JUDGMENT : K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J. - The petitioner in this revision challenges the Judgment dated 20-4-88 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1987 wherein the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence paned by the trial court against him. The petitioner was convicted u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of she court and to pay a tine of Ra. 5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. 2. The petitioner ii a Bank Officer and his marriage was fixed with one Sukanti, but the marriage could not be gone through due to the alleged demand of a motor cycle by the petitioner. The father of Sukanti lodged an F.I.R. on 21-4-84 against the petitioner. Sanction had been given by the District Magistrate, Keonjhar by his order dated 10-6-84 after which U.I. Case No. 371 of 1984 (Trial Cane No. 843 of 1984) wag initiated against the petitioner u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Keonjbar on the basis of the prosecution report submitted by the Office-in-charge, Patna P.S. By the order dated 17-4-87, the trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till rifling of the court and to pay a fine of Rs 5.000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months as stated earlier. The said judgment of the trial court was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Keonjhar by his order dated 20-4-88 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1987. The payment of fine of Rs. 5.000/-, however, had been stayed by the Appellate Court and later by this court by its order dated 3-5-88 in Misc. Case No. 445 of 1988. 3. In this revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P.K. Misra submits that since there was no valid sanction for prosecution of the case, the whole proceeding was a nullity and the order passed by the courts below are without jurisdiction. 4. Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act reads as follows : "4. 3. In this revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P.K. Misra submits that since there was no valid sanction for prosecution of the case, the whole proceeding was a nullity and the order passed by the courts below are without jurisdiction. 4. Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act reads as follows : "4. Penalty for demanding dowry : If any person, after the commencement of this Act, demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the cafe may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable wish imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both : Provided that no court shall lake cognizance of any offence under this section except with the previous sanction of the State Government or of such officer as the State Government may, by special or special order, specify in this behalf." Section 4 is, however, substituted by the amending Act 63 of 1984 which came to the effect from 2-10-1985. But in the present case cognizance was taken on 15-7-84 much before the amending provision came into effect. 5. This Court has already held in a case reported in Nurun Nisha Begum Vs. Hasina Khatun and Others, that the sanction envisaged under the proviso to Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is mandatory in nature. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act similar provision regarding sanction is also provided before the cognizance of the offence under the laid Act is taken. While dealing with the according of sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Supreme Court as well at this Court have indicated that the according of sanction is not merely a formality and the sanctioning authority must have to apply his mind to the evidence on record while considering the question of according or refuging of sanction in a particular case. If there was no proper application of mind to the materials on record, and the sanctioning authority merely passed the order of sanction in terms of lection under the statute, the sanction cannot be treated as valid sanction in the eye of law and would amount to nullity and the proceeding initiated on the basis of the sanction, therefore, would be without jurisdiction. 6. The Supreme Court in a case reported in Jaswant Singh Vs. 6. The Supreme Court in a case reported in Jaswant Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, has held thus : "xx xx. The object of the provision for sanctions that the authority giving the sanction should be able to consider for itself the evidence before it comes to a conclusion that the prosecution in the circumstances be sanctioned or forbidden. XX XX XX It should be clear from the form of the sanction that the sanctioning authority considered the evidence before it and after a consideration of all the circumstances of the case sanctioned the prosecution, and therefore unless the matter can be proved by other evidence, in the sanction itself the facts should be referred to indicate that the sanctioning authority bad applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. xx xx." 7. In AIR 1949 264 (Privy Council), it was held thus : "A valid sanction on separate charges of hoarding and profiteering was essential to give the Court jurisdiction to try the charge. Without such sanction the prosecution would be a nullity and the trial without jurisdiction." In a subsequent case reported in Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh the Supreme Court also held thus : "xx xx. 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 (I) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting that offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show that the facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. It ii well settled that any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail became this being a manifest difficult (sic-defect) in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void an initio. xx xx." This Court also held following several daemons of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court that the conviction u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was illegal for want of (auction u/s 6 of the Act. This view was taken by this Court in a case reported in Baikunthanath Mohanty Vs. The State of Orissa, which was a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. This view was taken by this Court in a case reported in Baikunthanath Mohanty Vs. The State of Orissa, which was a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. But the spirit of sanction contained in Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is the same as in proviso to Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 before its amendment. This principle applied by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court squarely apply to the case under the Dowry Prohibition Act in the matter of sanction. 8. In the present case, the impugned sanction order was marked an Ext-2 in the court below which shows that the District Magistrate exercised his power conferred u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act according sanction for submitting prosecution against the petitioner for having committed the offence u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, From this, nothing transpires as to what were the materials before the Sanctioning Authority while according sanction to start the prosecution against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to the deposition of the Investigating Officer who was examined as P.W. 8. In this deposition, P.W. 8 has stated that he had written a letter to the Superintendent of Police to obtain sanction order from the Collector to launch the prosecution. He did not know the content of the letter of the Superintendent of Police written to the Collector. He further stated that normally no statement was recorded during the inquiry and no written record is available. The learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State is unable to how any material on records on the basis of which the Collector gave his sanction order to initiate the prosecution against the petitioner. 9. From the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that there was no proper application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority in according sanction for initiating the prosecution against the petitioner. The duly of the Sanctioning Authority is to apply his mind fully and carefully to the materials placed before him and to consider if the sanction could be accorded for prosecution which was not done in this case though it was mandatory. The duly of the Sanctioning Authority is to apply his mind fully and carefully to the materials placed before him and to consider if the sanction could be accorded for prosecution which was not done in this case though it was mandatory. The sanction order as per Ext-2 does not amount to any proper sanction and therefore, a nullity and the prosecution that was initiated on the basis of this sanction is, therefore, without jurisdiction, 10. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed and the conviction end sentence passed by the courts below are set aside.