 8) on the 10th of August, 1970. He had obtained the sanction ORDER :. He gave evidence at the trial that he had himself gone to the Settlement Officer and bad met him. He further deposed that he had the case diary, F.I.R. and other papers with himself at that time. He however, did not say in his evidence that he had discussed the facts of the case with the Settlement Officer. He also did not say that he had placed either the case diary on the F.I.R. or any other paper before the Settlement Officer. He however, did not say in his evidence that he had discussed the facts of the case with the Settlement Officer. He also did not say that he had placed either the case diary on the F.I.R. or any other paper before the Settlement Officer. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has seriously contended that an inference should be drawn that the pipers, which P.W. 4 had carried with himself, had been placed before the Settlement officer and that the necessary facts had also been placed before him. I am not inclined to accept this contention as good. Nothing prevented P.W. 4 Braj Kishore Kumar to say in his evidence that he had placed the facts or the papers before the Settlement Officer. He came to the witness box and gave evidence. In absence of any evidence on the record that facts were placed or any paper containing the facts was placed before the Settlement Officer, I am not prepared to draw any inference that facts were placed before the Settlement Officer and were considered by him. At this place I will point out that the Settlement Officer before whom the petition had been presented on 16th April, 1970 by P.W. 7, Ramdeo Sharma was one Mr. B.K. Sinha and not P.W. 1, K.K. Saha. Under the circumstances P.W. 1, K.K. Saha was not at all acquainted with the facts from before. The position is thus clear that the facts constituting the offence charged are not shown on the fact of the sanction and that the prosecution has failed to prove by extraneous evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority in ORDER :to enable him to decide whether to grant or not to grant the sanction. The sanction ORDER :(Ext. 1) dated 10.11.1970 was therefore, invalid. This view finds support from the case (1) Jagdish Pd. The sanction ORDER :(Ext. 1) dated 10.11.1970 was therefore, invalid. This view finds support from the case (1) Jagdish Pd. Verma V. The State, AIR 1966 Patna 15, in which the sanction ORDER :ran as follows:- Having perused the note and recommendations of the Additional Collector, Saharsa dated 27.12.1959, and being fully satisfied after due consideration of the facts of the case and gist of evidence against the Karamchari that there exist a prime facie case for the grant of sanction, P.S. Kohli, I.A.S., District Magistrate and Collector, Saharsa; in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Section 6 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947) as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (second Amendment) Act, 1952 (Act LIX of 1952) do hereby accord sanction for prosecution under Section 161 Penal Code read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947) of Shri Jagdish Prasad Verma, Karamchari, Halka No. 2 of Pipra Anchal District Saharsa. Given under my hand and seal the 8th August, 1960. Sd/- P.S. Kohli. District Magistrate & Collector, Saharsa." In that case the note and recommendations of the Additional Collector spoken of in the ORDER :of sanction of the District Magistrate and Collect of had not been produced by the prosecution and that nobody on behalf of the prosecution had deposed to the facts that the 'gist of evidence' contained in Exhibits 7 series was placed before the Collector at the time when he made the ORDER :of sanction for the prosecution of the appellant. Under these circumstances although the Collector had said that he was fully satisfied after due consideration of the facts of the case that there existed a prima facie case for the grant of sanction and, therefore, he was according sanction, still it was held that the sanction was invalid. The sanction was held invalid because the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence in court to show as to what were the facts which were placed before the Collector. The well known case of (2) Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka V. The King AIR 1948 Privy Council 82, was referred to. The sanction was held invalid because the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence in court to show as to what were the facts which were placed before the Collector. The well known case of (2) Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka V. The King AIR 1948 Privy Council 82, was referred to. In that case the Privy Council pointed out: "But if the facts constituting the offence charged are not shown on the face of the sanction, the prosecution must prove the extraneous evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority……… ........ The sanction to prosecute is an important matter it constitutes a condition precedent to the institution of the prosecution and the Government have an absolute discretion to grant or withhold their sanction. They are not as the High Court seems to have thought, concerned merely to see that the evidence discloses a prima facie case against the persons sought to be prosecuted. They can refuse sanction on any ground which commends itself to them for example, that on political or economic grounds they regard a prosecution as .inexpedient." In (3) Madan Mohan Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR (Sic) S.C. 637 following the Morarka's case, AIR 1948 PC 82 decided by the Privy Council, it has been pointed out: “The burden of proving that the requisite sanction has been obtained rests on the prosecution, and such burden includes proof that the sanctioning authority had given the sanction in reference to the facts on which the proposed prosecution was to be based; and these facts might appeal on the face of the sanction or might be proved by extraneous evidence." In the present case also as already pointed out above, there is nothing to show that the facts constituting the offence, were placed before the Sanctioning Authority and that authority had granted the sanction after applying its mind to these facts. There is no evidence to show that the Sanctioning Authority considered the facts before granting the sanction to find anywhere that there was any justification for instituting the prosecution. Under the circumstances it must be held that there was no valid sanction under Section 6(1) of the Act. The entire trial, therefore, was null and void for want of a valid sanction. There was legally no trial at all. No cognizance could be taken without a valid sanction. Under the circumstances it must be held that there was no valid sanction under Section 6(1) of the Act. The entire trial, therefore, was null and void for want of a valid sanction. There was legally no trial at all. No cognizance could be taken without a valid sanction. The cognizance taken was without jurisdiction and the Court became wholly incompetent to proceed with the matter. 4. In this view of the matter, the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside. The appeal is allowed. As the trial was null and void, no ORDER :of conviction or acquittal can be recorded against the appellant. Appeal allowed