Prior sanction must match the specific offence; an unsanctioned habitual bribery charge did not invalidate the separate supported transaction.

A prior sanction must cover the facts constituting the offence for which prosecution is launched, and where sanction is required by statute it is a condition precedent to cognizance. On a strict reading, the sanction validly covered the distinct transaction of receiving illegal gratification from Pal Singh. The lack of sanction for the separate allegation of habitual acceptance of bribes barred cognizance only of that charge and did not void the entire trial. The offence relating to the Pal Singh transaction remained supported by sanction, and no prejudice to the defence was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution and conviction were vitiated for want of sanction where the sanction referred to a single act of receiving illegal gratification but the charge also alleged habitual acceptance of bribes.

Analysis: The sanctioning authority must apply its mind to the facts constituting the offence for which prosecution is launched, and previous sanction is a condition precedent to cognizance where the statute so requires. On a strict reading of the sanction, approval was valid for the specific transaction of receiving Rs. 50 from Pal Singh. The absence of sanction for the separate allegation of habitual acceptance barred cognizance only of that charge and did not render the entire trial void. The offence relating to the Pal Singh transaction was a distinct offence supported by the sanction, and no prejudice in the defence was shown.

Conclusion: The conviction for receiving illegal gratification in the Pal Singh transaction was valid and the appeal failed.

---