R. BHATTACHARYYA. J. ( 1 ) -THIS criminal revision is directed against the Order No. 130 dated 9. 7. 92 passed by the Judge 5th Special Court, Calcutta in Case No. 1 of 1982 discharging the accused from the case directing forthwith release of the accused from the respective bait bonds. ( 2 ) THE State is highly dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the order of discharge has come up before this court in revision for reversal of the order of the discharge to be replaced by the order of conviction. However, to understand the note of the argument, brief 'resume' of facts is essential. ( 3 ) THE accused No. 1 B. K. Goswami, Technician Bagdogra I. A. F. Exchange on 13. 2. 80, submitted a T. A. Bill of Rs. 1050/- for the pseudo tour of his wife, mother and daughters in Bus No. UPF-5555 for the period between 15. 4. 80 to 29. 4. 80. He submitted a fake bill said to have been issued by accused No. 5. It is notorious to find that not only the wife of the accused No. I but also Sulekha, the daughter alleged to have attended Pandt Dispensary on 25. 4. 80 for their treatment. The bus by which the parties travelled had no route permit for such tour during the sold period from Siliguri to Kanyakumari. ( 4 ) FURTHER, one Wakil Rawat, another Technician, who took an advance of Rs. 800/towards L. T. A. on 4. 3. 80 and who submitted a fake bill of Rs. 2,100/- for his fieticious journey from Siligurl to Kanyakumari by the six members of his family in Bus No. LJPF-7311 for the period between 11. 3. 80 to 25. 3. 80. ( 5 ) IT is needless to repeat that there was no tour undertaken by the accused in the aforesaid vehicle which did not ply between Siligurt and Kanyakumart. ( 6 ) NANKU Singh, a Chowkidar, S. D. O. Siliguri also look an advance of Rs. 800/- on 11. 1. 80 for travelling on account of L. T. C. by his family members and submitted the final claim of its. 2. 100/- without undertaking tour. The vehicle did not travel between Siliguri and Kanyakumarl but elsewhere during 5. 3. 80 to 20. 3. 80 (checked period ). One of the members of Nanku Singh on 15. 3. 1. 80 for travelling on account of L. T. C. by his family members and submitted the final claim of its. 2. 100/- without undertaking tour. The vehicle did not travel between Siliguri and Kanyakumarl but elsewhere during 5. 3. 80 to 20. 3. 80 (checked period ). One of the members of Nanku Singh on 15. 3. 80 was treated, as out door patient, at Siligurl. ( 7 ) JYOTIRMOY Pal Chowdhuri, the peon attached to Pandt also submitted the fake bill of Rs. 1225/- for the tour of himself and the four members of his family in Bus No. UTN-379 from Siligurl to Kanyakumari. ( 8 ) IT is also notorious to find from the ordersheet that the daughter of Jotirmoy Pal Chowdhury and father of Jotirmoy Pal Chowdhury on 6. 5. 80 were procured by the accused No. 5 M/s. Model Tourist Service who engaged accused Wakil Rawat to bring the aforesaid persons and in conspiracy with them he also received money. as stated, without performing any journey by any such persons who had been arrayed as accused in this case. By the acts and deeds, it transpired commission of offences under sections 120b/465/475/511 of the IPC and section 5 (3)A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Before launching the prosecution, a sanction was obtained from Mr. S. S. Sen, Divisional Engineer, to prosecute the accused persons for the offences alleged to have been committed by them disclosed in the petitioner's complaint. ( 9 ) THIS court has been addressed only on the question of sanction which has invalidated the prosecution. The learned counsel for the State has overwhelmingly challenged the order of discharge on the ground that the decision of the learned court below discharging the accused lands on a wrong shore. According to the learned Advocate, the learned Trial Court not only misread the evidence but also misapplied the law for which this confusion. The same is curable for the displacement of order of discharge by an order of conviction. The offence alleged to have been committed within the close proximity of 1980 and the order of discharge was passed in mid 90's which is very material, apart from the question of deciding the legality or the fatality of the sanction. The same is curable for the displacement of order of discharge by an order of conviction. The offence alleged to have been committed within the close proximity of 1980 and the order of discharge was passed in mid 90's which is very material, apart from the question of deciding the legality or the fatality of the sanction. ( 10 ) BOTH the learned counsel have taken me through the sanction order on a number of occasions to demonstrate that the sanction was not at all mechanical but there was due application of mind. The learned Advocate for the State disputing the order of discharge has argued with much force that the impugned sanctioned order when contains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " and whereas after fully and carefully considering the facts and circum- stances of the case, I, Sri S. S. Sen, Divisional Engineer Telegraph, Siliguri Division being the competent authority to appoint or remove the aforesaid persons from the service and there is the prima facie for prosecution of the aforesaid persons for the offences mentioned above". ( 11 ) THE above observations or findings of the Divisional Engineer Telegraphs, Siliguri, who accorded sanction under section 6 (t) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act bolts the claim of the accused, subsequently discharged on the ground that sanction bore pitfall. According to me, if we look side ways and upside down and employs a magnifying glass, it may be legitimately discovered that the contention of the learned Advocate for the respondents opposite parties could hardly raise any ripple. If we read between the lines of the evidence of Mr. Sen. PW-22, the author of the sanction, it is indisputable that he has adduced a mechanical evidence in support of the sanction where the vagueness is manifestly interwoven. He had no recollection of the sanction. Nor does it stand out from anywhere in his evidence that all the papers were placed before him which he duly considered and applied his mind before he accorded sanction. It is curious to find from the evidence that the 1. 0. obtained the sanction before submission of the report from the competent authority in respect of the discharge accused persons. Sanction is a very valid peace of document. It is curious to find from the evidence that the 1. 0. obtained the sanction before submission of the report from the competent authority in respect of the discharge accused persons. Sanction is a very valid peace of document. ( 12 ) IN the light of the above, in my view, it is very difficult to stall the argument for the respondents that the sanction was proved. Looking to the deposition of PW-22, it is a case where the court has rightly come to a conclusion which is irresistible that there was total non-application of mind in granting the sanction. It is absolutely mechanical used for the purpose of proceeding against the accused. The court in the instant case when comes to the conclusion that the sanction had not been proved, then the court has no other alternative but to discharge the other accused. ( 13 ) A faint attempt has been made by the learned Advocate for the State to remit the case back to the learned court below for further evidence dwelling on sanction. The same has been opposed by the learned Advocate for the respondents on the ground that the further evidence if allowed to be granted by the court, it will result in colossal injustice. According to him. It will be a step to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution case prejudicial to the interest of the accused persons who have suffered so long and have to go through the ordeal of trial since 1982. It is pertinent to mention that in course of long 16 years when no fruitful result had been achieved, remitting the case for evidence could be an encroachment on the right of the parties which the law does not encompass. Even to send the accused once again to the learned court below for trial will be an inroad on Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as it tends to affect their lives and liberty which are the basic features of our Constitution prompting human rights. With this and no more, I cannot accept the contention of the learned Advocate for the Stale as 1 do in respect of the learned Advocate for the respondents. Upon careful perusal of the judgement, I cannot but agree with the findings and the observations of the learned court below on the question of sanction. With this and no more, I cannot accept the contention of the learned Advocate for the Stale as 1 do in respect of the learned Advocate for the respondents. Upon careful perusal of the judgement, I cannot but agree with the findings and the observations of the learned court below on the question of sanction. The failure to prove the same by the prosecution has made a mess of the whole show. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY, I confirm the findings on the question of sanction. The revisions application is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed