Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. Jai Pal Singh is facing prosecution on the basis of FIR No. 1 dated February 4, 1992 registered under Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station SVB, Karnal. He had been sent up for trial before Special Judge, Kurukshetra who on July 13, 1999 charged him for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs. 75,294.94 and for dishonestly inducing the department to pay house rent at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month for the period from March, 1990 to July, 1991. The charges were framed under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the first count and under Section 420 IPC on the second count. 2. The main contention of the petitioner is that cognizance could only be taken against him after previous sanction of the Board of Directors of the Haryana State Cooperating Apex Bank Limited, Chandigarh, as the petitioner was employed with the bank as Assistant Manager. 3. The bank constituted a sub-committee vide resolution passed on August 30, 1993 to grant permission to the State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana, Karnal for the prosecution of the petitioner. (The enquiry report is at page 39). Three officers conducted enquiry, considered the income of the petitioner and also the income of his wife Nawal Kumari, as well as income from agricultural land and the loans raised by the petitioner. As regards the second charge of receiving house rent, affidavit of the landlady was considered, it was to the effect that the petitioner had been living in her house as a tenant. Keeping all these factors in view the committee was of the view that there appeared to be no justification in according permission for prosecution of the petitioner. 4. Thereafter, the report of the sub-committee was considered and approved at the meeting of Board of Directors on April 12, 1994. (The proceedings are Annexure P-4). Consequently, a letter was addressed to the Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Karnal on May 11, 1994 declining sanction for prosecution (Annexure P-5). However, on July 2, 1997, the matter was re- considered by the Board of Directors and it was resolved that sanction for prosecution of the petitioner should be granted (Annexure P-7) 5. Consequently, a letter was addressed to the Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Karnal on May 11, 1994 declining sanction for prosecution (Annexure P-5). However, on July 2, 1997, the matter was re- considered by the Board of Directors and it was resolved that sanction for prosecution of the petitioner should be granted (Annexure P-7) 5. There appears to be no fresh material before the Board of Directors which may have persuaded them to review the previous order of declining sanction. Indeed, no new or fresh grounds have been disclosed to support the ground of sanction. There was no change in the circumstances requiring the sanction to be granted. 6. Counsel has relied upon Dr. Jaswinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and another, 2001(2) RCR(Criminal) 58 and Mahendra Lal Das v. State of Bihar and others, 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 110 : 2001(4) RCR(Crl.) 589 (SC) in support of the argument that sanction to prosecute once declined cannot be reviewed. In both the cases cited above, the circumstances were similar to the present case. Sanction to prosecution had earlier been refused but upon review the matter was re-considered and sanction was granted. In both the cases, the sanction to prosecute as well as the FIR were quashed. Indeed in the case of Mahendra Lal Das (supra) sanction had not been granted at all in spite of resolution having been passed after the registration of the FIR. 7. This petition deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, the charges as well as the FIR No. 1 dated February 4, 1992 registered under Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 of Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station SVB, Karnal and all consequent proceedings pending before the Court of Special Judge, Kurukshetra are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.