If Jesus gave the Eucharist to Judas, wasn't that a sacrilege?

[Confiteor_Deo]

My point is:

a) since Jesus knew Judas wasn’t in the state of grace / union with Him, wouldn’t be right to refrain him to partake of the Eucharist (as our present canon law states)? Wouldn’t that be a better charitable act towards Judas instead of letting him add sin upon himself?

b)The thing is, clergymen can pick this passage and justify themselves of not refrain anyone to receive Communion.

c) Quote from the above replier:
“But since Christ was to serve us as a pattern of justice, it was not in keeping with His teaching authority to sever Judas, a hidden sinner, from Communion with the others without an accuser and evident proof …]”.

Well, Judas didn’t had an accuser (no disciple saw evidence of his betrayal intention) BUT Jesus knew all of this. So the issue remains…

Even though Our Lord knew that Judas was already planning on betraying Him, He allowed him to receive anyway because he was a hidden sinner. Our Lord was setting the example that our current Code of Canon Law mandates all priests to follow. The current Canon Law states that those that are in “manifest grave sin” are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, Judas was not in manifest sin. Since his sin was not manifest, He allowed Judas to practice his free will and choose to commit the heinous sacrilege.

The same can be said in our current day when those in the state of sin receive Holy Communion. Our Lord in the Host knows that they are in sin and that receiving Him would make them add more sin upon themselves, but He doesn’t leave the Host but allows the sinner to practice his free will by committing the abhorrent sacrilege.