JUDGMENT B.P.Singh, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 23-11-1982 passed by Sri Vishnu Chandra, (II Addl. Sessions Judge) Special Judge, Saharanpur in Criminal Special Case No. 2 of 1982 (State v. Mahendra Singh and another) under sections 120-B, 161 IPC and section 5 (2; of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2. The case of the prosecution may briefly be stated as follows :- Some villagers had made a complaint to the Tehsildar, Devband that Jodh Raj Singh's father and some others had encroached upon the land of the Gram Samaj. This complaint was sent by the Tehsildar to the Supervisor Kanoongo, Sri Khem Chand Sharma, who, in his turn, gave it to the Lekhpal, Mahendra Singh, for enquiry and report. On 22-8-1978 the village Pradhan, Kalu Ram and Jodh Raj Singh approached Supervisor Kanoongo in connection with the complaint regarding unlawful possession of Jodh Raj Singh's father upon the land of the Gram Samaj. Khem Chand Sharma directed Jodh Raj Singh and Kalu Ram to Lekhpal Mahendra Singh with a promise that he would accept whatever report or recommendation would be made by Mahendra Singh, Lekhpal. Kalu Ram and Jodh Raj Singh' then went to Mahendra Singh and talked about the matter. Mahendra Singh demanded a bribe of Rs. 100/- to give a favourable report. Mahendra Singh agreed to accompany Jodh Raj Singh and Kalu Ram to Saharanpur where he would accept the money. Mahendra Singh also given out that he would wait in Civil Courts, Saharanpur upto 1PM. On the same day Jodh Raj Singh came to Saharanpur and because he had no intention to pay the bribe, went to the District Magistrate, Saharanpur with a complaint. The District Magistrate, Saharanpur was not available and as such the complaint was presented before A.D.M. (E), Saharanpur. ADM. (E) directed the Vigilence Inspection Sri Mahek Singh to lay the trap. 3. As the time limit of 1 P.M. was already over, the Vigilence Inspector, Mahek Singh, directed Jodh Raj Singh to meet him at Devband next day at 10 A.M. along with the witnesses 4. On 23-8-1978, the Vigilence: Inspector, Mahek Singh, reached Police Station Devband where he was met by complainant, Jodh Raj Singh. After picking up witnesses Rampal and Chamel, the necessary preparation regarding laying of the trap was made. On 23-8-1978, the Vigilence: Inspector, Mahek Singh, reached Police Station Devband where he was met by complainant, Jodh Raj Singh. After picking up witnesses Rampal and Chamel, the necessary preparation regarding laying of the trap was made. The hundred rupee note, which was to be given in bribe, was examined and was treated with Phenopthaline powder by the Vigilence Inspector, Mahek Singh after placing his initials upon the same. A memo was also prepared. The number of the note was AK/72 328555 (Ext. 1). Thereafter the Vigilence Inspector, Mahek Singh, accompanied by S. I. A. K- Kaushik, complainant Jodh Raj Singh and the witnesses, went to the room of Mahendra Singh. The complainant and witnesses went inside and the hundred rupee note was handed over by Jodh Raj Singh to Mahendra Singh. Being satisfied that the bribe had passed, the Vigilence Inspector, Mahek Singh went inside the room and after introducing himself recovered the note (Ext. 1 from Mahendra Singh. The routine proceedings were carried out regarding the hand wash of the accused, Mahendra Singh, and the preparation of recovery memo. The note was sealed and thereafter Mahendra Singh was brought to the police Station Devband. 5. The case was investigated by Inspector Ratan Singh under the orders of the S. P. Vigilence Sri R. N. Dwivedi. After routine investigation a charge-sheet under section 161 and 120-B IPC and under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was submitted against Mahendra Singh and Khem Chandra Sharma. 6. At the trial both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In all the prosecution examined seven witnesses i.e Inspector Mahek Singh PW 1, Jodh Raj Singh PW 2, Ram Pal PW 3, Kalu Ram PW 4, Inspector Ratan Singh PW 5 Jai Dayal Srivastava judicial Magistrate PW 6 and Head Constable Mohd. Umar PW 7 in the case. 7. The accused did not lead any evidence in their defence and contended that they were falsely implicated in this case at the instance of Jodh Raj Singh, who had become annoyed with Mahendra Singh, at the latter had sent a report against Jodh Raj Singh's father. 8. Learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of the prosecution so far as it related to Lekhpal Mahendra Singh. 8. Learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of the prosecution so far as it related to Lekhpal Mahendra Singh. Consequently, Lekhpal Mabendra Singh was held guilty of the offence under section 161 IPC and section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was sentenced to undergo one year's R. I. on each count. The Sunervisor Kanoongo, Khem - Chandra Sharma, was acquitted, I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case, 9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the sanction (Ex. 9) in the case was not valid and as such the whole trial of the appellant stood vitiated. The argument is that the prosecution has failed to prove that the sanctioning authority had applied his mind to the facts constituting the offence while according the sanction to prosecute the appellant. 10. Reliance has been placed upon the cases of Major Somnath v. Union of India, 1971CrLJ 1422 and Mohd. lqbal Ahmad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1979 CrLJ 633 . In Major Somnath's case the Supreme Court has observed as follows':- ".........For a sanction to be valid 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. Though it is desirable that the facts should be referred to in the sanction itself. Nonetheless if they do not appear on the face of it the prosecution must establish aliunde by evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authorities....." 11. In Mohd. Iqbal's case the Supreme Court has observed as follows :- "It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the Sanctioning Authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. This should be done in two ways, either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show the facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. This should be done in two ways, either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show the facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. It is well settled that any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest difficult (sid-defect) in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio." 'The grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to government sen ants against frivolous prosecutions and must therefore be strictly complied with before any prosecution can be launched against the public servant concerned." 12. Thus on perusal of the above: cited decisions it is quite clear that the sanction to prosecute is an important matter. It is a condition precedent before the Court concerned can take cognizance of the offence. No prosecution of a Government servant for offence under section 161 IPC or under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 can be launched unless the Sanctioning Authority has accorded sanction to prosecute the delinquent officer. Before according sanction the concerned authority has to have subjective satisfaction that there is sufficient material to accord sanction for prosecution. This subjective satisfaction has to be arrived at after taking an objective view of the facts constituting the offence and after making an over all assessment of the entire material placed before him in relation to the alleged offence. This can be proved either by showing that the sanctioning order itself contains all the facts constituting the offence and if that is not the case then by leading evidence that all the facts constituting the offence were placed when the sanction was accorded. In the present case Ex. Ka 10) is the sanction and it was accorded by Sri Shekhar Agarwal, S.D M. Devband. It is not disputed that Sri Shekhar Agarwal, the then S.D.M Devband, was the proper authority to accord sanction for the prosecution of the appellant. Now this sanction Ex Ka. 10 is quite revealing. Sri Shekhar Agarwal, S.D.M. Devband has not been examined as a witness of the case. This sanction Ex. Ka. 10 shows that learned S.D.M. accorded sanction after being satisfied with the papers related to the case. Now this sanction Ex Ka. 10 is quite revealing. Sri Shekhar Agarwal, S.D.M. Devband has not been examined as a witness of the case. This sanction Ex. Ka. 10 shows that learned S.D.M. accorded sanction after being satisfied with the papers related to the case. Learned S. D.M. has not mentioned in the sanction that he had perused or examined the documents related to the case. He has not even mentioned as to what those documents were. We are not even aware whether the explanation/statement/clarification offered by the appellant was placed before the S D M. and was in fact considered by him. Where there is no evidence or material on record to prove that the explanation/statement/clarification offered by the delinquent public servant was placed before the sanctioning authority and was in fact taken into consideration by him before according sanction, such a sanction cannot be held to be a valid sanction. In such a case it is not open to the court to presume that the sanction was accorded after completing all the formalities, In the present case there is no evidence on record to show that the facts constituting offence and the explanation or clarification of the appellant were placed before the S.D.M. and as such the sanction Ex. Ka. 10 cannot be held to be legal. 13. In view of the above conclusion it is not necessary to enter INto the oral evidence adduced in the case. Even if the entire evidence is believed. the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained for want of a valid sanction. IN this view of the matter this appeal is to be allowed. 14. The appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant is hereby set aside. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged. Appeal allowed.