Valid sanction as a condition precedent to cognizance failed, stripping the criminal court of jurisdiction and nullifying conviction.

Sanction under section 24(2) was a condition precedent to cognizance, and it had to show that the sanctioning authority was placed in possession of the facts constituting the alleged offence and applied its mind to them. The sanction here was invalid because it did not specify the relevant business period or the facts said to constitute the offence, and there was no other evidence that the Sales Tax Commissioner had those facts before him. Without a valid sanction, cognizance could not lawfully be taken and the criminal court lacked jurisdiction to try the offence; the conviction was therefore quashed and the sentences set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution for contravention of section 8(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 was invalid for want of a proper sanction under section 24(2) of the Act, and whether the conviction and sentence could therefore stand.

Analysis: Sanction under section 24(2) was a condition precedent to cognizance. A valid sanction had to show that the facts constituting the alleged offence were placed before the sanctioning authority and that the authority applied its mind to those facts. The sanction in the present case did not specify the relevant period of business or the facts said to constitute the offence, and there was no other evidence showing that the Sales Tax Commissioner had the necessary facts before him. On that basis, the sanction was held to be invalid. Since cognizance could not be taken without a proper sanction, the criminal court lacked jurisdiction to try the offence.

Conclusion: The conviction was quashed and the sentences were set aside because the prosecution was without jurisdiction for want of a valid sanction.

---