ORDER Ram Pal Singh, J. l. This petition under section 482 Cr. P.C, has been filed by the petitioner, against the non-applicants with a pr aver that the sanction accorded by the Sanctioning Authority i.e. Document No 11, be quashed and the prosecution of the petitioner pending in the Court of Special Judge, Bhopal be also quashed. The non applicants i.e. the Stale of M.P. through the Secretary, Separate Revenue Department vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal and the Special Police Establishment through Director General Lok Ayukta Karyalaya, Bhopal have filed their return and reply along with documents through Shri Shankarlal Saxena Dy. Adv. General. 2. The petitioner who entered into the service of the Excise Department in 1962, as District Excise Officer, according to the petitioner was promoted and was working at the time of the incident as Excise Commissioner, M.P. According to the petitioner, the post of Excise Commissioner was already held traditionally by the officers of the IAS cadre. But in view of the report of the Estimate Committee of the M.P. Legislative Assembly of the year 1974-75, it was recommended that the Excise Department is of technical nature and the Head of the Department of the Excise should be a departmental officer. In view of this recommendation, according to the petitioner, and in recognition of his continuous meritorious service and exceptional ability, the petitioner was promoted as Excise Commissioner of the State by order dated 8-6-84. He contends that the lobby of the IAS officers got annoyed, because the petitioner was departmentally promoted to the helm post of the Excise Department, which was traditionally being occupied by officers of the IAS cadre. The petitioner by document Nos. 1 & 2 wants to say that his work as Excise Commissioner was much appreciated for raising the revenue of the State, by the Finance Secretary and the other Government agencies. He also contends that on 2-12-1984, an unfortunate tragedy struck the Bhopal city which was subsequently known as Bhopal Gas Tragedy. MIC gas leaked from the Carbide Factory, crippled a major section of the population, resulting in death, mutilation and large number of public suffered. 3. The State of M.P. through T.V., Press and other media solicited for general contribution of funds to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. MIC gas leaked from the Carbide Factory, crippled a major section of the population, resulting in death, mutilation and large number of public suffered. 3. The State of M.P. through T.V., Press and other media solicited for general contribution of funds to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. According to the petitioner, the Heads of the Government Departments including the petitioner were directed with an appeal to this effect and he filed in proof of this document No.3. The petitioner in response to this appeal for collecting generous contribution to the Gas tragedy victims, c9ntributed an amount of Rs.43 904/- and presented it to the Chief Minister's Relief fund on 15-3-1985. In response to another appeal made on 10-6-1985, through Doc. No.4 he further collected an amount of Rs.2,020/- and deposited it in the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. According to the petitioner, the Secretary of the Chief Minister's Relief Fund further directed the petitioner for collection of more contribution to that relief fund. According to the petitioner, he made a passionate appeal to the persons of distilleries, were merchants and other persons of Gwalior who contributed an amount of Rs.19,000/-. The petitioner himself contributed an amount of Rs.1000/- and thus, collected Rs.20,000/- for the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. The petitioner handed over this amount in a packet to the District Excise Officer, Bhopal with a direction to send the packet to the Under Secretary for depositing it in the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. The said packet containing Rs.20,000/- was received by the said Under Secretary, Shri Vijay Pal Singh on 27 6-1985 who in turn handed over this amount to the then Secretary on 28-6-1985 with a letter that this amount be deposited in the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. The Secretary then took it to the Secretary to the Chief Minister where this amount was handed over to the Section Officer. When the petitioner did not get receipt for this amount, he sent a demi-official letter on 1-7-1985, a copy of which is Document No.5. But his demand was not met and he was not issued receipt for that amount. 4. On the other hand, the Secretary made a complaint against the petitioner which was forwarded to the Chief Secretary. This complaint was sent to the non-applicant No.2 where it was registered as the First Information Report No. 60 of 1985 under section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. On the other hand, the Secretary made a complaint against the petitioner which was forwarded to the Chief Secretary. This complaint was sent to the non-applicant No.2 where it was registered as the First Information Report No. 60 of 1985 under section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code. A copy of this first information-report is Document No.6 Investigation was carried on and during the investigation, statements of Sarvshri M.B. Bhatharia, Brig. M.M. Chopra, Shri Kanchan, Shri Mahendra Chandra Sharma, Shri Laxminarayan and another were recorded. Copies of their statements are available. These witnesses have filed affidavits also. On perusal of these affidavits, according to them, the amount was contributed towards the Chief Minister's Relief Fund without any hope of reward, favour or consideration. These affidavits are Document No.7. During investigation, one Vijay Pal Singh, Under Secretary to the Government of M.P., Bhopal was also examined and according to him, the money was handed over by the District Excise Officer which was forwarded to the Under Secretary for depositing in the Chief Minister's Relief Fund through Department. The affiidavit of Vijay Pal Singh is Document No.8 5. When offence was registered against the petitioner before the non-applicant No.2 for prosecuting him under section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code, then the petitioner filed writ petition under Arts, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench of this Court, while dismissing that writ petition made the following observation which is being quoted for convenience: "The petitioner has approached this Court after full investigation has taken place and what remains to be done is the granting of sanction to prosecute the petitioner on the basis of the material collected during investigation. The authority granting sanction to prosecute has to apply its mind to all material laid before it to reach a conclusion whether sanction be granted or withheld to prosecute. We are sure that this function the concerned authority shall discharge carefully and without any bias and with advertence to the relevant law in that behalf. The petitioner shall always be at liberty at appropriate stage to question the propriety or legality of the sanction if granted to prosecute the petitioner. We are also of the opinion that when the challan is filed petitioner shall be entitled to contend that the material collected by the prosecution and produced before the Court makes out no offence against him." 6. We are also of the opinion that when the challan is filed petitioner shall be entitled to contend that the material collected by the prosecution and produced before the Court makes out no offence against him." 6. After the said order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 29-10-1987, the petitioner approached the Government with a player that before the sanction for petitioner's prosecution is accorded, he should be personally heard But according to him this opportunity was not given to him. Sanction was accorded for petitioner's prosecution and the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Bhopal imp-leading the petitioner and Vijay Pal Singh as accused. The petitioner, thus, prays for quashing the sanction as well as the prosecution pending before the Court of Special Judge, Bhopal by this petition. The petitioner also filed a petition before the Supreme Court of India Cr. A. No. 659 of 1987. An interim order was also passed by that Court in favour of the petitioner. 7. All the documents filed by the petitioner were perused including the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner. The non-applicants have filed their counter-reply containing the above and affidavit to repeal the contentions forwarded by the petitioner. This petition is supported by an affidavit filed by the petitioner containing the above noted facts. 8. The sanction accorded by the non-applicants for prosecution of the petitioner under section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code is Document No. 11. This is the document by which the sanction to prosecute the petitioner under section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code has been accorded by Shri G.N. Buch, Chief Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Prathak Agam Vibhag. On perusal of para 5 of this sanction, the sanctioning authority has mentioned that after considering all the facts seriously, it becomes apparent that the petitioner tried to send an amount of Rs.20,000/-to Shri Arun Kumar in an illegal manner. Hence, prima fade a case against the petitioner under section 165-A of the IPC is made out. Hence sanction is accorded under sections 197-B of the Cr. P.C. and under section 6 (1) B of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, to prosecute the petitioner and Vijay Pal Singh. Hence, prima fade a case against the petitioner under section 165-A of the IPC is made out. Hence sanction is accorded under sections 197-B of the Cr. P.C. and under section 6 (1) B of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, to prosecute the petitioner and Vijay Pal Singh. On perusal of this document of sanction it also appears that it contains the fact in para 3 that Vijay Pal Singh informed Arun Kumar that the amount of Rs.20,000/- has been handed over by a party of Delhi for the acceptance of his tender. In view of this fact the affidavit filed by Vijay Pal Singh was perused. It is document No.8. Vijay Pal Singh in this affidavit has clearly denied having made this statement to Arun Kumar. The sum and substance of this affidavit is that this amount of Rs.20,000/- was handed over by the petitioner for Chief Minister's Relief Fund. 9. The fact that the amount of Rs.20,000/- was handed over to the higher authority of the State of M.P. by the petitioner is not denied. It is, therefore, to be seen whether the act of the petitioner is covered by section 165-A of the IPC or not. For convenience, the said section is being reproduced ;- "Sec. 165-A- Whoever abets any offence punishable under section 161 or section 165, whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of the abetment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” What this section says is that any person who abets any offence punishable under section 161 or section 165 of the Penal Code whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of the abetment, shall be punished. Offence of abetment is defined in section 107. It is an abetment of thing, which a person abets the doing of a thing and instigate any person to do that thing. Offence of abetment is defined in section 107. It is an abetment of thing, which a person abets the doing of a thing and instigate any person to do that thing. A person who engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that things, if an act or illegal omission In pursuant of that conspiracy and in order to doing of that thing, whether that person intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing whether a person who by willful misrepresentation or by willful concealment of material facts which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes of procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Thus, abetment under the Penal Code involves active comlicity on the part of the abettor at the point of time prior to actual commission of the offence and it is the essence of the crime of abetment. On closer examination, it appears that there is no principal culprit in this case. Furthermore the question arises as to whether the petitioner was abetting the commission of crime punishable under section 161 or section 165 of the IPC or not. Under section 161 of the IPC, a public servant taking gratification, other than legal remuneration in respect of official act is punished while under section 165 of the IPC, a public servant obtaining valuable thing without consideration from the person concerned in proceeding or business transacted by such public servant is punished. 10. Thus. keeping in view the provisions of section 165-A of the IPC as to whether the applicant/petitioner abetted any other person who was a public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act or the public servant obtaining valuable thing or without consideration from person or persons concerned in proceeding or business transacted by such public servant, if the petitioner abetted such public servant, then that public servant will be the principal offender. If there is no principal offender or other persons, when the petitioner cannot be said to have entered into any criminal conspiracy with them or have facilitated or abetted the crime. If there is no principal offender or other persons, when the petitioner cannot be said to have entered into any criminal conspiracy with them or have facilitated or abetted the crime. Unless the petitioner abets any offence punishable under section 161 or section 165 of the IPC, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any crime punishable under section 165-A of the IPC. Furthermore, the abetment can be done only when a crime is to be committed in consequence of that abetment in the facts and circumstances of the case neither there is a main offender, who is a public servant as defined in sec. 161 and sec. 165 of the IPC nor there can be any abettor of the crime unless there is a principal offender. 11. In view of this discussion, one has to conclude that prima facie on consideration of all the facts cumulatively, the main ingredients of section 165-A of the IPC are completely absent. If we consider the facts contained in the statement of Vijya Pal Singh, the then Under Secretary as the principal offender, then it has to be shown in the sanction (Document No.11) that that principal offender Vijay Pal Singh, the then Under Secretary, was committing any offence punishable under section 161 and section 165 of the IPC. In para 5 of the sanction to prosecute it is stated by the sanctioning authority that Vijay Pal Singh fully abetted the petitioner in commission of the crime. Two accused who are to be prosecuted can neither abet each other nor they can be said to be the principal offenders. If both are abettors then there has to be a principal offender, a public servant, as described in sec 161 and sec. 165 of the IPC. The sanction has been accorded by the sanctioning authority to prosecute the petitioner and also Vijay Pal Singh, the then Under Secretary under section 165-A of the IPC. As observed earlier. when in para 5 of the sanction, the then Under Secretary Vijya Pal Singh is described as one of the abettors of the commission of the crime along with the petitioner then the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence punishable under section 165-A of the IPC. As observed earlier. when in para 5 of the sanction, the then Under Secretary Vijya Pal Singh is described as one of the abettors of the commission of the crime along with the petitioner then the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence punishable under section 165-A of the IPC. The conflicting stand taken by the sanctioning authority appears to be completely confused with regard to the nature of the crime either allegedly committed by the petitioner or by that Vijay Pal Singh. The abetment as described under section 165-A of the IPC can be applied only when the offence under section 161 of the IPC and section 165 of the IPC is alleged to have been committed, or, is alleged to have been conspired to be committed. 12. Why a provision has been incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure or Prevention of Corruption Act to accord the sanction? It is only to safeguard the interest of the government servant to save him from harassment of unnecessary prosecution and that is why it is desired in law that great care should be taken when the sanction is accorded for the prosecution of a public servant so that the public servant may not be prosecuted frivolously or lightly for any crime committed during the discharge of his duties. Undoubtedly, it is further to be seen as observed in Anil Kumar Bose [ AIR 1974 SC 1560 ] that requisite mens rea has also to be established against the accused if any crime is alleged to have been committed by him. If it is an error of judgment or breach of performance of duty or over zealousness to please superiors or to perform any such act which may be called to be of humanitarian nature, then it could not be equated with dishonest intention or abetment as defined in section 165-A of the I.P.C. It is settled that as a general rule, the Courts can be set in motion by any person having knowledge of the commission of the offence. The object behind the provision of sanction for prosecution of a public servant is, that it should be accorded after due consideration by appropriate authority so that frivolous and needless prosecutions are avoided. The object behind the provision of sanction for prosecution of a public servant is, that it should be accorded after due consideration by appropriate authority so that frivolous and needless prosecutions are avoided. Sanction, therefore, must be expressed with sufficient particularity to indicate clearly the matter which is to be the subject of proceeding and it should be apparent from the order of sanction that the authority has applied its mind to the facts constituting the offence. Vexatious proceeding against a public servant should not be permitted to be launched. A public servant, especially executive officers, have to perform varried acts in a democracy and that is why the sanctity of a sanction for their prosecution must be preserved. Sometimes the alleged acts of omission and commission are so integrally connected with the duties attached to the office that it becomes difficult to determine the intention of the alleged crime and here the responsibility of the Sanctioning authority becomes Himalayan. 13. On perusal of the sanction, which I closely examined to find out whether it discloses any alleged commission of the cognizable offence against the petitioner or not. As stated earlier, the application of section 165-A of the IPC will be against law until and unless the abetment is of a crime punishable under section 161 or sec. 165 of the IPC. As observed earlier the ingredients of sections 161 and 16S of the IPC are completely lacking in this case. In such a situation, in my view, the ingredients of section 165-A of the IPC have not been brought out. Thus, the sanction accorded for the prosecution of the petitioner is definitely not based upon law. It is expected of the sanctioning authority that before the sanction is accorded, great care should be taken by him to find out whether the sufficient material for getting the accused convicted is present on record or not it has also to be seen that the sanctioning authority does not act in a malafide manner. It is further to be seen at the time of granting the sanction that it should not be based upon frivolous and inconsequential facts. It is further to be seen at the time of granting the sanction that it should not be based upon frivolous and inconsequential facts. This sanction, in my opinion, accorded to prosecute the petitioner under section 165-A of the IPC is completely against the provisions and soul and spirit of law on perusal of the charge-sheet, the documents and statements of the prosecution witnesses, it can safely be concluded that no conviction is possible. If the police case diary statements, of Narendra Singh N.B. Lobani, Arun Kumar and Brahma Swaroop are perused. 14. Narendra Singh, District Excise Officer, Bhopal has only Staten that the petitioner handed over to him a closed envelope to be handed over to Shri Vijay Pal Singh the Under Secretary, Prathak Agam Vibhag. Shri N.B. Lohani, Secretary to Chief Minister has stated that Shri Arun Kumar Secretary Prathak Agam Vibhag came to him and asked whether funds are required for Chief Minister's Relief Fund and he replied to him that funds are always welcome for relief purposes. Upon this, Shri Arun Kumar replied that he wants to deposit Rs.20,000/- in the Chief Minister's Relief Fund because the petitioner has sent Rs.20,0001-for that purpose. In this second statement dated 12-7-1985 he further states that Shri Arun Kumar bad not mentioned to him that the amount sent was for the work of Delhi Party. This witness was examined four times on 3-7-1985, 12-7-1985,20-8-1985 and 22-8-1985. But all his statements are not only vague but they also strengthen the case of the petitioner. Another important witness of the prosecution Shri Arun Kumar, Secretary, Prathak Agam Vibhag virtually strengthens the defence of the petitioner that he had collected the amount for Prime Minister's Relief Fund. In his statement dated 2-7-1985, Shri Arun Kumar says that the petitioner came to him and said that there is misunderstanding on the part of the administration and he has collected the money for Chief Minister's Relief Fund. According to him, the petitioner placed before him a file containing the letters of the doners who had contributed the amount towards Chief Minister's Relief Fund. This witness was also examined on 2-7-1985, 3-7-1985, 22-7-1985 and 16-8-1985. Nothing substantial in favour of the prosecution was stated by him in these statements. On the contrary, his statements strengthen the petitioner's version. Another witness is Shri Brahma Swaroop, Chief Secretary. His statements were also recorded on sevelal dates. This witness was also examined on 2-7-1985, 3-7-1985, 22-7-1985 and 16-8-1985. Nothing substantial in favour of the prosecution was stated by him in these statements. On the contrary, his statements strengthen the petitioner's version. Another witness is Shri Brahma Swaroop, Chief Secretary. His statements were also recorded on sevelal dates. All his statements are not only frivolous and vague but also do not point any criminality on the part of the petitioner. If entire charge-sheet of the prosecution is digested then no admissible and cogent evidence can be gathered to convict the applicant/petitioner. Entire prosecution story smacks of only suspicion and no prima facie case can be made out in a Court of Law, against the petitioner to convict him. 15. If on perusal of the record, the offence is disclosed, the High Court while exercising its inherent powers under section 482 Cr. P. C. will not normally interfere with the prosecution. It shall also not interfere with the investigation or trial but if the materials do not disclose the offence, if the prosecution smacks of malafide, the prosecution should not normally, be permitted to proceed. Justice requires that a person who commits an offence has to be brought to book and must be punished for the same. It is on the basis of this principle that the High Court normally should not interfere with the investigation or the trial where the offence has been disclosed. 16. If on consideration of the relevant materials before it, this Court is satisfied that no offence is disclosed, then this Court is duty bound under law to interfere and cure the process of injustice at any stage, whosesoever it see State of West Bengal and others v. Swapan Kumar and others [ AIR 1982 SC 949 ]. At the same time the scope of section 482 Cr. P.C. has also to be examined. This Court will not hesitate, while exercising the powers under sec. 482 Cr. P.C., to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled that this jurisdiction is of an exceptional nature and must be exercised in most exceptional cases. That is why it is exercised in rarest of the rare cases. 482 Cr. P.C., to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled that this jurisdiction is of an exceptional nature and must be exercised in most exceptional cases. That is why it is exercised in rarest of the rare cases. This Court cannot forget the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhav Rao Jiwaji Rao Schindia [ AIR 1988 SC 709 ] : "The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroversial allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and therefore no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage." Keeping in view these observations, this Court has anxiously examined all the pertinent facts and arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution of the petitioner cannot be permitted to proceed further and permit prosecution to misuse the Court of law for oblique purpose. On the available material, it is also concluded that the ultimate results in this case are very bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to continue. 17. Intention to aid the commission of the crime is the gist of the abetment. Intention on the part of the petitioner is completely lacking in this case Trilok Chandra [ AIR 1977 SC 666 ]. The FIR (Doc. No.6) itself mentions the receipt of the money for the Chief Minister's Relief Fund and the sanction itself absolves the petitioner completely. It two installments sent by the petitioner were accepted for Chief Minister's Relief Fund, previously, then why exception is being taking now for the third installment. The FIR (Doc. No.6) itself mentions the receipt of the money for the Chief Minister's Relief Fund and the sanction itself absolves the petitioner completely. It two installments sent by the petitioner were accepted for Chief Minister's Relief Fund, previously, then why exception is being taking now for the third installment. Large amounts previously received from the petitioner by these top functionaries of this State were not only poius, welcome and praise worthy acceptable but also those amounts filled the coffers of the Chief Minister's Relief Fund How this amount of Rs.20,000/- sent by the petitioner for the same purpose becomes abhorent to them now? Prosecution launched should not only be honest straightforward but should also not smack of malafide and ill-will I have no hesitation to conclude that this sanction for prosecution of the petitioner and Vijay Pal Singh and also their prosecution in a Court of law is not only misconceived and irrelevant but also would be abuse of the process of law. 18. The sanction, thus accorded is vitiated due to non-application of mind by the authorities granting the sanction. The sanctioning authority should not have succumbed thus to the opinion of others. Before according the sanction, the authority must be fully satisfied that there exists prima facie case for initiating the criminal proceedings. If prima fade case is not made out, then the sanction accorded is definitely contrary to law. The documents filed by the petitioner also disclose that the Chief Minister of the State of M.P., after Bhopal Was hit by gas tragedy presided over several meetings and solicited the aid to the persons suffering from this ghastly tragedy. 19. To conclude this application/petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. Sanction accorded for prosecuting the petitioner under section 165-A of the IPC (Document No. 11) is directed to be quashed. In consequence, the criminal proceedings for the prosecution of the petitioner pending in the Court of Special Judge, Bhopal under section 165-A of the IPC are also quashed.