JUDGMENT T.R. Handa, J.—The Special Judge, Mandi, vide his judgment dated 30-4-1981 convicted the present appellant under Section 5 (1) (c) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200. Vide the same judgment the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 420 and 468 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100 on each count. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has approached this Court in appeal under Section 374, Cr. P.C. 2. The charge under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Act of which the appellant was convicted was founded on the allegations that the appellant in his capacity as a public servant while posted as Accounts Clerk in the Hydle Investigation Division No. III, Mandi and in such capacity entrusted with Rs. 213.95 pertaining to the T.A. Bill of Shri I.D. Gupta, Overseer, had on 23rd October, 1969 dishonestly and fraudulently mis-appropriated or otherwise-converted to his own use the proceeds of the said T.A. Bill. The charge under Section 420, I.P.C. was founded on the allegations that on or about the same time and place, the appellant had cheated the Executive Engineer, Hydle Investigation Division No III, by dishonestly inducing him to deliver Rs, 213.95 to the appellant and which was the property of the said Executive Engineer. The third charge under Section 468, I.P.C. was founded on the allegations that the appellant had on or about aforesaid date and place forged an entry in the bill register of his office showing that the T.A. bill of Rs. 213.95 had been returned by the Treasury Officer with some objection though the amount of that T.A. bill had actually been encashed by the appellant. 3. Further details of the facts leading to the prosecution and conviction of the appellant need not be mentioned as in my opinion this appeal must succeed on a short point of law as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. 3. Further details of the facts leading to the prosecution and conviction of the appellant need not be mentioned as in my opinion this appeal must succeed on a short point of law as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. The point of law raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the entire trial as also the conviction of the appellant is bad for want of a valid sanction under Section 6 of the Act which was a pre-requisite for the prosecution of the appellant. It is by now well settled that in the absence of a valid sanction under Section 6 of the Act, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio and any conviction recorded in such proceedings would be without jurisdiction and a nullity. The point, therefore, which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and which calls for consideration is whether there was any valid sanction accorded by the competent authority in the instant case for the prosecution of the appellant. 5. According to the prosecution, the sanction for prosecution of the appellant had been accorded by the Chief Engineer (Projects) H.P.S.E.B. who was the authority competent to remove the appellant. This sanction accorded by the Chief Engineer and relied upon by the prosecution is found at Ex. PW 12/A. This sanction order Ex. PW 12/A was proved on the record by Shri R.L. Kalia, an Upper Division Clerk of the office of the Chief Engineer who appeared as PW-12 and who claimed to identify the signatures of Shri S.R. Shah, the then Chief Engineer, on this office order. The Chief Engineer, who accorded this sanction, however, was not examined. Nor is there any other independent evidence on the record to show as to in what circumstances and on what considerations the Chief Engineer accorded sanction for the prosecution of the appellant. I am tempted to reproduce the language of this so called sanction order Ex. PW 12/A. "HIMACHAL PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD (Confidential) OFFICE ORDER Whereas it is alleged that Sh. Beharl Lal Gupta, Accounts Clerks (now Head Clerk) while functioning as Accounts Clerk on or about (1) 1969/12/71. And whereas the said acts constitute an offence/offences punishable under section/sections. Case F.I.R. No. 215/73 under Section 4CW/120-B and 5 (2) P.C. Act, 1947 against Sh. PW 12/A. "HIMACHAL PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD (Confidential) OFFICE ORDER Whereas it is alleged that Sh. Beharl Lal Gupta, Accounts Clerks (now Head Clerk) while functioning as Accounts Clerk on or about (1) 1969/12/71. And whereas the said acts constitute an offence/offences punishable under section/sections. Case F.I.R. No. 215/73 under Section 4CW/120-B and 5 (2) P.C. Act, 1947 against Sh. Behari Lai Gupta, Accounts Clerk (Now Head Clerk) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860) Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (i). Case F.I.R. No. 215/73 under Section 409/120-B and 5 (2) P.C. Act, 1947 against Sh. Behari Lal Gupta, Accounts Clerk (Now Head Clerk). Of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947) and whereas, I.S.R. Shah, Chief Engineer (Projects) H.P.S.E.B., Shimla-171004, being the authority competent to remove the said Sh. Behari Lal Gupta, Accounts Clerk (now Head Clerk) from Office, after fully and carefully examining the material before me in regard to the said allegations and the circumstances of the case consider that the said Sh. Behari Lal Gupta, Accounts Clerk (now Head Clerk) should be prosecuted in a Court of law for the said offences. Now, therefore, I do hereby accord sanction under 6 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947) for the prosecution of the said Sh. Behari Lal Gupta for the said offence/ offences and any other offences punishable under other provisions of the Law In respect of the acts aforesaid and for the taking of cognizance of the said offences by a court of competent jurisdiction. This is in supersession of this office order endorsement No CEP-75-38/78-2682-84 dated 3-3-1979. Sd/-(S.R. Shah) Chief Engineer (Projects), HPSEB, Dogra Lodge, Shimla-4, H.P................" 6. A perusal of this office order and especially the first five paragraphs thereof would show that the language employed in this order is not only meaningless but also absurd and ridiculous. It only shows that this draft was prepared by some raw and un-intelligent hand. The mere fact that the Chief Engineer signed such a draft is sufficient to justify the conclusion that he affixed his signatures on this order without caring to read the language of this office order muchless to apply his mind to the facts stated therein. It only shows that this draft was prepared by some raw and un-intelligent hand. The mere fact that the Chief Engineer signed such a draft is sufficient to justify the conclusion that he affixed his signatures on this order without caring to read the language of this office order muchless to apply his mind to the facts stated therein. This sanction order in these circurn stances cannot be interpreted to be the order made by the Chief Engineer" Taking the prosecution case at its face value, all that can be said is that the Chief Engineer while passing this order had fully and carefully examined the material before him in regard to the allegations and the circumstances of the case. There is, however, nothing either in this office order or independent of it, on the record to show as to what exactly was the material placed before the Chief Engineer and on a consideration of which he accorded sanction for the prosecution of the appellant. On the other hand, the language of this order shows that the relevant facts pertaining to this case were not available when this order was prepared and signed. It is obvious that the language of this order Ex. PW 12/A was copied from some other sanction order The relevant facts constituting the offence were required to be stated in the first paragraph and referred to in the second paragraph There is, however, no mention of such facts in the first paragraph though a reference is made in the second paragraph by using the words "the said acts". It clearly reflects that the relevant facts were not before the authority which prepared and signed this order. 7. A sanction for the prosecution of a public servant within the contemplation of Section 6 of the Act is certainly not an idle formality. It is intended to provide a safeguard to the public servants against frivolous and vexatious prosecutions in respect of their official acts This safeguard has been provided by enjoining a duty on persons in authority to consider for themselves not only the allegations made against the public servant but also the evidence from which such allegations are sought to be substantiated before taking a decision whether to accord or to withhold sanction for prosecution. The very object behind this sanction would certainly be defeated in case the sanctions are recorded or with-held in a mechanical manner. The prosecution, therefore in order to show that the sanction accorded in a particular case is a valid sanction in the eyes of law, must prove that the Sanctioning Authority had satisfied itself that a case for sanction had actually been made out As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v State of Andhra Pradesh, [AIR 1979 SC 677], this can be done by the prosecution in two ways ; either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show the facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. In the instant case, as observed earlier, the so called sanction order Ex. PW 12/A does not show as to on what material the Sanctioning Authority satisfied itself that a case for sanction was made out and independent of the sanction order no other evidence has been adduced to prove this fact. This sanction order is, therefore, bad in law. The prosecution of the appellant, therefore, being without a valid sanction within the contemplation of the Section 6 of the Act, the entire trial including the conviction and sentence as recorded against the appellant is void ab initio. His conviction, therefore, cannot be sustained. With these remarks I accept this appeal and quash the conviction and sentence as recorded against the appellant by the learned Special Judge. The appellant being on bail, his bail bond and surety bond are cancelled. The amount of fine, if already recovered from the appellant be refunded to him. Appeal allowed.