1. We cannot uphold the sanction given by the Magistrate. The Magistrate is mistaken in supposing that a sanction given under Section 195, Clause 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is a mere formal sanction and that it is not necessary for him before granting sanction to consider the evidence and decide as to whether there is a prima facie case and any reasonable chance of a conviction being obtained. In the present case, it is impossible to hold ' that there is a pirma facie case. The only evidence of any importance which, as far as can be seen, would be available against the present appellants of having abetted Chinniah Naidu in bringing a false charge of theft would be the statements of .Chinniah Naidu himself who it is shown after application had been made for sanction to prosecute him turned round and pleaded in a letter that all he had done was at the instigation of the present appellants. Since he wrote this letter although it is now almost four months after the date of the granting of sanction against him, no steps have been taken to try Chinniah Naidu. Under these circumstances with this sanction hanging over his head, it is certain that no Magistrate could attach any weight to any evidence that he might give. There is nothing to show that there is any other evidence available of any importance to prove that the appellants instigated the preferring of a false charge by Chinniah Naidu. As a court of appeal we set aside the sanction granted against Abboo Chetty and Raghavalu Chetty and as a court of revision the sanction to prosecute Mangadu Ellappa Chetty and Kuppusami Iyer.