Judgment : HULUVADI G. RAMESH 1. This revision is by the State against the order dated 1.10.05 passed by the Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore in Spl. Case No. 67/04. 2. The respondent-accused was charge-sheeted for the offences. Punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging that he being the Junior Engineer(Electrical) in North sub-Division, BESCOM, Bangalore, has amassed wealth disproportionate to his know source of income which works out to 146% excess wealth than the know sources of income and accordingly, after obtaining sanction from the Superintending Engineer (Electrical), charge-sheet was laid. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and summons was issued by the learned Special Judge and on the preliminary objection raised by the accused regarding the competency of the sanctioning authority, it was tried as a preliminary issue and after enquiry, having found that the person who accorded the sanction is not competent, has come to the conclusion that the sanction accorded is invalid and illegal and accused was discharged by giving liberty to the complaint to move the Court after obtaining valid sanction by the Competent Authority. The said order is under challenge. 3. Heard. 4. The learned Government Pleader has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2004) 7 SCC 763 in the case of State by Police Inspector Vs. T. Venkatesh Murthy wherein referring to Section 19(3) and (4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 regarding invalid sanction, it is held that, merely because there is any omission, error or irregularity in the matter of according sanction that does not affect the validity of the proceeding unless the Court records the satisfaction that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in failure of justice. 5. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has relied upon the decision reported in 2005 AIR SCW 4845 in the case of State of Goa Vs. Babu Thomas wherein it is observed that, ‘plea that no failure of justice had occasioned by mere irregularity, error or omission in sanction order is not tenable. Such a sanction order is not mere irregularity, error or omission and cognizance taken suffers from fundamental error’. Babu Thomas wherein it is observed that, ‘plea that no failure of justice had occasioned by mere irregularity, error or omission in sanction order is not tenable. Such a sanction order is not mere irregularity, error or omission and cognizance taken suffers from fundamental error’. Accordingly, submitted that it is not necessary to record or to find out there is a failure of justice and even a mere irregularity in according sanction amount to fundamental error and breach and that as per Regulation 14(a) of the KEB Employees’ (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987, Board is competent to accord sanction. It is further submitted that when the sanction accorded is by the Superintending Engineer, who is not competent to accord sanction, as such, on the basis of such invalid sanction, rightly, the Special Judge has discharged the accused, which cannot be found fault with. In this regard, he has also relied upon the unreported decision of this Court in Crl. R.P. No. 69/01 disposed of on 23.1.03. 6. On perusal of the sanction accorded in the case on hand and the order passed in the above said unreported decision in similar circumstances, it is noted that there is an error and irregularity in according sanction by the Superintending Engineer, who is not competent, on the basis of which the case cannot be proceeded with and it is for the Board to review this aspect and to take decision in accordance with law. Even the trial Court has also given liberty to the prosecuting agency to re-prosecute the accused after obtaining valid sanction from the Competent Authority. In that view of the matter, I do not find any error or irregularity committed by the Special Judge in passing the impugned order. 7. Hence, the petition preferred by the State is dismissed. However, the liberty, which is already given by the Special Judge to the State remains intact. Office to send back the records forthwith.