These two Revision Petitions which are admitted shall stand disposed of vide this common Judgment. 1. The Session Judge, Udhampur was of the opinion that the prosecution case suffers from a legal infirmity and in the presence of such legal infirmity the prosecution of the accused is not possible unless sanction is obtained. It is the order which is subject matter of challenge in these petitions preferred by the State. The facts in brief are as under: (1) Respondent Rajani Sehgal was posted as Incharge Superintendent Sub Jail Reasi w.e.f. 1993 to 1996. It is submitted that during this period, She committed large number of irregularities and illegalities in the purchase of electric bulbs. The purchases which were during the above period were to the extent of Rs. 204717. It was stated that this was done in connivance with respondents No. 2 and 3 who were also posted in the same sub jail as Assistant Superintendent and Store Keeper. The matter was reported to the Inspector General of Police. A case was registered against the respondent. It was found that offences under Section 409, read with Section 420 of the Penal Code were prima- facie committed by the respondent. An exception was taken to these proceeding on the plea that sanction under Section of the Penal Code was required. The court below has come to the conclusion that sanction is, infact required. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge in this petition. (2) The above aspect of the amtter has been considered by this Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation V. Romesh Kumar, 561 - A Cr. P.C. No. 19/97, decided on 28th Aug.2000. The precise question which was gone into in the above case stands formulated in the opening part of the judgement. For facility of reference this para is being reproduced below :- Would the prosecution be guility of resorting to a device or making an attempt to camouflage or smoke scree in the prosecuting a person under the penal provisions of the Penal Code when the facts primarily and essentially disclosed that the parameters of prevention of Corruption Act and which Acts require prior sanction for inititating prosecution? The hard reality is that if the prosecution is intiated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, then sanction is required, if it is plainly under the penal provisions of Penal Code, then of course the sanction is not required .� 3. Therefore, the question as to whether trial can go on without obtaining sanction when a particular Act falls within two statutory provisions - one which requires sanction and the other which does not so require was gone into. The Full Bench decision given by the Bombay High Court in the case of State V. Sahebaro, AIR 1954 Bom. 549, which support the proposition as put across by the State was taken note of . The view expressed by the Gauhati High Court in the case reported as 1988 Cri. L. J. 1563, Sudhendra Kumar Bhattacharjee Y. State, was a view to the contrary and this was also considered. B.L. Hansaria, J, later Judge of the Supreme Court, expressed an opinion to the effect that the salutary requirement of obtaining previous sanction cannot be set a naught by prosecuting a public servant for an offence under the Penal Code for which no sanction is necessary, though the offence attracts the mischief of provision(s) of law mentioned in section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As per the learned Judge, Such a course would really frustrate the purpose for which previous sanction has been deemed necessary by the Legislature.� In doing so, the learned Judge placed reliance on a decision of Andra Pradesh High Court reported as AIR 1975 Andra Pra. 663, A.Veeraiah v. State. What was observed by Subba Rao C.J. (later Chief Justice of India ), was summarized in the following words. If the facts constitute an offence requiring either the sanction of a superior authority or the filling of a complaint by a court, It cannot be evaded by adopting the device of omitting one of the ingredients of the defence and prosecuting him under some other section. If the facts constitute an offence requiring either the sanction of a superior authority or the filling of a complaint by a court, It cannot be evaded by adopting the device of omitting one of the ingredients of the defence and prosecuting him under some other section. This was illustrated by saving that if a public servant received an amount on behalf of the State and dishonestly misappropriated the same, the offence directly fell under S. 5 (1), (0) of the Act and he could be prosecuted only with the previous sanction of the authority; and the prosecution could not, by adopting the device of ignoring the fact that the accused was a public servant, evade the requirement of previous sanction by filling a complaint under S.408 of the Penal Code.� 4. The Gauhati High placed reliance on an earlier decision of Patna High Court reported as AIR 1955 Pat. 453, K.P. Sinha v. Aftabuddin wherein it was held that the law relating to previous sanction cannot be evaded by the prosecuting an accused under a Penal provision which does not require sanction. (3) The other decision which were referred to in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Romesh Kumar, mentioned above, are AIR 1953 SC 293, Bashir-ul-Huq v. State of West Bengal. The above decision of the Supreme Court is again an authority for the proposition that if a particular offence falls with in two statutory enactments, one requiring sanction and the other not requiring it, then the provision which requires sanction cannot be evaded. AIR 1952 Punj. 89, State v. Gurcharan Singh, is another decision which was also taken note of. This decision takes note of General Clauses Act also. It was pointed out that where as under S. 409 of the Penal Code, no sanction is required when a person is prosecuted, the prevention of Corruption Act requires a sanction in the case of every accused, It was observed that as prevention of Corruption Act has introduced various important procedural changes, an accused cannot be deprived of the same. (4) Ram Nath v. King Emperor, 1925 Allahabad 230 and Perianna Muthirian v. M. Vengu Ayyar and the others, AIR 1929 Madras 21 are other decisions which were also taken note of in the case Central Bureau of Investigation,. Refereed to above. (4) Ram Nath v. King Emperor, 1925 Allahabad 230 and Perianna Muthirian v. M. Vengu Ayyar and the others, AIR 1929 Madras 21 are other decisions which were also taken note of in the case Central Bureau of Investigation,. Refereed to above. Ultimately, it was conclude as under :- After having gone through the judgements noticed above, I am of opinion that interpretation which help a citizen in a criminal case should be preferred. Therefore, following the view expressed by the Andhra Pradesh and Patna High Courts, which view was, infact, noticed by the Gauhati High Court, referred to the Court of Revision, I am of the view that the prosecution of the respondent is not possible unless sanction is obtained. This view is also supported by one of the earliest decision of Punjab High Court, State v. Gurcharan Singh (supra). 5. What is said above is fully attracted to the facts of this case also. This Revision Petition preferred by the State is thus found to be without merit and is dismissed.