Judgment The Short point that arises for consideration in these petitions, which are connected, for quashing of proceedings against the petitioners is whether proper sanction for prosecution has not been obtained by the prosecuting agency and hence the charges framed against the petitioners are not sustainable. The petitioners were employed in the Reserve Bank of India as Staff Officers: Grade ‘A’ and drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 2,500. In respect of certain offences alleged to have been committed by them, charge sheets were laid before Court for offences punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 471 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charge-sheets were laid on the basis that sanction for prosecution had been granted by the Manager of the Reserve Bank of India, Madras Branch. 2. Under section 6(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sanction to prosecute the petitioners has to be issued by “the authority competent to remove them from their office”. As per Regulation 47(2) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations 1948, an Officer in Grade ‘A’ can be proceeded with by way of disciplinary action only by an order in writing signed by the Manager. Under Regulation 9, appointment to the post of Officers in Grade ‘A’ (Promoters) and Personal Assistants have to be made by the Chief Manager, subject to the approval of the Governor. As per Regulation 3(b), the term “Governor” means the Governor of the Bank and in relation to any powers exercisable by the Governor includes a Deputy Governor and an Executive Director. On a combined reading of the regulations, it follows that sanction for prosecution of the petitioners should be given by the Chief Manager or the officers placed higher. In the instant case, it is common ground that sanction for prosecution had been given only by the Manager of the Madras Branch of the Reserve Bank of India. On account of that, the petitioners raised a contention that proper sanction had not been obtained and therefore, the charges framed by the Magistrate were not sustainable. 3. In the instant case, it is common ground that sanction for prosecution had been given only by the Manager of the Madras Branch of the Reserve Bank of India. On account of that, the petitioners raised a contention that proper sanction had not been obtained and therefore, the charges framed by the Magistrate were not sustainable. 3. The stand taken by the prosecution was that the Board of Directors of the Reserve Bank of India which is the Supreme Body, had passed a resolution directing the launching of prosecution against the petitioners and, therefore, the order of sanction passed by the Manager of the Madras Branch was only a communication of the sanction already granted by the Board of Directors. 4. During the pendency of these proceedings the C.B.I. has filed a supplemental counter wherein it is stated that sanction for prosecution has been obtained in the case from the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of India who is competent to remove the petitioners accused from service and, therefore, the prosecution is valid and the charges framed against the petitioners are fully sustainable. 5. Mr. Govind Swaminathan, learned Counsel for the petitioners points out that the stand taken by the prosecution in the earlier stages of the case was quite different, there was no mention whatever on the earlier occasions that sanction for prosecution had been granted by the Deputy Governor. Hence the counsel would say that the charges framed on the basis of the earlier sanction given by the Manager of the Madras Branch of the Reserve Bank of India are not sustainable and those charges should be quashed and it would thereafter be open to the prosecution to seek framing of fresh charges on the basis of the sanction said to have been given by the Deputy Governor. 6. In view of the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court in matters like this, I do not think the contention of the petitioners can be accepted. In Habeeb Mohammad v. State of Hyderabad1 it was held that even if sanction had been given after the Judge had taken cognizance of a case, but before the trial had started, the cognizance of the offences taken by the Court will not stand vitiated and the sanction granted subsequently but before the trial had commenced, will regularise the proceedings. In Habeeb Mohammad v. State of Hyderabad1 it was held that even if sanction had been given after the Judge had taken cognizance of a case, but before the trial had started, the cognizance of the offences taken by the Court will not stand vitiated and the sanction granted subsequently but before the trial had commenced, will regularise the proceedings. Similarly in M.K. Gopalan v. State of Madhya Pradesh2, it was held that any lacuna in the granting of sanction can be remedied in the course of the trial by specific evidence in that behalf. Having regard to the ratio laid down in these cases, even if there is any defect in the order of sanction passed earlier, the lacuna will stand rectified by the subsequent sanction given by the Deputy Governor since the trial has not commenced in the case. In view of this position, the petitioner’s request for quashing of proceedings cannot be granted. Consequently, all these petitions will stand dismissed.