JUDGMENT 1. - By this application under Section 482 Cr. PC the accused challenges the validity of the order dated March 17, 1982 by which the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Binswara took cognizance of the offence under Section 161 Indian Penal Code against him. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I have also gone through the case file. 3. It was contended by Mr. Mathur at the thresh-hold of his arguments that the cognizance of the offence under Section 161 Indian Penal Code cannot be taken against the accused without the requisite sanction under Section 197 Cr. PC or under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. It was argued that the accused was a Veterinary Surgeon holding the gazetted post. Since no sanction was obtained, the action of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence under Section 161 Indian Penal Code is wholly illegal and unsustainable. The contention has considerable force. 4. Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 Fays down in explicit terms that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 161 Indian Penal Code except with the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove the accused from the office. The provisions of Section 6 are imperative and mandatory. No exception can be taken to this statutory provision. Admittedly, no previous sanction was taken to prosecute the accused for an offence under Section 161 Indian Penal Code. As such the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the offence under Section 161 Indian Penal Code, against the accused. The impugned order is, therefore, invalid and cannot be sustained. 5. In the result, this application under Section 482 Cr. PC is allowed and the impugned order dated 17-3-82 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Banswara is set aside.Application allowed. *******