Judgment :- 1. In this Original Petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: i) call for the records leading to Ext. P5 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order; ii) issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 1st respondent to accord sanction under S.197(1) of the Code of Crl. P. C. to prosecute the 2nd respondent; iii) issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Ext. P5 is an order by which the 1st respondent, the State of Kerala, has rejected the application of the petitioner evidenced by Ext, P4 for sanction under S.197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to prosecute the 2nd respondent for the offence falling either under S.420 or S.409, Indian Penal Code. 3. The materials now placed before me, according to me, are not sufficient to prove the offences falling either under S.409 or 420 I.P.C. 4. The press statements said to have been made by the 2nd respondent, admittedly were made at a time when he was having an invitation from the Government of Canada. When he made such statements, he would have been under the belief that since he was invited by the Government of Canada, his expenses for the trip to Canada also would be met by that Government. Perhaps when he realised that the said Government was not meeting the expenses, he might have decided to draw the requisite fund from the Electricity Board. In this connection, it is relevant to note that admittedly the 2nd respondent visited Canada only to discuss certain schemes which the Board was expecting to have in collaboration with the said Government. For the reasons stated above (see para 3 above) the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the 1st respondent went wrong in not giving the sanction to prosecute the 2nd respondent is rejected. 5. The question, however, would arise, is it mandatory that the Government should grant the sanction, the moment the petition or an application is filed by an aggrieved person in that regard. S.197 in fact confers an absolute discretion on the Government either to grant or withhold the sanction. 5. The question, however, would arise, is it mandatory that the Government should grant the sanction, the moment the petition or an application is filed by an aggrieved person in that regard. S.197 in fact confers an absolute discretion on the Government either to grant or withhold the sanction. It is not mandatory that sanction must be granted even if the materials placed before the Government do establish an offence. The Government can refuse sanction on any ground which commends itself to them, for example, "on political or economic grounds they regard a prosecution as inexpedient", (vide AIR 1948 P. C. 82). 6. The sanction to prosecute is a very serious and important matter. It is a condition precedent to institute a prosecution. The policy of S.197 is that no public servant shall be harassed unnecessarily. The Government therefore can refuse sanction even if the materials placed before them do prima facie establish an offence. I am fortified in this view by a decision of the Federal Court reported in A.I.R. 1945 F.C. 16. The Federal Court has held thus: "The clause in question was obviously enacted for the purpose of protecting the citizen, and in order to give the Provincial Government in every case a proper opportunity of considering whether a prosecution should in the circumstances of each particular case be instituted at all. Such a clause, even when it may appear that a technical offence has been committed, enables the Provincial Government, if in a particular case it so thinks fit, to forbid any prosecution. The sanction is not intended to be and should not be an automatic formality and should not so be regarded either by police or officials." 7. Such a clause, even when it may appear that a technical offence has been committed, enables the Provincial Government, if in a particular case it so thinks fit, to forbid any prosecution. The sanction is not intended to be and should not be an automatic formality and should not so be regarded either by police or officials." 7. The Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1958 S.C 124, has noted the above observations of the Federal Court and the Privy Council and has stated thus: "The sanction under the Act is not intended to be nor is an automatic formality and it is essential that the provisions in regard to sanction should be observed with complete strictness: (Basdeo Agarwala v. Emperor, 1945 FCR 93 at p.98; (AIR 1945 PC 16 at p.18)(A).) The object of the provision for sanctions is that the authority giving the sanction should be able to consider for itself the evidence before it comes to a conclusion that the prosecution in the circumstances be sanctioned or forbidden." It is seen from the impugned order that only after considering all the circumstances of the case, the sanctioning authority refused to sanction the prosecution. 8. As already noticed the materials placed before this Court are not sufficient to come to even a prima facie conclusion that the 2nd respondent has committed an offence and if that be so the O.P. is not sustainbale in law. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. Issue carbon copies on usual terms.