ORDER: The petitioners in the revision and in the miscellaneous petition are the same and they are the accused in Special Case No.4 of 1979 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Chingleput. 2. The case represents a woeful instance of a lethargic prosecution unlawful of the right to a speedy trial and a fair, just and reasonable procedure guaranteed by Art.21 of the Constitution of India violating all principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience. The brief facts which led to the prosecution of the petitioners can be summarised as follows: The first petitioner at the relevant time was a Sanitary Inspector, attached to the Saligram Town Panchayat, within the jurisdiction of Chengalput district. The second petitioner was the reading room attender of the same Panchayat, and was a subordinate of the first petitioner. On 29.3.1978, it is alleged that the first petitioner took a sample of groundnut oil from the shop of one John for analysis which ultimately, on the report of one Public Analyst, was found to be unadulterated, for which no prosecution could be launched. It is in this background that the first petitioner is alleged to have sent for John through the second petitioner on 26.4.1978 at or about 4.00 P.M., and demanded Rs.100 from the said John, it was later reduced to Rs.80 for not launching a prosecution against him. In pursuance of the demand, which is alleged that on 27.4.1978 at about 5.00 P.M., the first petitioner obtained the bribe money, which was however seized on a trap laid by the respondent, from the second petitioner. One year later, the prosecution was initiated by the respondent, by filing the charge before trial Court on 293.1979. The sanction for prosecution Ex.A10 was obtained from the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, Madras-3 to prosecute both the petitioners though at the time of the commission of the offence, he was not the competent authority to remove them from their, respective offices. The docket entries will show that though the accused had been present on several adjourned hearing dates, copies were made ready to be furnished to the petitioners only on 28.2.1980. On 12.3.1980, the accused were questioned and their plea of “not guilty” was recorded. The docket entries will show that though the accused had been present on several adjourned hearing dates, copies were made ready to be furnished to the petitioners only on 28.2.1980. On 12.3.1980, the accused were questioned and their plea of “not guilty” was recorded. Charges under Sec.5(1)(d) read with Sec.5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act were also framed on the same day, and summons were directed to be issued to the witnesses for the hearing in the special case on 17.4.1980. John who was witness No.1 in the charge sheet was absent on 17.4.1980 and continued to be absent till 11.11.1981 in spite of several adjournments to facilitate his production. However, the petitioners were present throughout in Court. On 11.11.1981 the trial Court issued warrant for production of the first witness John. However on 16.12.1981 witness John was not produced but on 20.1.1982 Thiru Karuppiah, the Inspector of Police, represented to the Court that steps were being taken to withdraw the prosecution and prayed for time. The trial Court adjourned the proceedings to 17.2.1982. The same lethargic attitude was exhibited by the prosecution on several subsequent dates, though the trial Court had issued final notice for the production of the witnesses, several times. On 9.6.1982, the Inspector of Police filed a petition before the trial Court that they had addressed the Director for withdrawal of the prosecution and for obtaining of the withdrawal report, the matter was adjourned for several hearings till 22.7.1983. In the meanwhile on 28.7.1982, the Special Judge made an endorsement that the withdrawal report was not obtained and so adjourned the proceedings to 11.3.1982. On 22.7.1983, it was represented on behalf of the prosecution, that the withdrawal proposal was still pending and an adjournment was sought for. The same story repeated itself till 28.9.1984, when the Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Madras requested for further time and instructed his subordinates to cause production of John witness No.1 in the charge sheet for examination. Two more adjournments rolled by without production of witness John. On 18.1.1985 a long adjournment was sought for by the prosecution to produce witness John, necessitating the adjournment of proceedings to 83.1985. Two more adjournments rolled by without production of witness John. On 18.1.1985 a long adjournment was sought for by the prosecution to produce witness John, necessitating the adjournment of proceedings to 83.1985. On 8.3.1985, it was represented by the prosecution, that John cited as P.W.1, was not traceable, since his whereabouts were not known, necessitating the prosecution giving up his examination, and consequentially, prayed for issue of summons to the second witness in the charge sheet On 124.1985, the next adjourned date, P.W.1 (Arunothayam) the second witness in the charge sheet, was examined as a witness for demand. However, he did not support the prosecution and was treated hostile. On 3.5.1985, the Local Health Authority was examined as P.W.2, but his version did not connect the accused with the offence for which they were being prosecuted. On 25.9.1985, the Public Analyst was examined as P.W.3 and his report was marked as Ex.P2. On the same day, one Aserath, a subordinate in the offence of the Local Health Authority, was examined to speak about the receipt of the Analyst report on a particular date in April, 1978, and his placing it on the table of A1, when the first petitioner was not available. According to him, he placed the Tapals on the table of the first petitioner and returned. On 3.12.1985 the Executive Officer of Saligramam Town Panchayat was examined and he had deposed about the first petitioner having gone to the Court at Poonamallee on 26.4.1978 in respect of a prosecution instituted by him. On the same day, Thiru Thanikachalam, a witness for the trap was examined. Though in chief examination he had stated that he had seen witness John paying Rs.80 to the first petitioner, it has been brought out on record that he had not so stated during investigation. On 18.12.1985, P.W.7, an assistant in the Madras Corporation was examined to prove Ex.P10 the sanction order issued for prosecution of the petitioners. He has categorically admitted that on the date of offence, Saligramam Town Panchayat was within the jurisdiction of Chingleput District, though later on it was brought under the jurisdiction of the Madras Corporation. His further admission is that no record was sent from the Commissioner of Chengalput Municipality to the Commissioner of the Madras Corporation. He has categorically admitted that on the date of offence, Saligramam Town Panchayat was within the jurisdiction of Chingleput District, though later on it was brought under the jurisdiction of the Madras Corporation. His further admission is that no record was sent from the Commissioner of Chengalput Municipality to the Commissioner of the Madras Corporation. He has also definitely stated that he was not the concerned clerk when the papers for sanction were processed at the Madras Corporation. On 1.7.1986, P.W.8, the retired A.S.P. and the Inspector of Police P.W.9 were examined and cross examined as well by the accused. It has to be stated at this juncture that in between the examination of the prosecution witnesses, several adjournments were granted at the request of the prosecution. There have been totally 93 hearing dates in this prosecution, spread over 7 years after two more adjournments on 23.7.1986, and 6.8.1986, on 3.9.1986, the prosecution produced John, who has been cited as P.W.1, as well as P.Ws.10 and 14 in the charge sheet. Examination of John at such a belated stage after the cross-examination of all the witnesses, inclusive of two investigating officers, contrary to the earlier stand was objected to. After hearing arguments on the objection petition, the trial Court acceded to the prayer of the prosecution to examine P.W.1 and adjourned further proceedings to 8.10.1986. In the meanwhile, the petitioners preferred Crl.R.C.No.588 of 1986 and obtained stay of further proceedings in the trial Court. Later on the petitioners filed Crl.M.P.No.9664 of 1988 to quash the entire proceedings pending in the trial Court. The grounds of challenge in both these petitions are the same. 3. Thiru G. Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution in effect had dispensed with the examination of John, the first witness in the charge sheet, in acceptance of which the trial Court had summoned other witnesses, creating a bona fide belief in the minds of the petitioners as well, that P.W.1 had been dispensed with, but for which impression they could have objected to the examination of other witnesses without examination of John the first witness. To affirm such a stand, the prosecution had also taken several adjournments in the guise of withdrawal of the prosecution and ultimately sprang a surprise when the prosecution evidence was virtually closed, by producing John nearly six years after the filing of the final report. To affirm such a stand, the prosecution had also taken several adjournments in the guise of withdrawal of the prosecution and ultimately sprang a surprise when the prosecution evidence was virtually closed, by producing John nearly six years after the filing of the final report. This procedure adopted by the prosecution, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, has not only caused prejudice to the case of the petitioners but has resulted in grave hardship as well. The prosecution was trying to fill in the lacuna belatedly and this should not have been allowed by the trial Court. The concept of speedy trial and fair procedure not having been adhered to the facts of this case portray denial of justice. He also challenged Ex.P10, the sanction for prosecution as invalid, since, it had been given by an authority not entitled to remove the petitioners from service at the time when the offence was committed and further P.W.7, the witness for sanction had no knowledge at all about the proceedings, since he did not handle the files and had only identified the signature of the sanctioning authority. Hence, his version can have no probative value. 4. Mr. T. Muniratnam Naidu, learned Government Advocate, contended that the prosecution had not dispensed with the examination of P.W.1, though they were not able to procure him earlier and there was nothing wrong in his being sought to be put in the witness box, when the prosecution was able to fetch him. 5. I am unable to accede the contention of the learned Government Advocate. The docket entries I had extracted earlier, indisputably indicate that not only the prosecution had virtually dispensed with the examination of John and asked for summoning of other witnesses, though they did not specifically make such a plea in writing but also by their subsequent conduct in having taken several adjournments spread over a few months for withdrawal of the prosecution, had taken one more step in that direction, confirming, dispensing with the evidence of John. Whatever it might be, it cannot be gainsaid that the petitioners could have been under a bona fide impression that the prosecution had dispensed with the examination of John, when they put the other witnesses in the box. Whatever it might be, it cannot be gainsaid that the petitioners could have been under a bona fide impression that the prosecution had dispensed with the examination of John, when they put the other witnesses in the box. The petitioners have a right to request the Court to defer cross examination of other witnesses till John was examined, if the prosecution had at any time given even an inkling of an idea that they proposed to examine John sometime or the other before the conclusion of the prosecution. The fact remains that all the witnesses have been cross-examined including two of the Investigating Officers what remains is the examination of a formal witness who had filed the charge-sheet in this case. The examination of John, at this stage would certainly prejudice the defence of the petitioners. The defence has already been exposed hi the cross-examination of other witnesses and it will be easy for the prosecution to fill up the lacuna at this stage. 6. In the circumstances narrated by me, earlier in this judgment, the petitioners must be held to be seriously prejudiced in their defence and deeply deprived of a reasonable opportunity in the conduct of a fair trial, in view of the inordinate and inexcusable delay in the production of John. The procedure adopted by the prosecution would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice and the prosecution has to be necessarily struck down. The lethargic attitude of the prosecuting agency creating an impression in the minds of the petitioners as well as the Court that John was being dispensed with and the prosecution was also to be withdrawn is, to say the least, most unfortunate. The interests of justice to my mind do not require the proceedings to be continued against the petitioners, especially in the light of the ineptitude of prosecution. The fundamental right to have a fair and reasonable procedure and a speedy trial is so sacrosanct that the accused need not have to wait in cases of gross and inordinate delay in the trial Court to invoke the claim that the trial should be halted in its tracks because, his constitutional right stands plainly infracted. It is to be so held, for otherwise the cherished fundamental right would whittle down to a teasing mirage rendering the very concept and purpose of a speedy trial and fair procedure purely illusory. It is to be so held, for otherwise the cherished fundamental right would whittle down to a teasing mirage rendering the very concept and purpose of a speedy trial and fair procedure purely illusory. On this sole ground of eight year belated trial, with enough prejudice to the petitioners obviously patent and more so in the light of the attitude exhibited by the prosecution, the proceedings in Special Case No.4 of 1979 are liable to be quashed. 7. Even on the question of sanction, the prosecution is not maintainable. In R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 684 the Supreme Court has authoritatively enunciated that sanction to prosecute must be by an authority competent to remove the accused from the office, allegedly misused or abused, for the authority entitled to grant sanction, which is not as idle formality but a solemn act, must apply his mind to the facts of the case, evidence collected and other incidential facts before according sanction. That is why the legislature clearly provided that authority alone who would be competent to remove the public servant from the office will be entitled to accord sanction. The evidence of P.W.7 factually Ex.P10 and it having been made by an authority not competent to remove the petitioners from service at the time when the offence was committed, excludes it is law, as well. 8. Both the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are upheld and the proceedings in Special Case No.4 of 1979 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chingleput are quashed. These petitions are allowed. B.S. ----- Petitions allowed.