K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant had been convicted under section 5 (2) read with section 5 (I) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (referred to as the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months. He has further been convicted under section 161 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case may be stated in brief. The appellant was serving as the Revenue Inspector of Girisola in Ganjam district. The informant, G. Jagayya (P. W. 3) and his mother had been in possession of Gochar lands in the same village and had raised paddy crops thereon for which encroachment cases had been initiated against them. The appellant had threatened P. W. 3 to attach the standing paddy crops and further held out hope that if a sum of Rs. 200/- was paid to him he would not make the attachment. In order to satisfy the appellants greed, P. W. 3 borrowed a sum of Rs. 100/- from D. Ramaswamy (P. W. 8) and paid the same as bribe to the appellant on 12. 12. 1976 in the presence of his cousin G. Tarini Rao (P. W. II ). The appellant accepted the sum of Rs. 100/- but asked P. W. 3 to pay a further sum of Rs. 100/- to him on 14. 12. 1976 failing which he threatened to attach the paddy crops. On such illegal demand P. W. 3 felt outraged and reported the incident to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Berhampur at 8. 30 P. M. on 13. 12. 1976 and on his instruction lodged the F. I. R. (Ext. I) at the Vigilance Police Station, Berhampur. The Vigilance Officers arranged a trap and took into confidence two gazetted officers of the State Government, Shri Biswanath Maharana, Assistant Engineer, P. H. Division, Berhampur (P. W. 4) and Shri Gourishankar Das, District Agriculture Officer, Ganjam (P. W. 10) to remain present at the time of the trap. Having made all arrangements, the Vigilance party along with the witnesses proceeded to Girisola during night and took vantage positions around the house of the appellant. On 14. 12. Having made all arrangements, the Vigilance party along with the witnesses proceeded to Girisola during night and took vantage positions around the house of the appellant. On 14. 12. 1976 at 6 a. m. the decoy witness (P. W. 3) paid a sum of Rs. 100/- to the appellant as bribe according to the latters demand and on signal made by P. W. 11 who had concealed himself wear by, the Vigilance Police Officers along with independent official witnesses (P. Ws. 4 and 10) rushed to the place and seized Rs. 100/- in currency notes (M. Os. Ito 1/9) from the possession of the appellant by, seizure list (Ext. 14 ). After close of the investigation, order of sanction (Ext. 15) under section 6 of the Act was obtained from the District Magistrate, Ganjam to prosecute the appellant and charge sheet was submitted for offences under section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (d) of the Act and under section 161 I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE plea of the appellant was that he did not receive a sum of Rs. 100/-on 12. 12. 1976 nor the sum of Rs. 100/- at 6 a. m. on 14. 12. 1976 from P. W. 3 at the time of the alleged trap,. On the other hand, there were two encroachment cases against G. Tumbanath (P. W. 12), father of P. W. 1 I in which a sum of Rs. 256. 42 paise was to be paid as Government dues. Paddy crops on the encroached land had been seized and auction was to be finally held on 15. 12. 1976. On 14. 12. 1976 at about 6 a. m. , P. W. 11 paid a sum of Rs. 100/- to him in currency notes each of the denomination of Rs. 10/- towards the arrear dues of his father (P. W. 12 ). While the appellant was holding the currency notes between his fingers saying that he would receive the arrear dues in part, the raiding party along with witnesses arrived and seized the currency notes and foisted a false case against him. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined the decoy witness (P. W. 3) who paid bribe of Rs. 100/- to the appellant each on 12. 12. 1976 and 14. 12. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined the decoy witness (P. W. 3) who paid bribe of Rs. 100/- to the appellant each on 12. 12. 1976 and 14. 12. 1976, P. W. 11 who was present and witnessed payment of the bribe on both occasions, independent gazetted Government Officers (P. Ws. 4 and 10) who were witnesses to the trap, the Vigilance Police Officers who took part in the trap, seizure and investigation, as wan as, other witnesses and documents to prove the case. The learned Sessions Judge on critical examination of the evidence both oral and documentary came to hold that the prosecution witnesses were reliable and witnesses of truth. Therefore, he convicted and sentenced the appellant as referred to above. ( 5 ) MR. P. K. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the order of sanction (Ext. 15) being defective and invalid in the eye of law the trial of the appellant was void ab initio. Further, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is so discrepant and unworthy of credit that the same cannot be relied upon to base a conviction. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an acquittal. The learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand; contended that the order of sanction (Ext. 15) passed by the Sanctioning Authority after taking into consideration the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case and after due application of mind Was a valid document under section 6 of the Act. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is piece of document under section 6 of the Act. The evidence unimpeachable character. Therefore, the conviction and sentence cannot be assailed. ( 6 ) IN view of the contentions made, the following points arise for consideration (i) Whether the order of sanction (Ext. 15) passed by the sanctioning authority under section 6 of the Act was valid in the eye of law? (ii) Whether P. W. 3 gave a sum of Rs. 100/to the appellant on 12. J 2. 1976 and another sum of Rs. 100/- on i4. 12. 1976 as illegal gratification? ( 7 ) TRIAL of an offence under section 5 (2) of the Act shall be void ab initio for want of valid sanction of the prosecution under section 6 of the Act. 100/to the appellant on 12. J 2. 1976 and another sum of Rs. 100/- on i4. 12. 1976 as illegal gratification? ( 7 ) TRIAL of an offence under section 5 (2) of the Act shall be void ab initio for want of valid sanction of the prosecution under section 6 of the Act. Trial of an allied offence or an offence on the same cause of action shall also be without jurisdiction as envisaged in section 7 (3) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. In support of the above view the decisions are Major Som Nath v. Union of India and another1, Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, Ramautar lmahton v. The State3, Sahebkhan Umarkhan v. The State4, Republic of India v. Khagendranath Jha5, and B. K. Kutty v. State6, In view of the aforesaid settled principle, it is necessary to consider if the order of sanction (Ext. 15) passed under section 6 of the Act by the sanctioning authority was valid in the eye of law. The relevant portions are quoted below, not only for easy reference, but also, to convey an idea that the Sanctioning Authority, namely, the Collector and District Magistrate, Ganjam had applied his mind to the facts and evidence collected by the prosecution before according sanction for the prosecution: Whereas it is alleged that Sri Durga Prasad Patnaik S/o. Sri Satrughan Patnaik of Village Navarathnapur, P. S. Sorada while functioning as Revenue Inspector, Girisola in the district of Ganjam demanded Rs. 200/- and accepted Rs, 100/- on 12. 12. 19. 76 and. . the balance of Rs. 100/- on 14. 12. 1976 from Sri Gorakella Jagayya S/o. Late Gorakella Sarathi of Village Girisole, P. S. Nuagam, District Ganjam as illegal gratification to set free his lands from attachment of standing crops alleging that the Porakboke lands, have been encroached by the said Sri G. Jagayya unauthorisedly although these lands have been under Sri Jagayyas peaceful possession and cultivation for several years; and the illegal amount of Rs. 100/- received by him on 14. 12. 1976 in G. C. notes of the denomination of 10 ten rupees notes, were recovered from him at the spot and this amounts to criminal misconduct on his part as public servant. 100/- received by him on 14. 12. 1976 in G. C. notes of the denomination of 10 ten rupees notes, were recovered from him at the spot and this amounts to criminal misconduct on his part as public servant. And whereas I, Sri R. M. Das, I. A,s. , Collector, Ganjam, Chatrapur being the authority competent to remove the said Sri Durga Prasad Patnaik: from office after fully and car fully examining the material before me in regard to the said allegations and the circumstances of the case, consider that the said Sri Durga Prasad Patnaik should be prosecuted in a court of law for the said offences. Coupled with the facts which have been stated in the sanction order, the sanctioning authority Sri R. M. Das (P. W. 13) was examined as prosecution witness. He stated in his evidence that after perusing all relevant records he was satisfied that it was a fit case for according section. In cross- examination, he stated that the judicial section of his office placed all the materials and records before him in connection with the case at the time of according sanction for the prosecution. In Major Som Nath v. Union of India and another (supra) the Supreme Court held as follows: For a sanction to be valid it must be established that the sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence with which the accused is proposed to be charged. Though it is desirable that the facts should be referred to in the sanction itself, nonetheless if they do not appear on the face of it the prosecution must establish aliunde by evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authorities In Mohd. Igbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) the law with regard to sanction under section 6 of the Act has been succinctly and lucidly laid down. It was held as follows It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the Sanctioning Authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. It was held as follows It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the Sanctioning Authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. This should be done in two ways; either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (2) 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 proceeding are rendered void ab initio. because what the Court has to see is whether or not the Sanctioning Authority at the time of giving sanction was aware of the facts constituting the offence and applied its mind for the same and any subsequent fact which may come into existence after the resolution granting sanction has been passed, is wholly irrelevant. The grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to government servants against frivolous prosecutions and must therefore be strictly complied with before any prosecution can be launched against the public servant concerned. Now reverting to the present case, it is abundantly clear from the facts stated in the sanction order, as well as, the evidence of the sanctioning authority (P. W. 13) that all the material evidence and records were placed before the sanctioning authority (P. W. 13) who considered the same and after applying his mind accorded sanction for prosecution of the appellant under section 6 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid evidence which is of unimpeachable character, the conclusion is irresistible that the order of section (Ext. 15) passed under section 6 of the Act was a valid document in the eye of law. So the trial of the appellant for the offences he was charged with by the learned Special Judge was in accordance with law and in exercise of powers conferred on him under section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. The first contention of Mr. P. K. Misra is, therefore, untenable. So the trial of the appellant for the offences he was charged with by the learned Special Judge was in accordance with law and in exercise of powers conferred on him under section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. The first contention of Mr. P. K. Misra is, therefore, untenable. ( 8 ) THE next point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved by evidence of unimpeachable character that the appellant being a public servant received illegal gratification of Rs. 100/- each on 12. 12. 1976 and 14. 12. 1976 respectively. Before it is done, it is necessary to state the law with regard to appreciation of evidence of trap witnesses. By a series of decisions law is settled that evidence of interested and partisan witnesses who are concerned in the success of the trap must be tested in the same way as that of other interested witnesses. In a proper case the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused parsons Ram Prakash Arora v. The State of Punjab7, Darshan Lal v. The Delhi Administration8, Scm Prakash v. State of Delhi9, Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admn.)1 and Hazari Lal v. The State (Delhi Admn.)11. Ext. 2 is the record of O. P. L. E. Case No. 124 of 1974-75 in the court of the Tahasildar, Chikiti. It will appear there from that a case for encroaohment of Ac. O. 76 of land appertaining to survey No. 91 of Village Girisola was initiated against P. W. 3 under section 9 of the O. P. L. E. Act, 1972. the last order was passed by the Tahasildar on 26. 11. 1974 wherein he recorded that the encroacher (P. W. 3) appeared before him admitted the encroachment and prayed for ,settlement of the land with him. The case was posted to 3. 12. 1974 for further orders. Ext. 4 is the record of O. P. L. E. Case No. 2747 of 1969. It will appear therefrom that an encroachment case was initiated against G. Sarama, mother of P. W. 3 in respect of Ac. O. 35 decimals of land in survey No. 58/1. It appears from the record that penalty had been, imposed on her and by the last order dated 24. 8. 1974 eviction notice was issued on her. It will appear therefrom that an encroachment case was initiated against G. Sarama, mother of P. W. 3 in respect of Ac. O. 35 decimals of land in survey No. 58/1. It appears from the record that penalty had been, imposed on her and by the last order dated 24. 8. 1974 eviction notice was issued on her. Along with the aforesaid facts it is necessary to consider the evidence of P. W. 3 who stated that he was possessing Ac. 0. 35 cents of land appertaining to survey No. 58/1 for a long time on payment of penalty and had raised paddy thereon. On 11. 12. 1976 the appellant called him in the evening and told that the land would be attached unless be would pay a sum of Rs. 200/- to him. Though he pleaded his inability the appellant insisted on payment of the amount. There fore, he borrowed a sum of Rs. 100/- from D. Rama Swamy (P. W. 8), a co-villager on 11. 12. 1976 and in the morning of 12. 12. 1976 paid the sum of Rs. 100/- to the appellant in the presence of P. W. 11. The appellant accepted the amount and insisted on payment of the balance amount of Rs. 100/- and threatened that unless the payment was made on the next day the attachment would not be lifted. The witness again approached P. W. 8 and secured another loan of Rs. 100/- for payment to the appellant although he felt outraged by such demand. He reported the matter to the Vigilance Police, Berhampur and lodged the F. I. R. (Ext. 1 ). All formalities were completed and a trap was arrange. Accordingly P. W. 3, P. W. 11, the Vigilance Police Officer and P. Ws. 4 and 10 arrived at Girisola very early in the morning of 14. 12. 1976. At about 6 a. m. P. W. 3 went to the house of the appellant and called him and paid the sum of Rs. 100/- which was accepted by the latter. At this time; on the signal of P. W. 11 who was nearby, the raiding party- along with P. Ws. 4 and 10 arrived and seized the sum of Rs. 100/- from the appellant after performing all formalities. The witness was cross-examined in great detail. 100/- which was accepted by the latter. At this time; on the signal of P. W. 11 who was nearby, the raiding party- along with P. Ws. 4 and 10 arrived and seized the sum of Rs. 100/- from the appellant after performing all formalities. The witness was cross-examined in great detail. But to far as the essential part of the prosecution case is concerned his evidence has not been shaken in any manner. I would only like to make reference to one aspect brought out in his cross-examination. He stated that in the evening of 11. 12. 1976 when the appellant demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 200/- from him, one office peon was present, but he was not examined by the prosecution. Although the peon was not examined by the prosecution, which is not obliged to examine all witnesses, yet the substantive evidence of P. W. 3 corroborated by other evidence cannot in my view be looked with suspicion. P. W. 9 P. Shyamasundar Rao alias Achari scribed the plain paper F. I. R. (Ext. 1) on the instruction of P. W. 3. He stated that P. W. 3, told him that the appellant had demanded a bribe of Rs. 200/- in order to allow him to harvest the paddy crops and although he had already paid a sum of Rs. 100/- he was yet not satisfied. His cross-examination does not disclose that he spoke untruth. P. W. 11 is in disputably the uncles san of P. W. 3 and as such a close relation. Therefore, his evidence has to be scrutinised with due care and caution. Moreso, because, there was also an encroachment case against his father, G. Tumbanath (P. W. 12) and the standing crops thereon had been ordered to be auctioned. The witness stated that P. W. 3 borrowed Rs. 100/ from P. W. 8 and paid the amount to the appellant in the morning of 12. 12. 1976 in his presence. The appellant insisted for payment of a further sum of Rs. 100/ -. P. W. 3 brought a further loan of Rs. 100- and asked the witness to accompany him for reporting the matter to the Vigilance Police at Berhampur. Therefore, the witness accompanied him and came to Berbampur. He accompanied the raiding party to Girisola early in the morning of 14. 12. 1976. 100/ -. P. W. 3 brought a further loan of Rs. 100- and asked the witness to accompany him for reporting the matter to the Vigilance Police at Berhampur. Therefore, the witness accompanied him and came to Berbampur. He accompanied the raiding party to Girisola early in the morning of 14. 12. 1976. He was instructed to remain close by and give signal to the raiding party by lighting a Bedee or cigarette. Therefore, when P. W. 3 went to the house of the appellant with currency notes, be took his position nearby. When P. W. 3 made the payment to the appellant, he lighted a cigarette, whereupon, the raiding party along with the witnesses came to the house of the appellant and seized the currency notes. The crossexamination of this witness will disclose that his evidence with regard to the substratum of the prosecution cases has not at all been shaken. He denied the defined version that, it was he who paid the sum of Rs 100/- to the appellant in order to save the crops of the land which his father had encroached. P. W. 8 is a co-villager of P. W. 3. He stated that P. W. 3 borrowed Rs. 100/- from him, on 11. 12. 1976 and another sum of Rs. 100/, from 12. 12. 1976. He was informed that the appellant was demanding Rs. 100/- as bribe for which the amount was required. His cross examination was very short and he stated therein that on 11. 12. 1976 P. W. 3 told him that the appellant threatened to seize the, standing crops for which a sum of Rs. 100/- was required. ( 9 ) P. W. 4, the Assistant Engineer of Public Health Division, Berhampur had accompanied the raiding party to Village Girisola. According to his is version the party arrived at the village very early in the morning and waited in the home of the local Doctor of the Public Health Centre close to the house of the appellant. According to the previous arrangement P. W. 11 was to give a signal by lighting a Bedee or cigarette. When such a signal was given, the raiding party rushed to the house of the appellant. At that time the appellant was holding the currency notes in his hand which were seized. On the aforesaid aspect of his evidence there was practically no cross-examination. When such a signal was given, the raiding party rushed to the house of the appellant. At that time the appellant was holding the currency notes in his hand which were seized. On the aforesaid aspect of his evidence there was practically no cross-examination. P. W. 10 was the District Agricultural. Officer, Berhampur who accompanied the raiding patty. According to his evidence the went to Village Girisola with the raiding party in early hours of the morning of 14. 12. 1976. According to pre-arrangement, P. W. 11 gave a signal by lighting a Bedee or cigarette, where upon the raiding party along with the witnesses rushed to the house of the appellant. The appellant was holding the currency notes in his hand which were seized. Nothing material has been brought out from his cross-examination so as to discard his version. ( 10 ) P. W. 14 was the Investigating Officer who received the F. I. R. (Ext. 1) from P. W. 3 and made all arrangements for the trap. He has given a graphic account of the entire arrangement made for the raid from the beginning to the end. I do not consider it necessary to give the details in view of the fact that the appellant in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure admitted receipt of Rs. 100/. . . though not from P. W. 3, but from P. W. 11. It is sufficient to say that this witness was present at the, time of raid and seized the currency notes (M. Os; 1. to 1/9) Which were stained with phenolphthalein powder and after the currency notes were seized the hands of the appellant were washed with sodium carbonate solution with the help of P. W. 7 another Inspector of Police (Vigilance ). ( 11 ) AFTER discussion of the prosecution evidence; it is necessary to consider the defence, set up by the appellant with reference to, his statement under section. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In answer to question No. 15 the appellant stated that he did not demand money from P. W. 3. There were two encroachment cases against P. W. 12, father of P. W. 11. In connection with those cases a sum to B. Rs. 25642 was due from P. W. 12 to the State Government. In answer to question No. 15 the appellant stated that he did not demand money from P. W. 3. There were two encroachment cases against P. W. 12, father of P. W. 11. In connection with those cases a sum to B. Rs. 25642 was due from P. W. 12 to the State Government. In one of those encroachment cases (O. P. L. E. Case No. 1 of 1970) the standing paddy cross x Rao been attached and were due to be sold thin affrication on 17. 12. 1976. On 7. 12. 1976 there were no bidders. On 8. 12. 1976 P. W. 12, reaped away the standing paddy crops and kept the reaped paddy at the thrashing floor. Therefore, them appellant reported the fact to the Revenue Supervisor who ordered to hold the auction on 11. 12. 1976. On 11. 12. 1976 P. Ws. 3, 11 and 12 were present a bidders; The Revenue, Supervisor demanded the arrears from P. W. 12 who declined to make the entire payment except a sum of Rs. 100/-, the auction was postponed to 15. 11. 1976. On 14. 12. 1976 at about 6 a. m. , P. W. 11 gave Rs. 100/- which he received. He also told P. W.-11 that on 11. 12. 1916 his father offered Rs. 100/- to the Revenue Supervisor towards arrear Government dues which the latter refused to accept and so her (appellant) will not receive the Sum of Rs. 100/- He further advised him to come, with the entire arrear dues and pay the same to then Revenue Supervisor who was expected to arrive on the next day. At that time the Vigilance Officers arrived. It is the settled principle of law that an accused need not prove his defence to the hilt as is the case with the prosecution. If his defence appears to be probable and plausible with reference to the evidence on record, then it should be normally accepted so as to give the benefit thereof to him. ( 12 ) O. P. L. R. case no. I of 1970 was initiated against P. W. 12, father P. W. 11 for encroachment of Ac. O. 70 cents of land appertaining to survey no. 58/1 of Girisola. During different years penalty for unauthorised possession was imposed on him. On 24. 8. 1974 order of eviction was passed by the Tahasildar, Chikiti. I of 1970 was initiated against P. W. 12, father P. W. 11 for encroachment of Ac. O. 70 cents of land appertaining to survey no. 58/1 of Girisola. During different years penalty for unauthorised possession was imposed on him. On 24. 8. 1974 order of eviction was passed by the Tahasildar, Chikiti. By order dated 27. 11. 1976 the Tahasilder, Chikiti directed the Revenue Supervisor to conduct sale of the attached standing crops by fixing the upset price at Rs. 80/ -. There is nothing further in the record to show that after 27. 11. 1976 any action for sale of the attached standing crops was taken by the Revenue Supervisor. The Revenue Supervisor, Shri Jagannath Patnaik (since retired) (D. W. 1) stated in his evidence that G. Sarama, mother of P. W. 3 had encroached upon Ac. O. 35 cents Gochar land out of survery no. 58/1. She was evicted there from in the year 1974 by order dated 24. 8. 1974 in O. P. L. E. Case No. 2747 of 1969. By the time the appellant joined as Revenue Inspector of Girisola, G. Sarama was no longer in possession of that land. Although it appears from the record of O. P. L. E. Case No. I of 1971 that order of eviction had been passed on 24. 8. 1974 yet, according to the assertion of P. W. 3, he was still in possession of the land. This witness also admitted that G. Sarama was not actually evicted from the land. He further stated that P. W. 12 had encroached upon Ac. O. 70 cents of Government land. A sum of Rs. 256. 42 was outstanding against him towards rent and penalty by 1976. On 14. 11. 1976 the standing crops had been attached by the appellant. He (P. W. 1) was directed to auction the crops. On 7. 12. 1976 he went to Girisola to hold the auction. As there were TO bidders he fixed 11. 12. 1976 as the next date of auction. On 11. 12. 1976 he went to the office of the appellant for auction of the standing crops. P. Ws. 311 and 12 came there. P. W. 12 offered a sum of Rs. 100/- to him towards the arrear dues. But he refused to accept the same and demanded the entire arrears at a time. On 11. 12. 1976 he went to the office of the appellant for auction of the standing crops. P. Ws. 311 and 12 came there. P. W. 12 offered a sum of Rs. 100/- to him towards the arrear dues. But he refused to accept the same and demanded the entire arrears at a time. On that day at 10 a. m. when he went upon the encroached land he found that the standing crops had been harvested and removed by P. W. 12 and stacked on the threshing floor. P. W. 12 asked for time to make the payment and time was given, till 15. 12. 1976. From the aforesaid evidence both oral and documentary it appears that the Tahasildar, Chikiti directed P. W. 1, then serving as the Revenue Supervisor to auction the standing crops on the land encroached upon by P. W. 12. The appellant was not at all entrusted with any duty in respect of the said auction. He did not also perform any duty in connection with the auction. It was not within his power to receive the arrear dues or any part thereof from P. W. 12. According to the evidence of this withess he had given time to P. W. 12 to pay the arrear dues on 15. 12. 1976. Therefore, the question of payment of Rs. 100/- as part of the arrear dues to the appellant on 14. 12. 1976 did not at all arise. The above apart the evidence is overwhelming that P. W. 11, was assigned with the duty of concealing himself near the house of the appellant so as to give signal to the raiding party by lighting a Bedee or cigarette which duty he actually performed. Therefore, there was absolutely no question of P. W. 11 offering the sum of Rs. 100/- to the appellant at about 6 a. m. on 14. 12. 1976.-In consideration of the aforesaid evidence both oral and documentary, as well as, the circumstances and probabilities, I cannot but hold that the defence set up by the appellant was neither probable nor plausible and, therefore, unacceptable. ( 13 ) ON careful consideration of the prosecution case and the defence version, I am satisfied that the prosecution has been able to establish that the appellant threatened P. W. 3 with attachment of standing paddy crops and held out hopes that if a sum of Rs. ( 13 ) ON careful consideration of the prosecution case and the defence version, I am satisfied that the prosecution has been able to establish that the appellant threatened P. W. 3 with attachment of standing paddy crops and held out hopes that if a sum of Rs. 200/- was paid to him as illegal gratification, he would refrain from doing so. Actually a sum of Rs. 200/was paid to him on two occasions by P. W. 3 as illegal gratification. The presumption arising out of section 4 of the Act shall, therefore, come, into full play against the appellant who could not rebut the presumption by proving to the contrary. In my view, therefore, the charges against the appellant were well established. ( 14 ) BRIBERY and corruption have taken deep roots. It may be difficult to eradicate them all at once. But whenever cases of bribery and corruption are proved against a public servant in a court of law, it is necessary that such cases should be viewed seriously and dealt with sternly. In this premises the punishment meted out to the appellant does not appear to be severe. ( 15 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the charges against the appellant having been well established, the appeal is without any merit. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge is affirmed. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed .