Judgment : The accused before the Special Judge under the Essential Commodities Act in S.T.C. No.75 of 1991 is the revision petitioner herein challenging the propriety and legality of the impugned order passed by the learned Judge in the above proceeding dated 25. 1992. .2. The accused was running a grocery shop at Srimushnam village, Kattumannarkoil Taluk. On the report of the Special Tahsildar for not having exhibited the price and stock list of the notified commodities under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Essential Commodities (Display of Stocks and Prices and Maintenance of Accounts) Order, 1977, the concerned police, namely, the respondent the Civil Supplies, C.I.D. herein took up investigation and filed a final report against the petitioner and consequent to the taking cognizance of the same the learned Special Judge issued process to the accused followed by his appearance and trial was commenced. In fact, P.W. 1 was examined in part. At that stage for want of sanction by the competent authority as provided in Clause 9 of the abovesaid order a petition was filed before the trial court by and on behalf of the petitioner/ accused praying for discharge, however, by passing the impugned order, the learned Judge has declined to discharge the accused and aggrieved at this, the present revision has been filed and after admission it came up for hearing. 3. Mr.Dhanasekaran, the learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the revision petitioner took me to impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge on 26. 1992, which shows that the learned Special Judge has held that the petition praying for discharge was not maintainable for the simple reason that on taking cognizance of the offence summons were issued to P.Ws. 1 to 3 and P.W. 1 was examined and P.W.2 was present to give evidence and stated that the reasoning given by the learned Special Judge has no nexus with the ground urged in the petition praying for discharge. Even otherwise, the learned counsel contended that there was no sanction order obtained in this case as contemplated under Clause 9 of the order above referred that therefore the impugned order has become vulnerable to be interfered with and that there are every reasons to set aside the some. Even otherwise, the learned counsel contended that there was no sanction order obtained in this case as contemplated under Clause 9 of the order above referred that therefore the impugned order has become vulnerable to be interfered with and that there are every reasons to set aside the some. In short to say, it was the contention of the learned counsel that the conclusion of the learned special Judge is not correct in the sense that there was no accord of sanction at all and that therefore the whole prosecution is void ab initio. 4. On the contrary, Mr.A.N. Rajan, the learned Government Advocate controverted the said contention by showing the case diary in this case maintained by the respondent-police, which shows a sanction order to prosecute the accused along with number of other persons was obtained by the respondent from the concerned District Revenue Officer, who is the competent authority under the order above referred and contended that the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. .5. The above contention was responded by the Bar on behalf of the revision petitioner by stating that no copies of the sanction order were furnished to the accused under Sec.207, Crl.P.C. and in such circumstances, the accused was put to every serious prejudice and handicap and that therefore the whole proceeding has thus become vitiated. 6. My perusal of the sanction order, as shown by the learned Government Advocate, would go to show that the competent authority as contemplated under Clause 9 of the above order is very much available in this case, but at the same time, it was incumbent on the part of the prosecution or the court below to furnish a copy of the sanction order to the accused so as to enable him to putforth his contention and agitate the matter as provided by law and without doing so, it cannot be held that the approach adopted by the learned Special Judge is quite appropriate. It is manifest to this extent that the learned Special Judge has not followed the correct approach and consequently is not correct in holding that the discharge prayed by the petitioner cannot at all be maintained at any stage before the conclusion of the trial. It is manifest to this extent that the learned Special Judge has not followed the correct approach and consequently is not correct in holding that the discharge prayed by the petitioner cannot at all be maintained at any stage before the conclusion of the trial. If no copy of the sanction order was furnished to him, there is every reason and justification for the accused to come forward with the plea that serious and great prejudice had been caused to him, which is totally against the law, and as such, the impugned order passed by the learned special Judge, in my considered view, is per verse in toto and hence cannot at all be sustained for any reason. 7. The next question remains to be seen is that even in a trial of a summon case can it be held that discharge prayer is barred from being prayed for want of legal sanction as contemplated by law. The answer for this question is that the accused is entitled to and that question can be raised at any stage before the conclusion of the trial. Clause 9 of the abovesaid order clearly emphasize the accord of sanction to prosecute and if there is no such sanction order, the respondent cannot at all prosecute the accused for the reasonings spelt out in the said clause. This court following the decision by the Supreme Court held often that the validity of the sanction or non-availability of the sanction question can be raised by the accused before the proceedings are over in any case. I do not find any embargo for the accused in raising the point for discharge for the non-availability of the sanction or invalidity of the sanction. The learned Special Judge while passing the impugned order has thus committed a serious mistake and the approach adopted by him is totally erroneous and not on par with law. It is, therefore under the circumstances, I hereby set aside the said order. 8. More so, the learned special Judge has not adverted his mind while passing the impugned order on the question of sanction accorded to the respondent herein to prosecute the accused, but he was on the different point. It is, therefore under the circumstances, I hereby set aside the said order. 8. More so, the learned special Judge has not adverted his mind while passing the impugned order on the question of sanction accorded to the respondent herein to prosecute the accused, but he was on the different point. For the mere reasoning of the sanction order shown to me, while setting aside the impugned order, I do not propose to give any finding affecting the trial proceedings being conducted before the Special Judge in accordance with law. However, the direction given by me to furnish the copy of the sanction order well in advance and to give him thereby an opportunity is to be implemented. With the compliance of the above direction the trial should be proceeded and completed and disposed of in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. 9. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, in view of the direction given above, the revision succeeds and stands allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge on 25. 1992 in S.T.C. No.75 of 1991 is set aside and the directions given above are to be complied with. The revision is disposed of accordingly.