K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar convicting the appellant under section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (I. P. C. for short) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 00, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for each offence. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case against the appellant may be stated. The appellant was serving as an Engineering Overseer in Bijetala Block Development Office in Mayurbhanj district. Sarbeswar Gin (P. W. 1) was a D class Contractor in that Block area. Nigamananda Gin (P. W. 4) was his associate in contract works. P. W. 1 had executed contract of digging a new well at village Patapur and was to get his bill amounting to Rs. 3124. 10 paise. According to the usual procedure it was the duty of the appellant to measure the work executed by the Contractor and then recommend for payment of the contract amount by preparing bill. The appellant demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 60. 00 from P. W. 1 on 23. 5. 75 for making measurement of the work executed by him. Later he demanded a further bribe of Rs. 365/ - for completion of the measurement and for preparation of the bill for the full amount. P. W. 1 had no cash to pay and so he requested the appellant to finalise the bill so that after receiving the bill amount he would pay Rs. 365. 00 to him. The appellant did not agree. Therefore, P. W. 1 felt compelled to give bribe of Rs. 365. 00 to the appellant. It was decided that on 1. 6. 1977, which was a Wednesday and Hat day at Bijetala, P. W. 1 would pay the bribe of Rs. 365. 00 to the appellant at the Hat between 3 to 4 p. m. Not only for demand of bribe, but also for harassment caused by the appellant even on previous occasions, P. W. 1 felt outraged and reported against the appellant by submitting FIR. (Ext. 1) on 30. 5. 365. 00 to the appellant at the Hat between 3 to 4 p. m. Not only for demand of bribe, but also for harassment caused by the appellant even on previous occasions, P. W. 1 felt outraged and reported against the appellant by submitting FIR. (Ext. 1) on 30. 5. 1977 before the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Balasore (P. W. 15) who was then camping at Bhadrak. After the report a trap was arranged. In accordance with the trap programme, the Vigilance Police Officers who took part in the trap, an Executive Magistrate (P. W. 14) and an independent witness (P. W. 13) assembled at Rairangpur Dak Bungalow on 1. 6. 1977. The G. C. notes of the value of Rs. 365. 00 were treated with phenolphthalein powder and were made over to P. W. 1 and a preparation report (Ext. 5) was recorded. The trap party, according to the programme, arrived at Bijetala Hat and took their position at different places. At about 4. 15 pm, P. W. 1 met the appellant at the Hat when the latter demanded the bribe. P W. 1 paid the sum of Rs. 365. 00 to the appellant and the Investigating Officer (P. W. 12) demanded the amount from the appellant. The appellant produced the G. C. notes which were seized by seizure-list (Ext. 21) in presence of witnesses. The hands and the shirt pocket of the appellant were washed and the solution became pink. P. W. 12 investigated into the case and after completion thereof submitted charge- sheet against the appellant. ( 3 ) THE defence of the appellant was that he had earlier given sum of Rs. 400. 00 to P. W. 1 for supply of rice. P. W. 1, however, could not supply the same. Therefore, the appellant demanded back the cash. P. W. 1 bad promised to repay the amount of Rs. 400. 00 to him at Bijetala Hat on 1. 6. 1977. Accordingly on that day P. W. 1 returned a sum of Rs 365. 00 to him with a promise to pay the balance amount of Rs. 35. 00 two or three days later. He denied that he had demanded illegal gratification from P. W. 1 and had received a sum of Rs. 60. 00 on 23. 5. 77 or the sum of Rs. 365. 00 on 1. 6. 00 to him with a promise to pay the balance amount of Rs. 35. 00 two or three days later. He denied that he had demanded illegal gratification from P. W. 1 and had received a sum of Rs. 60. 00 on 23. 5. 77 or the sum of Rs. 365. 00 on 1. 6. 1977 from P. W. 1 as illegal gratification. He did not deny the seizure of Rs. 365. 00 from him by P. W. 12 on 1. 6. 1977 at Bijetala Hat by Ext. 21. ( 4 ) THE learned Special Judge on critical appreciation of the prosecution evidence, admissions and pleas taken by the appellant, as well as the evidence of the defence witness, came to the conclusion that the appellant had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 60. 00 on 23. 5. 1977 and a sum of Rs. 365. 00 on 1. 6. 1977 from P. W. 1 as illegal gratification for completion of the measurement and preparation of the bill for the work executed by P. W. 1. He further found that the sanction order (Ext. 29) passed by P. W. 16, Shri A. S. Ray, the then District Magistrate and Collector of Mayurbhanj district was valid and in accordance with law. He disbelieved the defence witness, as well as, the defence plea taken by the appellant advancing the theory that P. W. 1 returned the sum of Rs. 400. 00 which he had earlier taken for supply of rice. Accordingly he convicted and sentenced the appellant as referred to above. ( 5 ) IN appeal. Mr. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has challenged each of the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge and urged that the prosecution case should be disbelieved, the sanction order should be held to be illegal and invalid and the defence plea should be accepted. ( 6 ) THE following facts are not disputed : - The appellant was a public servant posted as the Engineering Overseer at Bijetala Block under the control of the District Magistrate and Collector, Mayurbhanj district. P. Ws. 1 and 2 both were Contractors who executed a few construction works within the Block area. According to the procedure, the appellant as the Engineering Overseer was entrusted with measurement of the works executed by Contractors and preparation of the bills for final payment. P. Ws. 1 and 2 both were Contractors who executed a few construction works within the Block area. According to the procedure, the appellant as the Engineering Overseer was entrusted with measurement of the works executed by Contractors and preparation of the bills for final payment. A trap was laid by Police Officers of the Vigilance Department to detect acceptance of a sum of Rs. 365. 00 by the appellant from P. W. 1 at Bijetala Hat on 1. 6. 1977. P. W. 1 paid the sum of Rs. 365. 00 to the appellant on that day in CC. notes treated with phenolphthalein powder which the appellant accepted and kept in his shirt pocket. After detection the Vigilance Police Officers demanded and recovered the sum of Rs. 365. 00 from the appellant which was seized by seizure-list (Ext. 21 ). On comparison it was found that the CC. notes recovered from the appellant were the same which were used in the trap. The hands and the shirt pocket of the appellant were washed with solution which turned pink as a result of the effect of phenolphthalein powder. ( 7 ) MR. Misra urged that acceptance of Rs. 365. 00by the appellant from P. W. 1 did not ipso facto prove that the money was given as illegal gratification. Therefore, the prosecution has to prove by cogent and reliable evidence that a sum of Rs. 365. 00 was paid to the appellant by P. W. 1 as illegal gratification. In view of this contention, it is necessary to examine the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 4 and other witnesses. P. W. 1 stated that along with P. W. 4, his nephew, he was doing contract work in Bijetala Block as a D class Contractor. The incident related to the contract work of digging of a well in village Patapur of which he was the Contractor. The work was completed on 20. 4. 1977. On 21. 5. 1977 along with P. W. 4 he went and approached the appellant for payment of the balance amount. At that time the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 425. 00 50 as to expedite payment. He was to receive 2 sum of Rs. 5000. 00out of which a sum of Rs. 589. 00 was paid on 17. 5. 1977 on running account. While preparing the running bill the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. At that time the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 425. 00 50 as to expedite payment. He was to receive 2 sum of Rs. 5000. 00out of which a sum of Rs. 589. 00 was paid on 17. 5. 1977 on running account. While preparing the running bill the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 75/ and on 24. 5. 1977 he paid the appellant a sum of Rs. 60. 00 as bribe. The amount of Rs. 60. 00 was borrowed from Khetramohan Gin (P. W. 8 ). It was also decided that the balance amount of Rs. 365. 00 would be paid to the appellant at Bijetala weekly market on 1. 6. 1977. P. W. 1 felt outraged by the demand of bribe and so he submitted the report (Ext. 1) to the Vigilance Police. The trap was laid. He borrowed Rs. 365. 00 from P. W. 8 and according to the trap programmer, along with the other participants he came to Bijetala weekly market on 1. 6. 1977. He met the appellant when he was purchasing potato and onion in a shop. The appellant asked him whether he had brought money. P. W. 1 answered in the affirmative. The appellant then demanded the money. P. W. 1 asked him whether he would accept the money then and there. The appellant then asked him to proceed to a pan shop and he himself went there. At the pan shop the appellant asked P. W. 1 to come near a canal and followed him there. At the appointed place the appellant made some calculations On his palm with a pen and told P. W. 1 that he would get Rs. 365. 00. Thereafter P. W. 1 paid the tainted CC. notes amounting to Rs. 365/to the appellant who counted the notes and then kept them inside his shirt pocket. Thereafter P. W. 1 gave the signal. The Vigilance Officers, the Executive Magistrate and independent arrived at the spot and demanded the money from the appellant. The appellant brought out the CC. notes from his shirt pocket and handed over the same to the Vigilance Officers. The sum of Rs. 365. 00 was seized by seizure-list (Ext. 21) and thereafter the hands and the shirt pocket of the appellant were washed with the solution which turned pink. The appellant brought out the CC. notes from his shirt pocket and handed over the same to the Vigilance Officers. The sum of Rs. 365. 00 was seized by seizure-list (Ext. 21) and thereafter the hands and the shirt pocket of the appellant were washed with the solution which turned pink. In cross-examination the witness stated that P. W. 4 and himself were doing joint contract business and sharing the profits equally. The appellant was in the habit of demanding bribe before measurement of any work executed by them. Except the sum of Rs. 425/which had been paid to the appellant in two instalments of Rs. 601- and Rs. 365. 00 ; he had not paid any bribe to the appellant earlier. Except P. W. 4 none was present when he had agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 425. 00 to the appellant as bribe. He denied that he did business in rice or paddy and had earlier taken a sum of Rs. 400. 00 from the appellant for supply of rice. He denied the suggestion that as he could not arrange rice for P. W. 1 he returned the sum of Rs. 365. 00 to the appellant or 1. 6. 1977 at Bijetala market and promised to return the balance amount of Rs. 35. 00 later. P. W. 4 stated in his evidence that on 21. 5. 77 along with P. W. 1 he had gone to the Block Office of Bijetala. The appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 425. 00 for payment of the bill for execution of the work of digging of a well at Patapur. He also demanded a sum of Rs. 75. 00 as bribe on running account. On 24. 5. 1977 P. W. 1 borrowed Rs. 60. 00 from P. W. 8 and paid the same to the appellant. He was not however present at the time of such payment. But soon after payment, P. W. 1 informed him. On 31. 5. 1977 in the Block office the appellant demanded Rs. 365. 00 which he promised to pay on 1. 6. 1977 at the weekly market of Bijetala. The sum of Rs. 365. 00 was borrowed from P. W. 6. On 1. 6. 1977 he went to Bijetala market and met the appellant. On 31. 5. 1977 in the Block office the appellant demanded Rs. 365. 00 which he promised to pay on 1. 6. 1977 at the weekly market of Bijetala. The sum of Rs. 365. 00 was borrowed from P. W. 6. On 1. 6. 1977 he went to Bijetala market and met the appellant. The appellant asked whether he had brought the money and he told that P. W. 1 would pay the amount to him. At about 3 p m. he saw P. W. 1 in the weekly market of Bijetala and informed him about the enquiry made by the appellant. He stated in cross-examination that except the sum of Rs. 425. 00 which was paid in two installments to the appellant, no other amount was paid to him as bribe. The appellant told that unless the bribe was paid he would not measure the work or prepare the bill. P. W. 8 stated that P. W. 1 borrowed Rs. 60. 00 in order to pay the amounts as bribe to the appellant in connection with the execution of contract work of digging of a well at Patapur. P. W. 3 was an Inspector of Vigilance Police posted at the relevant time at Balasore. He took part in the trap. He stated about the preparation part of the trap at Rairangpur Dak Bungalow and was present when the sum of Rs. 365. 00 was recovered from the appellant and seized. He stated that while the raiding party was in the weekly market he saw that P. W. 1 met the appellant in a potato shop. They had some talk and then both of them went to a Pan shop belonging to one Aswini Gin. The overhearing witness was following them. After reaching the Pan shop of Aswini Gin they purchased Pun and proceeded towards a canal. The overhearing witness also followed them. Near the canal P. W. 1 and the appellant stood and had some talks. P. W. 1 made over the tainted G. C. notes to the appellant who counted them and kept the same in the chest pocket of his shirt. At that time the over-hearing witness gave the signal, whereupon, the raiding party arrived. The Investigating Officer gave his identity and demanded the G. C. notes which the appellant had just received. P. W. 1 made over the tainted G. C. notes to the appellant who counted them and kept the same in the chest pocket of his shirt. At that time the over-hearing witness gave the signal, whereupon, the raiding party arrived. The Investigating Officer gave his identity and demanded the G. C. notes which the appellant had just received. The appellant first became nervous and subsequently produced the tainted G. C. notes from his chest pocket. Thereafter the hands and the pocket of the appellant were washed with sodium carbonate solution which turned pink. Nothing material was elicited from his cross-examination. P. W. 10 was the Block Development Officer of Bijetala. He stated that so far as digging of the well of Patapur was concerned, he supervised the work and found that it had been completed. Then he issued a completion certificate (Ext. 15) on 27. 5. 1977 regarding execution of the project. The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 3500. 00. A sum of Rs, 589. 00 was paid to P. W. 1 on 17. 5. 1977 under a running bill which was prepared by the appellant (Ext. 16 ). After payment of the amount under the running bill, P. W. 4 had complained before him orally that the appellant was demanding bribe for taking up the measurement work of the well in question. Ext. 17 was the measurement book of the Block Office. The final bill was prepared by the appellant on 11. 5. 1977 (Ext. 18 ). The appellant had submitted the final bill to him on 28. 5. 1977. He made an endorsement that the final bill was submitted to him on 28. 5. 1977 (Ext. 18/1 ). The final bill was paid to P. W. 1 on 6. 6. 1977. The evidence of the Block Development Officer is important for the following reasons : - A sum of Rs. 589. 00 was paid to P. W. 1 under a running bill (Ext. 15) on 17. 5. 1977. The appellant submitted the final bill to the Block Development Officer on 28. 5. 1977 and as per the endorsement (Ext. 11/1) the final bill was paid on 66. 1977. 589. 00 was paid to P. W. 1 under a running bill (Ext. 15) on 17. 5. 1977. The appellant submitted the final bill to the Block Development Officer on 28. 5. 1977 and as per the endorsement (Ext. 11/1) the final bill was paid on 66. 1977. After payment of the amount under the running bill, P. W. 4 had made an oral complaint before him to the effect that the appellant was demanding money for taking up the measurement work of the well P. W. 12 was the Investigating Officer and was the Inspector of Vigilance, Rairangpur. P. W. 1 met him at Karanjia and made the complaint against the appellant. He took P. W. 1 to Bhadrak where the Deputy Superintendent of Vigilance Police was camping on 30. 5. 1977. P. W. 1 gave the written report (Ext. 1) to the Deputy Superintendent of Vigilance Police at Bhadrak. On his advise the witness along with P. W. 1 proceeded to Cuttack, met the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) and narrated the events. A case was registered and thereafter arrangements for the trap were made. The services of an Executive Magistrate were requisitioned. Finally, the raiding party assembled at Rairangpur Dak Bungalow and all arrangements connected with the trap were made. At about 3 p. m. the raiding party started from Rairangpur Dak Bungalow and at about 4. 35 p. m. they arrived at the weekly market. They took up position at different places. He was informed by P. W. 3 that the appellant had accepted the tainted CC. notes from P. W. 1. Along with the members 0 f the raiding party he arrived at the Pan shop of one Aswini Gin where the appellant and P. W. 1 were standing. He disclosed his identity and demanded the tainted CC. notes from the appellant which he had just received from P. W. 1. The appellant became nervous and initially denied to have accepted the money from P. W. 1, but subsequently brought out the tainted CC. notes from his shirt pocket and handed over the same to the witness. The Executive Magistrate compared the particulars of the tainted CC. notes with the numbers noted in the copy of the preparation report. The numbers tallied. Thereafter the hands and the shirt pocket of the appellant were washed with sodium carbonate solution which turned pink. He seized the CC. The Executive Magistrate compared the particulars of the tainted CC. notes with the numbers noted in the copy of the preparation report. The numbers tallied. Thereafter the hands and the shirt pocket of the appellant were washed with sodium carbonate solution which turned pink. He seized the CC. notes under seizure list (Ext 21 ). P. W. 13 was working as an Inspector of Supplies at Rairangpur. He was deputed to remain present at the time of the trap. On 1. 6. 1977 he came to Rairangpur Dak Bungalow and was present at the time when preparations were made for the trap. He accompanied the Vigilance Police Officers to Bijetala weekly market. He was directed to accompany P. W. 1 as the over-hearing witness so as to give the signal after money was paid by P. W. 1 to the appellant. In the market while loitering with P. W. 1 they met a friend of the latter who informed that the appellant was enquiring about P. W. 1 and told that the appellant was near a potato shop. On getting this information this witness along with P. W. 1 proceeded to the potato shop where the appellant was present. He took his position at a convenient place. The appellant enquired from P. W. 1 as to whether he had brought the promised money. P. W. 1 replied in the affirmative and enquired as to whether he would hand over the money. The appellant suggested that they should go out of the market area for that purpose. Thereafter both of them proceeded to a Pan shop followed by this witness. From the Pan shop P. W. 1 and the appellant proceeded towards the nearby canal. The witness also followed them. P. W. 1 handed over the CC. notes to the appellant who counted and kept the same in his shirt pocket. Thereafter the witness gave the signal. P. W. 1 and the appellant had by that time come back to the Pan shop. The Vigilance Police Officers appeared at the scene and the Investigating Officer demanded from the appellant to produce the cash of Rs. 365. 00 which he had just received from P. W. 1 as bribe. The appellant became nervous and said that it was his money. On being pressed he produced Rs. 365. 00 in CC. notes. The numbers contained in the CC. 365. 00 which he had just received from P. W. 1 as bribe. The appellant became nervous and said that it was his money. On being pressed he produced Rs. 365. 00 in CC. notes. The numbers contained in the CC. notes were compared with the numbers earlier mentioned in the preparation report and the numbers tallied. The hands and the shirt pocket of the appellant were washed in sodium carbonate solution which turned pink. P. W. 14 was the Executive Magistrate who was deputed to remain present at the time of the trap on 1. 6. 1977. He was present at the Dak Bungalow of Rairangpur when the preparation was made. He also accompanied the Vigilance Police Officers to the weekly market of Bijetala. He was informed by P. W. 13 that the appellant had received the bribe money. He accompanied the Vigilance Police Officers to the Pan shop where the appellant was present. The Investigating Officer demanded the cash from the appellant which had been kept in the chest pocket. The appellant denied to have any money in his pocket. On being insisted he produced a sum of Rs. 423. 00 out of which Rs. 365. 00 in CC. notes were brought out. He compared the numbers in CC. notes with the numbers mentioned in the preparation report and the numbers tallied. The hands and the shirt pocket of the appellant were washed with sodium carbonate solution which turned pink. P. W. 15 was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Balasore at the relevant time. The written report (Ext. 1) was banded over to him by P. W. 1 at Bhadrak. He forwarded the same to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack. According to the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack he arranged the trap. He was present at Rairangpur Dak Bungalow when preparations were made and was also present at Bijetala weekly market on 1. 6. 1977 when the appellant was trapped. In his presence the Investigating Officer demanded the money from the appellant which had just been paid to him by P. W. 1. The appellant denied to have received money from P. W 1. But the Vigilance Officers insisted and so the appellant became nervous and brought the cash from the chest pocket of his shirt. The numbers of the CC. notes amounting to Rs. 365. The appellant denied to have received money from P. W 1. But the Vigilance Officers insisted and so the appellant became nervous and brought the cash from the chest pocket of his shirt. The numbers of the CC. notes amounting to Rs. 365. 00, were compared with the numbers mentioned in the preparation report and the numbers tallied. Thereafter the hands and the shirt pocket of the appellant were washed with sodium carbonate solution which turned pink. ( 8 ) THE aforesaid evidence of the prosecution witnesses is difficult to disbelieve. There is no doubt that there was a trap to catch hold of the appellant in the act of receiving cash of Rs. 365. 00 from P. W. 1. This fact has been amply proved through the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses. It is true that P. Ws. 1 and 4 are close relations and it is at their instance that the trap was laid. On critical examination of their evidence the learned Special Judge did not find any notable and vital discrepancy so as to disbelieve their version. On critical examination of their evidence with surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, I agree with the finding of the learned court below. They were small Contractors taking party contract worth in the Block area. The appellant was responsible for making measurement and preparation of the bill. Unless they pleased the appellant, it was impossible for them to get their bill sanctioned and cash paid to them. The appellant took advantage of his position as such and demanded a total bribe of Rs. 425. 00. A sum of Rs. 60. 00 was paid on a previous occasion by borrowing the amount from P. W. 8 and the sum of Rs. 365. 00 which was paid to the appellant on 1. 6. 1977 had also been borrowed from the same witness. It is pertinent to point out that P. W. 4 bad specifically reported to the Block Development Officer (P. W. 10) to the effect that the appellant was demanding bribe. Had the Block Development Officer taken positive action on the report of P. W. 4, probably there would have been no necessity for the trap. But he remained silent and did not take any positive action as would appear from his evidence. Had the Block Development Officer taken positive action on the report of P. W. 4, probably there would have been no necessity for the trap. But he remained silent and did not take any positive action as would appear from his evidence. It further appears from his evidence that by the end of May, 1977 measurement had been completed and the bill had been prepared, but cash had not been paid to P. W. 1. This suggests that cash was not paid to him because, he had not yet paid the bribe money. The bill amount would have been paid to P. W. 1 after payment of the bribe money on 1. 6. 1977. It would further appear from the evidence of this witness that it was a market day. The appellant did not want to receive the money in the Pan shop. He asked P. W. 1 to come near a canal and received the cash there. The attempt of secrecy while receiving the amount further strengthened the prosecution case that it was not honest money, but bribe that the appellant received from P. W. 1. P Ws. 1 and 4 were not dealers in rice. If the appellant had earlier paid Rs. 400. 00 to P. W. 1 to supply rice and got back the sum of Rs. 365. 00 because of non-supply, at the time of detection he would have boldly stated before the raiding party and others that it was not bribe money but honest money which he had earlier paid to P. W. 1 and received back for inability of the former to supply rice to him. But it would appear from the evidence of the witnesses that the defence version was not at all given out at the time of detection and recovery of the tainted CC. notes from the appellant. It was not even suggested to any of the prosecution witnesses that the appellant gave out any such version. On the other hand, there is evidence that the appellant denied to have received the money and became nervous. ( 9 ) TWO witnesses were examined by the appellant in support of his defence that he had paid a sum of Rs. 400. 00 to P. W. 1 for supply of rice. On the other hand, there is evidence that the appellant denied to have received the money and became nervous. ( 9 ) TWO witnesses were examined by the appellant in support of his defence that he had paid a sum of Rs. 400. 00 to P. W. 1 for supply of rice. According to D. W. 1 who was a Contractor, on a particular market day he saw the appellant and P. W. 1 returning from the market. The appellant had a bag of rice. P. W. 1 enquired as to where he had purchased inferior variety of rice at the rate of Rs. 1. 75 paise per KG. When the three of them arrived at the house of the appellant, the latter paid a sum of Rs. 400. 00 to P. W. 1 for supply of rice. In cross-examination he stated that to his knowledge P. W. 1 did not supply rice to any body. It is not possible to believe the version of this witness without corroboration. It does not sound probable that he took the pains of accompanying the appellant to his house and was present when the conversation took place and the sum of Rs. 400. 00was paid by the appellant to P. W. 1. Similarly D. W. 2 stated that on a Hat day the appellant was returning after purchasing vegetables. The witness met him on the way. P. W. 1 happened to come that way. The appellant enquired from P. W. 1 about his commodity. P. W. 1 gave out that he will bring the commodity on the next Hat day. The appellant became annoyed with P. W. 1. In cross-examination he stated that he had no knowledge of payment of Rs. 400. 00 by the appellant to P. W. 1 for supply of rice. The evidence of this witness is also equally unbelievable. In the face of overwhelming prosecution evidence, it is not possible to believe the evidence of these two witnesses who attempted to make out a case for the appellant. The very defence taken by the appellant also seems improbable. Being an Engineering Overseer of the Block, it was not impossible on his part to purchase good variety of rice in the local area or in other markets. It is not understood why he should have paid a sum of Rs. 400. 00 with whom he had official dealings. The very defence taken by the appellant also seems improbable. Being an Engineering Overseer of the Block, it was not impossible on his part to purchase good variety of rice in the local area or in other markets. It is not understood why he should have paid a sum of Rs. 400. 00 with whom he had official dealings. In view of such evidence and improbability, the learned Special Judge disbelieved the defence case and it is not possible to take a different view. ( 10 ) ON a critical review of the prosecution evidence, I hold in agreement with the learned Special Judge that the appellant demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 365. 00 and accepted the same from P. W. 1 on 1. 6. 1977. ( 11 ) MR. Misra appearing for the appellant contended that although in a case of this nature the prosecution is able to prove payment of money to the accused, no presumption can be raised under section 4 (1) of the Act to the effect that the money was accepted by the accused as illegal gratification. In order to meet his contention it is necessary to refer to two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Mahesh Prasad Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, and Tilok Chand Jam v. State of Delhi. In the case of Mahesh Prasad Gupta (supra) Chandrachud, 3. (as he then was) interpreted section 4 (1) of the P. C. Act as follows: Under Section 4 (1) of the Act, the burden of proving the contrary must rest on the appellant. But learned counsel appearing on his behalf urges that the presumption under Section 4 (1) can be raised only if the prosecution establishes in the first instance that the amount was paid otherwise than as legal remuneration. This contention is contrary to the clear terms of 5. 4 (1) and would render illusory the presumption arising under the section. To cast on the prosecution the burden of proving that the amount was accepted by the accused otherwise than by way of legal remuneration is to ask the prosecution to prove that the amount was paid and accepted by way of bribe. 4 (1) and would render illusory the presumption arising under the section. To cast on the prosecution the burden of proving that the amount was accepted by the accused otherwise than by way of legal remuneration is to ask the prosecution to prove that the amount was paid and accepted by way of bribe. If this be the true nature of the burden resting on the prosecution, no presumption at all need be raised because apart from the presumption the prosecution would have to prove that the money was accepted by the accused and that it was accepted as a bribe. It is plain that if the prosecution proves the acceptance of the amount by the accused and the amount does not represent legal remuneration in any form or of any kind, the accused must establish that the amount was not accepted by him as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Sec. 161 Penal Code. As held in V. D. Jhingan v. State of Uttar Pradesh the accused can establish his case by preponderance of probabilities that is to say, he need not prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. (Emphasis supplied)Relying upon the aforesaid decision, in the case of Tilok Chand Jam (supra) Sarkaria, 3. speaking for the Court held as follows Another aspect of the matter, which has to be borne in mind is that the sole purpose of the presumption under section 4 (1) is to relieve the prosecution of the burden of proving a fact which is an essential ingredient of the offences under Section 5 (1) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161, Penal Code. The presumption therefore can be used in furtherance of the prosecution case and not in derogation of it. If the story set up by the prosecution inherently militates against or is inconsistent with the fact presumed, the presumption win be rendered sterile from its very inception, if out of judicial courtesy it cannot be rejected out of hand as still-born. These two decisions have clearly laid down the extent to which presumption under section, (I) of the Act can be raised in aid and in furtherance of the prosecution case. If this principle is applied to the facts of the present case, it would appear that the appellant received the sum of Rs. 365. 00 otherwise than his legal remuneration. These two decisions have clearly laid down the extent to which presumption under section, (I) of the Act can be raised in aid and in furtherance of the prosecution case. If this principle is applied to the facts of the present case, it would appear that the appellant received the sum of Rs. 365. 00 otherwise than his legal remuneration. Therefore, it is to be presumed under section 4 (1) of the Act that the appellant received the aforesaid amount as illegal gratification. It was, however, open to the appellant to establish his defence by preponderance of evidence and probabilities. But as it has already been held above, he signally failed to prove the same. The defence case set up by him is to be entirely rejected as unbelievable and unacceptable. ( 12 ) NOW, the challenge to the sanction order (Ext. 29) as not being in accordance with law. Regarding the sanction under section 6 of the Act, the principle has been well settled by a catens of decisions of the Supreme Court, as well as, of this High Court. Reference has been made to most of these cases in Baikunthanath Mohanty v. the State of Orissa, and an unreported decision in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1981, Md. Tafazul Rahman v. the State of Orissa, decided on 6. 9. 1985. According to the settled law, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after it was satisfied that the case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. This should be done in two ways; either (i) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (U) by adducing evidence aliunde to show that the facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. It is well settled that any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail because, this being a manifest defect in the prosecution the entire proceedings are void abinitio (see Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh ). Ext. 29 is the sanction order passed by the District Magistrate and Collector, Mayurbhanj on 20/11/1977. In the sanction order the entire facts from the beginning till the end have been fully described. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh ). Ext. 29 is the sanction order passed by the District Magistrate and Collector, Mayurbhanj on 20/11/1977. In the sanction order the entire facts from the beginning till the end have been fully described. The evidence in brief on the basis of which the sanctioning authority was satisfied that it was a fit case for sanction of prosecution was also stated therein. The names of principal witnesses who took part, such as, P. W. 1 and the Executive Magistrate were mentioned. Reference to the report submitted by P. W. 1 which was treated as FIR. , the preparation made by the Vigilance Officers and the actual payment made by P. W. 1 and recovery of tainted CC. notes amounting to Rs. 365. 00 from the appellant was made. As a matter of fact a mere reading of the sanction order (Ext. 29) will state the entire prosecution case supported by evidence. To add to this, the District Magistrate and Collector Shri A. S. Ray was examined as P. W. 16. He stated in his evidence that he was the competent authority for appointing and removing an Engineering Overseer attached to a Block in his district. The appellant was working as an Sub-Assistant Engineer of Bijetala Block. The Vigilance Police sent to him all relevant papers showing implication of the appellant in the matter of acceptance of illegal gratification. He went through all those papers carefully and was convinced that the appellant should be prosecuted for acceptance of illegal gratification. Therefore, he accorded sanction for prosecution. In cross-examination he stated that he did not remember all the papers which were placed before him at the time of according sanction under Ext. 29 without reference to the records. Mr. Misra obviously referred to the above statement to contend that the sanctioning authority did not refer to the material documents. But nothing of that sort can be derived from the evidence of this witness because, while he gave sanction in the year 1977 he deposed in the year 1981 and so he was correct in saying that without reference to the relevant file he could not name the documents to which he had made reference. But when he gave evidence Ext. But when he gave evidence Ext. 29 was be fare him and so he stated with reference to the same that he had made reference to all materials which had been placed before him. The way in which the sanction order was drafted will show that the entire material facts appearing against the appellant were taken into consideration when sanction for prosecution was accorded by Ext. 29. In view of the aforesaid facts and evidence, I am of the opinion that the order of sanction (Ext. 29) was legal and according to the settled principle of law. ( 13 ) IN the ultimate analysis I do not find materials to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the learned Special Judge in convicting the appellant. The prosecution proved its case by cogent and reliable evidence. The sanction order was according to law. The sentencing not excessive. The appeal therefore must fail. ( 14 ) IN the result, the appeal dismissed of conviction and sentence is and the order affirmed. Appeal dismissed. .