Valid prior sanction requires proof that the authority knew the offence facts; otherwise the prosecution lacks jurisdiction.

Previous sanction for prosecution under Clause 23 of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943 was valid only if the sanctioning authority was shown to have been informed of the facts constituting the alleged offence. The sanction need not set out those facts on its face, but where it does not, admissible extraneous evidence must prove that they were placed before the authority. On the record described, no such proof was produced and relevant documents under the prosecution's control were not placed in evidence, so the sanction was invalid. The defect went to jurisdiction and could not be cured as a mere irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; the acquittal was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sanction for prosecution was a valid compliance with Clause 23 of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943 when it named the accused and the provision alleged to have been contravened but did not itself state the facts constituting the offence.

Analysis: Clause 23 required previous sanction for instituting a prosecution for contravention of the Order. The sanction need not be in any particular form and the facts constituting the offence need not necessarily appear on its face, but if they do not, the prosecution must prove by extraneous evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority. The sanctioning authority must be shown to have considered the facts constituting the alleged breach, because sanction is a condition precedent to jurisdiction. In the absence of evidence showing what was before the authority, and where relevant documents under the prosecution's control were not produced, the sanction could not be treated as valid. The defect went to jurisdiction and was not curable as a mere irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Conclusion: The sanction was invalid and did not comply with Clause 23.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution failed for want of a valid sanction, so the acquittal was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where previous sanction is a statutory condition precedent to prosecution, validity depends on proof that the sanctioning authority was informed of the facts constituting the offence, either on the face of the sanction or by admissible extraneous evidence; absent such proof, the resulting trial is without jurisdiction and the defect is not cured by the general saving provision for procedural irregularities.

---