SURYA PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 13th July, 1989 passed by the then Special Judge/additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No. 2/85 State of U. P. v. Bishambhar Dayal Srivastava convicting the appellant under Section 161 I. P. C. and Section 512 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him respectively to one years Rigorous Imprisonment and one years Rigorous Imprisonment coupled with a fine of Rs. 500/- thereunder. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case briefly Stated is that on 17. 9. 1983 the appellant-accused Bishambhar Dayal Srivastva was working as Pharmacist in the Employees Slate Insurance Dispensary, Pandu Nagar, Kanpur. Shiv Mohan P. W. 2 was an employee in the Elgin Mill NO. 1 Kanpur. On 19. 3. 1983 he was admitted to the Employees State Insurance Dispensary, Pandu Nagar, Kanpur in connection with his medical treatment. He had been hospitalised till 15. 6. 1983 on which date he was however discharged. He head to spend Rs. 609-70 paise in connection with his treatment. He moved an application, Ex. Ka-4 before the Superintendent, Employees State Insurance Dispensary, Pandu Nagar, Kanpur and enclosed therewith discharge certificate, vouchers etc. for reimbursement of the aforesaid sum of money. The superintendent sent that application to the Head Clerk B. N. Srivastava, who in his turn marked it 10 the appellant-accused for necessary action. Shiv Mohan P. W. 2 met several times the appellant-accused in order to get the aforesaid sum of money reimbursed. But the appellant-accused avoided doing anything on his (Shiv Mohans) application and ultimately demanded 10% of the aforesaid sum 01 Rs. 609-70 Paise as illegal gratification from him for doing his work. Consequently Shiv Mohan P. W. 2 made a complaint to the Superintendent, Employees State Insurance Dispensary, Pandu Nagar, Kanpur but to no effect. However, he (Shiv Mohan) P. W. 2 again met the appellant-accused, who demanded Rs. 50/- for doing his work. Shiv Mohan returned after assuring him that he would give him Rs. 50/ -. ( 3 ) ON 17. 9. 1983 he made an application Ex. Ka-5 to the Superintendent, Vigilance Department against the appellant-accused, whereupon the Superintendent, Vigilance interrogated Shiv Mohan in connection therewith. 50/- for doing his work. Shiv Mohan returned after assuring him that he would give him Rs. 50/ -. ( 3 ) ON 17. 9. 1983 he made an application Ex. Ka-5 to the Superintendent, Vigilance Department against the appellant-accused, whereupon the Superintendent, Vigilance interrogated Shiv Mohan in connection therewith. Shiv Mohan had a fifty-rupee-note with him for the purpose of giving it to the appellant-accused and therefore he gave that note to the Superintendent, Vigilance, who made his initial therefore and directed the Dy. S. P. of Police (Vigilance) Kanpur, who was also available in the office, to take necessary action and therefore Shiv Mohan met him also there. The Dy. S. P. of Police (Vigilance) made certain queries from him. He also put his initial on the said note. He sent for two public witnesses in the office through a police constable. He made certain queries from Shiv Mohan before the witnesses and got the said note treated with phenolphthalein powder by the police constable besides observing certain other formalities in connection therewith. He satisfied himself in all respects and thereafter returned the said note to Shiv Mohan with the direction that he would give that very note (Material Ex. 1) to the appellant accused on his demand. The Dy. S. P. of Police (Vigilance) Sri Tejveer Singh P. W. 1 prepared a Fard Ex. Ka-2 to the aforesaid effect. ( 4 ) IT is not out of place to mention that the appellant-accused had asked Shiv Mohan to meet him in his office on 19. 9. 1983 at 11. 00 a. m. Consequently the Dy. S. P. of Police Sri Tejveer Singh P. W. 1 formed a trap party consisting of himself, Inspector P. K. Tewari and certain others including Ram Khilawan P. W. 5. He along with them proceeded to the police station Kakadeo in plain dress. Reaching there he took Inspector R. N. Sharma also with him. They all proceeded from the Police Station on foot and reached Pandu Nagar Employees State Insurance Dispensary. The Dy. S. P. of Police Sri Tajveer Singh and both the above Inspectors went inside the medical store room where the appellant-accused was sitting. The complainant Shiv Mohan also went to the appellant-accused in the said room and enquired the appellant-accused about his work, whereupon the appellantaccused asked him whether he had brought the money. The Dy. S. P. of Police Sri Tajveer Singh and both the above Inspectors went inside the medical store room where the appellant-accused was sitting. The complainant Shiv Mohan also went to the appellant-accused in the said room and enquired the appellant-accused about his work, whereupon the appellantaccused asked him whether he had brought the money. He (Shiv Mohan) replied in the affirmative, whereupon the appellant-accused demanded the same from him. Consequently Shiv Mohan gave the said fifty rupee note material Ex. 1 to the appellant-accused, who kept it in the right side pocket of his pant. The Dy. S. P. of Police Sri Tejveer Singh and others caught hold bf him and recovered the aforesaid note from his pocket. A Fard Ex. Ka-3 to that effect was prepared. All the other members of the trap party had been outside the aforesaid store room, but they had been seeing from, outside the said store room, what was going on inside it. All the necessary formalities were observed in connection with the recovery of the aforesaid note from the pocket of the appellant-accused. Thereafter the trap party along with the articles recovered, returned to the police station Kakadeo, where a report was lodged and a case was ultimately registered against the appellant accused under Section 161 I. P. C. and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After the registration of the case, it was entrusted to the Inspector Surya Bhan Singh Gautam P. W. 7 for investigation. After completion of the investigation into the case, he submitted the Charge-Sheet Ex. Ka-14 against the appellant-accused. He had also obtained sanction Ex. Ka-7 for the prosecution of the appellant-accused in regard to the offences alleged to have been committed by him. ( 5 ) THE prosecution examined Dy. S. P. of Police (Vigilance) Sri Tejveer Singh P. W. 1, Shiv Mohan P. W. 2, Dr. Jaswant Rai Sethi P. W. 3, Dr. Tara Chandra, P. W. 4, Ram Khilawan P. W. 5, Padmesh Narain Mishra P. W. 6 and Surya Bhan Singh Gautam P. W. 7 and relied upon certain documents in support of its case. ( 6 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty. He has pleaded ignorance about many of the facts relating to the prosecution case. He has stated that all the allegations leveled against him are wrong and incorrect. ( 6 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty. He has pleaded ignorance about many of the facts relating to the prosecution case. He has stated that all the allegations leveled against him are wrong and incorrect. He has also stated that he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity. Be has examined Dalganjan Singh D. W. 1 and Mata Prasad D. W. 2 in support of his contentions. ( 7 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge/additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused through his impugned Judgment and order as mentioned earlier. Aggrieved, he preferred this appeal against the same. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant accused has drawn the attention of the Court to the sanction order Ex. Ka-7 and the statement of Dr. Tara Chandra P. W. 4 who had accorded the sanction order Ex. Ka-7 for the prosecution of the appellant-accused and has vehemently argued that Dr. Tara Chandra has not at all applied his mind in according the sanction order in the present case and that the sanction order is not in accordance with the provisions of law and therefore, the prosecution case fails for this reason only In the connection the relevant portion of the sanction order Ex. Ka-7 is reproduced as under: (Hindi Matter) ( 9 ) A perusal of the aforesaid portion would show that there is no description of the documents placed before Dr. Tara Chandra P. W. 4 at the time of according sanction. The sanction order Ex. Ka 7, is, therefore, conspicuously silent in this respect. The Investigating Officer Surya Singh Gautam has not at all given the description of the documents placed before Dr. Tara Chandra P. W. 4 for the purpose of obtaining sanction order Ex. Ka-7. His statement too is of no help to the prosecution case in regard to the sanction order in particular. ( 10 ) DR. Tara Chandra P. W. 4 has stated in his examination-in-chief that he had accorded sanction order Ex. Ka-7 after perusing the case diary and other documents. But he has stated in his crossexamination that he cannot remember what documents were actually put up before him at the time of according sanction order. ( 10 ) DR. Tara Chandra P. W. 4 has stated in his examination-in-chief that he had accorded sanction order Ex. Ka-7 after perusing the case diary and other documents. But he has stated in his crossexamination that he cannot remember what documents were actually put up before him at the time of according sanction order. Not only this, but he has also stated that he cannot tell even on the basis of his memory whether any document was put up before him at that time or not. He has further stated that he cannot say who of the clerks had prepared the sanction order Ex. Ka-7. Nor can he say whether he had prepared it or not. He cannot further say whether or not any Daroga in the uniform was present before him when he accorded the sanction order Ex. Ka. 7. He cannot say whether he had read any case diary or not. He has categorically stated in this regard that he has stated in his examination-in-chief about the perusal of the case diary-particularly because the words Case Diary have been specifically written in the sanction order Ex. Ka-7. At the last in his cross-examination he has stated that the Assistant Director (Administration) had sent the sanction order Ex. Ka-7 to him after preparing it. ( 11 ) THE statement of Dr. Tara Chandra if carefully read, would conclusively conclude that the sanction order Ex. Ka-7 is only a draft sanction prepared by the Assistant Director (Administration) and that the original sanction has not been produced by the prosecution. His statement further shows that no document was actually produced before him (Dr. Tara Chandra) for obtaining the sanction order Ex. Ka-7. The Investigating Officer Surya Bhan Singh Gautam P. W. 7 has not given the details of the documents allegedly placed before Dr. Tara Chandra P. W. 4 for obtaining sanction order. In view of all this, the question of application of mind by Dr. Tara Chandra P. W. 7 before according sanction does not arise. Therefore, the sanction order Ex. Ka-7 cannot be treated as a valid sanction. ( 12 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant accused has relied upon Md. Tafazul Rahman v. State of Orissa The aforesaid evidence gives rise to a peculiar situation. Ext. 16 shows that it was at draft sanction order. Therefore, the sanction order Ex. Ka-7 cannot be treated as a valid sanction. ( 12 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant accused has relied upon Md. Tafazul Rahman v. State of Orissa The aforesaid evidence gives rise to a peculiar situation. Ext. 16 shows that it was at draft sanction order. It is not known what happened to the final sanction order. It was not produced nor proved in the trial court. The details of material documents which might have been produced before P. W. 10, the Superintending Engineer and, sanctioning authority which he might have taken into consideration have not been stated in the sanction order (Ext. 16 ). It does not appear from it that the statement of P. W. 12 who was the most material witness was placed before him and he had perused the same before according sanction. The evidence of P. W. 10, the Superintending Engineer quoted above clearly discloses non-application of mind. When he gave evidence he did not remember as to on the basis and on consideration of which material documents he gave sanction for prosecution. On the other hand, it discloses that he was asked to sign the draft sanction order (Ext. 16) and he did so. It was expected of P. W. 14, the Inspector of Vigilance who submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and obtained the sanction order from P. W. 10 to have stated the material documents which were placed before P. W. 10 for obtaining the sanction order. Unfortunately except a general statement that all materials were placed before the Superintending Engineer he did not state the details thereof. Such evidence will give rise to the only conclusion which I have drawn and that is non application of mind of the sanctioning authority before according sanction for prosecution of the case. It is settled principle of law that 5. 6 of the Act is of mandatory character. It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after he has satisfied that a case for sanction has been made constituting the offence. It is settled principle of law that 5. 6 of the Act is of mandatory character. It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after he has satisfied that a case for sanction has been made constituting the offence. This should be done in two ways; either (i) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (ii) by adducing evidence adducing to show that the facts placed before the sanctioning authority and the satisfaction arrived by it. Any case without a proper sanction must fail because, this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio. The policy underlying S. 6 is that there should not be unnecessary harassment of a public servant. The above view is supported by a large number of authorities. Such as 1971 SCD 1126; (1971 Cri. L. J. 1422), Major Somnath v. Union of India; A. I. R. 1979 SC 677; (1979 Cri. L. J. 633), Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh; A. I. R. 1984 S. C. 684; (1984 Cri. L. J. 613), R. S. Nayak v. A. R. Antulay; (1981) 52 Cut LT 197; (1982 Cri. L. J. 961), Republic of India v. Khagendranath Jha, (1983) 56 Cut. LT 288, Md. Sabir Husain v. State of Orissa, to name a few. ( 13 ) THE above observations in the aforesaid ruling fully support the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-accused to the effect that the sanction order is not a valid one and that the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind before according to it. ( 14 ) IN the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment and order are set aside. The appellant-accused is acquitted of the offences with which he has been charged. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. He need not surrender. Appeal allowed. .