JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the judgment of the Special Judge, Dharwar in Special Case No. 6 of 1960 on his file convicting the appellant under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for si:c months under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and six months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 and in default of the payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 with a further direction that the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded should run concurrently. At the time this appeal came up for admission on 27th June, 1961 this Court found that the sentences awarded to the appellant by the learned Special Judge were less than the sentences prescribed under the Statute and therefore, a notice was ordered to be issued to the appellant to show cause as to why the sentence should not be enhanced in the event of the conviction being sustained. Accordingly a notice was issued to the appellant. Subsequently the respondent-State also filed an application for enhancement of the sentences and the same has been registered as Criminal Revision Petition No. 433 of 1961. As the Appeal and the Criminal Revision Petition arise out of the same judgment they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. The charge against the appellant is that he demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of a sum of Rs.25 for issuing a medical certificate to P.W.2 Marthawa Gowdar, from P.W.1 G.A. Jahagirdar while being a public servant and as such committed offences punishable under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The defence of the appellant was one of denial. His case is that some of his subordinates bore ill-will towards him and they had all joined hands to unnecessarily involve him with the assistance of P.W.1 Jahagirdar and P.W.2 Marthawa and had enlisted the service of P.W.18 Kallur, the Inspector of Police and involved him in this case. It is undisputed that the appellant was working as the Civil Surgeon in the Civil Hospital at Dharwar on the relevant date and as such he is a public servant. It is undisputed that the appellant was working as the Civil Surgeon in the Civil Hospital at Dharwar on the relevant date and as such he is a public servant. It is also not disputed that P.W.2 Marthawa Gowdar had approached the appellant on 5th March, 1960 for the issue of a medical certificate and that he examined her and directed her to come to the Civil Hospital on 7th March, 1960 for receiving the medical certificate. Similarly it is undisputed that the Police party raided the Civil Surgeon's office room at Dharwar at about 3-30 p.m. on 7th March, 1960 and after search found M.Os.1 to 3-the three currency notes to which phenolphathalein powder had been smeared, under a pad on the table in front of which the appellant was working and seized them under a mahazar drawn up in the presence of the panchas. It is the case of the prosecution that Marthawa Gowdar, who was a school mistress and a resident of Hubli had applied for leave on medical grounds to the School Board under the control of the Dharwar Hubli Municipal Borough and had produced Exhibit 17 a medical certificate issued by a private Doctor along with her application for leave; that P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar was directed by the School Board Authorities to get herself examined by a Civil Surgeon attached to the Civil Hospital at Dharwar on 2nd March, 1960 and accordingly she went to the Hospital on the said date. It is alleged that Dr. Kulkarm, who was in sub-charge of the Hospital whom she met in the Hospital demanded an illegal gratification for the issue of the certificate and endorsed on the letter that she had brought from the School Board Office that she should bring the certifiicate that had been issued by the private Doctor. Subsequently on 2nd March, 1960 according to the prosecution case Marthawa Gowdar met P.W. 1 Jahagirdar near Dharwar Municipality and informed him that her attempt 10 get a certificate from Doctors in the Civil Hospital had failed and requested him to help her in the matter of securing a certificate. P.W. 1 Jahagirdar directed her to meet him on the following day, i.e. on 3rd March, 1960. Accordingly P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar met P.W. 1 Jahagirdar near the Civil Hospital on the afternoon of 3rd March, 1960. P.W. 1 Jahagirdar directed her to meet him on the following day, i.e. on 3rd March, 1960. Accordingly P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar met P.W. 1 Jahagirdar near the Civil Hospital on the afternoon of 3rd March, 1960. It is alleged that P.W. 1 Jahagirdar took P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar to the appellant and requested him to issue a certificate after examining her to enable her to get the leave sanctioned and that the appellant went through the papers and demanded a sum of Rs.60 as illegal gratification for the issue of the certificate. It is further alleged that the appeal made by P.W. 1 Jahagirdar to the appellant to issue the certificate without expecting any money from P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar on the ground that she was poor fell on his deaf ears and he threw away the papers saying emphatically that he will not issue a medical certificate unless the said sum of Rs.60 was paid to him. It is alleged that P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar felt helpless and began to weep and that P.W. 1 Jahagirdar consoled her and asked her to meet him on the next day and assured her that he will be able to persuade the Civil Surgeon to issue her a certificate after examining her. Accordingly on 4th March, 1960 P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar came to Dharwar from Hubli and met P.W. 1 Jahagirdar and both of them proceeded to the Civil Hospital. It is alleged that they were informed by the peon of the Civil Surgeon that the appellant was asleep and that he did not know when he would get up from his bed. It is further stated that P.W. 1 Jahagirdar peeped through the office window and found the appellant actually asleep on a cot in his room and therefore, both of them went away from the place P.W. 1 Jahagirdar and P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar once agian met the Civil Surgeon in the Matron's room in the Civil Hospital on 5th March, 1960 and requested him to issue a certificate. It is stated that after some bargain the appellant agreed to reduce the demand from Rs.60 to Rs.25 and issue a certificate on the assurance held out to him by P.W. 1 Jahagirdar that he would make the payment and take the certificate. It is stated that after some bargain the appellant agreed to reduce the demand from Rs.60 to Rs.25 and issue a certificate on the assurance held out to him by P.W. 1 Jahagirdar that he would make the payment and take the certificate. The appellant made an endorsement of the result of his examination on the letter issued by the School Board authorities and directed his stenographer to prepare a certificate and keep it ready for delivery on Monday, i.e., on 7th March 1960 P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar went back to Hubli assuring P.W. 1 Jahagirdar that she would get Rs.25 on Monday and pay the same to the anpellant and collect the certificates. It is stated that on 6th March, 1960 she sent a letter to P.W. 1 Tahagirdar pleading her inability to raise the amount of Rs.25 for paying the bribe to the appellant and requesting him to pay the amount on he, behalf and collect the certificate and deliver the same to the School Board authorities to enable her to get her salary. It is also stated that in the said letter she indicated that she would have arranged to get the appellant trapped if only she could afford to do that According to the version of the prosecution P.W. 1 Jahagirdar took him from the suggestion made by P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar in the letter which he received on the afternoon of 6th March, 1960 and approached P.W. 18 Kallur the Inspector of Police attached to the Anti-Corruption Department and who was camping in the Police Club at Dharwar and orally complained to him that the appellant was demanding illegal gratification for issuing a certificate to P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar though under the rules he was bound to issue a certificate without any fees P.W. 18 Kallur recorded the statement of P.W. 1 Jahagirdar and secured his signature. He collected Exhibit 12 (the chit) that had been sent by P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar to P.W. 1 Jahagirdar on the same day. He then proceeded to Hubli and applied to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for according sanction to him to investigate the charges that had been levelled against the appellant by P.W. 1 Jahagirdar. The learned Magistrate accorded sanction. He then proceeded to Hubli and applied to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for according sanction to him to investigate the charges that had been levelled against the appellant by P.W. 1 Jahagirdar. The learned Magistrate accorded sanction. On 6th March, 1960 P.W. 18 Kallur had directed P.W. 1 Jahagirdar to be ready to see him in the Police Club with a sum of Rs.25 to arrange for a trap on the following day. Accordingly P.W. 1 Jahagirdar met P.W. 18 Kallur on the morning of 7th March, 1960 with a sum of Rs.25. Thereafter necessary steps were taken by P.W. 18 to secure the panchas and to draw up a mahazar in their presence. P.W. 1 Jahagirdar produced two ten-rupee and one five-rupee currency notes before the panchas. One of the Head Constables smeared phenolphathalein powder on those notes and demonstrated to the panchas present at the place that when phenolphathalein powder is treated with soda bicarbonate solution, it would turn pink. A mahazar noting all these things was drawn up in the Police Cub. The currency notes were then handed over to P.W. 1 Jahagirdar with instructions to him that he should go to the Civil Surgeon's office along with P.W. 5 Kori and deliver them in case the Civil Surgeon demanded illegal gratification far issuing the certificate. P.W. 1 Jahagirdar and P.W. 5 Kori were instructed to give a signal in case the appellant demanded and accepted the illegal gratification from P.W. 1 Jahagirdar. The other panchas and the Police Staff also proceecded to the Civil Hospital and were laying in wait round about the office of the Civil Surgeon. They all reached the Civil Hospital, Dharwar, at about 11-30 a.m. or 12 noon. It is alleged that they were so waiting near the Civil Hospital till about 3-30 p.m. when the appellant came to his office after his rounds and on being informed by P.W. 3 Kshira Sagar, stenographer, that P.W. 1 was waiting for him, asked him to send P.W. 1 Jahagirdar to his room. P.W. 1 went to the room of the Civil Surgeon along with P.W. 5 Kori and on being questioned by the appellant told him that he had brought the money. P.W. 1 went to the room of the Civil Surgeon along with P.W. 5 Kori and on being questioned by the appellant told him that he had brought the money. In the mean while, according to the version of the prosecution, P.W. 3 Kshira Sagar had brought the certificate and the other connected papers and placed them on the table of the appellant for his signature. On being informed by P.W. 1 Jahagirdar that he had brought the money the appellant affixed his signature to the certificate and delivered the papers to P.W. 3 Kshira Sagar with a direction that he may put the outward number and deliver the same to P.W. 1 Jahagirdar. It is also stated that the appellant demanded P.W. 1 Jahagirdar to pay him the money and P.W. 1 took out from his pocket M.Os. 1 to 3 and placed them in his hands. On being informed by the appellant that the certificate will be delivered to P.W. 1 Jahagirdar by P.W. 3 Kshira Sagar after noting the outward number on it, all the three persons, namely, P.W. 3 Kshira Sagar, P.W. 1 Jahagirdar and P.W. 5 Kori went out of the office. The complainant and P.W. 5 Kori gave the pre-arranged signal, then the Police party raided the office of the Civil Surgeon. It is alleged that P.W. 18 Kallur disclosed his identity to the appellant and directed him to produce the money that he had received from P.W. 1 Jahagirdar and that the appellant denied having received any money. Thereafter P.W. 18 Kallur directed P.W. 6 N.G. Patil, one of the panchas, to search the person of the appellant. Accordingly P.W. 6 Patil searched the person of the appellant. A sum of Rs.29 and odd was found in one of the pockets of the pant of the appellant and the same was taken out by P.W. 6 Patil and placed on the table. On verification they found that the numbers of none of the currency notes in the pocket tallied with the numbers of notes which had been tainted with the powder and recorded in the mahazar drawn at the time when the currency notes were entrusted to P.W. 1 Jahagirdar. Thereafter P.W. 6 Patil searched the pockets of the bush coat of the appellant which had been hung in the room and no amount was found in any one of those pockets. Thereafter P.W. 6 Patil searched the pockets of the bush coat of the appellant which had been hung in the room and no amount was found in any one of those pockets. P.W. 18 Kallur then directed P.W. 6 Patil to search the drawers of the table and the files of papers that were lying on the table. Nothing was found in the drawers. It is alleged that when the several files that were lying on the table which was in front of the appellant were being searched P.W. 6 Patil found some currency notes kept in between a pad and a register and took them out. On verification they found that those notes were the notes that had been entrusted to P.W. 1 Jahagirdar in the Police Club for being delivered to the appellant in case he demanded any illegal gratification as agreed previously. In the meanwhile the appellant had been directed:o wash his hands in the soda bicarbonate solution prepared by Inspector Kalaswad, one of the members of the raid party and they had become pink in colour. This experiment had been carried out even before the search for the money was conducted by P.W. 6 Patil. The Inspector of Police seized the currency notes and the necessary papers. It is stated that the appellant produced the requisition which had been brought by P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar requesting him to examine her and issue a certificate, Exhibit 17 the certificate issued by a private Doctor which she had brought along with the said papers and the certificate signed by him on the date of the incident. Thereafter the Investigating Officer applied to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hubli, for necessary permission to conduct the investigation. The sanction was granted. After necessary investigation a charge-sheet for offences punishable under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947 was placed against the appellant. Dr. Kulkarni, the sub-charge of the Civil Hospital was also arrayed as accused on the ground that he induced the appellant to reduce his demand from Rs.60 to Rs.25 and had to answer the charges of abetment. The Inspector of Police had obtained the sanction of the Government to prosecute the accused persons. A charge-sheet was placed on 22nd December, 1960 against the accused in the Court of the Special Judge, Dharwar. The Inspector of Police had obtained the sanction of the Government to prosecute the accused persons. A charge-sheet was placed on 22nd December, 1960 against the accused in the Court of the Special Judge, Dharwar. A Special Public Prosecutor was appointed by the State to conduct the prosecution. Charges under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947 and section 161 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellant and charges under section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the second accused on 14th April, 1961. The appellant and the other accused pleaded not guilty and desired to be tried. It is in respect of the charges so framed by the learned Special Judge that the appellant and the other accused were tried before him. The prosecution examined eighteen witnesses including the Investigating Officer to substantiate the charges against the accused. The appellant did not examine any witness on his behalf. The defence of the appellant was that the clerks who were working under him were disgruntled on account of the disciplinary action ‘hat he had taken against them and that P.W. 1 Jahagirdhar had his own grudge against him and these disgruntled persons had foisted a false case against him to avenge their grievances with the assistance and active co-operation of P.W. 18 Kallur. He denied having demanded and accepted M.Os.1 to 3 from P.W. 1 Jahagirdhar. The learned Special Judge who recorded the evidence and heard the statements of the Excused came to the conclusion that the prosecution had established a clear case against the appellant on both the charges and found him guilty and convicted and sentenced him as above stated. The learned Special Judge acquitted the second accused (Kulkarni) giving him the benefit of doubt. The learned Special Judge acquitted the second accused (Kulkarni) giving him the benefit of doubt. In view of the fact that the appellant was on the verge of his retirement and the convictions would entail his dismissal from service and deprivation of his pension and other benefits that had accrued to him the learned Special Judge was of the opinion that the ends of justice would he met by sentencing the appellant to suffer simple imprisonment for six months on each of the counts in addition to the payment of fine of Rs.500 for the offence under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and in default of the payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. He ordered accordingly. It is against this judgment that this appeal has been filed by the appellant. As already stated, the State has preferred a Criminal Revision Petition for enhancement of the sentence after this Court issued a notice to the appellant to show cause as to why the sentence should not be enhanced in the event of the conviction being sustained by this Court. Mr. Shamanna, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, challenged the correctness and legality of the convictions of the appellant on several grounds. He contended that the investigation conducted by P.W. 18 Kallur, who is an Inspector of Police attached to the Anti-Corruption Department at Belgaum, on the basis of an authority given to him by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hubli was highly biased and had gravely prejudiced the appellant in his trial because of the lack of fair-play and good conscience on his part; that the authority given by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class to P.W. 18 Kallur to investigate the case aginst the appellant was vitiated and the same had led to miscarriage of justice and an erroneous conviction of the appellant and that the learned Special Judge was not justified in relying upon the highly interested and discrepant evidence of the several partisan witnesses in reaching the conclusion that the appellant demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.25 as illegal gratification on 7th March, 1960. He also contended that the learned Special Judge erred in holding that the action of Investigating Officer in directing the appellant to wash his hands at the time of Exhibit 32 did not amount to testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. He also contended that the learned Special Judge erred in holding that the action of Investigating Officer in directing the appellant to wash his hands at the time of Exhibit 32 did not amount to testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. He lastly urged that the learned Special Judge erred in holding that certain documents called for from the Director of Medical Services were privileged documents even without looking into those documents and shutting out the evidence that the appellant intended to put forward in support of his defence that the entire case had been falsely foisted against him as a result of the conspiracy on the part of his disgruntled subordinates, P.W. 1 Jahagirdar who had criminal intimacy with Hawalad, a nurse against whom the appellant had taken action, with the active support and connivance of P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar and P.W. 18 Kallur, the Inspector of Police. I will now proceed to examine these contentions. It cannot be disputed that under section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 only an officer above the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police is entitled to carry on the investigation relating to the allegations made against a public servant. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali1. Section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was introduced presumably on the basis of the experience gained to protect a public servant against harassment and victimization. Their Lordships dealing with the intention of the Legislature under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act observed as follows in the course of their judgment: “If it was in the interest of the public that corruption should be eradicated, it was equally in the interest of the public that honest public servants should be able to discharge their duties free from false, frivolous and malicious accusations. To achieve this object Ss. To achieve this object Ss. 5-A and 6 introduced the following two safeguards: (1) no Police Officer below the rank (a) in the Presidency Towns of Madras and Calcutta, of an Assistant Commissioner of Police; (b) in the Presidency Town of Bombay of a Superintendent of Police and (c) elsewhere of a Deputy Superintendent of Police shall investigate any offence punishable under sections 161 , 165 or sections 165-A of the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860) or under sub- section (2) of section 5 of the Act without the order of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class as the case may be or make any arrest therefor without a warrant- Seesection 5 -A; (2) no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 161 or section 164 or section 165 of the Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) or under section 5 (2) of the Act alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction of the”appropriate Government-See section 6. These statutory safeguards must be strictly complied with for they were conceived in public interests and were provided as a guarantee against frivolous and vexatious prosecutions. While in the case of an officer of assured status and rank, the Legislature was prepared to believe them implicitly it prescribed an additional guarantee in the case of Police Officers below that rank, namely the previous order of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Cass as the case may be. The Magistrate's status gives assurance to the bona fides of the investigation. In such circumstances it is self-evident that a Magistrate cannot surrender his discretion, to a police officer but must exercise it having regard to the relevant matterial made available to him at that stage. He must also be satisfied that there is sufficient reason owing 10 the exigencies of administrative convenience, to entrust a subordinate officer with the invetigation. This Court in R.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi2 emphasised the necessity to adhere strictly to the provisions of section 5-A of the Act. He must also be satisfied that there is sufficient reason owing 10 the exigencies of administrative convenience, to entrust a subordinate officer with the invetigation. This Court in R.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi2 emphasised the necessity to adhere strictly to the provisions of section 5-A of the Act. Jagannadhadas, J. who delivered the judgment of the Court observed at page 1159: “When, therefore, the Legislature thought fit to remove the protection from the public servants in so far as it relates to the investigation of the offences of corruption comprised m the Act, by making them cognisable it may be presumed that it was considered necessary to provide a substituted safeguard from undue harassment by requiring that the investigation is to be conducted normally by a police officer of a designated high rank. ‘Having regard therefore to the peremptory language of section 5 of the Act as well as to the policy apparently underlying it it is reasonably clear that the said provision must be taken to the mandatory.‘” After adverting to the arguments advanced on behalf of the State the learned Judge closed the discussion thus at page 1162. “We are, therefore, clear in our opinion that section 5 (4) and Proviso to section 3 of the Act and the corresponding section 5-A of the Act LIX of 1952 are mandatory and not directory and that the investigation conducted in violation thereof bears the stamp of illegality.” Bearing the above principles in mind, I will now proceed to consider the contention of Mr. Shamanna, the learned counsel for the appellant and find out whether there were sufficient grounds for P.W. 18 Kallur to take upon himself the investigation in this case. It was strenuously contended by Mr. Shamanna that the facts in the case clearly disclose an anxiety on the part of P.W. 18 Kallur to clutch at its jurisdiction and to prevent the Deputy Superintendent of Police from taking up the investigation. He urged that P.W. 18 Kallur was a non-gazetted officer and the appellant was a Class I gazetted officer and that when serious allegations of corruption were levelled against the appellant, it was incumbent on the part of P.W. 18 Kallur to have requisitioned the services of a Superintendent of Police or Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct the investigation. He urged that P.W. 18 Kallur was a non-gazetted officer and the appellant was a Class I gazetted officer and that when serious allegations of corruption were levelled against the appellant, it was incumbent on the part of P.W. 18 Kallur to have requisitioned the services of a Superintendent of Police or Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct the investigation. He urged that the fact that P.W. 18 Kallur proceeded to investigate into the allegations made by P.W. 1 Jahagirdar even without verifying from P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar from whom the appellant is alleged to have demanded bribe and even without contacting the Deputy Superintendent of Police on telephone or otherwise and rushed at once to Hubli for obtaining sanction of the Magistrate to investigate the case against the appellant exhibited his anxiety to involve the appellant. He also urged that the subsequent conduct of P.W. 18 Kallur clearly demonstrated that he kept the Deputy Superintendent of Police in darkness about the progress of the investigation and took upon himself the sole responsibility lends support to his contention that he had done so deliberately. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant demanded bribe from P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar on 5th March, 1960 and that she had agreed to pay the amount on 7th March, 1960before taking delivery of the medical certificate. P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar did not lodge any complaint in the matter of the appellant having demanded a bribe from her. P.W. 1 Jahagirdar who is a casual acquaintance of P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar lodged the complaint with P.W. 18 Kallur on 6th March, 1960. P.W. 18 Kallur wants us to believe that he did not know P.W. 1 Jahagirdar prior to 6th March, 1960 and it is for the first time that he came to know when he came and complained to him about the alleged illegal act of damanding a bribe from P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar by the appellant for issuing a medical certificate which he was bound to issue without any fees. P.W. 18 Kallur then knew that very serious allegations, which if proved would affect the official career of a senior officer of the Medical Department were being made by an utter stranger or at any rate a man who is not directly connected with the allegations. P.W. 18 Kallur then knew that very serious allegations, which if proved would affect the official career of a senior officer of the Medical Department were being made by an utter stranger or at any rate a man who is not directly connected with the allegations. In these circumstances one would normally expect any officer with a sense of responsibility to make an honest attempt to verify the allegations by contacting and examining P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar before embarking upon further investigation. Admittedly P.W. 18 Kallur did not do so. On the other hand according to the assertion made by him in the course of his cross-examination he thought it unnecessary to verify the matter and believed the version of P.W. 1 Jahagirdar as recorded in Exhibit 13 to be true and proceeded to Hubli for obtaining sanction. He was aware that P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar from whom the appellant was alleged to have demanded the bribe was resident of Hubli at the relevant point of time. He made no attempt to get at her and examine her on the night of 6th March, 1960. His explanation that he made confidential enquiries is, to say the least, unacceptable. What kind of “confidential enquiries” he made has not been disclosed. All that he states is that he sent one of the Police Constables to find out P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar and he came and informed him that she was not found in her house and the house was locked. P.W. 18 Kallur did not make any honest attempt to secure P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar and examine her to verify the statement made by P.W. 1 Jahagirdar in Exhibit 13. The purpose for which P.W. 18 Kallur proceeded to Hubli on the evening of 6th March, 1960 was, as is clear from his own statement, to secure the sanction of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class and not to contact P.W. 2 Marthawa. Admittedly there were two Judicial Magistrates and an Additional District Magistrate at Dharwar (which is the District Headquarter) where P.W. 1 Jahagirdar lodged the information as per Exhibit 13 before P.W. 18 Kallur. In the normal course P.W. 18 Kallur should have approached one of the First Class Magistrates or the District Magistrate of Dharwar for sanction to investigate into the allegations. He did not do so. In the normal course P.W. 18 Kallur should have approached one of the First Class Magistrates or the District Magistrate of Dharwar for sanction to investigate into the allegations. He did not do so. On the other hand, he proceeded to Hubli and approached the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hubli, for the sanction. The reason assigned by P.W. 18 Kallur for proceeding to the Judicial Magistrate, Hubli, to obtain the sanction is most unsatisfactory and not complimentary either to the Judicial Magistrates at Dharwar or to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hubli, who accorded sanction to him to investigate into the matter. The above circumstances as rightly contended by Mr. Shamanna, lead to the inference that P.W. 18 Kallur was anxious to obtain sanction at the hands of a Magistrate at Hubli and it is for that purpose and for that purpose only he proceeded to Hubli and not with a view to verify whether the information given to him by P.W. 1 Jahagirdar is true or not. Even after obtaining the sanction of the Judicial Magistrate, Hubli, P.W. 18 Kallur made no honest attempt to contact the Deputy Superintendent of Police and request him to take up the investigation. This is what P.W. 18 Kallur states in this regard in the course of his cross-examination: “Then my immediate superior officer was one Doraiswamy at Bangalore. He was Dy. S.P. I did not contact him by wireless or phone in connection with the present case. He was engaged in other enquiries and so there was no necessity for me to ascertain if he was free to handle this case. In fact I knew as he was busy in other enquiries he could not come over here for this case. I knew this personally I had come to know about this even five days before the incident in question. I knew that he was busy then. I cannot enumerate the enquiries which he had to attend to……….It is not true to say that I did not entrust the investigation of this case to my superior officer only with a view to assist P.W. 1 in foisting this case. The witness adds: ‘There was no necessity to entrust the investigation to my superior officer because I was myself empowered to investigate it.‘It is not true to say that corruption cases are generally handled by the Dy. S.P. only. The witness adds: ‘There was no necessity to entrust the investigation to my superior officer because I was myself empowered to investigate it.‘It is not true to say that corruption cases are generally handled by the Dy. S.P. only. There is no law requiring that such cases should be handled only by the Dy. S.P.” The above statements give out the mind of P.W. 18 Kallur and indicate to me beyond all doubt that he was all out to clutch at the jurisdiction to investigate into the allegations as rightly contended by Mr. Shamanna. It is in this background the evidence of P.W. 18 Kallur and the several witnesses should be examined to assertain as to whether the investigation and the subsequent prosecution have in any way gravely prejudiced the appellant in his trial because of lack of fair-play and good conscience onthe part of the Investigating Officer. I will next consider the contention of Mr. Shamanna, the learned counsel for the appellant that the sanction to lay the trap and the sanction to investigate the case accorded to P.W. 18 Kallur by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, are invalid and they have led to miscarriage of justice. As already stated P.W. 18 Kallur did not approach the two Judicial Magistrates, First Class and the District Magistrate who were stationed at Dharwar where he recorded Exhibit 13, the statement of P.W. 1 Jahagirdar but proceeded to Hubli on 6th March, 1960 and approached the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for according sanction to lay a trap and to find out whether the appellant would demand and accept the illegal gratification from P.W. 1 Jahagirdar. It is well settled that when a Magistrate is approached for granting permission to lay a trap or to investigate a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, he is expected to satisfy himself that there are good and sufficient reasons for authorising an officer of a rank lower than the designated officer to conduct the investigation. A Magistrate should not surrender his discretion to a Police Officer but must exercise it having regard to the relevant material made available to him at that stage. He must be satisfied that there is sufficient reason owing to the exigencies of administrative convenience to entrust a subordinate officer with the investigation. A Magistrate should not surrender his discretion to a Police Officer but must exercise it having regard to the relevant material made available to him at that stage. He must be satisfied that there is sufficient reason owing to the exigencies of administrative convenience to entrust a subordinate officer with the investigation. He cannot mechanically accord sanction without applying his mind to the facts of the case and satisfying himself that it is necessary in the circumstances of the case that an officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police should be permitted to investigate the case. As observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali1 in a case of a designated officer the Parliament was prepared to believe him implicitly but in a case of an officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police it prescribes an additional guarantee that previous order of a Magistrate of the First Class was necessary to empower him to investigate the case. It is, therefore, necessary that when a Police Officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police approaches a Magistrate for permission to investigate into the allegations against a public servant he should give all the necessary facts in his application to enable the Magistrate to apply his mind to them and accord his sanction. The order passed by the Magistrate should also contain the necessary facts which induced him to permit a Police Officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the case. In other words, the order passed by the Magistrate permitting the Officer should be a speaking order. If the facts are not disclosed in the sanction the prosecution is entitled to its proof aliunde of the said facts. It is urged by Mr. Shamanna, the learned counsel for the appellant that for reasons best known to the Investigating Officer and the learned Magistrate the said salutary practice was not adopted in the instant case. He urged that the Investigating Officer did not place any material before the Magistrate which should induce him to permit P.W. 18 Kallur to investigate the case. Shamanna, the learned counsel for the appellant that for reasons best known to the Investigating Officer and the learned Magistrate the said salutary practice was not adopted in the instant case. He urged that the Investigating Officer did not place any material before the Magistrate which should induce him to permit P.W. 18 Kallur to investigate the case. He contended that the order passed by the learned Magistrate ex facie appeared that the learned Magistrate did not realise the significance or importance of his order giving permission but only mechanically issued the order on the basis of the application which did not disclose any reason presumably because he thought that what was required was only a formal order under section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Exhibit 49 is the application made by P.W. 18 Kallur to the Judicial Magistrate, Firs: Class, for according sanction to him to lay a trap stating that he recorded the statement of P.W. 1 Jahagirdar in respect of the alleged demand of bribe of Rs.25 by the appellant from P.W. 2 Marthawa Gowdar, a Primary School Teacher and that the facts disclosed offences under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) read with section 5 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This is what P.W. 18 Kallur has stated in his application: “The superior officers of the State level Anti-Corruption, Bangalore, have been busy in other urgent enquiries and cases and hence I have to take up this case.” Who were the Superior Officers and in what work they were engaged in and whether there were any communications from any of them informing P.W. 18 Kallur that they were otherwise busy and as such he could take up the investigation are not stated in the application. P.W. 18 Kallur referred to one Mr. Doraiswamy, Deputy Superintendent of Police at Bangalore in his evidence. Who is the other ‘officer’ or ‘officers’ referred to in Exhibit 49 who could have taken up the investigation has not been made clear. The fact that P.W. 18 Kallur has stated in Exhibit 49 that the Superior Officers of the State level Anti-Corruption are otherwise busy indicates that there were more than one officer empowered to take up the investigation in the instant case. It was submitted by Mr. The fact that P.W. 18 Kallur has stated in Exhibit 49 that the Superior Officers of the State level Anti-Corruption are otherwise busy indicates that there were more than one officer empowered to take up the investigation in the instant case. It was submitted by Mr. Shamanna, the learned counsel for the appellant, that there is a Superintendent of Police attached to the Anti-Corruption Department at the State level and there are more than one Deputy Superintendent of Police also. This assertion is supported from the statement made in Exhibit 49. After receiving Exhibit 49 the learned Magistrate passed the following order: “Read the report of the P. I. Shri Kallur and the complaint of Shri G.A. Jahagirdhar and the letter of Marthawa Gowdar. I am satisfied that there are grounds for investigation into thealleged offence under section 161 , I.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence I accord sanction to investigate into the said offence and to cary on searches of person and premises and seize the necessary incriminating articles.” It is clear from the above order that the learned Magistrate did not realise his responsibilities and the implications of his order. The point before him was not whether the grounds urged in the petition disclosed an offence punishable under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and whether it was necessary to investigate into the matter, but whether it was necessary in the circumstances of the case to empower an officer below the designated rank to carry on the investigation and to lay the trap. The order passed by the learned Magistrate as rightly contended by Mr. Shamanna, the learned counsel for the appellant, is a mechanical one and leaves an impression in my mind that the learned Magistrate was under the impression that he was obliged to pass an order at the request of the Police Officer. Exhibit 50 is the next order passed by the Judicial Magistrate on 8th March, 1960, according sanction to P.W. 18 Kallur to carry on the further investigation of the case. Exhibit 50 is the next order passed by the Judicial Magistrate on 8th March, 1960, according sanction to P.W. 18 Kallur to carry on the further investigation of the case. Even this order does not disclose that the learned Magistrate was aware of the fact that the Parliament had entrusted the investigation to an officer of a designated rank and that it is only in case such an officer was not available and the exigencies of administrative convenience required an officer below that rank should be empowered to take up the investigation and the grounds placed before him were sufficient to pass an order empowering an officer of a lower rank to perform those duties that the Magistrate should pass an order. The order passed by the learned Magistrate on Exhibit 50 is as follows: “After going through the contents of the panchanamas shown by the Police Inspector Shri S.G. Kallur and after seeing the corpus delicti (the currency notes and the bottle containing liquid of pink colour) which were shown by him to me I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for according sanction under section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act for investigating into an offence of acceptance of illegal gratification by the above mentioned accused. I, therefore,” hereby accord sanction to Shri S.G. Kallur, Police Inspector, Anti-Corruption Measures, State level, Belgaum, under section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act to investimate into an offence of acceptance of illegal gratification by Shri M.J. Rajanna, Civil Surgeon, Dharwar Civil Hospital, Dharwar.” There is absolutely nothing in the above said orders which indicate that the learned Magistrate was satisfied that the investigation of the case could not be taken by a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a Superintendent of Police who were the designated officers and that it was necessary in the interest of administrative convenience or otherwise that he should empower an officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate into the matter. Doubtless these two orders passed by the learned Magistrate according sanction to P.W. 18 Kallur are invalid. Doubtless these two orders passed by the learned Magistrate according sanction to P.W. 18 Kallur are invalid. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Major E. G. Barsay v. State of Bombay1 that the mere fact that the pre-trial proceedings like the invalid san;tions to an officer are not sufficient to hold that the conviction of a person who underwent the trial is illegal unless it is demonstrated that the invalidity of the sanction; prejudiced the appellant and led to the miscarriage of justice. It is urged by Mr. Shamanna, the learned counsel for the appellant, that there is ample material on record which will demonstrate beyond all doubt that the invalid sanctions accorded by the learned Magistrate to P.W. 18 Kallur led to the miscarriage of justice on account of concoction of evidence and shutting out the defence evidence during the courses of investigation conducted by P.W. 18 Kallur. He urged that the facts of the case clearly disclosed that P.W. 18 Kallur short-circuited the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police and was anxious to snatch the opportunity to investigate the case against the appellant. He pointed outto me that P.W. 18 Kallur had almost ignored the existence of the Superintendent of Police attached to the Anti-Corruption Department and that P.W. 18 Kallur did not register a case and submit the F.I.R. to the Special Judge till 18th December, 1960, that is, for over nine months indicates his dare devil attitude. It is submitted that he kept back Exhibit 13 with him with a view to incorporate Exhibit 13(a) in it with a view to enlist the services of P.W. 3 Kshira Sagar and to concoct his evidence. I will refer to this aspect of the case at a later stage. However there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W. 18 was over anxious to take up the investigation against the appellant for reasons best known to him and that the investigation conducted by him has prejudiced the appellant to a great extent and has led to the miscarriage of justice. However there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W. 18 was over anxious to take up the investigation against the appellant for reasons best known to him and that the investigation conducted by him has prejudiced the appellant to a great extent and has led to the miscarriage of justice. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is highly interested and if it is carefully scrutinised clearly shows that the several important prosecution witnesses had their own axes to grind against the appellant and that they joined their hands and foisted a false case against the appellant. I will now examine how far this contention of Mr. Shamanna is well-founded. ********* After reviewing the evidence His Lordship concluded. Having thus reviewed the evidence and the circumstances placed on record I am of the opinion that the prosecution had failed toestablish a case against the appellant on any one of the charges. After taking into consideration everything that can legitimately be considered in favour of the prosecution and giving it due weight, room still exists for taking the view that, however strong the suspicion raised against the appellant may be, every reasonable possibility of innocence of the appellant has not been excluded and therefore, he is entitled for an acquittal. The convictions of the appellant are, therefore, liable to be set aside and the appellant should be acquitted. In the result, therefore, for the reasons stated above this appeal is allowed and the convictions and sentences passed against the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted. The fine amount if it is already paid shall be refunded to him. The surety bonds are ordered to be cancelled. It follows that the notice issued to the appellant to show cause why the sentences awarded to him should not be enhanced in the event of his conviction being sustained should be dropped and the Criminal Revision Petition No. 433 of 1961 filed by the State for enhancement of the sentences should be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly. S.V.S.-----Appeal allowed and conviction set aside.