JUDGMENT : J.K. Mohanty, J. - The appellant has been convicted under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year by the Special Judge, Vigilance Sambalpur. He has also been found guilty under sections 467 and 477-A, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that while the appellant was employed in the Revenue Department, in the capacity of a public servant i. e. Nazir under the Tahasildar of Bargarh, on 30-8-1975 dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated or otherwise converted for his own use a sum of Rs. 3,000/- entrusted to him. He also forged some receipts and cash book purporting to be a valuable security with intent to fraudulently misappropriate government money. He also falsified the cash book and the receipt book with intent to defraud and misappropriate government money. The appellant took the plea of denial. To prove the case, prosecution examined seven witnesses and defence examined one. The learned Special Judge, after considering the evidence on record, by his judgment dated 10-3-1980 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 3. Mr. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that u/s, 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 5(2) of the said Act alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction. He Submitted that there was no valid sanction for the present prosecution in absence of which the entire prosecution is illegal and the court has no jurisdiction to try the case. He further submitted that if the prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act fails due to want of valid sanction, under section 7(3) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 the Special Judge cannot try the appellant for offences under sections 467 and 477-A, I.P.C. as the trial for these offences would be without jurisdiction. 4. In this case the sanction order dated 22-12-1977, signed by Shri S.B. Misra, the then District Magistrate and Collector, Sambalpur, has been marked as Ext. 19. Ext. 19 on the face of it shows that the Collector has examined the relevant records etc. and accorded sanction. Learned Addl. 4. In this case the sanction order dated 22-12-1977, signed by Shri S.B. Misra, the then District Magistrate and Collector, Sambalpur, has been marked as Ext. 19. Ext. 19 on the face of it shows that the Collector has examined the relevant records etc. and accorded sanction. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the sanction order has been given by the Collector after carefully examining the materials placed before him in regard to the allegations and finding that a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant. He relied on the decisions reported in Sivraj Singh v. Delhi Administration AIR 1968 S.C. 1419 . He further submitted that in this case the accused has admitted that he has temporarily misappropriated a sum of Rs 3,000/- by his letter Ext. 12, the report submitted to the Tahasildar, Bargarh. 5. Mr. Misra, learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the Collector has merely signed on the dotted line without applying his mind as would be evident from the nothings made in the file produced in this case which has been proved by d. w. 1, who was working as U.D.C. at the relevant time. He further submitted that the A.D.M. first put up a note to the Collector (Ext. A) on 30-7-1976 intimating that the appellant has admitted that he has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3,000/- and has deposited the amount within three days of the detection and the S. P. Vigilance has requested for sanction of prosecution. He also mentioned that departmental proceeding was being started against the appellant and draft charges have been framed. On 1-8-1976, the then Collector has passed the following order which has been marked as Ext A/1. " Seen. Inform S. P. (V) that I don't approve his suggestion as I think in this case departmental proceedings would satisfy, which has been initiated. Sd/- 1-8-1976" 6. Subsequently after perusal of the letter of the S.P. Vigilance, the Collector on 1-9-1976 passed the following order. "Perused the letter of S.P. Vigilance. Since he is convinced that this case merits a prosecution as substantial amount of Government money is involved, I had the occasion to go through it again. I am satisfied that the proposal of the S. P. Vigilance is quite sound. Hence approved. Issue the D. O. letter dictated. "Perused the letter of S.P. Vigilance. Since he is convinced that this case merits a prosecution as substantial amount of Government money is involved, I had the occasion to go through it again. I am satisfied that the proposal of the S. P. Vigilance is quite sound. Hence approved. Issue the D. O. letter dictated. I also think that in the judicial court, the delinquent will have sufficient opportunity to defend himself. Sd. S. Bandyopadhyay District Magistrate & Collector, Sambalpur, 1-9-1976. " 7. The subsequent note dated 22-12-1977 of Sri S.B. Misra, the then Collector, Sambalpur which has been marked as Ext. A/3 runs as follows: "S. P. Vigilance has suggested for sanction of prosecution in the proforma enclosed to his letter dated 15-12-1977. My predecessor had already agreed to such sanction. Issue sanction order. Sd/- 22-12-1977" 8. Thus from the above note Ext. A/1 it would be seen that the Collector first of all refused to accept the suggestion of the S.P. Vigilance to accord sanction. No evidence is forthcoming as to what happened there after and what further materials were placed before the Collector. Ext. A/2 shows that the Collector directed to issue the D.O. letter which was dictated by him. But no such letter has been produced by the prosecution. Ext. A/3 shows that the then Collector Sri S.B. Misra issued the sanction order as per the proforma sent by the S. P. Vigilance as his predecessor had already agreed to accord sanction. The only evidence on behalf of the prosecution regarding the saction is of p. w. 6, the Inspector of Vigilance who was investigating into the case. He has stated that he placed all the materials before the Collector, Sambalpur to give sanction order, Ext. 19. 9. Thus from the above it would be seen that the Collector Sri S. B. Misra signed in the sanction order, Ext. 19 as his predecessor had agreed to sanction prosecution as per Ext. A/2. There is nothing on record to come to a finding that in fact Sri S B. Misra, the then Collector applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and issued Ext. 19, the sanction order. Even if it is taken that he has merely signed the sanction order as his predecessor had agreed to do so. A/2. There is nothing on record to come to a finding that in fact Sri S B. Misra, the then Collector applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and issued Ext. 19, the sanction order. Even if it is taken that he has merely signed the sanction order as his predecessor had agreed to do so. the prosecution did not produce any material to show as to what further materials were placed before Sri S. Bandopadhyay, the then Collector, after he refused to sanction prosecution as per his note Ext. A/1 so that he changed his mind and accorded sanction. The D. O. letter stated to have been dictated by the Collector has also not been produced. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, there is no other alternative than to hold that the order of sanction is bad in law and it will be deemed that there has been no sanction for prosecution. In view of the above finding, the conviction of the appellant under section 5(2) read with section 5(1) of the Act II of 1947 cannot be sustained. 10. The next question for consideration is whether the trial of the appellant for committing offences under sections 467 and 477-A, I. P. C. is vitiated as the charge under section 5(2) of the Act is invalid due to want of proper sanction. Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides: " Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session-Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code". 11. This provision completely bars the taking of cognizance of any offence by the Court of Session as a Court of original jurisdiction without commitment in the absence of any express provision to the contrary. Sub-section (1) Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (Act XLVI of 1952) provides : " Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or in any other law the offences specified in sub-section (1) of section 6 shall be triable by Special Judges only." 12. Sub-section (1) Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (Act XLVI of 1952) provides : " Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or in any other law the offences specified in sub-section (1) of section 6 shall be triable by Special Judges only." 12. Sub section (3) of section 7 says that when trying any case, a Special Judge may also try any offence other than an offence specified in Section 6 with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be charged at the same trial. It is under this sub-section the Special Judge, in the present case, charged the appellant for offences under sections 467 and 477-A I. P. C. and proceeded to try him for these offences as well as the offence under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act which, as a Special Judge, he alone can try. So when the trial before the Special Judge in this case relating to the offence under section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act was no trial at all due to want of valid sanction under section 6 of the Act, the Special Judge has no jurisdiction under section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 to try the offences under sections 467 and 477-A I. P. C,. Thus the trial for those offences being without jurisdiction, is null and void. This view is supported by the decisions reported in Ramautar Mahton v. The State AIR 1961 Pat.203. and Republic of India v. Khagendra Jha 52 (1981) C.L.T. 197. 13. I therefore, hold that as the proceeding relating to the offence under section 5(2) of the Act was no trial at all due to absence of valid sanction, the Special Judge had no jurisdiction under section 7(3) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1952 (XLVI of 1952) to try the offences under sections 467 and 477-A I. P. C. The trial for those offences being without jurisdiction is null and void. So the conviction of the appellant under sections 467 and 477-A, I. P. C. cannot be sustained. 14. In the result, therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under sections 5(2) read with section 5(1)(c) of the Act and under sections 467 and 477 A of the Indian Penal Code are set aside. This appeal is allowed, and the appellant is acquitted. Final Result : Allowed