JUDGMENT Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.8.1993 passed by the Special Judge, appointed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Bhopal in Special Case No. 1/93 (State v. Prabhulal) and the challan filed against the applicant, the applicant prefers the instant petition for quashing the proceedings on the following amongst other facts and grounds : While petitioner was working as Stenographer in a public office, a trap for the purpose of prevention of corruption act was laid on 4.7.1986 and subsequently a charge sheet was filed against him under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The Investigation Officer obtained sanction of the competent authority for prosecution of the petitioner for offences punishable under sections 5 (1) (d) and 5 (2) of the Act of 1947 and S. 161 IPC. The charge-sheet was returned. It was re-submitted alongwith the sanction order .under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings as well as the charges framed by the Court. The controversy in the case is squarely governed by the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Baman Prasad v. State of M.P. (1994 JU 341). The Court has laid down two propositions, namely, (1) Offences committed under the repealed Act are neither wiped out nor obliterated and a person committing offence under the repealed Act will have to be punished either under the Old Act or under the New Act, depending on the facts of the particular case. (2) Sanction granted either under the repealed Act or under the New Act will be good for prosecution under either of them provided the same is otherwise valid and in accordance with law. Mere mentioning of a wrong provision of law would not invalidate the sanction, if the authority has applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and granted the sanction for prosecution of the offence based thereupon. The charge-sheet was filed against the accused under the repealed Act and if the charge-sheet is not inconsistent with the provisions of the New Act, the Court will have to proceed under the New Act But if the charge-sheet is inconsistent with the provisions of the New Act, the trial will have to be for offences under the repealed Act. The main challenge is against the sanction granted in this case. The main challenge is against the sanction granted in this case. The competent authority passed two orders of sanction, one before 1988 granting sanction under the 1947 Act and the other after 1988 granting sanction under the provisions of both the Acts. It cannot be said that the sanction is illegal on that account. If there is nothing inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act, the Court will have to proceed under the New Act If there is some inconsistency with the provisions of the new Act, the Court will have to proceed under the old Act. This aspect of the matter has not been examined by the learned Special Judge. He may do so. In this view, I do not feel called upon either to quash the proceedings or to quash the charges. I direct the learned Sessions Judge (Special Judge) to examine the charges in view of the decision in Baman Prasad and amend the charges suitably, if deemed necessary. The petition is accordingly disposed of.