Previous sanction for cognizance cannot be replaced by prosecution sanction; absence of the required sanction defeats jurisdiction.

A sanction to prosecute under Section 132 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a substitute for the previous sanction required under Section 197 before cognizance can be taken. The two provisions operate in distinct fields: Section 132 authorises institution of a complaint, while Section 197 is a jurisdictional precondition for the court to proceed. They serve different purposes and are addressed to different authorities. Where the required Section 197 sanction is absent, the court lacks jurisdiction, and a sanction under Section 132 cannot cure that defect or validate cognizance.

---

---

Issues: Whether a sanction to prosecute under Section 132 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be treated as a substitute for the previous sanction required for taking cognizance under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The two provisions operate in distinct fields. Sanction under Section 132 authorises the institution of a complaint, whereas sanction under Section 197 is a condition precedent for the court's jurisdiction to take cognizance. They are addressed to different authorities, serve different purposes, and involve different consequences. The absence of sanction under Section 197 disables the court from proceeding, and a sanction under Section 132 cannot cure that want of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: A sanction to prosecute under Section 132 is not a substitute for the previous sanction required under Section 197, and in the absence of such sanction the cognizance taken by the trial court was without jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute requires previous sanction for cognizance, a sanction merely permitting prosecution cannot confer jurisdiction on the court or validate cognizance taken without the requisite sanction.

---