Sanction for Corruption Prosecution: order upheld where material showed application of mind, and leave refusal was set aside.

Sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act was upheld because the sanction order reflected consideration of the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the relevant documents, and witness statements, showing prima facie application of mind. The Court treated sanction as an administrative safeguard and held that its adequacy cannot be rejected on hyper-technical grounds when the order discloses due consideration of material. The High Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal against acquittal on the basis of an allegedly defective sanction was found unjustified, and the matter was remitted for consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act was invalid for want of application of mind, and whether the High Court was justified in refusing leave to appeal against the acquittal.

Analysis: The sanction order referred to the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the relevant documents placed before the sanctioning authority, and the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation. Sanction is a safeguard for public servants, but it is an administrative act and the court cannot sit in appeal over its adequacy. If the order shows consideration of the material and prima facie satisfaction, it is not to be invalidated on hyper-technical grounds. The reasoning adopted by the trial court and the High Court treated the sanction as defective on overly technical considerations and ignored the substance of the order.

Conclusion: The sanction was valid in law, and the High Court was not justified in refusing leave on that basis. The judgment of the High Court and the trial court's finding on sanction were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for consideration in accordance with law.

---