The Supreme Court today favoured fixed time frame for governments to grant sanction to prosecute its officials in corruption cases.

"There are cases where people (sanctioning authority) are sitting for months. Three months is sufficient time. Why stay the order. If there is a lacuna in our system and the court tried to pluck them then there is no need to interfere. We would consider this aspect for other cases also," a bench headed by Justice R Raveendran said.

The remarks were made by the bench after it refused to stay the Allahabad High Court's order fixing the time period of three months for granting sanction for the prosecution of officials involved in corruption.

However, in an interim order, it extended the time frame to six months and stayed part of the High Court's order in which it had said that CBI can prosecute government officials without sanction from the authority.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Uttar Pradesh government challenging High Court's order in which it passed a slew of direction while directing CBI probe into alleged diversion of foodgrains meant for BPL families in the state to Bangladesh and Nepal between 2001 to 2007 and beyond by the government officials.

Observing that government cannot keep sitting on the sanction request for an indefinite period, the High Court had on December 3 last said the authority concerned should take the decision within three months otherwise sanction would be deemed to have been granted.

"...in all cases where State agencies, CBI or other investigating agency moves an application for sanction under the Code of Criminal Procedure or Prevention of Corruption Act or any other law for the time being in force, a decision should be taken within a period of three months. In absence of any decision with due communication, it shall be deemed that the sanction has been accorded," the High Court had said.

The state government in its petition also questioned the six month time-frame ordered by the High Court for completing the probe, saying "it is neither advisable nor possible nor judicially permissible to draw or prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings".

The High Court had passed a slew of directions on the petition filed by advocate Vishwanath Chaturvedi alleging large scale irregularities in distribution of foodgrains supplied by the Centre under Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojna (SGRY) which were also illegally diverted to neighbouring countries from Uttar Pradesh.