The law obligates the competent Authority to apply it s mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before granting sanction. Before granting sanctioning authority was required to first ascertain the correct facts.

Like in the present case the correct amount of gratification, and then decide whether the sanction was given or not. But in the instant case, as noticed above, the Authority failed to apply his mind to ascertain the correct amount of illegal gratification to decide the question of sanction and failure on his part to ascertain this material facts was not a mere error or irregularity but is a serious omission on his part, amounting to illegality affection the validity of the sanction order. This illegality can not be synonymous with the term irregularity.

This illegality, in view of the Court, did occasion the failure of Justice within the meaning of section 465 of the Code. The decision of the Apex Court in Panda's case heavily relief on by the counsel for the State, was clearly distinguishable on facts . In that case apart from the fact that the nature of infirmity in the sanction, alleged by the convict was not indicated in the judgment, but the court has not only recorded a finding that there was nothing on record from which it can be said that the error or irregularity in the sanction had occasioned any failure of justice.

It has also noticed that objection regarding the validity of sanction was not raised before the trial court ,which as noted above, was not the case here. Thus, u/s 465 of the Code , does not come to rescue of the prosecution.