JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.— Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shri Kant, Advocate, appearing for appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant appeal was preferred against judgment and order dated 28.2.1981 passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption (Central) U.P, Lucknow, in criminal case No. 45 of 1976 whereby sole appellant was convicted under Sections 120-B, 420, 471, I.P.C. and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to one year R.I. under Section 120-B, two years R.I. 420, 471, I.P.C. and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and fine of Rs. 1535/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo one year imprisonment. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 3. First information report was registered against appellant on 2.2.1976 at case crime No. 7 of 1976 by Sri C.M. Sharma, Superintendent of Police, CBI/SPE, Lucknow. 4. Appellant was working as a clerk in the State Bank of India, main branch, Kanpur, in the intervening period between March, 1975 to July, 1975. Allegation is that he dishonestly claimed L.T.C. from Kanpur to Howrah and cheated bank by producing fabricated tickets for himself and family members in connivance with co-accused A.R. Tripathi, who was an employee of Railway. 5. On perusal of complaint dated 2.2.1976, Ex. Ka-46 of Superintendent of Police, C.B.I./SPE, Lucknow, it transpires that investigation was done in the present case by Inspector, C.B.I. and both accused were jointly tried for the alleged offences. Sri A.R. Tripathi was given a clear acquittal. 6. Submission is that since co-accused A.R. Tripathi, has been given a clear acquittal, therefore, there is no question of any conspiracy and conviction under Section 120-B I.P.C. is not sustainable. I am in agreement with submission of counsel for appellant. 7. Appellant took four Ist class ticket Nos. 08132 to 08135 and two child tickets for Ist class Nos. 00745 and 00746, for performing journey from Kanpur to Howrah, dated 10.3.1975 for Rs. 812.30. And four Ist class ticket Nos. 8073 to 8076 and two child tickets for Ist class Nos. 198/199 for performing journey from Howrah to Kanpur, dated 15.3.1975 for Rs. 812.30. Total amount of tickets is Rs. 1624.60/- Bill submitted by appellant is exhibited Ka-25. 8. 00745 and 00746, for performing journey from Kanpur to Howrah, dated 10.3.1975 for Rs. 812.30. And four Ist class ticket Nos. 8073 to 8076 and two child tickets for Ist class Nos. 198/199 for performing journey from Howrah to Kanpur, dated 15.3.1975 for Rs. 812.30. Total amount of tickets is Rs. 1624.60/- Bill submitted by appellant is exhibited Ka-25. 8. Claim of prosecution is that appellant, O.P. Singhania did not perform the said journey and got prepared false money receipt and received amount illegally by committing fraud and cheating the Bank. However, there is no allegation that it was he himself, who had fabricated tickets. 9. First point raised by Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate, appearing for appellant is that sanction accorded in the case of appellant is not sustainable and the prosecution on the basis of illegal sanction is liable to be set at naught. Sanction in the instant was given by Sri J.P. Kundra, PW-1, who was appointing authority. Two sanctions one in respect of present appellant and another in respect of co-accused A.R. Tripathi, are placed before this Court in support of his submission that it is absolutely identical sanction. In fact draft was prepared in the case of co-accused A.R. Tripathi when sanction was obtained from Railway department. PW-1 in his statement before the Court, has admitted that there was no draft presented before him in the case of present appellant and record was placed before him. He accorded sanction after applying his mind. 10. The counsel for appellant has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Udai Narain v. State of U.P. through C.B.I., 2002 (1) JIC 985 (All) (LB), wherein this Court had quashed the entire prosecution and sentence only because the Court was of the view that sanction was not proper and in accordance with law. There was no application of mind. 11. Appellant’s counsel has submitted that it is settled principle of law that issue of sanction should be decided first without entering into merits of the case. Therefore, sanction which is a part of record as well as statement of sanctioning authority namely Sri J.P. Kundra, PW-1, has been placed in support of his contention. 11. Appellant’s counsel has submitted that it is settled principle of law that issue of sanction should be decided first without entering into merits of the case. Therefore, sanction which is a part of record as well as statement of sanctioning authority namely Sri J.P. Kundra, PW-1, has been placed in support of his contention. In the case of Udai Narain (supra), the Court had taken a view that accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B I.P.C. as well as other offences under Provisions of Corruption Act but in the sanction order, word used is “any other offences punishable under provisions of law” meaning thereby any other offence punishable does not detail other offences. Therefore, there was no application of mind so far other offences are concerned. The commission of offence of conspiracy has also been disbelieved in the case of one of the accused, therefore, it cannot said to be any conspiracy between two accused. 12. Besides, in the instant case, Sri J.P. Kundra, has used identical word as any other offence as well while granting sanction. Citation placed before this Court applies in the present case from all corners. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in the case of R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antuley, 1984 SCC (Crl) 172. The Apex Court has laid down guidelines that : “(A) The authority entitled to grant sanction must apply its mind. (B) The authority must apply its mind to the facts of the case. (C) The authority must apply its mind to the evidence collected and other incidental facts before according sanction”. 13. For ready perusal, paragraph No. 19 of decision of Udai Narain (supra) is quoted below : “19. The mention in the last Para of the sanction order that “President does hereby accord the sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act II of 1974) and Section 19 (1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988) for the prosecution of the said Udai Narain for the said offences...” indicates that the Minister concerned had not applied his mind. Not only this in the last lines of the same paragraph of the sanction order, it is mentioned that “any other offences punishable under other provisions of law in respect of the acts aforesaid and for taking cognizance of the offences by a Court of competent jurisdiction.” The inclusion of these words suggests that the authority was not satisfied with the material information that accused Udai Narain (revisionist) has committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC, and Sections 8, 10 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and no other offence alleged to have been committed by him. For that reasons, in the prosecution order the words “and any other offences punishable under other provisions of law” have crept in. This Court has held in Deewan Chand v. State of U.P., 1991 Crl. L.J. 3239, that “ the sanction which has been reproduced above clearly mentions the facts and also goes to show that the sanction was accorded on a consideration of the said facts and material produced before Shri P. Sahai. It cannot be said that the sanction is a bald one and it does not contain the requisite facts before the General Manager and that the General Manager has not applied his mind to the facts of the case; that he accorded sanction in a mechanical manner just by signing on the sanction prepared by the office. The Investigating Officer desired sanction under Section 6(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, there was no question of the appellant being tried under any other provision of law.” In this aspect of the mattter it is not understood as to why the words “and any other offences punishable under other provisions of law in respect of the acts aforesaid” were added towards the end of paragraph 32.” In this case as well, the C.B.I. report was placed before the Minister concerned for consideration and sanction of the prosecution of the revisionist which indicates that the offence has been committed by an employee of Central Government then, there was no occasion for the Minister concerned to add in the last that the sanction is accorded under Section 19 (1) (c) of the P.C. Act and also accorded sanction for prosecution of the revisionist for any other offence punishable under other provisions of law in respect of the acts aforesaid.” 14. Sri G.S. Hajela, counsel for C.B.I. has contradicted arguments advanced on behalf of appellants and emphasized that there was no challenge on the point of sanction before Court below. PW-1 who accorded sanction, was neither sufficiently cross examined nor suggestion was made. This argument is not available at this stage. 15. After hearing counsels for respective parties at length, no doubt this argument has not been raised before Court below but it is a legal question and settled principle of law. There are catena of decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court, which provide that if sanction is not proper, propriety demands that any irregularity can be corrected at a later stage but it is apparent that approximately 28-29 years have gone by, trial ended in conviction of appellant, which resulted in his loss of job. Therefore, I am of the view that prosecution cannot be given time to make correction at every stage even after lapse of such a long period. Sanction accorded is not sustainable in law. It does not appear that while granting sanction for prosecution, complete record was examined vis-a-vis each of the offences relating to different provisions of law. In the circumstances, since very basis of the prosecution i.e. sanction is not a legal sanction, the entire prosecution stands vitiated. The judgment and order dated 28.2.1981 passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption (Central) U.P, Lucknow, is set at naught. Bail bonds and sureties of appellant are discharged. The appeal stands allowed. ————