Sanction irregularity alone cannot overturn a conviction unless it causes failure of justice and actual prejudice.

An appellate court cannot set aside a conviction merely because of an alleged defect or irregularity in sanction for prosecution unless it is satisfied that the defect caused a failure of justice. Where the objection to sanction was not raised at trial and the record showed no prejudice, the conviction could not be reversed on that ground. Concurrent findings of guilt based on proper appreciation of evidence were left undisturbed, and the acquittal based on invalid sanction was set aside, with conviction and sentence restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction could be set aside solely on the ground of an alleged defect or irregularity in sanction for prosecution without showing failure of justice.

Analysis: The statutory rule governing sanction irregularities barred reversal of a conviction on that ground unless the appellate court found that a failure of justice had in fact been occasioned. The objection to sanction had not been raised at the trial stage, and nothing on record showed that any irregularity in sanction caused prejudice or failure of justice. The concurrent factual findings on guilt were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not disturbed.

Conclusion: The acquittal on the ground of invalid sanction was unjustified and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were restored, and the prosecution succeeded on the sanction issue.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court cannot reverse a conviction for an error or irregularity in sanction unless it is satisfied that such defect has caused a failure of justice, particularly where the objection was not raised at the trial stage.

---