Reconsideration of prosecution sanction on the same material is invalid absent fresh evidence, so proceedings were quashed.

A subsequent sanction for prosecution could not stand where the same competent authority had already refused sanction on the same material. The earlier refusal recorded that the allegations did not disclose conspiracy and amounted only to gross procedural lapses, while the later sanction gave no fresh reasons and merely stated that the record had been reconsidered. In the absence of fresh material, the authority could not validly change its view on identical facts, and the defect was apparent from the sanction order itself. The High Court therefore held the later sanction invalid and quashed the criminal proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether a subsequent sanction for prosecution could be sustained when the same competent authority had earlier refused sanction on the same material, and whether the criminal proceedings could therefore be quashed.

Analysis: The sanction order first recorded a detailed refusal, noting that the material did not disclose conspiracy and that the allegations amounted only to gross procedural lapses. The later sanction order, passed by the same authority, gave no fresh reasons and merely stated that the record had been gone through once again. In the absence of any fresh material placed before the authority, a mere change of opinion on the same material could not justify reconsideration of the earlier refusal. Since the defect was apparent from the sanction order itself, the petitioner was not required to undergo trial to test the validity of the subsequent sanction.

Conclusion: The subsequent sanction on the same material was invalid, and the proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The criminal petition succeeded and the prosecution could not continue on the basis of the impugned sanction.

Ratio Decidendi: A sanction for prosecution cannot be reconsidered or granted again on the same material after an earlier refusal unless fresh material justifies a different conclusion.

---