JUDGMENT 1. - It is not necessary to mention the detailed facts of the case as this case is going to be disposed of on a preliminary point of sanction raised by learned counsel for the accused appellant. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused appellant was working as U.D.C. incharge of E-3 Section in the Office of G E. M.E S. (Army), Jodhpur. He was dealing with the procurement of stores and used to issue enquiry letter for quotations to various firms, prepare comparative statement and used to issue supply orders to the various firms In this work, he obtained and accepted from the suppliers various amount as gratification other than legal remuneration as motive of reward for quotation and showing official favour to those suppliers. The details of such illegal gratification has been mentioned by the learned Special Judge in his Judgment dated February 26, 1973 and I do not find it necessary to repeat the same. 3. The prosecution in Support of its case examined 20 witnesses and produced documentary evidence. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Learned Special Judge after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence found that the prosecution successfully proved the charges levelled against the accused and such found him guilty for the offences punishable under Section 16 IPC 5(1) and 5(1 (b) read with section 5 (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act Learned special Judge sentenced the accused to one years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to Simple imprisonment for three months under Section 161 IPC. The accused was also sentenced to one years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to 3 months simple imprisonment under Section 5(1) (a) read with section 5(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act and to one years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to simple imprisonment for 3 months under section 5(1) (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act. 4. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant raised a preliminary ground of attack that sanction was not given by the proper authority. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to simple imprisonment for 3 months under section 5(1) (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act. 4. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant raised a preliminary ground of attack that sanction was not given by the proper authority. In this regard it was submitted that the appellant was appointed permanent Lower Division Clerk with effect from 5th February, 1964 and was promoted on the post of Upper Division Clerk on a temporary basis by the Chief Engineer Western Command, vide his order dated 26th December, 1966. The Chief Engineer, Western Command, Simla by an order dated 24th April 1967 (order No. 1139) changed the date of promotion from 26th December, 1966 to 6th February, 1967. It is thus contendend that the appointing authority in respect of the accused appellant who belong to Class III post under the Central Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1965), was chief Engineer, Western Command, Simla. It is thus contended that the Chief Engineer North-Western Zone, Chandigarh was not authorised to give sanction. It is not disputed that the sanction in this case was given on 18-7-1970 by the Chief Engineer, North-Western Zone, Chandigarh. It is contended by Mr. Dave that under the relevant Rules, Chief Engineer, North Western Zone had no plenary or delegated powers to appoint on a post in class HI service and that such a power was delegated to Chief Engineers of zones for the first time on 14-1-1972. It is thus contended that the sanction for prosecution could only have been given by the Chief Engineer Western Command. Simla and not by Zonal Chief Engineer. Reliance in this regard has been placed on State of Haryana v. N.C. Tandon, A.I.R 1977 SC 1993 . 5. Mr. Soral, learned counsel appearing for the respondent was unable in place any relevant notification or amendment in the Rules showing that the Chief Engineer, North-Western Zone Chandigarh was authorised to grant sanction for the prosecution of the accused appellant on 18th July, 1970. Mr. Soral only placed reliance on an affidavit filed by Lt. Col. Shri G.S. Randhawa. 6. I have given due consideration to the arguments made by Mr. Dave learned counsel for the accused appellant and the reply submitted by Mr. Soral. Mr. Soral only placed reliance on an affidavit filed by Lt. Col. Shri G.S. Randhawa. 6. I have given due consideration to the arguments made by Mr. Dave learned counsel for the accused appellant and the reply submitted by Mr. Soral. In a similar kind of case State of Haryana v. N.C. Tandon (Supra), the supreme Court clearly held that under the Rules of 1965, the Chief Engineer North Western Zone was not competent to remove the accused respondent and the order Sanctioning the prosecution was bad in law. The above authority applies. In all force to the facts of the present case, and directly clinches the issue in question. The affidavit filed by LI. Col 1. Shri G.S. Randhawa only mentions that in the year 1969 when the alleged affence was committed by Shri R.K. Mehta (accused appellant), the authority competent to Remove him was zonal Chief Engineer, It has been further mentioned in the affidavit that the Chief Engineer Zone at that time was delegated with the powers of the Chief Engineer of the command and both were then of the equal rank of Brigadier. The above affidavit does not render any assistance to the respondent and cannot meet objection raised by the accused appellant. No notification on or amendment in the rules of 1965 has been placed on record to show that the Chief Engineer Zone on 18-7-1970, when the sanction in question was given was delegated with the powers of the Chief Engineer of the command. According to the Rules, it was only Chief Engineer, Western Command, Simla who could have given the sanction for prosecution of the appellant. 7. In view of the fact that the sanction for prosecution was not given by the proper authority, need not go into the merits of the case. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by learned Special Judge is set aside. However, it would not preclude a fresh prosecution for the same offence, but it is a matter for the State, in the circumstance of the case, to consider whether prosecution should be launched against the accused appellant or not. The appellant is already on bail and he need not surrender to the bail bonds. The bail bonds are discharged.Appeal Allowed. *******