JUDGMENT : Sanjay Harkauli, J. 1. By means of this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., the prosecution sanction in respect of the petitioner Vyas Narain Umrao accorded on 27.01.2016 passed by the Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow has been challenged. The said prosecution sanction relates to case crime no.183 of 2003 under sections 143/304 I.P.C., Police Station Colonelganj, District Allahabad in respect of which charge-sheet no.02 of 2016 dated 06.03.2016 was submitted and cognizance thereon was taken on 21.03.2006 and the accused was summoned vide order dated 27.04.2010 by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in case no. 604 of 2006 (State vs. Vyas Narain and others). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with Anil Kumar Gupta had taken loans from the Bank of India and had failed to repay the same. Accordingly, recovery certificates were issued against them. A team of Tehsil officials headed by the petitioner in the capacity of Naib Tehsildar comprising of Sangrah Amin, certain class IV employees and a Home-guard initially arrested Mahmood Hussain on 06.06.2003 and thereafter arrested Anil Kumar Gupta in compliance of the recovery certificate. These two persons were thereafter carried to the revenue lock-up and after due formalities were detained therein. In the said lock-up, five-six other persons against whom recovery was due, were locked-up from before. Thereafter Mahmood Hussain was informed to be unwell and he was accordingly taken to Beli Hospital by the Tehsil officials wherein Mahmood Hussain was declared to be dead. A postmortem was conducted thereafter in which the cause of death was found to be an injury on the head. 3. A magisterial inquiry was conducted by the Additional District Magistrate (City) wherein statements of other co-detenues of the Tehsil lock-up were recorded and the Tehsil officials were not found to be guilty. However, a case crime no.183 of 2003 was registered, in respect of which an investigation was conducted by the Station House Officer, P.S. Colonelganj, District Allahabad and finding the case not proved, final report no. 61 of 2003 dated 17.09.2003 was submitted. 4. However, by orders passed in writ petition No.4254 of 2003 (Mirza Mahmood Hussain vs. State of U.P. and others), investigation was transferred to C.B.C.I.D., Allahabad. After investigation, the Teshil officials were found to be guilty and accordingly C.B.C.I.D. Varanasi applied for grant of prosecution sanction. 61 of 2003 dated 17.09.2003 was submitted. 4. However, by orders passed in writ petition No.4254 of 2003 (Mirza Mahmood Hussain vs. State of U.P. and others), investigation was transferred to C.B.C.I.D., Allahabad. After investigation, the Teshil officials were found to be guilty and accordingly C.B.C.I.D. Varanasi applied for grant of prosecution sanction. The High Court had directed in the aforesaid writ petition that the appointing authority shall consider the question of grant or refusal of prosecution sanction within a month and pass a reasoned order thereon. 5. Since the other members of the team being Ajay Shanker Srivastava -Naib Nazir, Dinesh Dubey, Shashi Bhushan Singh, Rajesh Kumar Singh -Sangrah Amin, Sohan Lal, Radhey Shyam Pandey, Deepak Kumar - Peon and Purshottam Kumar -Jeep Driver were appointed by the District Magistrate, hence the question of prosecution sanction against them was considered by the then District Magistrate. The District Magistrate, Allahabad passed a detailed order wherein he stated that on the one hand there were witnesses who were family members of the deceased Mahmood Hussain and had deposed against the Tehsil officials while on the other hand, the witnesses who were government servants had deposed in favour of the Tehsil officials and hence both these sides were interested. From the witnesses on the side of the deceased it was stated that the injury received by the deceased was caused by the Tehsil officials while the government servants denied this fact. 6. The District Magistrate then proceeded to record the statement of Anil Kumar Gupta who was arrested and detained as falling in arrears and having been arrested on the same day as Mahmood Hussain. The District Magistrate found that Anil Kumar Gupta would be an independent witness as he had no previous bias towards any of these parties. Anil Kumar Gupta specifically denied of any assault by Tehsil employees on the deceased Mahmood Hussain and stated that he and Mahmood Hussain were arrested and brought to the Tehsil lock-up where they were duly detained. Anil Kumar Gupta further stated that the deceased himself banged his head against the iron rod of the door of the lock-up and received injuries on his head. He further stated that immediately the injured was taken to the Beli Hospital from there. 7. The District Magistrate also considered the final report initially filed by the investigating officer finding no assault by Tehsil officials on the deceased. He further stated that immediately the injured was taken to the Beli Hospital from there. 7. The District Magistrate also considered the final report initially filed by the investigating officer finding no assault by Tehsil officials on the deceased. He further discussed the fact that the work assigned to Tehsil officials was only to arrest in compliance of the recovery certificate and to bring and detain the person concerned in the Teshil lock-up. He also examined the circumstance that the Tehsil officials had no previous enmity with the deceased and, therefore, there was no cause for them to exceed beyond their duties and to cause injuries to the deceased. He found that the deceased and Anil Kumar Gupta were duly arrested as warranted by law and were brought to the Tehsil lock-up. He also observed in his order that the investigation by the police in the case had also gone to show that the deceased himself had banged his head against the iron rod of the door of the lockup and immediately upon receiving the information, the deceased was carried to Beli Hospital for treatment. 8. Discussing in detail the circumstances as also the evidence on record, the District Magistrate, Allahabad vide a detailed order dated 17.02.2006 refused to grant prosecution sanction against Ajay Shanker Srivastava -Naib Nazir, Dinesh Dubey, Shashi Bhushan Singh, Rajesh Kumar Singh -Sangrah Amin, Sohan Lal, Radhey Shyam Pandey, Deepak Kumar -Peon and Purshottam Kumar -Jeep Driver. 9. However, since the petitioner was directly under the Board of Revenue, the matter for grant of prosecution sanction against him was considered by the Chairman, Board of Revenue. 9. However, since the petitioner was directly under the Board of Revenue, the matter for grant of prosecution sanction against him was considered by the Chairman, Board of Revenue. The order passed by the Chairman Board of Board reads as under: dk;kZy; jktLo ifj"kn] mRrj izns'k vuqHkkx&3&r0uk0r0] y[kuÅ la[;k 302@3&r0uk0r0 130@2003 fnuk¡d 27&1&2006 Þvkns'k ß pwafd ;g vfHkdfFkr gS fd Jh O;kl ukjk;.k mejko] uk;c rglhynkj rglhy lnj tuin bykgkckn ds in ij tc o"kZ 2003 esa yksd lsod dh gSfl;r ls dk;Zjr Fks rRle; fnuk¡d 6&6&2003 dks cSad vkQ bf.M;k ds :i;s 27]660@& ds cdk;snkj Jh eks0 gqlsu iq= Jh eks0 feTkkZ ls olwyh djus rglhy Vhe ds lkFk mudh nok dh nqdku fLFkfr nfj;kckn x;s Fks vkSj yxHkx ,d cts fnu esa idM+dj Jh eks0 gqlsu dks yk;s rFkk rglhy gokykr esa cUn dj fn;kA gokykr esa cUn gksus ds ik¡p&lkr fnu ckn csgks'kh gkyr esa cdk;snkj Jh eks0 gqlsu dks uk;c rglhynkj Jh mejko vLirky ys x;s vLirky esa fpfdRldksa }kjk Jh gqlsu dks e`R;q ?kksf"kr dj fn;k x;kA iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ esa e`R;q dk dkj.k pksV la0& 1 tks lj ij yxh gS] gksuk ik;k x;kA vijk/k 'kk[kk vijk/k vuqla/kku foHkkx [k.M] okjk.klh }kjk dh x;h tk¡p esa ekjihV ds lh/ks lk{; ugh ik;s x;s] ijUrq pksVksa ds fy;s] cUnh cuk;s tkus ds fy;s x;h rglhy dh olwyh Vhe ds lnL;ksa dks nks"kh ik;k x;k gS] ftlesa Jh O;kl ukjk;.k mejko uk;c rglhynkj Hkh lfEefyr gaSA pwafd ;g vfHkdfFkr gS fd mDr dk;Z ls ,slk vijk/k curk gS] tks Hkkjrh; n.M fo/kku dh /kkjk&143@304 ds v/khu n.Muh; vijk/k gSA pwafd ;g Hkh vfHkdfFkr gS fd eS uhjk ;kno] v/;{k jktLo ifj"kn m0iz0 y[kuÅ Jh O;kl ukjk;.k mejko uk;c rglhynkj dks in ls gVkus ds fy;s l{ke vf/kdkjh gksus ds ukrs ekeys dk ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks iw.kZ:i ls vkSj lko/kkuh iwoZd ijh{k.k djus ds mijkUr ;g le>rh gw¡ fd mDr vijk/k ds fy;s l{ke U;k;ky; esa vfHk;ksftr fd;k tk,A vr,o vc eaS ,r~r }kjk Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk&143@304 ds v/khu mDr vijk/k @vijk/kksa ds fy, vkSj mi;qZDRk dk;kZas ds laca/k esa fof/k ds vU; micU/kksa ds v/khu n.Muh; fdUgha vijk/kksa ds fy;s mDr Jh O;kl ukjk;.k mejko] rRdkyhu uk;c rglhynkj rglhy lnj tuin bykgkckn lEizfr uk;c rglhynkj [khjh dks vfHk;ksftr djus vkSj mDr vijk/kksa dk fdlh vf/kdkfjdrku;qDr l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk laKku djus ds fy;s Lohd`fr iznku djrh gw¡A ¼uhjk ;kno ½ v/;{k] jktLo ifj"kn] m0 iz0] y[kuÅ^^ 10. Perusal of the said order goes to show that therein it is recorded that after being detained in Tehsil lock-up for five to seven days, the deceased was taken to the hospital while in coma. This fact, of being taken to the hospital after five to seven days, is not borne out from the record of the order of the District Magistrate, Allahabad while refusing prosecution sanction in respect of other co-accused. 11. The learned Chairman, Board of Revenue further records that the cause of death was reported as the injury on the head but C.B.C.I.D. had found no direct evidence of any assault by the Tehsil officials on the deceased. As against this, the investigation conducted by the investigating officer of U.P. police as also the statements of co-detenue Anil Kumar Gupta, as recorded by the District Magistrate Allahabad go to show that the deceased himself had banged his head against the iron rod of the door of the Tehsil lock-up. The prosecution sanction order impugned does not mention this evidence at all while passing the order. Without resorting to any clear cut evidence, the learned Chairman, Board of Revenue accorded prosecution sanction against the petitioner holding the Tehsil officials guilty of causing injury to the deceased. 12. It may be worth mentioning that after bringing the injured to the Tehsil lock-up and handing over to the guard therein, the petitioner departed from there. No injury was recorded on any part of the person of the deceased at the time when he was admitted in the Tehsil lock-up. 13. Perusal of the impugned order, therefore, without any mention or analysis of evidence has held the petitioner guilty of having caused the injury on the person of the deceased which ultimately led to his death. This prosecution sanction order, is in the circumstances, not an order which can be said to be reasoned. 14. In Aditya Prasad Shukla vs. State of U.P. reported in 1999 (2) ALR 556, the following has been held: "Principle of parity is applied in criminal cases and co-accused of the same case should not be treated in a manner which may cause prejudice to him. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the proceedings against the applicant should also be quashed in order to maintain parity." 15. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the proceedings against the applicant should also be quashed in order to maintain parity." 15. Further in Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujrat reported in 1997 AIR (SC) 3400 Hon'ble the Apex Court has observed as under: (a) Sanction lifts the bar for prosecution. The grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to Government Servants against frivolous prosecutions. (b) The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. (c) Validity of 'sanction' depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation, it necessarily follows that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not." 16. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the cause of injury on the head which led to the death of the deceased has not been tried to be traced and the petitioner has, by no evidence, been connected with the said injury. Just because in discharge of his official duties and without any enmity or other cause, he had arrested the deceased and brought him to the Tehsil lock-up to be detained, can in no way lead to the inference that such injury was inflicted by the petitioner on the person of the deceased. As against this, the evidence collected by the investigating officer of U.P. Police and the inquiry conducted by the District Magistrate including recording of evidence of co-detenue have not been taken note of at all while passing the impugned sanctioning order. 17. The circumstances go to show that the grant of prosecution sanction by the Chairman, Board of Revenue suffers from non application of mind and also does not detail reasons for satisfaction for grant of prosecution sanction. Such an order is accordingly not legally tenable. 18. The petition is hereby allowed and the order for grant of prosecution sanction against the petitioner by the Chairman, Board of Revenue dated 27.01.2016 which relates to case crime no.183 of 2003 under sections 143/304 I.P.C., Police Station Colonerganj, District Allahabad is hereby quashed.