Sanction for prosecution challenges based on non-application of mind can be raised during trial, not at the threshold.

Where a sanction order for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act exists, alleged defects such as non-application of mind, absence of material, bias, or lack of competence are not threshold objections and may be examined during trial. Only complete absence of sanction can be raised at the inception. Once cognizance has been taken, the validity of an existing sanction may be left open for adjudication by the trial court, and the High Court need not interfere at that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether a challenge to the validity of a sanction order for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the ground of non-application of mind, could be entertained at the threshold or had to be raised in the course of trial after cognizance had been taken.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes between absence of sanction and invalidity of sanction. Absence of sanction is a threshold objection, but where a sanction order exists, questions such as non-application of mind, want of material before the sanctioning authority, bias, or lack of competence of the authority are matters that can be examined during trial. Once cognizance had already been taken by the trial court, the High Court was justified in leaving the validity of the sanction open for adjudication before the trial court.

Conclusion: The challenge to the sanction order was not required to be decided at the threshold and could be raised during trial. The order declining interference was correct and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a sanction order exists, its alleged invalidity on grounds such as non-application of mind is not a threshold objection and may be raised in trial; only the absence of sanction can be urged at the inception.

---