ORDER: The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.94 of 2000 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam and he seeks to quash the proceedings in the case. 2. Briefly, the averments in the petition are as follows: The petitioner is being proceeded against for an offence under Sec.295(A) of I.P.C. in C.C.No.94 of 2000 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam on the allegation that he distributed printed pamphlets, the contents of which caused insult to the religious belief of Hindus. The respondent has not complied with the mandatory requirement contemplated under Sec.196(1)(a) of Crl.P.C. and filed the final report without the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sec.295(A) of I.P.C. without the order of sanction. The petitioner/accused filed a petition before the trial Court under Rule 339 of Criminal Rules of Practice for furnishing the copy of the sanction order in the case. The trial Court returned the petition with an endorsement that the sanction order for prosecuting the petitioner was not produced in the case. Hence, the proceedings in C.C.No.94 of 2000 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam, are liable to be quashed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on criminal side. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the proceedings in the case are liable to be quashed on the ground that no sanction was given, in accordance with Sec. 196(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, for prosecuting the petitioner for an offence under Sec.295(A) of I.P.C. and he relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Manoj Rai and others v. State of M.P. , 1999 S.C.C. (Crl.)98. 5. Admittedly, the prosecution has not obtained the sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government for prosecuting the petitioner for the alleged offence under Sec.295(A) of I.P.C. In fact, the petitioner has filed a petition under Rule 339 of Criminal Rules of Practice for the grant of certified copy of the sanction order, if any and the trial Court has returned it with an endorsement that no such sanction order was produced in the case. The learned Government Advocate also concedes that no sanction was obtained for prosecuting the petitioner for the offence under Sec.295(A) of I.P.C. There is a bar under Sec. 196 , Crl.P.C. for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence under Sec.295(A) of I.P.C. in a case where there is no previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government. The Apex Court also, in the decision referred to above, has laid down that proceedings are liable to be quashed if there is no sanction in accordance with Sec. 196(1) of C.P.C. to prosecute an accused for the offence under Sec.295(A) of I.P.C. 6. In the absence of sanction, the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence under Sec.295(A) of I.P.C. against the petitioner, in view of the bar under Sec. 196, Crl.P.C. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner under Sec.295(A) of I.P.C. are not sustainable in law and liable to be quashed. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.94 of 2000 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam, against the petitioner are quashed. Connected Crl.M.P. No. 1593 of 2001 is closed. S.S.-----Petition allowed.