- (1.)The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, Bangalore appointed under the provisions of S.6 cf the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952, of offences punishable under Ss.409, 451 and 477A cf the Penal Code, and also of offences punishable under S 5(2) read v/ith S.5(1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment of four months with respect to the offences punishable under the Penal Code and no separate sentences were awarded for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(2.)The preliminary argument advanced by Mr. Bhagawan was that the convictions fall to the ground since there was no proper sanction on which S.6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act insists. The relevant part of S.6 reads:
"6(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under S.161 or S.164 or S.165 of the IPC., or under sub-sec. (2) or sub-sec. (3A) of S.5 of this Act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction...... (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office."

(3.)The Special Judge acquired jurisdiction to try the offences punishable under S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by reason of his appointment as a Special Judge for that purpose under S.6 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 which reads:
"6(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint as many Special Judges as may be necessary...."

;