B A I L S L I P Crl.A.No.1033/2002 The Appellants/Accused 1 & 2 viz., 1. G.Nagarajan S/o Govindachetty 2. K.Srinivasan were directed to be released on bail as per order of this Court dated 17.7.02 made in Crl.MP.No.6504/02 in Crl.A.No.1033/2002 on the file of this Court. Crl.A.No.1034/2002 The Appellants/Accused 1 & 3 viz., 1. G.Nagarajan S/o Govindachetty 2. D.Mannar Mannan were directed to be released on bail as per order of this Court dated 17.7.02 made in Crl.MP.No.6505/02 in Crl.A.No.1034/2002 on the file of this Court. Crl.A.No.1035/2002 The Appellants/Accused viz., 1. G.Nagarajan S/o Govindachetty 2. D.Mannar Mannan were directed to be released on bail as per order of this Court dated 17.7.02 made in Crl.MP.No.6506/02 in Crl.A.No.1035/2002 on the file of this Court. Crl.A.No.1036/2002 The Appellants/Accused viz., 1. G.Nagarajan S/o Govindachetty 2. D.Mannar Mannan were directed to be released on bail as per order of this Court dated 17.7.02 made in Crl.MP.No.6507/02 in Crl.A.No.1036/2002 on the file of this Court. Crl.A.No.1037/2002 The Appellants/Accused viz., 1. G.Nagarajan S/o Govindachetty 2. P.Muthukrishnan were directed to be released on bail as per order of this Court dated 17.7.02 made in Crl.MP.No.6508/02 in Crl.A.No.1037/2002 on the file of this Court. Crl.A.No.1038/2002 The Appellant/Accused 1 & 2 viz., 1.G.Nagarajan S/o Govindachetty 2. Muthukrishnan, were directed to be released on bail as per order of this Court dated 17.7.02 made in Crl.MP.No.6509/02 in Crl.A.No.1038/2002 on the file of this Court. Crl.A.No.1039/2002 The Appellant/Accused viz., 1. G.Nagarajan S/o Govindachetty 2. S.Gunasekaran were directed to be released on bail as per order of this Court dated 17.7.02 made in Crl.MP.No.6510/02 in Crl.A.No.1039/2002 on the file of this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Crl.A.No.1040/2002 The Appellants/Accused viz., 1. G.Nagarajan S/o Govindachetty 2. P.Muthukrishnan were directed to be released on bail as per order of this Court dated 17.7.02 made in Crl.MP.No.6511/02 in Crl.A.No.1040/2002 on the file of this Court. Crl.A.No.1041/2002 The Appellants/Accused viz., 1. G.Nagarajan S/o Govindachetty 2. S. Gunasekaran were directed to be released on bail as per order of this Court dated 17.7.02 made in Crl.MP.No.6512/02 in Crl.A.No.1041/2002 on the file of this Court. Crl.A.No.1042/2002 The Appellants/Accused viz., 1. G.Nagarajan S/o Govindachetty 2. S.Gunasekaran were directed to be released on bail as per the order of this Court dated 17.7.02 made in Crl.MP.No.6513/02 in Crl.A.No.1042/2002 on the file of this Court. Crl.A.No.1043/2002 The Appellant/Accused viz., 1. G.Nagarajan S/o Govindachetty 2. D.Mannar Mannan were directed to be released on bail as per order of this Court dated 17.7.02 made in Crl.MP.No.6514/02 in Crl.A.No.1043/2002 on the file of this Court. Crl.A.No.1044/2002 The Appellants/Accused viz., 1. G.Nagarajan S/o Govindachetty 2. D.Mannar Mannan were directed to be released on bail as per order of this Court dated 17.7.02 made in Crl.MP.No.6515/02 in Crl.A.No.1044/2002 on the file of this Court. Crl.A.No.1045/2002 The Appellants/Accused viz., 1. G.Nagarajan S/o Govindachetty 2. D.Mannar Mannan were directed to be released on bail as per the order of this Court dated 17.7.02 made in Crl.MP.No.6516/02 in Crl.A.No.1045/2002 on the file of this Court. Crl.A.No.1046/2002 The Appellant/Accused viz., G.Nagarajan S/o Govindachetty was directed to be released on bail as per the order of this Court dated 17.7.02 made in Crl.MP.No.6517/02 in Crl.A.No.1046/2002 on the file of this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Crl.A.No.1047/2002 The Appellant/Accused viz., G.Nagarajan S/o Govindachetty was directed to be released on bail as per the order of this Court dated 17.7.02 made in Crl.MP.No.6518/02 in Crl.A.No.1047/2002 on the file of this Court. Crl.A.No.1048/2002 The Appellant/Accused viz., G.Nagarajan S/o Govindachetty 2.P.Muthukrishnan were directed to be released on bail as per the order of this Court dated 17.7.02 made in Crl.MP.No.6519/02 in Crl.A.No.1048/2002 on the file of this Court. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.03.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.A.Nos.1033 to 1048 of 2002 1. G.Nagarajan 2. K.Srinivasan .. Appellants in Crl.A.No.1033 of 2002/Accused 1 & 2 1.G.Nagarajan 2.D.Mannar Mannan .. Appellants in Crl.A.Nos.1034, 1035, 1036 of 2002/Accused 1 & 3 1.G.Nagarajan 2.D.Mannar Mannan .. Appellants in Crl.A.Nos.1043, 1044, 1045 of 2002/Accused 1 & 2 1.G.Nagarajan 2.P.Muthukrishnan .. Appellants in Crl.A.Nos.1037, 1038, 1040, 1048 of 2002/Accused 1 & 2 1.G.Nagarajan 2.S.Gunasekaran .. Appellants in Crl.A.Nos.1039, 1041, 1042 of 2002/Accused 1 & 2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ G.Nagarajan .. Appellants in Crl.A.No.1046, 1047 of 2002/Accused 1 Vs. State rep. by Deputy Supdt. Of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Special Cell, Salem. .. Respondent in Crl.A.No.1033 of 2002/Complainant Criminal Appeal No.1033 of 2002 against the judgment dated 30.5.2002 in C.C.No.3 of 1996, 11/96, 12/96, 13/96, 14/96, 15/96, 16/96, 17/96, 18/96, 19/96, 20/96, 21/96, 22/96, 23/96, 24/96, 25/96, respectively on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. For Appellants : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu Advocate for A1 in Crl.A.Nos.1033 to 1036, 1039, 1041 to 1047/02 For A2 in C.A.1033/02 Mr.K.Srinivasan, Advocate for A2 in CA.1034 to 1036/02 and 1043 to 1045/02 Mr.S.Shanmugavelayutham Sr Advocate for Mr.P.K.Rajagopal, Advocate for Appellant in CA.1037, 1038, 1040 & 1042/02 For Respondent : Mr.I.Paul Noble Devakumar Government Advocate (Crl Side) JUDGMENT The Criminal Appeals arise out of the judgments of conviction and sentence, dated 30.5.2002, passed by the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri, at Krishnagiri, as indicated below: (a) In Crl.A.No.1033 of 2002, A.1 and A.2 were convicted for the offence u/s 5(2) r/w 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year; A.1 and A.2 were also convicted for the offences u/s 167 IPC and u/s 167 r/w 109 IPC respectively and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years; A.1 and A.2 were also convicted for the offence u/s 467 IPC and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months; A.1 and A.2 were also convicted for the offence u/s 420 IPC and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months; A.1 and A.2 were also convicted for the offence u/s 471 r/w 467 IPC and each sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment; A.1 and A.2 were also convicted for the offence u/s 477-A IPC and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and A.1 and A.2 were also convicted for the offence u/s 409 IPC and no sentence was imposed. A.1 and A.2 were acquitted of the charge u/s 120-B IPC. A.3 died during the course of trial and hence, the charges against A.3, stood abated. (b) In Crl.A.Nos.1034, 1035 and 1036 of 2002, A.1 and A.3 were convicted for the offence u/s 5(2) r/w 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year; A.1 and A.3 were also convicted for the offences u/s 167 IPC and u/s 167 r/w 109 IPC respectively and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years; A.1 and A.3 were also convicted for the offence u/s 467 IPC and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years; A.1 and A.3 were also convicted for the offence u/s 420 IPC and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years; A.1 and A.3 were also convicted for the offence u/s 471 r/w 467 IPC and each sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment; A.1 and A.3 were also convicted for the offence u/s 477-A IPC and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and A.1 and A.3 were also convicted for the offence u/s 409 IPC and no sentence was imposed. A.1 and A.3 were acquitted of the charge u/s 120-B IPC. During the course of trial, A.2 died and hence, the charges against him stood abated, in these cases. (c) In Crl.A.Nos.1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045 and 1048 of 2002, A.1 and A.2 were convicted for the offence u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year; A.1 and A.2 were also convicted for the offences u/s 167 IPC and u/s 167 IPC r/w 109 IPC respectively and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years; A.1 and A.2 were also convicted for the offence u/s 467 IPC and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years; A.1 and A.2 were also convicted for the offences u/s 420 IPC and u/s 420 IPC r/w 109 IPC respectively and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years; A.1 and A.2 were also convicted for the offence u/s 471 IPC r/w 467 IPC and each sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment; A.1 and A.2 were also convicted for the offence u/s 477-A IPC and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and A.1 and A.2 were also convicted for the offence u/s 409 IPC and no sentence was imposed. A.1 and A.2 were acquitted of the charge u/s 120-B IPC. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (d) In Crl.A.Nos.1046 and 1047 of 2002, A.1 in each case were convicted for the offence u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year; they were also convicted for the offence u/s 167 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years; they were also convicted for the offence u/s 467 IPC and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years; they were also convicted for the offence u/s 420 IPC and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years; they were also convicted for the offence u/s 471 IPC r/w 467 IPC and each sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment; they were also convicted for the offence u/s 477-A IPC and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and they were also convicted for the offence u/s 409 IPC and no sentence was imposed. They were acquitted of the charge u/s 120-B IPC. A.2 in these cases died during the course of trial and hence, charges stood abated against them. The sentences imposed on the appellants/accused in all the cases, were directed to run concurrently. 2. The estimated amounts for the forest crash plantation in the respective places and the alleged amounts of misappropriation, are detailed below: Crl.A.No . Trial Court C.C.No. Place of forest crash plantation work Period of occurrenc e Amount as per the sanction order (in Rs.) Alleged misappropriate d amount in Rs. 1033/02 3/96 Bommidi Forest Range Boothanatham Misc. Forest Crash Plantation 1988-89 42,600 16859 1034/02 11/96 Bommidi Forest Range Khadiripuram Forest Crash Plantation 1988-89 47,700 27,339 1035/02 12/96 Bommidi Forest Range Vasi Goundanaur Misc. Forest Crash Plantation 1988-89 42,300 5,023 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Crl.A.No . Trial Court C.C.No. Place of forest crash plantation work Period of occurrenc e Amount as per the sanction order (in Rs.) Alleged misappropriate d amount in Rs. 1036/02 13/96 Bommidi Forest Range Vasi Goundanaur Misc. Forest Crash Plantation 1988-89 22,900 10,376 1037/02 14/96 Bommidi Forest Range Simpilthiradi Misc. Forest Crash Plantation 1989 35,400 3,000 1038/02 15/96 Bommidi Forest Range Kalingaavaran Misc. Forest Crash Plantation 1989 21,600 3,812 1039/02 16/96 Bommidi Forest Range Obilinaickanaha lli Misc. Forest Crash Plantation 1989 38,275 1,800 1040/02 17/96 Bommidi Forest Range Kasiyampatti Misc. Forest Crash Plantation 1989 28,000 3,338 1041/02 18/96 Bommidi Forest Range Pudur Misc. Forest Crash Plantation 1989 35,200 5,200 1042/02 19/96 Bommidi Forest Range Mannar Krishna Koil Misc. Forest Crash Plantation 1989 43,500 4,020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Crl.A.No . Trial Court C.C.No. Place of forest crash plantation work Period of occurrenc e Amount as per the sanction order (in Rs.) Alleged misappropriate d amount in Rs. 1043/02 20/96 Bommidi Forest Range Pillparuthi Misc. Forest Crash Plantation 1989 36,600 4,110 1044/02 21/96 Bommidi Forest Range Vasi Goundanur Misc. Forest Crash Plantation 1989 38,500 4,500 1045/02 22/96 Bommidi Forest Range Bothakaadu Misc. Forest Crash Plantation 1989 38,900 3,988 1046/02 23/96 Bommidi Forest Range Menasi Misc. Forest Crash Plantation 1989 45,400 4,020 1047/02 24/96 Bommidi Forest Range Boothanatham Misc. Forest Crash Plantation 1989 44,500 6,000 1048/02 25/96 Bommidi Forest Range Khadirinayakana halli Misc. Forest Crash Plantation 1989 31,500 6,025 3. The case of the prosecution in short, which is common in all the cases, is as follows: A.1 is the Forest Ranger. A.2 and A.3 are Foresters. They have worked as Government servants from April 1988 to March 1989. All the accused have worked in the forest crash plantation process in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respective areas. During the process of execution of the work of forest crash plantation, it is alleged that A.1 to A.3 have falsified the records to show that they engaged the workers for executing the work as mentioned in the estimate submitted by A.1 Forest Ranger. In pursuance of the estimate, Mr.Srinivasan, Divisional Forest Officer, in turn has sanctioned the amount for execution of the work and due to escalation of the price, the accused gave revised estimate. That has also been considered by Mr.Srinivasan, Divisional Forest Officer and the amount was sanctioned after scrutinising the same. The list of expenditure was received then and there. The officers inspected the work executed by the accused and at that time, they came to know that some of the work has not been executed by the accused and they came to know that false records have been created with an intention to cheat and it is alleged that the accused misappropriated the amounts. The Assistant Conservator of Forests made inspection of the work done and submitted reports. The Village Administrative Officers gave certificates stating that the receipts given by A.1 to A.3 are pertaining to only fictitious persons and those persons were not residing at the respective places. The document examiner/handwriting expert received the disputed signatures and the admitted signatures of the witnesses and compared the same and gave reports. The other witnesses/workers who were the signatories to the receipts, stated that they have done the work, received the coolie and they have turned hostile. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests accorded sanction for prosecuting the appellants-accused and in pursuance of the same, complaints were filed, the cases have been taken up and the investigation has been done by Mr.Krishnaswamy, Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheets/final reports were filed. 4. The trial Court questioned the appellant-accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. posing incriminating evidence against them, to which, they denied. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence/the evidence of the witnesses and exhibits/documents marked, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants-accused as indicated above. 5. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, learned counsel for the appellants/accused raised the following points for consideration: (i) The sanction order for prosecuting A.1 (Forest Ranger), is not in accordance with law. The sanction order has been issued without jurisdiction and so, it is not valid. (ii) The complainant himself is the investigating officer in this case, and so, the conviction is vitiated. (iii) Violation of the guidelines and instructions will not fasten criminal liability on the accused and, as the accused are government servants, disciplinary proceedings alone necessitated. (iv) The provisions of Rule 9 of the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003, have not been followed before preferring the complaint. The show https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cause notice has not been issued to the accused, before the complaint was preferred and hence, there is violation of principles of natural justice. (v) Since there is a delay in filing the final report and conducting the cases, it caused prejudice to the appellants/accused for cross-examining the investigating officer and further, during the pendency of investigation, the investigating officer Mr.Krishnaswamy, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, died on 13.12.2001 and one Mr.Sakthivelu, Deputy Superintendent of Police, of Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Wing, was examined and he was not in a position to give answers to each and every facts of the cases as he was not aware of the investigation made by the said Mr.Krishnaswamy. (vi) The second report submitted by Mr.Thangavelu, Assistant Conservator of Forests, is not a substantive piece of evidence and it is only a tainted report and the second report is not a completed one. (vii) The amount for execution of the work for planting saplings, was issued stage by stage after inspection made by the superior officer and there was no chance for falsification of records, misappropriation of the amounts and cheating and hence, the ingredients of Sections 109, 167, 467, 471, 409, 420 and 477-A IPC are not made out against the accused. (viii) Even though prosecution has examined the witnesses, stating that false records have been created by A.2 and A.3 in connivance with A.1 and it is alleged that there was misappropriation of the amount, to prove the same, the signatories to the documents, were examined, and they turned hostile. (ix) The receipts submitted by A.1 to A.3, for the amounts, in respect of the work done by the workers, contained the names of fictitious persons and to prove the same, the Village Administrative Officers were examined, but they have not substantiated the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellants/accused relied on the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, to substantiate the above points and prayed for acquittal of the accused. 6. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent-Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Officer, would contend as follows: (i) The sanction has been made in accordance with law, and there is no violation of any Rules. (ii) The delay in filing the final reports and conducting the cases, does not vitiate the entire proceedings. (iii) The fact that the complainant himself is the investigating officer, is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. (iv) Non-filing of the annexure to the second report filed by Mr.Thangavelu, Assistant Conservator of Forests, is not fatal. (v) Not following Rule 9 of the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003, does not affect the case of the prosecution. Learned Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) prayed for confirmation of the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court on the appellants- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accused and for dismissal of the Criminal Appeals. I. Whether the sanction order is in accordance with law ? 7. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused would contend that the sanction accorded for prosecuting the appellants-accused, is not valid under law. He further contended that A.1 who is a Forest Ranger, has been appointed through the TNPSC and no permission has been accorded by the Chief Secretary/Secretary of the State Government for prosecuting him. As per Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Article 311 of the Constitution of India, the appointing authority or the authority higher than the appointing authority, is having right to accord sanction for prosecuting a Government servant. He further contended that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, has given sanction for initiating criminal action against A.1, but he is an inferior authority to the Chief Secretary/Secretary to Government and he is not a competent person to accord sanction. Learned counsel further submitted that the Principal Conservator of Forests has not applied his mind while according sanction for prosecuting A.1 to A.3 and the reasons are not reflected in the sanction order and it is only replica of the notes submitted by the investigating officer. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (P.W.1) himself admitted that only the draft sanction order has been circulated to him. Learned counsel further stated that during the cross-examination of P.W.1, he has not mentioned as to what are the materials perused before he accorded sanction. P.W.22 Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, who is also an officer who sought for sanction, has not mentioned as to what are the materials placed before P.W.1 for obtaining sanction. Learned counsel further submitted that even if the Court comes to the conclusion that P.W.1 Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, is the competent person to accord sanction, he has not perused the materials and he has not mentioned as to what are the materials/documents placed before him before according sanction. The sanction order is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the appellants/accused relied upon the following decisions in support of the abovesaid contentions: (a) 2004 SCC (Cri) 1176 = 2003 (9) SCC 504: (P.A.Mohandas v. State of Kerala) 3. Under Section 19 of the Act, no court can 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 of the authority competent to remove the person concerned. In the case in hand, the Secretary (Vigilance) appears to have accorded sanction to prosecute. The appellant’s case is that the Secretary (Vigilance) was authorised to grant sanction only on 23-4-1994 and there is no order of the State Government making the Secretary (Vigilance) competent to accord sanction prior to the said date. The learned counsel appearing for the State is not in a position to refute the aforesaid contention and, in fact, is not able to produce any document which confers power on the Secretary https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (Vigilance) to accord sanction prior to 23-4-1994. The sanction in the present case was given prior to the aforesaid date. The date on which the sanction appears to have been given, the authority concerned had no jurisdiction and, therefore, there is an embargo on the court's power to take cognizance for non- compliance of Section 19 of the Act. We accordingly quash the proceeding." (b) 2004 SCC (Cri) 1213 = 2002 (10) SCC 688: (Manoranjan Prasad Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar): "2. The sole question that arises for consideration is whether sanction has been accorded by the competent authority under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The authority competent to remove him from the office is the authority to accord sanction and admittedly, the said authority is the Managing Director of the Company, as contended by the counsel for the petitioner and conceded by Mr.B.B.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar. In that view of the matter, since there is no sanction of the competent authority, the proceeding is vitiated. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and quash the proceeding." (c)1994-1-LW(Crl.)11.S.N.(Madras High Court) (State by Public Prosecutor Vs. Vedalingam and 2 others): "17. P.W.9 was examined and he deposed that it was the General Manager, Southern Railway, who was the competent Authority to remove A.2 from service. But, he issued the sanction order, Ex.P.54 ... ...... ... Though it was contended on behalf of the accused before the trial court that it is the Controller of Stores as the Head of the Department, who alone would be competent to sanction the prosecution of A.2 and the trial court came to the conclusion that there is no support for the said argument. But, the trial court held relying on the various decisions of the Apex Court and other courts that the sanction order is not valid since P.W.9 has not applied his mind before ever the sanction was issued as required. What all the learned Government Advocate would submit is, that the order itself shows that the sanctioning authority viz., P.W.9 has applied his mind and in view of S.465 Cr.P.C., unless there was a prejudice, sanction should not be attacked at the later stage. Further, merely because P.W.9 is a witness, he cannot be said to be disqualified for issuing a sanction order. In support of his contention learned Government Advocate relied on only the decision reported in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1958 S.C. 124) wherein it is held