JUDGMENT : Rao, J. - The two Appellants Lalit Mohan Paramaguru & Mohan Munda are the Assistant Sub-Inspector and Constable of Police respectively. Lalit Mohan was convicted u/s 161 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. Mohan Munda was convicted on two counts u/s 165 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to one and a half years rigorous imprisonment on each count in both the sentences to run concurrently, by the Special Judge, Sambalpur. 2. Both the persons being public servants in the Police Department were charged that on 22-11-51 at Harikucha they obtained a fowl and two seers of Biri without consideration from P. W. 1 Had Kasan whose wife P. W. 2 had been involved in a theft case and thereby committed an offence u/s 165 and that on the next morning they accepted a goat and a bunch of plantains from Kanu Kisan as a gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive for forbearing to do an official act and thereby committed an offence u/s 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution was sanctioned by the Superintendent of Police who was competent to remove either of the Appellants from 3. The prosecution case is that the theft case instituted against P. W.2, accused Nos. 1 and 2 proceeded to the village of P. W.2 and brought p. Ws. 1 and 2 and their son P. W. 10, to their camp in the night of 22-11-54. Indecent assaults even to the point of committing rape were committed on some of the females; attempts were made to extort confession and in course of that night at the instance of accused No. 1, accused No. 2 went with p. w. 10 to his house wherefrom accused No. 2 brought a fowl and two seers of Biri without any payment. Next morning p. W. 2 was arrested in connection with the theft case and accused No. 1 expressed that if a Khasi would be given he would interfere with the officer-in-charge of the police station for release of p. W.2. A bunch of plantains was also supplied at the instance of accused No. 2. p. Ws. 1, 2 and 10 spoke as to the essential facts stated above. p. W. 4 is the village choukidar and p.W. 3. A bunch of plantains was also supplied at the instance of accused No. 2. p. Ws. 1, 2 and 10 spoke as to the essential facts stated above. p. W. 4 is the village choukidar and p.W. 3. is the complainant in the case who is also a close relation of p. W. l. p. W. 5 narrated the incidents which happened in the night and on the following morning and he was the person who actually carried the goat taken from p. W. 1. p. W. 6 spoke as to how the goat was subsequently disposed of. P. W. 7 also directly witnessed the material facts of the prosecution case. The learned Special Judge, after a careful discussion of the entire evidence, had come to the conclusion that the incidents alleged in the prosecution case were proved and convicted both the Appellants as stated above. 4. Mr. Rath appearing for the Appellants contended that there was no valid sanction for prosecution of both the Appellants and even assuming that there was a valid sanction it was with reference to only prosecution u/s 161 and not with reference to prosecution u/s 165 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the conviction, according to him, is illegal. Ext. 2 is the sanction. It is a letter addressed by one R. Patnaik, D.S.P. to the S.P. on which the S.P. sanctioned the prosecution. The letter runs as follows: S.P. Ref:-K. Balanga P.S. case No. 1 dated 7-1-55 u/s 342, 376 etc. 161 I.P.C. Sanction may be accorded for trial of accused persons-A.S.I. Lalit Mohan Paramagurn and constable 152 Mohan Munda in the above case supervised by you on 2223. I. 55. Sd- R. Patnaik, D.S.P.-D23-1-55 Mr. Rath contends that on the face of this document, only Section 161 I.P.C. is mentioned and an order sanctioning the prosecution which is only to the effect: Prosecution sanctioned. Sd- S.P.-23-1.55 does not show that the, officer sanctioning the prosecution was in possession of all the facts constituting the offence and exercised his mind as to the advisability or otherwise of the sanction. In support of this contention he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court- Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. In that case it was held that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove by other evidence that the material facts constituting the offence were placed before the sanctioning authority. In support of this contention he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court- Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. In that case it was held that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove by other evidence that the material facts constituting the offence were placed before the sanctioning authority. In the case before the learned Judges the details were stated to be in a confidential file and the witness did not want to show those details. But in this case, from ext. 2 we get that the Superintendent of Police was the person who supervised the investigation and the D.S.P. specially referred to the case number by saying on. Balanga P.S. case No. 1 dated 7-1-55; The D.S.P. also stated that the above case was supervised by the S. P. on 2223-1-55. The Superintendent of Police, was, according to this letter, in possession of the facts of the case and he gave the sanction. The contention of Mr. Rath therefore fails. The alternative contention urged by him that even if there was a valid sanction it was only with reference to prosecution u/s 161 and not with reference to prosecution u/s 165 I.P.C. and therefore there was no valid sanction of prosecution for the offence u/s 165 I.P.C., cannot be accepted. He read over Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and urged that previous sanction is contemplated in that section. But here we are concerned with the sanction of prosecution with reference to the offences punishable under Sections 161 and 165 I.P.C if the facts placed before the sanctioning authority do constitute an offence under both the sections. In the sanction there was not specifically mentioned that sanction to prosecute under such and such section was given. Further, in this particular case the mention is made of sections 3-12,376 etc., and 161. We are therefore of the opinion that the sanction is a valid sanction in view of the facts placed before us. 5. The learned Counsel also contended that the trial is vitiated by misjoinder of charges. In our opinion, the subject matters of all the charges form part of the same transaction and there is no misjoinder. 6. All the contentions raised by the learned Counsel fail. The convictions and sentences are therefore confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Das, J. 7. I agree. 8. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed