THADANI C. J: This Is a revision application under the provisions of S. 439, Criminal P. C. directed against an order of the learned Ses­sions Judge, L. A. D., dated 25-10-49, by which he dismissed an appeal preferred by the appli­cant against his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate of the 1st Class, Tezpur, under S. 161, Penal Code. (2) The only ground seriously urged before us is that the learned 1st Class Magistrate, Tezpur, who tried the case was not competent to take cognizance of the complaint without previous sanction as required by S. 6 (c) of Act II (2) of 1947 passed by the Indian Legislature. Sec­tion 6 is in these terms: "6 No Court shall take cognisance of an offence punishable under S. 161 or S. 165 Penal Code or under Sub-S (2) 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." Mr. Ghose contended that in this case, the appellant was not liable to be removed by the Executive Engineer of the Division concerned but by the Chief Engineer, and that as no previous sanction of the Chief Engineer was obtained be­fore the prosecution against the applicant was lodged, the proceedings of the trying Magistrate were without jurisdiction. Mr. Ghose has referr­ed us to a circular issued by the Chief Engi­neer, dated 21-6-45, which is in these terms: "No. E. 20 A/24/44/5661-73, dated 21-6-4.5. From: F. E. Cormack, Esqr., B.Sc., C.I.E., I.S.E., Chief Engineer, North. A. A. Barnard, Esqr., B.E., O.B.E., I.S.E., Chief Engineer, South. To: All Executive Engineers in Assam. Subject: Filling up of permanent vacancies of Head Clerks and Upper Division Clerks. Sir, In partial modification of the orders issued with this office letter No. E. 1 E/l/43/4290-309, dated .25-6-43, I have the honour to say that in per­manent Division, you are competent to appoint and confirm Head Clerks and Upper Division Clerks in permanent vacancies after considering the claims of all permanent Clerks of the Divi­sion concerned including those serving tempora­rily in other Divisions but holding lien in their permanent posts. In order, however, to avoid any possible injustice, you should submit your pro­posals for filling up such vacancies to this office for approval. In order, however, to avoid any possible injustice, you should submit your pro­posals for filling up such vacancies to this office for approval. (2) In the case of new Divisions, the Head Clerks and the Upper Division Clerks will be appointed by this office by selection. Your obedient servant, Sd/ R. L. Varma, For Chief Engineer, North/South." Prom the contents of the circular, Mr. Ghose argued that as the appointment of an Upper Division Clerk In a permanent vacancy - the applicant is an Upper Division Clerk - was sub­ject to the approval of the Chief Engineer, hla appointment must be regarded as an appoint­ment made by the Chief Engineer, and not by the Executive Engineer. We are unable to accept this contention. Appendix 12 to the Funda­mental Rules and Assam Subsidiary Rules, 2nd Edn., 1939, at p. 371, contains the list of officers who are authorised to fill up appointments. Under item No. 33, which is the item applicable to the facts of this case, Executive Engineers are the officers who are authorised to fill up appointments in the office and petty establish­ment of their respective offices; that Is to say, the power to appoint Upper Division Clerks In permanent vacancies in the existing Divisions vests in the Executive Engineer of the Division concerned, and not in the Chief Engineer. It is true that the Chief Engineer exercises super­vision in the matter of filling up these vacan­cies by requiring his approval to the appoint­ment. But the power to appoint an Upper Divi­sion Clerk in the first instance does not vest in the Chief Engineer. The letter of the Chief Engineer, Assam dated 28-2-48, addressed to the Executive Engineer, Central Assam Division, tends to show that the Chief Engineer recognised this position, for, otherwise he would scarcely have sent to the Executive Engineer a specimen order of sanction for the prosecution of the applicant. In that letter, he directed the Executive Engi­neer to sanction the prosecution of the applicant and to forward the sanction forthwith to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Anti-Corrup­tion Branch, Assam, Shillong. The Chief Engi­neer specifically pointed out to the Executive Engineer that as he was the person competent to remove the applicant from his office, his sanc­tion was necessary under S. 6 (c) of Act II (2) of 1947 (Central). The giving of sanction Is not disputed by the applicant's advocate. The Chief Engi­neer specifically pointed out to the Executive Engineer that as he was the person competent to remove the applicant from his office, his sanc­tion was necessary under S. 6 (c) of Act II (2) of 1947 (Central). The giving of sanction Is not disputed by the applicant's advocate. What is disputed is the validity of the sanction, Mr. Ghose contending that the sanction Is Invalid because it has not been given by the Chief En­gineer. We think the sanction has been validlyl given by the Executive Engineer as he was the' appointing authority. (3) Section 18, Assam General Clauses Act II (2) of 1915, is in these terms: "Where, by any Act, a power to make any appointment is conferred, then, unless a different intention appears, the authority having power to make the appointment shall also have power to suspend or dismiss any person appointed by it in exercise of that power." The Executive Engineer being the authority competent to appoint the applicant was, there fore, the proper authority to remove the appellant from his office, and as It was he who has given the previous sanction for the prosecution of the applicant, the trial held by the Magistrate was held with jurisdiction. (4) On the merits of the case, Mr. Ghose con­tended that the inferences which the Courts be­low have drawn from proved facts do not neces­sarily connect the applicant with the commis­sion of the crime. We do not think the case has been decided on inferences drawn from proved facts, but upon appreciation of the evi­dence recorded in the case; nor do we think that the inferences which the Courts below have drawn from proved facts fail to connect the applicant with the commission of the crime. When the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Branch, was apprised of the fact that the appli­cant was demanding a bribe, he took a ten-rupee note from one Golok and interviewed the Deputy Commissioner who requested Mr. Kalita, a Magis­trate, to assist the Inspector of Police. The Magistrate noted the number of the ten-rupee note. Golok then, In the company of one Dhlren went to the P.W.D. office, where he met the ap­plicant. The applicant took Golok and Dhiren to the office tea-room and there Golok handed over the ten-rupee note to the applicant who put the ten-rupee note into his pocket and left the room. Golok followed him. Golok then, In the company of one Dhlren went to the P.W.D. office, where he met the ap­plicant. The applicant took Golok and Dhiren to the office tea-room and there Golok handed over the ten-rupee note to the applicant who put the ten-rupee note into his pocket and left the room. Golok followed him. Dhiren then went out and signalled to P. W. 9 who was waiting in the Court compound. P. W. 9 In­formed the Inspector of Police who took the Magistrate to the applicant and the Magistrate searched the applicant's person and found the marked ten-rupee note. This direct evidence was accepted by the Courts below, and we see no reason to take a different view. (5) The result is that the revision application Is dismissed. The Rule is discharged. (6) Ram Lahbaya J: I agree. O. H. Rule discharged.