JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc.Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 03.02.2012 whereby the prosecution sanction has been accorded against the present petitioner and proceedings are pending in FIR No. 113/2010 registered at Police Station, CPS, ACB, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 7,13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The short facts relating to the Misc. Petition are that complainant Virendra Singh along with his father submitted a written complaint against Mahaveer Prasad, Sub Inspector, Rajasthan Police, upon which FIR No. 113/2010 was registered. The allegations alleged in the FIR are that Virendra Singh has paid 500 to Mahaveer Prasad and balance amount of Rs. 500/- was to be paid thereafter. Trap Proceedings were laid but remained unsuccessful. After investigation, the competent authority has not accorded the prosecution sanction for Mahaveer Prasad but present petitioner has been implicated as an accused. He has not been named in the FIR. He has not demanded any bribe. Nothing has been recovered at his instance and no transcript of conversation between the present petitioner and complainant Virendra Singh has been recorded, in spite of this, sanction has been accorded for him even when no sufficient material was available on record to accord prosecution sanction against Manaveer Prasad who has taken bribe money and sanction has been refused for him. There is no basis to grant sanction for the present petitioner in spite of the fact that the case of the petitioner was on better footing in comparison of Mahaveer Prasad hence proceedings against the present petitioner should be quashed. 3. Per contra, contention of learned Public Prosecutor is that in FIR, present petitioner has been named and prosecution sanction has been accorded rightly against him. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available and impugned order. In FIR, no specific allegation has been narrated against the present petitioner and the allegation which has been leveled against the present petitioner in FIR that Mahaveer Prasad has told complainant Virendra Singh to talk with Constables Farukh and Manoj and thereafter complainant and his father talked with them but no such transcript conversation has been recorded.The prosecution case is that Mahaveer Prasad has taken Rs. 500/- as bribe and another Rs. 500/- was to be given afterwards. 500/- as bribe and another Rs. 500/- was to be given afterwards. The petitioner has taken bribe for money or any money has been recovered from him is not the case of the prosecution and admittedly sanction against Mahaveer Prasad has been refused. In the light of above, when prosecution has not initiated against Mahaveer Prasad and the present petitioner who has been implicated as.a conspirator also should not be punished and reliance has been placed on . Admittedly, here in the present case, Mahaveer Prasad has not been prosecuted, the present petitioner has been implicated only as conspirator but when main accused has not been prosecuted, present petitioner could not be prosecuted. On same facts and evidence when sanction has not been accorded for Mahaveer Prasad, present petitioner could not be prosecuted. 5. Prosecution sanction has also been given mechanically as it contains title draft of the prosecution sanction which clearly reveals that draft has been sent to concerned competent authority and without going into the fact and circumstances of the case and without applying mind, draft has been approved and sanctioning authority has not even bother to delete the word draft from the document of prosecution sanction which shows bureaucratic approach of the sanctioning authority. 6. In the light of above, petition deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned order 03.02.2012 whereby the prosecution sanction has been accorded is quashed and set aside. *******