J. P. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant, who is a Sub Inspector of Police, has been convicted under section 161 IPC and sentenced to R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 00, in default to suffer S. I. for three months. He is also convicted under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 clause 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo RI. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 00, in default to suffer S. I. for three months with the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant basing on a copy of the Gazette notification dated 29/3/1978 which is filed in the appeal, is that the appellant having been appointed by the Inspector General of Police and the Additional Inspector General of Police the sanction for prosecution issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police is not a valid sanction contemplated under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and consequently the conviction recorded against the appellant is vitiated. ( 3 ) SECTION 197 clause (1) lays down that when a public servant is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while purporting, to act in the discharge of his official duty, no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction by the competent authority. The learned third Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur who tried the appellant evidently relied upon the evidence of PW 3 who deposed that the Dy. Inspector General of Police is the appointing authority and that the sanction in this case was given by the Dy. Inspector General of Police. ( 4 ) TO support the evidence of PW 3, the learned Government Advocate relied upon the notification dated 14/11/1960 of the Government of M. P. , Home Department (Police), the schedule of which shows that in respect of Sub Inspector, the appointing authority is the Dy. Inspector General of Police. But the notification dated 23/3/1978 published in the gazettes dated 29/3/1978 relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is subsequent to the general notification issued in the year 1960. Serial No. 87 in the schedule appended to the notification dated 23/3/1978 published in the said Gazette refers to the appellant. Inspector General of Police. But the notification dated 23/3/1978 published in the gazettes dated 29/3/1978 relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is subsequent to the general notification issued in the year 1960. Serial No. 87 in the schedule appended to the notification dated 23/3/1978 published in the said Gazette refers to the appellant. It clearly shows that the appointing authority is the Inspector General of police and the Additional Inspector General of Police. During the course of the arguments the learned counsel for the appellant also filed Zerox copy of the appointment order dated 13. 3. 1978 appointing 116 Sub Inspectors of Police in which the appellant figures at serial No. 87. It is signed by the Inspector General of Police. ( 5 ) IN the light of the above factual position the question that arises for consideration is whether sanction for prosecution accorded by the D. I. G. of Police in order to prosecute the appellant is valid. The Supreme Court held in Krishna Kumar v. Divnl, Asstt. E. E. Central Rly, that the removal from service by authority subordinate to the appointing a civil servant contravenes Article 311 clause (1) of the Constitution of India. In another decision of the Supreme Court in Mys. s. R. T. Corpn v. Mirja Khasim, it was held that dismissal order passed by subordinate authority is without jurisdiction and as such void and inoperative having been passed in contravention of Article 311 clause (1) of the constitution of India. ( 6 ) THE Supreme Court in Mahesh Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh having referred to section 6 clause (c) of the prevention of corruption Act which requires the sanction of the authority competent to remove the appellant from his office held that by virtue of Article 311 clause (1) a civil servant cannot be removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. Following the above decisions of the Supreme Court it is clear that the appellant having established by filing the Gazette notification dated 29/3/1978 and also the xerox copy of appointment order that he was appointed by the Inspector General of Police the sanction granted by the Dy. Inspector General of Police basing on which the accused was prosecuted for the offence alleged against him is illegal. Inspector General of Police basing on which the accused was prosecuted for the offence alleged against him is illegal. ( 7 ) IN Bhagwandas v. State of Madhya Pradesh appointment of Sub Inspector was made by the Inspector General of Police. There was subsequent notification authorizing the Dy. Inspector General of Polite to appoint Sub Inspectors The Order of dismissal which was passed by the Deputy Inspector General was held to be not valid having been passed by an authotity who is subordinate to the appointing authotity as on the date of appointment. This is a case where the notification authorizing the Deputy General of Police to appoint Sub Inspectors the order of appointment of the appellant by the Inspector General of Police. The appointment of the appellant having been made by the Inspector General of Police, the sanction to prosecute accorded by the Deputy Inspector General of Police under Section 6 (1) (c) of the prevention of Corruption Act 1947 is not valid. On this simple ground the conviction and sentence awarded against the appellant are liable to be set aside, without going into the merits of the case. The appeal is, accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentences set aside. The fine if paid, shall be refunded. Appeal allowed. .