JUDGMENT : 1. Both these Criminal Appeals arise from the Judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Hingoli, in Special Case No. 02 of 2007, convicting both the appellants for offences punishable under Section 7, 13 (i) (d) read with Section 13 (2) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (henceforth referred as “the Act”. So these two Criminal Appeals can be decided by this common Judgment. The appellant Gopal s/o Nagnathrao Gunjkar, in Criminal Appeal No. 510 of 2009, was accused No.1, and, Dnyaneshwar s/o Rambhau Khokale, in Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 2009, was accused No.2 in Special Case No. 02 of 2007. Therefore, hereinafter, appellant Gopal s/o Nagnathrao Gunjakar is referred as appellant No. 1, whereas appellant Dnyaneshwar s/o Rambhau Khokale is referred as appellant No.2, for the sake convenience. The prosecution case, in short, can be stated as under: 2. The prosecution witness No. 1 Balaji, the complainant had sought permission from the Forest Department to transport certain logs of teak trees, which he had cut in his agricultural field. The file concerning his permission was pending before the appellant No. 1, who was then Assistant Conservator of Forest at Hingoli. A week prior to the complaint, he had an occasion to meet the appellant No. 1 in his office. At that time, the appellant No. 1 demanded Rs. 7,000/-, as bribe, for recommending favourable order on his file. On 17th April, 2006, the complainant and the appellant No. 1 had a telephonic talk, and the complainant agreed to come and pay Rs. 7,000/- to the appellant No. 1 on the next day. The complainant, thereafter, lodged his complaint with the A.C.B. Office, at Parbhani. A trap was arranged on 18th April, 2006. The complainant and a shadow panch reached with the tainted currency notes of Rs.7,000/- kept in the pocket of the complainant at the office of appellant No. 1. On reaching the office, the complainant met the appellant No. 2 at the office. The complainant knew the appellant No. 2 since prior to that day. The complainant, the shadow panch and the appellant No. 2 then went to the office of appellant No. 1. He then asked them to wait for 10 minutes. On reaching the office, the complainant met the appellant No. 2 at the office. The complainant knew the appellant No. 2 since prior to that day. The complainant, the shadow panch and the appellant No. 2 then went to the office of appellant No. 1. He then asked them to wait for 10 minutes. After 10 minutes, the above mentioned three persons again entered the office of the appellant No. 1, when the appellant No. 1 asked the complainant, whether he had brought the money. The complainant answered in affirmative. The appellant No. 1 then asked the complainant to hand over the money to the appellant No. 2. Accordingly, the three persons mentioned above, came out of the office of appellant No. 1, and, in the passage outside the office, the complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant No. 2, who accepting the amount and kept them in his shirt pocket. Immediately thereafter, the raiding officers of A.C.B. rushed and caught both the appellants. The investigation was completed and the charge-sheet was sent. 3. The learned Judge of the lower Court believed the case of the prosecution, and as said above, convicted both the appellants. 4. Having heard the submissions of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the record of the case, following questions arose for my consideration: (1) Whether the prosecution could prove that the appellant No.1 demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.7,000/-? (2) Whether the prosecution could prove that the appellant No. 2 had knowledge about the appellant No.1’s demand of illegal gratification from the complainant? (3) If the answer is in the negative, whether the appellant No. 2 can be convicted under Section 12 of the Act? (4) Whether the sanction for prosecution of the appellants was valid? 5. The prosecution case is based on depositions of seven prosecution witnesses. The prosecution witness No.1 is the complainant and his deposition is very important. So also, the deposition of the prosecution witness No. 3, the shadow panch is equally important. The prosecution witness No.5 is the Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, who recorded his deposition for the purpose of proving the sanction for prosecution. The prosecution witnesses No. 4, 6 and 7 are the officers of Anti Corruption Bureau. 6. So also, the deposition of the prosecution witness No. 3, the shadow panch is equally important. The prosecution witness No.5 is the Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, who recorded his deposition for the purpose of proving the sanction for prosecution. The prosecution witnesses No. 4, 6 and 7 are the officers of Anti Corruption Bureau. 6. The prosecution witness No.1, the complainant, stated before the Court that he had teak wood trees in his agricultural field, and that, he had intention to cut the trees and sell them. In order to get permission to cut and transport the logs of teak trees, he had filed an application to the Forest Department. He said, the officers of Forest Department had visited his field, inspected the trees and then marked 95 teak trees suitably for felling. Accordingly, he said, he had cut those trees, and, he then filed application to the Forest Department for permission to transport the logs. He said, he waited for many days for receiving such permission, but in vain. So, he went to the Forest Office for enquiry, where he was told that his file had gone to Hingoli office. He said, he came to Forest Office at Hingoli, and on two or three times, he could not meet the appellant No. 1, who was then working as Assistant Conservator of Forest. Lastly, he ultimately succeeded in meeting him. He said, the appellant No. 1 demanded Rs.7,000/-as bribe for giving permission. He said, he agreed to pay the amount, but was not willing to pay the amount. He said, he went to Anti Corruption Bureau office at Parbhani and lodged his complaint. He then said that he made a phone call to appellant No. 1 on his mobile phone. He said, he told the appellant No. 1 that he had arranged the funds and would meet him at Hingoli Forest Office. He said, he went to Anti Corruption Bureau office at Parbhani and lodged his complaint. He then said that he made a phone call to appellant No. 1 on his mobile phone. He said, he told the appellant No. 1 that he had arranged the funds and would meet him at Hingoli Forest Office. To this, he said, the appellant No. 1 asked him to reach his office between 10.00 to 12.00 a. m. He said, he informed this fact to the Anti Corruption Bureau officer, who in turn asked him to reach the Anti Corruption Bureau office on next day between 07.30 to 08.00 a. m. He said, accordingly, he reached Anti Corruption Bureau office on 18th at 07.30 a.m. He then narrated as to what formalities the Anti Corruption Bureau officers made for the purpose of laying a trap. He said, the currency notes of Rs.7,000/- were dusted with invisible chemical etc. He said, at about 10.30, he and the raiding party left Parbhani, and at about 12.30, they all reached at Hingoli. He then said that he and the shadow panch then walked up to the Forest Office. He said that before he could enter the office of appellant No. 1, he and shadow panch met the appellant No. 2 in the outer room of the office. He said, he, the shadow panch and the appellant No. 2 then went inside the room of appellant No. 1. He said, he asked the appellant No. 2 about his file. He said, the appellant No. 1 in turn asked him to wait for 10 minutes outside his room, and he assured that he would give him the file. He said, 10 minutes later, they all again went inside the appellant No. 1’s room when he asked them to sit in the chairs. He said, he told the appellant No. 1 that he had brought the amount. He said, the appellant No. 1 then asked him to go outside and give the amount to the appellant No. 2. He said, he came out and handed over the amount to the appellant No.2. He said, after taking the tainted notes in the hand, the appellant No. 2 started counting them. He said, he immediately gave a signal to the raiding party. He said, he came out and handed over the amount to the appellant No.2. He said, after taking the tainted notes in the hand, the appellant No. 2 started counting them. He said, he immediately gave a signal to the raiding party. When he came back to the appellant No. 2, he saw, the appellant No. 2 was putting the amount in his shirt pocket. He said, the trap party came inside the room. One of the officers of Anti Corruption Bureau, he said, caught the appellant No. 2. Thereafter, the Anti Corruption Bureau officers, he said, disclosed their identity and the purpose of their visit. He said, thereafter, the officers of Anti Corruption Bureau arranged to see the currency notes in ultra violet rays. The anthrasene power was seen on the fingers and also on the shirt pocket of the appellant No. 2. 7. The prosecution witness No. 3, the shadow panch has given more or less same narration. He said, he was asked to work as shadow panch. He said, that on 17.04.2006 he was called at A.C.B. office, and as per the direction of officers of A.C.B., he came back to the office in the morning of 18th April. He said, he saw the complaint. He said, he also saw the complainant. He then narrated as to how the formalities for the trap were carried out. He said, he then reached Hingoli along with raiding party and the complainant. He said, as per the instructions of A.C.B., he and the complainant entered the forest office at Hingoli. He said, they met the appellant No. 2 at the office. He said, the complainant made inquiry with the appellant No. 2 about the appellant No.1. He said, thereafter, the appellant No. 2 took them to the appellant No. 1’s office. He said, the appellant No.1 was present in the office. He said, the complainant made inquiry with appellant No. 1 about his file. He said, the appellant No. 1 then asked them to wait outside for 15-20 minutes. He said, he, the appellant No. 2 and the complainant, then went to another room. He said, after 15-20 minutes, they again went to the office of appellant No. 1. he said, the complainant, at that time, told to the appellant No. 1 that he had come to his office as per the previous day’s talk. He said, he, the appellant No. 2 and the complainant, then went to another room. He said, after 15-20 minutes, they again went to the office of appellant No. 1. he said, the complainant, at that time, told to the appellant No. 1 that he had come to his office as per the previous day’s talk. He said, the appellant No. 1 made inquiry about him with the complainant, and he said, he told the appellant No. 1 that he was the complainant’s relative. He said, the appellant No. 1 told to them that 'as per the previous day’s talk they should go to appellant No. 2'. He said, thereafter, he, the complainant and the appellant No. 2 went to the passage outside the office of the appellant No.1. He said, at that time, the appellant No. 2 asked the complainant, as to whether he had brought the money. He said, the complainant there upon took out the amount and handed over it to the appellant No. 2. After delivery of the currency notes, he said, the raiding party came to the spot. The officer of A.C.B. asked him as to who had accepted the amount. He said, he told him that it was the appellant No. 2 who had accepted the amount. He said, thereafter, the appellant No. 2 handed over the tainted currency notes to the A.C.B. officer. He then said, that the A.C.B. officers inspected the tainted currency notes, the appellant No. 2’s fingers and the appellant No. 2’s pant pocket in ultra violet lamp and detected anthrasene power on them. 8. The prosecution case thus depends on the above quoted narrations of these two prosecution witnesses. One has, therefore, to examine the depositions of these two witnesses carefully to find out as to whether the appellant No. 1 had demanded Rs.7000/- as bribe from the complainant. 9. Let me first examine the evidence in respect of the meeting of the complainant and the appellant No. 1 that took place a week prior to the date of trap. On this point, there is only uncorroborated deposition of the complainant on record. However, if one peruses the cross-examination of this witness on this point, the cross-examiner of appellant No. 1 brought on record the details of the meeting, which were earlier not brought on record. On this point, there is only uncorroborated deposition of the complainant on record. However, if one peruses the cross-examination of this witness on this point, the cross-examiner of appellant No. 1 brought on record the details of the meeting, which were earlier not brought on record. In the cross-examination, the complainant stated that he made inquiry at Forest Office at Parbhani about his file, and he learned that his file had gone to Hingoli Office. In the cross-examination, he reiterated that thereafter he visited Forest Office at Hingoli. He said, he went to the Forest Office for 3-4 times, but still he could not meet the appellant No.1. In the cross-examination, this witness further admitted that he was not acquainted with the appellant No.1 and that he had made inquiry about the appellant No.1 with the Peon and Clerks of the office. He then narrated the details of the meeting. He said, when he went to the office of the appellant No.1, he noticed, a Clerk using typewriter machine in the outer room. He said, he asked the clerk, as to whether the appellant No.1 was present in the office. He said, the clerk answered in affirmative. He also said that this was his first meeting with the appellant No.1, and during first meeting itself, the appellant No.1 demanded bribe. With this cross-examination coming on record, there is no need for further corroboration to the fact that a week before the trap, the appellant No.1 had demanded Rs.7,000/- from the complainant. 10. Let me now examine, as to what happened on 17th April, before and after the complaint was lodged. The complainant stated that he lodged his complaint to Anti Corruption Bureau Parbhani on 17th April. He said, after lodging of the complaint, he made a phone call to the appellant No.1 on his mobile phone, and informed him, that he had arranged the funds and would meet him on the next day. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he lodged his complaint between 11.30 a. m. to 12.00 noon on 17th April. It has come on record that at about 02.00 p.m., there occurred telephonic conversation between the appellant No.1 and the complainant. It has also come on record that on that day these two persons had conversation using the mobile phone only once. It has come on record that at about 02.00 p.m., there occurred telephonic conversation between the appellant No.1 and the complainant. It has also come on record that on that day these two persons had conversation using the mobile phone only once. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant No.1 in this background invited my attention to the contents of the complaint (Exh.24), in which the complainant had stated “on 17th April, 2006, after arranging the funds, he called the appellant No.1 on his mobile phone and got his appointment on the next day”. He said, if the complaint was lodged at about 11.30 a. m. to 12.00 mid-day, how the incident that had taken place at about 02.00 p. m. on that day would find place in the complaint? I am afraid, this argument is not available to the appellant No.1 because the contradiction on which he seeks to place reliance has not been properly proved during the cross-examination of the complainant. No doubt, in the examination-in-chief, the complainant clearly stated that after he lodged the complaint, he made phone call to the appellant No.1 and secured his time of meeting. However, the contradiction that has occurred in his deposition before the Court and the contents of the complaint has not been properly proved. The contents of the complaint cannot be read as his substantive evidence, unless the portion in the complaint is got proved as contradiction. The relevant portion of the complaint has not been proved at all. So, this contradiction is not fatal to the prosecution case. In any case, as said above, the demand made by the appellant No.1 has been amply proved. I am inclined to believe this part of the prosecution case. 11. Let me now examine the evidence about acceptance of the amount. As said above, there are two versions on record about the event that took place. Both the prosecution witnesses No. 1 and 2 have more or less similar version of the events. Both of them stated hat when they reached the Forest Office of Hingoli on 18th April, 2006, at about 12.00 noon, they first came across the appellant No.2. From their narration, it appears that the complainant was knowing the appellant No.2 since prior to this day. Both of them stated hat when they reached the Forest Office of Hingoli on 18th April, 2006, at about 12.00 noon, they first came across the appellant No.2. From their narration, it appears that the complainant was knowing the appellant No.2 since prior to this day. However, during the brief conversion that took place between the appellant No.2 and the complainant, there was no reference to the demand of bribe and the proposed delivery of the same on that day. When for the first time, the prosecution witnesses No.1 and 2 along with the appellant No.2 went inside the appellant No.1’s office, again there was a brief conversion between the parties, the gist of which is already given above. There is concurrence between the prosecution witnesses No. 1 and 2 about the nature of conversation that took place between the complainant and the appellant No.1. Both of them said that the complainant asked the appellant No.1 about his “file”, and then, the appellant No.1 asked them to wait for 10-15 minutes outside his office. This incident, therefore, cannot be disbelieved. The prosecution witnesses No. 1 and 2 further admitted that after 10-15 minutes they and the appellant No.2 again went inside the appellant No.1’s room. There are two versions, as to what transpired then between the complainant and the appellant No.1. On one hand the complainant stated that the appellant No.1 offered them chairs, and thereafter, the complainant informed the appellant No.1 that he had brought the money with him. Upon this, the appellant No.1 told him that he should give that money to the appellant No.2. On the other hand, the prosecution witness No.3, the shadow panch also stated that after 15-20 minutes they again entered the appellant No.1’s room. He said, the complainant informed the appellant No.1 that “as per the previous day’s talk, he had come”, to which the appellant No.1 replied, that “as per the yesterday’s talks, he should go to the appellant No.2”. Both of them despite of this disparity(?) in their statements, stated that after coming out of the room of appellant No.1 in the passage, the complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant No.1. Except the variance about the words that were used by the complainant and the appellant No.1, during their conversation, there is hardly any difference between the two versions. Except the variance about the words that were used by the complainant and the appellant No.1, during their conversation, there is hardly any difference between the two versions. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants asserted that the prosecution witness No.3 did not at all corroborate the complainant’s version about the demand and delivery of the amount of bribe. I am afraid, I am not inclined to accept this assertion. As said above, it is amply proved that the appellant No.1 in clear terms put forward his demand of bribe to the complainant, and thereafter, asked him to deliver the amount of bribe to the appellant No.2 who had no knowledge as to why he was chosen to receive the amount. The factum of delivery of the tainted currency notes, as per the demand of appellant No.1, is amply proved. I am, therefore, holding that the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant No.1 demanded and accepted the bribe. 12. Now let me turn to the case against the appellant No.2. I have discussed the facts in the earlier paragraphs, and without repeating them, it must be said that the appellant No.2, it appears, came in contact with the complainant merely by chance, on the day when the trap was laid. Though it has come on record and I am inclined to believe that the appellant No.2 had acquaintance with the complainant since prior to the day of trap, but, it cannot be said that the appellant No.2 knew about the complainant’s earlier visits to the Forest Office at Hingoli. The complainant did not depose that the appellant No.1 demanded the amount in consultation and in connivance of the appellant No.2. The entire case speaks only about the appellant No.1, his demand and the appointment between the appellant No.1 and the complainant. Non the less it is amply proved that the appellant No.2 met the complainant and the shadow panch by chance at the Forest Office, Hingoli. Let me now examine, as to whether the appellant No.2 had any talks with the appellant No.1 in respect of the work that he promised to do for the complainant. Non the less it is amply proved that the appellant No.2 met the complainant and the shadow panch by chance at the Forest Office, Hingoli. Let me now examine, as to whether the appellant No.2 had any talks with the appellant No.1 in respect of the work that he promised to do for the complainant. Both the important prosecution witnesses, namely, the complainant and the shadow panch, did not depose that prior to entering into the room of the appellant No.1, they had disclosed the purpose of their visit or that the appellant No.1 had demanded any gratification for sending the complainant's file back to Parbhani etc. All that has come on record is, that the complainant asked the appellant No.2 as to whether the appellant No.1 is available in his office, and thereafter, these three persons entered the office of appellant No.1. Even thereafter, nothing happened between the appellant No.1 and 2. The appellant No.1 simply told the complainant that he should wait outside and he would do the needful. There is nothing on record that the complainant or the shadow panch, while they were waiting outside the office of appellant No.1, had any further talk with the appellant No.2 regarding the demand of bribe and the delivery etc. of the same. After 10-15 minutes, all the three persons went inside the room of appellant No.1, and, here, for the first time and unexpectedly, the appellant No.1 suddenly asked the complainant to hand over the money to the appellant No.2. He even mentioned that he should go out of his room and then deliver the amount to the appellant No.2. Even at that moment, the appellant No.2 had no indication about the demand and the promise to pay the bribe. He was completely in dark about the transaction between the other parties. No doubt, the appellant No.2 could have simply denied to be party to the apparently clandestine activity about delivery of the amount. He could have point blank refused to be a party to such transaction even when he was standing in front of the appellant No.1. But, this did not happen. He meekly went outside the room of the appellant No.1 and then accepted the amount from the complainant. The question is, whether his action amounted to abetment to committing of the offence? But, this did not happen. He meekly went outside the room of the appellant No.1 and then accepted the amount from the complainant. The question is, whether his action amounted to abetment to committing of the offence? The Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code defines the term “abetment of a thing”. It reads as under: 107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who - First – Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly – Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1 – A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. On the face of it, the appellant No.2 did not instigate the complainant to deliver the amount. Even the second element of the definition is not seen in this case. There is no evidence on record to show that the appellants conspired to demand and accept the bribe. The third element of the definition would make me think a little longer to find out as to whether the appellant No.2 intentionally demanded and accepted the bribe amount meant for the appellant No.1. The element of intention is clearly absent. Had he known that this amount was a bribe, had he had connivance of appellant No.2 to demand and accept the amount then alone it can be said that he had intentionally aided the acceptance of the illegal gratification. It is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove their case as against the appellant No. 2 and he deserves a clear acquittal. 13. The last question is, whether the prosecution has proved the sanction for prosecuting the appellant No.1. In order to prove the sanction, the prosecution examined prosecution witness No. 5 Mahadeo Onkar Wankhede. This witness, at the relevant time, worked as Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 13. The last question is, whether the prosecution has proved the sanction for prosecuting the appellant No.1. In order to prove the sanction, the prosecution examined prosecution witness No. 5 Mahadeo Onkar Wankhede. This witness, at the relevant time, worked as Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai. But, before I examine the veracity and usefulness of deposition of this witness, I must quote the relevant provision of the Act. Section 19 which requires “sanction” for prosecution of a public servant. It reads as under: 19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution – (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction, - (a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government; (b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office. (2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), - (a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence or, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby; (b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice; (c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings, (4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings. Explanation – For the purpose of this section, - (a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction; (b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature. The prosecution witness No.5 recorded his deposition in very few words. His examination-in-chief can be quoted as under:- “On 29.7.2006 our office received file in this case I studied the entire documents. I confirmed that this is fit case to pass the sanction order. I passed the sanction order on 15.1.2007. Sanction order is shown to the witness. It is signed by me. Contents are correct. Exh.48 is the sanction order. I am the competent authority for the post of Assistant Conservator Forest.” In the cross-examination, he admitted that the appellant No.1 was a Class-I Officer. He was working as Assistant Conservator of Forest. The Principal Secretary was the competent authority for the appellant No.1 and the Deputy Secretary was lower in rank than the Principal Secretary. I am the competent authority for the post of Assistant Conservator Forest.” In the cross-examination, he admitted that the appellant No.1 was a Class-I Officer. He was working as Assistant Conservator of Forest. The Principal Secretary was the competent authority for the appellant No.1 and the Deputy Secretary was lower in rank than the Principal Secretary. The defence clearly questioned the competence of this witness to decide as to whether sanction should be given for prosecuting the appellant No.1 or not? This witness, in one breath, stated that he was competent for passing of the sanction order, but, in second breath, he said, his superior Officer, the Principal Secretary was competent to pass such sanction order. The question that arises before the Court in such uncertainty is, who could amongst this witness and his superior officer, the Principal Secretary, was competent to pass the sanction order? The learned Judge of the lower Court probably was also facing this difficulty, and in order to resolve this problem, the learned Judge appears to have solved it through following passage of his Judgment: 28.......... According to the learned Advocate for the accused No.1, in the case of Class-I officer, only the Principal Secretary is competent authority. He has drawn my attention in the correspondence on record and submitted that as per correspondence on record also Principal secretary is competent authority. But in view of the Maharashtra Government Rules of Business read with above said G.R., the sanction order is passed by P.W. 5 Dy. Secretary Mr. Wankhede, and, therefore, it cannot be said that the sanction order on record is not valid........” The learned Judge of the lower Court placed reliance on the Maharashtra Government Rules of Business. But, apparently, these Rules of Business are not brought on record and are not proved. It is neither indicated in the Judgment that these rules are statutory rules and are not required to be proved specifically. In any case, the learned Judge did not quote the relevant Rule, which could resolve this issue. 14. The learned Judge of the lower Court mentioned that he would rely upon the Judgment of Karnataka High Court, in the matter of Puttaraje Urs, v. State of Karnataka (2003 Cri. L.R. 1148). However, the reliance on this Judgment to draw the conclusion which the ld. Judge drew is clearly erroneous. 14. The learned Judge of the lower Court mentioned that he would rely upon the Judgment of Karnataka High Court, in the matter of Puttaraje Urs, v. State of Karnataka (2003 Cri. L.R. 1148). However, the reliance on this Judgment to draw the conclusion which the ld. Judge drew is clearly erroneous. The learned Judge probably did not read the Judgment of Karnataka High Court properly. In that case, the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court was examining, as to whether the sanction was not issued by the competent person, and, whether there was no application of mind for grant of sanction. The learned Single Judge then considered the ratio of few Judgments of Karnataka High Court and pointed out that if the sanction order is quashed, the proceedings would be vitiated and the conviction would be set aside. In the reported case before the Karnataka High Court, the sanction order was signed by the Under Secretary to the Government. This Under Secretary was examined as prosecution witness. In his evidence, he stated that he received the report with the list of documents etc. He said that he had perused the statements of prosecution witnesses etc. He said, he then put up a note before higher authorities to prosecute the accused. Thereafter, the Secretary to the Government in Revenue Department and the concerned Minister gave permission to prosecute the accused. On the basis of the approval, he put up a draft for issuing Government order for prosecuting accused and same was approved in the name of Governor. Then under his signature, as concerned Under Secretary authorized to sign such approval, the Government order was issued. The Court held that with this deposition the Government order for sanction of the prosecution was properly proved. The High Court held that the order was issued by the competent authority and the witness, the Under Secretary, signed the order, only on the authorization given by the competent authority. In other words, the High Court held that the Under Secretary was not the competent authority to issue sanction order, but it was the Principal Secretary and the Minister concerned, who could have taken such decision and they had taken such decision. The procedure required to be followed for issuance of sanction, thus was properly proved. 15. In other words, the High Court held that the Under Secretary was not the competent authority to issue sanction order, but it was the Principal Secretary and the Minister concerned, who could have taken such decision and they had taken such decision. The procedure required to be followed for issuance of sanction, thus was properly proved. 15. In this case, the witness does not say that the Principal Secretary had applied his mind to the case and had accorded his sanction. He does not say that the Principal Secretary then asked him to formally issue the order of sanction. The witness even does not say that as per the conduct of Business Rules, he was authorized to issue the sanction order. In absence of such deposition, it is clear that this witness could not have proved the sanction. This would go to the root of the validity of the sanction order. 16. The learned Advocate appearing for the State still brought to my notice sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act, and urged that the lapse on the part of the prosecution to prove the sanction order, would only amount to an error or omission, and such error or omission would not prove fatal, in view of provisions of subsection (3). However, I cannot accept this submission, because, subsection (3) also contemplates that the Court has to express its opinion in such situation that the error or omission had not caused failure of justice. In this case, if the Principal Secretary was the sanctioning authority, first there was no reason for the prosecution witness No.5 to examine the case and take a decision all by himself. There was certainly a possibility of different opinion of the Principal Secretary if he had an opportunity to peruse the papers and after application of mind to the facts of the case. This certainly resulted into failure of justice. Sub-section (3) of Section 19, in my view, does not reduce the sanctity of the previous sanction for prosecution, as contemplated under Section 19. 17. Both appeals, therefore, should succeed. Both the appeals are allowed. Both the appellants are acquitted.