unless a failure of justice has 'infact' been occasioned thereby. Obviously therefore, the question whether there had been a resultant failure of justice is a question of fact. Sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Act provides certain yardsticks for the Court to decide whether the absence of, or any error omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice. The competency of the authority to grant sanction is an error for the purpose of Section 19, going by explanation occurring at the foot of that sanction. These statutory provisions clearly show that the previous sanction under Section 19 of the Act and the effect of the absence of such sanction or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction are matters which ought to be justiciable only at a stage where such absence, error, omission or irregularity can be tested to determine whether it has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice. These statutory components of Section 19 of the Act are intrinsic materials indicative of the clear legislative intention that the effect of absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction in terms of Section 19 would be a matter in issue only when such a question arises for decision on the basis of the defence of the accused at the trial. This view is fortified by the prescription in Sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Act that the Court shall have regard to the fact whether objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings to determine whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, sanctioned has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice.
