V. Bhargava, J.
1. Nand Lal Srivastava has filed this revision application against his conviction and sentence for an offence Under Section 161, Penal Code. The applicant was convicted by a Magistrate, First Class, and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Benares affirmed the conviction but reduced the amount of fine from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 500/-.
2. In this revision various points of law were argued on behalf of the applicant to show that his conviction was not justified and was liable to be set aside. I need only deal one point which goes to the root of the case as it affects the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance of the case.
3. It has been urged on behalf of the applicant that there is no proof that a valid sanction Under Section 6, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was granted by any competent authority in respect of this offence and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of this offence. The record shows that the prosecution filed a letter purporting to be from the Traffic Manager, O. T. Railway, addressed to Shri Shambhu Nath, Superintendent of Police in charge of Anti-Corruption Department, U. P. Lucknow, and relied on this letter to show that sanction had been granted for the prosecution of the applicant for this offence under this letter. The letter does say that permission is given for the prosecution of Nand Lal, Loading Foreman, Benares City and for the suspension of Jogendra Prasad. This letter does not, however, say for what offence the Traffic Manager granted the sanction. The prosecution did not give any other extraneous evidence either to show what facts were put before the Traffic Manager on the basis of which he granted this permission for the prosecution of the applicant. It was essential for the prosecution to show that this sanction related to the acts committed by the applicant in respect of which this prosecution was launched against him. This has not been done and the letter purporting to contain the sanction also does not show that the sanction was in respect of these very acts. Prosecution in such a case must, therefore, be deemed to be without proper sanction and hence it must be held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of this case. This view is fully supported by the case of Gokulchand Dwarkadas v. The King . This case was further followed by the Madras case, In re: I. V. Subba Rao : (1949)1MLJ600 .
4. The facts of the present case go even farther than the facts of the two cases cited above. In the present case, the letter of sanction contains a heading showing the subject-matter to which this letter related. This heading is 'Bribery and Corruption Case against Nand Lal, Loading Foreman, and Jogendra Prasad, O. T. Railway Banares City.'
5. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that the offence of bribery has been defined in Section 171B, Penal Code and is quite distinct and different from the offence punishable Under Section 161, Penal Code. Consequently, this letter of sanction, read by itself, would indicate that the sanction by the Traffic Manager was granted for an offence punishable Under Section 171B, Penal Code and not for an offence punishable Under Section 161, Penal Code. This further strengthens the argument on behalf of the applicant that there is no valid sanction for his prosecution for an offence Under Section 161, Penal Code, as required by Section 6, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
6. The proceedings being without jurisdiction, the conviction and sentence of Hand Lal Srivastava are set aside and the proceedings are quashed. The accused need not surrender to his bail and the fine, if paid, shall be refunded.