ORDER The State has filed this revision petition under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the correctness and legality of the finding in discharging the respondent-accused by the III Additional District Judge and Special Judge at Mysore in Special Case No. 90 of 1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Assailing the order of discharge passed by the Special Judge, the State has come up with this revision mainly on the ground that the finding recorded by the Special Judge holding that the sanction order i.e., Ex. P. 25 is not valid and incorrect and totally wrong. So also, the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court for coming to that conclusion are quite illegal, erroneous and against the mandatory provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. So, after framing the charge the prosecution adduced the evidence to substantiate the said charge and the respondent-accused has examined himself as D.W. 1 and got marked 40 documents. But the Special Judge without considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record disposed of the case only on one point i.e., the sanction order Ex. P. 25 issued by the sanctioning authority is without application of mind, without considering the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/- for releasing the boxes of X-ray dyes seized by him as alleged. Hence, this revision. 3. Heard the arguments of Sri L. Umakanthan, learned Government Advocate for the State and Sri M.V. Sheelavant, learned Counsel for the respondent-accused. 4. During the course of arguments, the learned Government Advocate for the revision petitioner-State submitted that the Trial Court has recorded evidence of prosecution witnesses and also recorded that the statement of the respondent under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and after hearing the arguments of the parties. So, without considering the material evidence placed on record by the revision petitioner-Prosecution discharged the respondent-accused on point of sanction order to prosecute the respondent, which is illegal and incorrect. When once the charge has been framed and the evidence is adduced and the accused has entered into his defence, the Special Judge ought to have been considered the evidence placed on record and record its finding. When once the charge has been framed and the evidence is adduced and the accused has entered into his defence, the Special Judge ought to have been considered the evidence placed on record and record its finding. So, in the instant case, the Trial Court neither discussed the evidence nor considered the same. It is argued by the learned High Court Government Advocate that the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court in discharging the respondent-accused is illegal and incorrect is liable to be quashed. The judgment and the order of discharge passed by the Trial Court and the finding is not based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is further submitted that once the charge is framed and the evidence is adduced and the accused has entered in his defence, at that stage, the question of discharge does not arise. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of discharge is liable to be quashed as it is illegal. 5. In support of this contention, the learned Government Advocate relied on a decision of this Court in case of. Central Bureau of Investigation, A.C.B., Bangalore v Sukumar Bhavu Gude, wherein this Court has held that discharge of an accused after conclusion of the trial i.e., full dressed trial without considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. The question of discharge does not arise when once the charge has been framed and the evidence is adduced and the accused has entered in his defence. The Trial Court ought to have been considered and disposed of the case on merits. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the sanction is a must under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The person who is incompetent to sanction issued Ex. P. 25. Therefore, the Trial Court is right in discharging the accused on that point. It is further submitted that when the prosecution itself fails to prove that the order of sanction accorded by an incompetent person who had no jurisdiction then the question of considering the other evidence placed on record does not arise. Therefore, the Trial Court is right in discharging the respondent-accused. It is further submitted that when the prosecution itself fails to prove that the order of sanction accorded by an incompetent person who had no jurisdiction then the question of considering the other evidence placed on record does not arise. Therefore, the Trial Court is right in discharging the respondent-accused. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the respondent referred and relied on a Division Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Manoranjan Prasad Choudhary v State of Bihar, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the sanction accorded by a Competent Authority, to the fact there being any of the Competent Authority (Managing Director of the Company). In the instant case, since there is no sanction of the Competent Authority, proceeding vitiated• under the Act held was liable to be quashed. In the same judgment, it is further held that the authority competent to remove him from the office has authority to accord sanction. 7. He also relied on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v M.M. Rajendran, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that - Finding on merits about prosecution case impermissible - Proper course would be to drop the proceedings - In the instant case finding on merits recorded by the High Court directed to be expunged - However, it would be open to the State to proceed afresh after obtaining necessary sanction. 8. He also relied on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of 3 Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that - It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the Sanctioning Authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. 9. Iqbal Ahmed v State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that - It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the Sanctioning Authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. 9. Finally, the learned Advocate for respondent also relied on the decision of this Court rendered by Hon'ble Justice M.F. Saldanha in case of J.S. Sathyanarayana (deceased) by L.Rs and Another v State by Inspector of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Madikeri4, wherein this Court held - Sanction for prosecution - Essentials of order of - Order must contain essential facts of case and must indicate that sanctioning authority has evaluated such facts to come to a conclusion that case warrants prosecution - Mere signing on prescribed pro forma is not valid sanction. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that Trial Court is right in discharging the accused after considering the sanction accorded by a person who is incompetent and there is no application of mind while sanctioning. 10. Having heard the arguments on both sides, I have carefully examined the material place on record. 11. The admitted facts are that the respondent was working as Drug Inspector. in the office of the Drug Controller at Mysore. P.W. 1-Dr. Sharath Kumar was having a Pharmaceutical Laboratory at Sayyaji Road, Mysore. He was dealing in X-ray dyes. On 11-7-1990, the accused visited the said laboratory of P.W. 1 and seized X-ray dyes along with its relevant documents worth about Rs. 28,000/- alleging that the complainant had no licence to deal with the business of the said X-ray dye as required under the Cosmetics and Drugs Act. Therefore, P.W. 1 requested the accused not to seize the same since no licence is required and despite this, the accused seized and has taken possession of the Xray dyes and its relevant documents. When P.W. 1 requested for release of the same, the respondent-accused is said to have demanded and expected illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/• though he had initially demanded Rs. 25,000/-. Accordingly, the investigation agency after obtaining the necessary sanction order as required under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Ex. When P.W. 1 requested for release of the same, the respondent-accused is said to have demanded and expected illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/• though he had initially demanded Rs. 25,000/-. Accordingly, the investigation agency after obtaining the necessary sanction order as required under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Ex. P. 25 and after completing investigation, filed a charge-sheet against him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Ad, 1988. In the instant case, charge was framed after considering the materials and the oral submissions made by both the parties. The revision petitioner-prosecution examined 7 witnesses and got marked 47 documents and the respondent examined himself as D.W. 1 and got marked 40 documents. After hearing the arguments on both sides, the Special Judge discharged the accused without considering the oral and documentary evidence while answering the charge Nos. 1 and 2 framed in the said case. The material placed on record ought to have been considered by the Special Judge in detail and if the Special Judge had noticed or found that there was no material to come to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved all the charges within a reasonable time, then it ought to have concluded that when once the charge has been framed and the evidence has been adduced, the next course available for the Trial Court is to consider the oral and documentary evidence in detail and dispose of the case on merits. Instead of that, the Trial Court has adopted a short circuit method to dispose of the special case by discharging the accused and a lengthy judgment has been passed. In order to prosecute a public servant a sanction is to be obtained from the Competent Authority. So, in order to prosecute a public servant, there must be a valid sanction and the Court is expected to apply its judicious mind by considering the entire oral and documentary evidence placed on record. If the sanction accorded by a person without application of mind and without jurisdiction, it would be open to the State to proceed against such person afresh after obtaining necessary sanction from the Competent Authority, Appointing Authority. If the sanction accorded by a person without application of mind and without jurisdiction, it would be open to the State to proceed against such person afresh after obtaining necessary sanction from the Competent Authority, Appointing Authority. It means that even if the sanction accorded by a person who is incompetent and had no jurisdiction, even then the State has got every right to obtain fresh sanction from the concerned. In the instant case, when the entire material was placed on record before the Trial Court, the Trial Court ought to have considered the same and recorded its findings and answered the charges framed against the respondent. Moreover, in the instant case, the respondent has not filed any application for his discharge. When once the charge has been framed and the trial has been conducted, the remedy available to the Court is to consider the entire evidence to dispose of the case. If the prosecution has not proved the charges levelled against the accused, then the Court is at liberty to acquit him. In the instant case, the Trial Court has not made any attempt to consider the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. The order of discharge passed by the Trial Court is perverse, illegal and incorrect and is liable to be set aside. 12. Hence, the impugned order dated 25-10-1999 under challenge passed in Special Case No. 90 of 1994 by the Special Judge, Mysore is liable to set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court with a direction to secure the presence of both parties hear the parties afresh and dispose of the case in accordance with law by considering the entire evidence on record within three months from the date of receipt of this order.