JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - Appellant a Deputy Forest Ranger has been convicted under section 5(1)(c) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under section 477-A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a further period of months for the offence under section 5(1)(c) read with section 5(2) of the Act. The substantive sentences of imprisonment have been directed to run concurrently. 2. In the year 1970, while the appellant was posted as Deputy Ranger in Debagiri Forest Range under Parlakhemundi Forest Division, he used to be entrusted with cash from time to time for departmental work in the Forest within his Range. It was alleged that although the appellant had drawn and shown to have spent an amount of Rs. 675/- for collection, conversion and stacking of timbers in Allamanda Reserve Forest, he did not actually spend the amount for the aforesaid purposes, but mis-appropriated the same and submitted false voucher (Ext. 11) and measurement-book (Ext. 10) and made false entry in the cash-book (Ext. 12). On receipt of confidential information about the mis-appropriation, p.w. 1, the Vigilance Inspector lodged F.I.R. (Ext. 1) before the S.P., Vigilance, Southern Division, Berhampur, who directed the officer-in-charge of the Vigilance Police Station to register a case and p.w. 19, the Vigilance Inspector to take up investigation. P.w. 19 did the bulk of the investigation and on his transfer his successor (p.w. 17) took over charge of the investigation and in due course submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. 3. The appellant admitted to have been entrusted with the sum of Rs. 675/- for departmental work, but contended that he had spent the same by getting the work done through his Peon Khageswar Tripathy (p.w. 5). His further contention was that he got the work done in Allaida Reserve Forest but not in Allamanda Reserve Forest. According to him, the sum of Rs. 675/- was actually spent in felling, dragging and stacking of timbers of Allaida Reserve Forest. He himself paid about half of the amount direct to the labourers whereas the other half was received from him by p.w. 5, who had spent the amount and verbally reported to him about the completion of work. According to him, the sum of Rs. 675/- was actually spent in felling, dragging and stacking of timbers of Allaida Reserve Forest. He himself paid about half of the amount direct to the labourers whereas the other half was received from him by p.w. 5, who had spent the amount and verbally reported to him about the completion of work. The appellant checked the work at the spot and corrected the word 'Allaida' in the measurement book (Ext. 10) by scoring through 'Allamanda'. He sent a detailed report to the office as the measurement book did not contain the details. After completion of work, he asked p.w. 6, the Forester to prepare the voucher and accordingly, he prepared the voucher (Ext. 11) which was signed by the appellant in good faith. He denied the allegation that Exts. 10 and 11 were prepared by p.w. 6 to his dictation. He further contended that the voucher Ext. 11 contained the revenue stamp and the signature of the payee Patiki Soura before it was put up for his signature. He alleged that p.ws. 6 and 13 had given false evidence against him out of previous grudge. 4. The order of conviction is based mainly on the evidence of p.ws. 2, 5, 6, 13, 14 and 18 and the documents Exts. 10, 11, 12, 8, 9, 13, 14, 23 and 28. 5. It is not disputed that the appellant was entrusted with the sum of Rs. 675/- along with other cash for departmental work in the forest. This is clearly established by the evidence of p.w. 14, the Head Clerk of the office of the D.F.O., Parla-khemundi. It is also not disputed that the sum of Rs. 675/- has been shown to have been spent and accounted for in the cash book-Ext. 12. A heavy onus, therefore, lay on the appellant to prove that he had actually spent the amount and that the voucher, measurement book and the cash book entry are genuine. 6. Under Article 13 of the Orissa Forest Department Code, 1941, a Range Officer is responsible for all expenditures incurred within his range in respect of every departmental work done through him. 6. Under Article 13 of the Orissa Forest Department Code, 1941, a Range Officer is responsible for all expenditures incurred within his range in respect of every departmental work done through him. The appellant's plea was that he had got the work done in Allaida Reserve Forest through his peon p.w. 5, who had spent about half of the amount and he himself spent the remaining half by direct payment to the labourers. But he did not adduce any evidence to show that he had spent any amount by making direct payment to the labourers. P.w. 5 did not also support the allegation that he had spent halt of the amount. His evidence was that in the year 1970 the appellant gave him Rs. 120/- for the purpose of collecting logs of wood fallen on account of Podu cultivation and by wind fall. He went to Allamanda and found that no tree had fallen on account of Podu cultivation and wind fall. So he returned and paid back the amount to the appellant. About three months thereafter, that is, in April, 1970 he again proceeded to Allaida and felled the dead trees with the help of some Sauras and spent Rs. 120/- given to him by the appellant in felling and collecting wood from Allaida Reserve Forest. Thus, his evidence does not support the defence plea that on 23-1-1970 when the voucher (Ext. 11) and the entry in the measurement book (Ext. 10) were prepared, he had spent about half of Rs. 675/-. According to him, he had only spent Rs. 120/- in April, 1970, that is, about three months after preparation of Exts. 10 and 11. 7. The voucher (Ext. 11) and the measurement book (Ext. 10) are admittedly written by p.w-6, the Forester and signed by the appellant. Ext. 11 shows that the amount of Rs. 675/- was paid to Patiki Soura of Allaida for collecting, converting and stacking of Podu felled and wind fallen timbers. It further shows that 900 cft. of timber was collected and payment was made at the rate of Rs. 0.75 p. per cft. Ext. 10 is also written in similar manner except that the word "Allamanda" has been scored through and initialled by the appellant and in its place the word "Allaida" has been written. But in the voucher (Ext. 11) and in the cash book entry (Ext. 0.75 p. per cft. Ext. 10 is also written in similar manner except that the word "Allamanda" has been scored through and initialled by the appellant and in its place the word "Allaida" has been written. But in the voucher (Ext. 11) and in the cash book entry (Ext. 12/8) signed by the appellant, the work is shown to have been done in Allamanda Reserve Forest. The appellant has not offered any explanation as to why and how he made the correction in Ext. 10, but not in Exts. 11 and 12. 8. P.w. 2 is Patiki Soura of Allaida who is purported to have signed the voucher (Ext. 11). He denied having been engaged in any forest work and disowned his purported signature on Ext. 11. He also denied having received Rs. 675/- under Ext. 11. He stated that there was no Podu cultivation in Allamanda Reserve Forest and that there was no falling of trees on account of wind fall or Podu cultivation during the last 10 to 11 years in Allamanda Reserve Forest. His signatures on Ext. 2 series were compared with the disputed signature on Ext. 11 by the Handwriting Expert (p.w. 3), who opined that the disputed signature on Ext. 11 does not tally with the admitted signatures on Ext. 2 series. The learned Special Judge, on a consideration of the evidence of p.w. 2 along with the opinion of the Handwriting Expert, came to the finding that p.w. 2 has not signed the voucher (Ext. 11) and I see no cogent ground to differ from his finding. During his examination under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code the appellant made the following statements : "I do not know if money has been actually paid to Patiki Soura..........I have no personal knowledge as to whether p.w. 2 was engaged or not for the work". Thus it will be noticed that the appellant has failed to prove that Rs. 675/- was paid to p.w. 2 Patiki Soura under the voucher Ext. 11. 9. P.w. 6, the Forester gave evidence that he wrote out Exts. 10 and 11 to the dictation of the appellant. He stated that the revenue stamp and the signature of Patiki Soura appearing on Ext. 11 did not exist when he wrote out the same. He denied the allegation that he had prepared the voucher and given it to the appellant. 10 and 11 to the dictation of the appellant. He stated that the revenue stamp and the signature of Patiki Soura appearing on Ext. 11 did not exist when he wrote out the same. He denied the allegation that he had prepared the voucher and given it to the appellant. It was suggested to p.w. 6 in cross-examination that the work covered under Ext. 11 was executed through him but he denied the suggestion. The appellant took a different plea during his examination under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. He stated that he got the work done through p.w. 5 Khageswar Tripathy. 10. Admittedly both Allaida and Allamanda Reserve Forests are in Allaida beat of which p.w. 13 Pathani Rout was the Forest Guard. According to him, there was no Podu cultivation in Allamanda and Allaida Reserve Forests during the years 1969 and 1970 nor there was falling of trees by wind fall. He categorically stated that no stacking of timbers was done in these Reserve Forests during the years 1969 and 1970. 11. The evidence of p.ws. 5, 6 and 13 clearly shows that no work was executed by the appellant in Allaida and Allamanda Reserve Forests during the relevant period. The appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that he had spent half of the amount of Rs. 675/- by direct payment to the labourers. His plea that the remaining half was spent through p.w. 5 also stands not proved. 12. P.w. 18 D. Raghaba Rao is the successor-in-office of the appellant. It appears from his evidence that a register is maintained showing monthly collection and disposal of forest produce. He has proved the report dated 26-1-1970 (Ext. 28) submitted by the appellant to the D.F.O., Parlakhemundi for the month of January, 1970. This report does not show that any collection was made during the month of January, 1970. Had there been any collection of timbers during that month the appellant would not have omitted to mention the fact in his report-Ext. 28. The voucher and the measurement book (Exts. 11 and 10) go to show that 900 cft. of wood was collected in January, 1970, but Ext. 28 shows that no collection was made during that month. 13. Ext. 13 is the tour diary of the appellant. 28. The voucher and the measurement book (Exts. 11 and 10) go to show that 900 cft. of wood was collected in January, 1970, but Ext. 28 shows that no collection was made during that month. 13. Ext. 13 is the tour diary of the appellant. It shows that during the period from 23-1-1970 to 26-1-1970 the appellant was at headquarters and attended to the office work. Thus, he has not visited the spot to enquire as to whether any work was done in January, 1970 or not. His plea that he had checked the work at the spot is definitely false. Ext. 29 is a report submitted by late Trilochan Das, the Forester of Kasinagar. In his report late Trilochan Das has stated that he did not find podu timbers of 900 cft. at the spot. The report was submitted to the Range Officer, Devagiri Range on 30-7-1970. This report goes against the version of the appellant that 900 cft. of timbers were collected and stacked as per the voucher-Ext. 11. 14. The oral and documentary evidence as discussed above establish beyond doubt that the work covered by Ext. 11 was not at all executed and that the sum of Rs. 675/- was not spent as alleged by the appellant. There is, therefore, no escape from the conclusion that the appellant mis-appropriated the amount of Rs. 675/- which had been entrusted to him and he created the voucher (Ext. 11), the measurement book (Ext. 10) and the cash book entry (Ext. 12) showing false expenditure of Rs. 675/- with intent to defraud the Forest Department. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act due to want of sanction as required under section 6 of the Act which reads as under : "6. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution : (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 161 or section 164 or section 165 of the Indian Penal Code or under subsection (2) or sub-section (3-A) of section 5 of this Act alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction, xx xx xx xx." It appears that the appellant retired from service on 1-11-1974 and the police submitted charge-sheet against him on 31-3-1975. Thus, it is clear that the appellant had ceased to be a public servant at the time the Court took cognizance of the offences alleged to have been committed by him as public servant. Accordingly, the provisions of section 6 of the Act did not apply and the prosecution was not vitiated due to lack of previous sanction by the competent authority. In the case of S.A. Venkataraman v. The State AIR 1958 S.C. 107 , their Lordships held :- In our opinion, in giving effect to the ordinary meaning of the words used in section 6 of the Act, the conclusion is inevitable that at the time a Court is asked to take cognizance not only the offence must have been committed by a public servant but the person accused is still a public servant removable from his office by a competent authority before the provisions of section 6 can apply." In view of the principles laid down by their Lordships, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant is devoid of any force. 16. The next contention is that the investigation held in this case was without the authority of law as it was held by an Inspector of Police and not by an officer of the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or above. It is urged that in view of section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, p.w. 19 who was only an Inspector of Police could not have investigated the case without the prior permission of a Magistrate of the first class. It appears that the F.I.R. was lodged on 29-9-1972 and the investigation was held by p.w. 19 till 21-8-1974 when the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, in his capacity as a Magistrate of the first class, accorded permission to p.w. 19 to investigate (vide Ext. 30) and the charge-sheet was submitted on 31-1-1975. In the case of H.N. Rishbud and another v. State of Delhi AIR 1955 S.C. 196 , their Lordships held that where the cognizance of the case has in fact been taken and the case has proceeded to termination, the validity of the precedent investigation does not vitiate the result, unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. This decision was followed in Sailendranath Bose v. The State of Bihar AIR 1968 S.C. 1292 , and Khandu Sonu v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 S.C. 958 . 17. This decision was followed in Sailendranath Bose v. The State of Bihar AIR 1968 S.C. 1292 , and Khandu Sonu v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 S.C. 958 . 17. In the present case, the charge levelled against the appellant has been substantiated by satisfactory evidence. We have now to see whether the appellant was prejudiced by the fact that investigation of the case was held by an officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is not shown that the Investigating Officer had omitted to collect any material evidence or that the investigation was not carried on as required by law. The trial Court before whom the objection as to the violation of the provisions of section 5-A was taken held that no prejudice was caused to the appellant. The appellant's contention is that the Inspector of Police, who investigated into the case bore a grudge against him because in a vigilance case started against p.w. 6, he had asked the appellant to depose in favour of the prosecution, but he had declined to oblige. There is, however, no evidence in support of such a plea save and except the bald plea of the appellant. It was not suggested to p.w. 19, the Inspector of Police while he was under cross-examination that he had asked the appellant to depose in favour of the prosecution in a previous vigilance case against p.w. 6 and that the appellant had declined to do so. This contention is, therefore without any merit. 18. In the premises aforesaid, I hold that the convictions of the appellant under section 5(1)(c) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 477-A, Indian Penal Code are justified. The sentences passed by the learned Special Judge do not appear to be severe. 19. There is, therefore, no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. The appellant should surrender to his bail-bond forthwith. Final Result : Dismissed