JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - Appellant Raghunath along with one Trinath Rota (since acquitted) stood charged u/s 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') and Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.'). Appellant Judhistir Bisoi stood charged u/s 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act and Sections 1091 477A, I.P.C. 2. Prosecution case bereft of unnecessary details is that accused Trinath Hota was the Block Development Officer, Narayanpatna Block from 15-7-1970 to 31-10-1973 and Appellant No. 1 Raghunath was the Sub-Overseer of the said block from 23-8-1972 to 17-8-1973 and from 16-10-1973 to 19-11-1973. In the year 1972-73 funds were received from time to time, from the Collector, Koraput for ex-ecution of different schemes. Even though there -was no resolution for construction of Minor-Irrigation Channel at Jhilimilijhola, yet Appellant Raghunath prepared an estimate for Rs. 7,100/- and accorded technical sanction without furnishing any data, accused Trinath accorded administrative approval to the said project on 24-2-1973, and the work was taken up without any plan and collection of hydraulic particulars. Though Sub-Overseers were not vested with power to accord technical sanction to any estimate in view of the letter No. 39175/R. dated 11- 8-1972 of the Revenue Department, yet Appellant Raghunath accorded technical sanction and accused Trinath accepted the same. Though the work should have been entrusted to a village committee, which in turn would have selected a leader for execution of the work, Judhistir Bisoi, Appellant No. 2 without such selection by the village committee was entrusted with the work. By this action the Appellant-Raghunath and accused Trinath had shown favourtism to Appellant Judhistir. On verification of the measurement and on testing, it was found out that proper materials were not 'utilised in requisite proportion. On evaluation it was found out that the value of the work done in this project was Rs. 1647.88 paise, as against which a sum of Rs. 7,000/- was paid to Appel1ant Judhistir. From this it was evident that the Appellant Raghunath and accused Trinath had committed criminal misconduct by abusing their positions as public servants and had obtained pecuniary benefit for the Appellant Judhistir and for themselves by recording false and inflated measurement in respect of the project putting the Government to a loss to the extent of Rs. 5,352.12 paise. 3. From this it was evident that the Appellant Raghunath and accused Trinath had committed criminal misconduct by abusing their positions as public servants and had obtained pecuniary benefit for the Appellant Judhistir and for themselves by recording false and inflated measurement in respect of the project putting the Government to a loss to the extent of Rs. 5,352.12 paise. 3. The three accused persons faced trial in the Court of the Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur. Ten witnesses were examined to further the prosecution case while no witness was examined in support of the defence version. The plea of the accused Trinath was that according to the Government direction the villagers were to be provided with work as there was severe drought in that year, the village leader was selected to execute the work and the villagers also finalised the work to be executed. He had only agreed to the proposal in this case and issued the work order after estimates were submitted to him and after according administrative approval to the same. The village leader had executed the word and the Sub-Assistant Engineer had taken the measurement of the same and he only took some check measurements and being not a technical expect he had signed the measurement books after having seen that the work was done. There is no fixed rule for check measurement and the bills were prepared in accordance with the Rules. The work was washed away because of heavy flood in late August and September of the relevant year. Appellant Raghunath took the plea that he prepared the estimate as per thee orders of the B.D.O. who had accorded the administrative approval an Appellant Judhistir who was the village leader had executed the work as per the specification, but because of heavy flood the work was damaged. Appellant Judhistir took the plea that he was selected as the village leader and he had executed the work as per specification which was measured and it was found to be according to specification, money was paid to him by the B.D.O. but due to heavy flood the work was damaged. 4. Appellant Judhistir took the plea that he was selected as the village leader and he had executed the work as per specification which was measured and it was found to be according to specification, money was paid to him by the B.D.O. but due to heavy flood the work was damaged. 4. According to the learned Special Judge, six points were involved for consideration, that is ; (1) whether there was valid sanction for prosecution of these two public servants; (2) whether the work was executed without any resolution of the panchayat samiti and whether Shri R.N. Gantayat was not competent to prepare estimate and accord technical sanction to it ; (3) whether Judhistir Bisoi was not selected as the village leader to executed the project; (4) whether both the works namely the cross bundh and the M.L.C. were not executed according to the measurement recorded in the M.B. for which a sum of Rs. 6,835/- was paid for; (5) whether the M.B. was finalised by entering false measurement under which 'excess payments were made with the intent to defraud and whether accused Bisoi is guilty of abetment of the above offence; and (6) whether the explanations offered by the accused persons are reasonable to be accepted. So far as point No. (1) is concerned, he held that the sanction orders were valid. So far as point No. (2) is concerned, he held that the B.D.O. had taken the approval of the panchayat samiti after execution of the project. As regards point No. (3), he held that Appellant Judhistir was selected as the village leader for execution of the project. So far as point Nos, (4), (5) and (6) are concerned, he held that the prosecution was not able to prove that the lead of 3 K.Ms. for stones as shown in the estimate and the bill was false; the Executive Engineer had not sent the cement mortar to any laboratory to find the proportion of the cement and sand; it has not been proved by the prosecution that the mortar was prepared with cement and silt and not with cement and sand. He also found that, the charge did not include the quality of the work to be undertaken and therefore, the accused persons were not found to be guilty though it was found that the quality of the work was not as per the specification. He also found that, the charge did not include the quality of the work to be undertaken and therefore, the accused persons were not found to be guilty though it was found that the quality of the work was not as per the specification. He also accepted that two items of work were washed away by flood. He accepted the plea of the accused persons relating to item No. 7 of the work i.e. the earth work in stony earth and gravel mixed with stone and boulder. He held that accused Trinath was entitled to an acquittal because he was not a technical expert and could not possibly determine as to whether the mortar used was below the requisite proportion. But he held that the prosecution has been able to prove that Appellant Raghunath had abused his official position and with illegal intent to defraud made false entry in the measurement books and obtained pecuniary advantage for himself and for Appellant Judhistir. He held that acceptance of money on that account by Appellant Judhistir amounted to abetment of offence by him. He sentenced each of the Appellants to undergo R.C for three months, and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo R.I. for 15 days more, u/s 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act-L No. separate sentence was imposed for the offence u/s 477A, I.P.C. 5. In appeal, though several grounds were pressed to challenge the sustainability of the judgment, I find that a detailed analysis of the factual position is not necessary. On evaluation of the evidence and the materials on record, I find that the sanction as accorded for prosecution did not fulfil the requirements of law. The order of sanction in respect-of accused Raghunath (exhibited as Ext. 22) does not show as to what specific material was placed before the sanctioning authority (Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Orissa) to come to the conclusion that prosecution was warranted. No evidence has also been led to show that all relevant materials were placed before him. Neither he nor the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), who is stated to have given the consolidated report to obtain section has been examined as a witness. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 9) has deposed that he does not know as to what materials were placed before the sanctioning authority. Neither he nor the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), who is stated to have given the consolidated report to obtain section has been examined as a witness. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 9) has deposed that he does not know as to what materials were placed before the sanctioning authority. Sanction u/s 6 of the Act is necessary to vest jurisdiction on the trial Judge to try the offence under the provisions of the Act. As observed by the Suprerme Court in the case of Major Som Nath v. Union of India and Anr. 1971 S.C.D. 1126, it must be established that the sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence with which the accused is proposed to be charged, after consideration of the relevant materials. The desirability of the facts being referred to the sanction itself was stressed. If the facts do not appear on the face of the sanction order, the prosecution must establish allude by evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority Similar observations were made by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. Various decisions on the point have been discussed by my learned brother G.B. Patnaik, J. in the case of B.A. Kameswar Rao Vs. State of Orissa, . The object of enacting Section 6 appears to be based on the principle that where a public servant is prosecuted for an offence which challenges his honesty and integrity, the issue in such a case is not only between the prosecutor and the offender, but the State is also vitally concerned in it as it affects the morale of the public services and also the administrative interests of the State. For these reasons the discretion to prosecute was taken away from the prosecuting agency and was vested in departmental authorities for they could assess and weigh the accusation in a far more dispassionate and responsible manner. The State obviously was only concerned with those offences which were committed by public servants while functioning in that capacity and for which they were sought to be prosecuted while holding such an office. This view gains support from a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of V.D. Jhingan Vs. State. Analysing provisions of Section 6 of the Act it is manifest that two conditions must be satisfied before they become applicable. This view gains support from a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of V.D. Jhingan Vs. State. Analysing provisions of Section 6 of the Act it is manifest that two conditions must be satisfied before they become applicable. One is that the offence mentioned, there in must be committed by a public servant and the other is that the said person is employed 'in connection with the affairs of the' Union or a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government or the State Government or is a public servant who is removable from his office by any other competent authority. The requisites of a valid sanction can be summarised to be as follows: (a) Relevant materials should have been placed before the sanctioning authority. It is plainly desirable that the facts should be referred to on the face of the sanction. If it is not so referred, the prosecution must prove by extraneous evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority. (b) Where the sanction order does not disclose the facts which constitute the offence and no extraneous evidence is let in to show that the necessary facts on which the prosecution is based were placed before the sanctioning authority, the sanction is not valid. (c) Sanctioning authority should apply his mind before according sanction. (d) The sanctioning authority is not required to enquire into the truth of the facts alleged, but must go through all the relevant papers put before him to be satisfied that it is necessary in the ends of justice to accord the sanction. (e) The sanction is not to be granted until investigation is completed. 6. As indicated above, the sanction order does not ex facie show as to what materials were placed before the sanctioning authority and no extraneous evidence was adduced to show that the relevant materials were placed before the sanctioning authority. In view of the inherent illegality of the proceeding itself. I do not deem it necessary to consider the other aspects of the case. As held by this Court, under similar circumstances, in the case of Rajib Lochan Pradhan v. State : 58 (1984) C.L.T. 1 and followed in the case of B.A. Kameswar Rao (supra), the trial has to be held as null and void. I do not deem it necessary to consider the other aspects of the case. As held by this Court, under similar circumstances, in the case of Rajib Lochan Pradhan v. State : 58 (1984) C.L.T. 1 and followed in the case of B.A. Kameswar Rao (supra), the trial has to be held as null and void. The conviction cannot stand in respect of Appellant Raghunath. Consequentially, Appellant Judhistir cannot be also held guilty in the trial which has been held to be void in the eye of law. 7. In the result, the conviction and the sentence as passed against the Appellants are set aside, and the criminal appeal is allowed. The bail-bonds furnished by the Appellants stand cancelled. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed