ORDER: 1. This rule is directed against the discharge of the opposite party by a learned Judge, Additional Special Court Calcutta; before whom he was being prosecuted for an offence punishable under s. 161 IPC and s 52) read with s. 5(1)(d) of Act II of 1947, 2. On hearing the learned Advocates for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it does not appear that any revisional interference is called for. The said opposite party was being prosecuted for accepting a bribe of Rs. 20/ when he was employed as a lineman of Calcutta Telephones. Now, the learned Judge has pointed out that the notes which were seized from the opposite party after a trap was laid, were not initialed or signed by the complainant and further the handwash of the accused was not proved though alleged to have been duly obtained. The most important ground which weighed with the discharge of the accused, however, was that the sanction for prosecution granted by the Assistant General Manager (Administration) Calcutta Telephones was not valid. The learned Judge has found the sanction to be invalid as there was no sufficient evidence that the sanctioning authority had power to appoint or dismiss a lineman by the opposite party. In this regard the ground stated by the learned Judge is not quite correct as the Assistant General Manager examined as P. W. 4 had deposed in his evidence that he was competent to appoint and remove a lineman which was not challenged. However, what is important to note and what makes the sanction invalid is the fact that the documents which were produced before the sanctioning authority before granting sanction were not before the learned Judge and as such he was not in a position to determine whether (he sanctioning authority had applied his mind to 'he relevant aspects of the case before granting sanction. In such situation, the sanction must be held to be invalid though not on the ground stated by the learned Judge. 3. Apart from what is stated above, it is found that under the amended s. 245 Cr. P.C. which has got retrospective effect, the opposite parries are liable to be discharged because the evidence was out completed in the Case within the four years of his appearance. For the reasons stated above, this rule is discharged. 3. Apart from what is stated above, it is found that under the amended s. 245 Cr. P.C. which has got retrospective effect, the opposite parries are liable to be discharged because the evidence was out completed in the Case within the four years of his appearance. For the reasons stated above, this rule is discharged. Let the records be sent down as early as possible. Rule discharged.