C. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is being prosecuted for an offence under S. 7 read with 5. 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and he seeks to thwart it on the ground that there is absence of valid sanction for this prosecution. ( 2 ) THE allegation against the petitioner is that one Surendra Kumar Chauhan was the President of Ratnakar Girh Nirma Cooperative Society which was superceded by the Registrar on 19. 7. 1990 and the petitioner was appointed its administrator. He took charge of the records of the society. According to the petition, there was discrepancy in the cash-book and the informant was accordingly noticed and in pursuance whereof, he along with one Shankar Naik met the petitioner in his office on 3. 8. 1990. The petitioner alleged that the, informant has defalcated the amount and he will set it right, provided he is paid a sum of Rs. 5000/- as illegal gratification. The informant was asked to come with the said amount on4. 8. 1990at 11:00 a. m. The informant reported the matter to the Special Police Establishment. A trap was laid and the petitioner received the said sum at Chikmanglur crossing and was caught at the spot. ( 3 ) AFTER investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet after obtaining sanction from the Law and Legislative Affairs Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh. ( 4 ) SHRI S. H. Agarwal learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that sanction granted by Law and Legislative Affairs Department and authenticated by the Additional Secretary of the Government, is not a valid sanction and as such, the petitioners prosecution is without valid sanction. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that power of sanction of prosecution under 5. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 has been expressly taken away from the legal advice wing. Counsel for the petitioner required me to read the word except probation of offender and sanction of prosecution under S. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947t in continuity. Necessary corollary of the same with submission of the learned counsel is that legal advice wing of Law and Legislative Affairs Department should not be competent to grant sanction of prosecution of the petitioner. 5a. Necessary corollary of the same with submission of the learned counsel is that legal advice wing of Law and Legislative Affairs Department should not be competent to grant sanction of prosecution of the petitioner. 5a. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of argument, showed his inability to produce the Business (Allocation) Rules and required me to refer to the same as reproduced in the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sunderlal v. State, which read as follows: Criminal Procedure, including all matters included in the Code of Criminal Procedure except probation of offenders, sanction of prosecution under S. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and under S. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. ( 6 ) STRONG reliance has been placed on the following passage from the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Sunderlals case (supra): Now, the position has been changed by the amended Business (Allocation) Rules. Now, sanction has to be given by the respective departments to which the members of services belong. per paragraph 6. ( 7 ) SHRI G. Desai learned Deputy Government Advocate, counsel for the opposite party submitted that the question of legality or otherwise of the order of sanction cannot be gone into by this Court in view of S. 19 (3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Sec. 19 (3) (a) of the Act reads as follows: 5. 19 (3): Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974): (a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1) unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. ( 8 ) BEFORE I proceed to answer the petitioners contention, I must answer Shri Desaits aforesaid contention which is in the form of a preliminary objection. A reading of the aforesaid section makes it abundantly clear that no finding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge can be interfered with in appeal or revision on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required. A reading of the aforesaid section makes it abundantly clear that no finding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge can be interfered with in appeal or revision on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required. So far as the present case is concerned, there is no order of conviction or sentence passed, against the petitioner and he has approached this Court at the very threshold. In this view of the matter, the submission made by Shri Desai has no substance and is, therefore, rejected. ( 9 ) A brief history of the rules relating to sanction of prosecution deems necessary to be narrated. Rules corrected upto 1st of December 1977 in relation to subject allocated to Law and Legislative Affairs Department read as follows: Item No. (2): Criminal Law including all matters included in the Indian Penal Code. Item No. (3): Criminal Procedure, including all matters included in the Criminal Procedure except probation of offenders. Item No. (2) referred to above, remained the same, while item no. (3) was amended from time to time and as per amendment dated 18. 11. 1983, it reads as follows: - Criminal Procedure, including all matters included in the Code of Criminal Procedure, except probation of offenders and sanction of prosecution under section 197. This item was further un-ended as follows by notification dated 18. 1. 1986: Criminal Procedure, including all matters including in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 except probation of offenders sanction of prosecution under 5. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, and section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. By notification dated 16. 11. 1983, the following items was added under the heading of all the departments in part (A): Matters of Policy Dealt. within the Department: by different serial numbers. Sanction of prosecution under sectiont1, 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and Section 6 of the prevention of Corruption Act 1947 in respect of the numbers of services with which the department is concerned. Further, an amendment in Business (Allocation) Rules was made and a notification of the said, effect was published in the M. P. Govt. Gazette on 3. 2. 1988 which is as under:bhopal, the 3rd February 1988 F. A. 1. 1. Further, an amendment in Business (Allocation) Rules was made and a notification of the said, effect was published in the M. P. Govt. Gazette on 3. 2. 1988 which is as under:bhopal, the 3rd February 1988 F. A. 1. 1. 1988 - XLIX 1-225 - In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (2)- and (3) of Article 166 of the Constitution of India the Governor of Madhya Pradesh hereby makes the following further amendments in. the Madhya, Pradesh Government Business (Allocation) Rules, namely: Amendments In the said Rules,- (1) In the Schedule under the heading XXI Law and Legislative Affairs Department in Part (A) Matters of policy dealt with the Department for item 4 the following item shall be, substituted namely: - (i) Criminal Procedure including matters included in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 except probation of offenders; and (ii) Sanction of prosecution, under section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. 2. Under the heading of all the Departments in part (A) Matters of Policy, dealt within the Department the following item as added by whatever serial number vide General Administration Department Notification no. 2980-3632 I (1) 83 dated the 18th November 1983, and amended from time to time:- Sanction of prosecution under section, 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; 1973 and section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 in respect of the members of the services with which department is concerned shall be omitted. By order and in the name of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh. A. D. Mohite, Spi. Secy. Sub-item No. (i) (ii) of item 4 (Part A of The law and Legislative Affairs Department read as following: - XXI - Law and Legislative Affairs Department - (A) Matters of Policy dealt within the Department Part A Legal Advice Wing MADHYA PRADESH HIGH Page 5 of 6 (1) xx xx xx xx (2) xx xx xx xx (3) xx xx xx xx] (3) (i) Criminal Procedure including all matters included in the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 except Probation Offenders; and (ii) Sanction of prosecution under section of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The aforesaid item and have been extracted from the Business (Allocation) Rules published under the authority of the Government and which corrected upto 1st September, 1991. It is not disputed that the rule referred to have which came into being by notification dated 3. 2. The aforesaid item and have been extracted from the Business (Allocation) Rules published under the authority of the Government and which corrected upto 1st September, 1991. It is not disputed that the rule referred to have which came into being by notification dated 3. 2. 1988 is still operative. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, in my view, the petitioner cannot succeed. Item 4 (i) and (ii) of the Business (Allocation) Rules allocates the authority of sanctioning the prosecution with Law and Legislative Affairs Department. It cannot be read in continuity. The word except in item no. 4 (1) relates only to Tprobation of offenderst and not sanction of prosecution under 5. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947t are separate items in the Business (Allocation) Rules. The Law and Legislative Affairs Department authorised to deal with the matters relating to Criminal Procedure except Probation of Offenders Act. This exception is related to the matters pertaining to Probation of Offenders and not sanction of prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In my considered view it is the Law and Legislative Affairs Department which has been conferred with the power to sanction prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In fact the notification dated 3. 2. 1988 quoted in extenso above withdraws these powers from the departments. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding that the Law and Legislative Affairs Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh was competent to grant sanction of prosecution of the petitioner. ( 11 ) IT may be pointed out that by notification dated 18. 11. 1983, sanction of prosecution under S. 197 Cr. P. C. and 5. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 in respect of the members of the services was conferred with their respective departments. In such a situation, this Court in Sunderlalts case (supra) held that the sanction of the respective department was required. However, as stated earlier, this has undergone a change on 3rd Feb, 1988 (entire notification has been quoted above) and the authority to sanction of prosecution under 5. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947t has been vested in the Law and Legislative Affairs Department. Thus the authority cited on behalf of the petitioner, instead of supporting his case, helps the case of the other side. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947t has been vested in the Law and Legislative Affairs Department. Thus the authority cited on behalf of the petitioner, instead of supporting his case, helps the case of the other side. Therefore, under the Business Allocation Rules, the department of Law and Legislative Affairs was empowered to give sanction in respect of prosecution of the State Govt. employees, removable by it, under 5. 197 of the Code and 5. 6 of the Act. Here, the order of sanction has been issued by the Deputy Secretary of the Law and Legislative Affairs Department, acting for and on behalf of the Governor, as required under the Business Allocation Rules, showing thereby that the order is of the Governor. The Law and Legislative Affairs Department was empowered to give sanction in respect of all employees, irrespective of the department to which they may belong. How, the position has been changed by the amended Business Allocation Rules. Now sanction has to be given by the respective departments to which the members of the services belong. (per paragraph 6 of Sunderlals case (supra) The Business (Allocation) Rules for a short period conferred power of sanction of prosecution on the respective department to which the members of the services belong but on 3rd Feb, 1988, the same was withdrawn and assigned to the Law and Legislative and the same is still operative. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that in any view of the matter, the order of sanction was passed by the Additional Secretary and the Business (Allocation) Rules did not permit that. According to him, this ought to have been passed by the Secretary of the Department. I am least impressed by this argument. Rule 7 of the Business (Allocation) Rules reads as follows: Save in cases where an officer has been specially empowered to sign an order or instrument of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, every such order or instrument shall be signed by either the Chief Secretary, Additional Secretary, Principal Secretary, Secretary, Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary or Under Secretary to the Government of M. P. and such signature shall be deemed to be the proper authentication of such order or instrument. ( 13 ) UNDER Article 166 (1) of the Constitution of India, all executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor and according to Article 166 (2 ). Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be framed by the Governor. The Business (Allocation) Rules so made by, the Government authorised the Additional Secretary as one of the officer to authenticate such instrument. I see no substance in this submission also. Sunderlals case (supra) has also answered this submission in the paragraph quoted above. ( 14 ) IN the result, this revision petition has no merit and it is dismissed accordingly. Revision dismissed. .