Judgment : The appellant who is the karnam of Vattathur Village, Kattumanargudi Taluk, South Arcot District, has been found guilty by the learned Special Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, of an offence under Sec.161, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code as well as of an offence under Sec.5(1) (d) read with Sec.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act for having accepted a sum of Rs.50 as bribe from P.W.1 Mathiazhagan, at or about 8.30 P.M. on 27.1.1979 at the residence of the appellant and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. No separate sentence has been awarded for the offence under Sec.161, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution is this: P.W.1 Mathiazhagan and P.W.2 Thirugnanssambandam, and the accused are of the same village. The family of P.W.1 owns two acres of lands at Vattathur Village and four acres of lands at Nandeswaramangamam. The accused/appellant is the karnam for both the Village. In January, 1979, P.W.1 approached the Land Development Bank for loan with a view to purchase a tractor. The Bank demanded extract of chitta pertaining to the lands held by the family of P.W.1 approached the accused on 19.1.1979. The accused demand a sum of Rs.25 for issuing the chitta extract. P.W.1 gave Rs.25 and got the extract of chittas, marked as Exs.P5 to P9. Thereafter P.W.1 gave Ex.P10 application to the Land Development Bank. On 25.1.1979 P.W.1 went to the Bank to find out the result of his application. He was informed by the Bank, that unless the extract of F.M.Book pertaining to the lands of P.W.1 is given, the loan amount be granted. On that ground, P.W.1 returned to the Village and approached the accused at about 4 P.M. on 27.1.1979 along with P.W.2. The accused demanded a sum of Rs.50 for issuing the extract of F.M. Book Pertaining to the lands belonging to the family of P.W.1. Since P.W.1, was not having the amount, he requested that accused to prepare the extracts and promised to return on the next day evening with the money and take the plan. The accused accepted the suggestion. The accused demanded a sum of Rs.50 for issuing the extract of F.M. Book Pertaining to the lands belonging to the family of P.W.1. Since P.W.1, was not having the amount, he requested that accused to prepare the extracts and promised to return on the next day evening with the money and take the plan. The accused accepted the suggestion. P.W.1 annoyed by the conduct of the accused, went to Cuddalore along with P.W.2 on 27.1.1979 and gave a report Ex.P1 to P.W.5, Jayaraman, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Cuddalore. On the basis of Ex.P1, P.W.5 got the sanction from the Deputy Collector, Chidambaram for prosecuting the accused. Ex.P12 is the sanction order for prosecuting the accused. Thereafter, P.W.5 registered Ex.P1 as his Crime No.2/AC/79 under Sec.161, I.P.C. and took up further investigation. He procured P.W3, Rangaraju, who is employed as Deputy Agriculture Officer, Cuddalore and one Pattabhiraman, a staff in the office of the Transport Department at Cuddalore P.W.5 introduced P.Ws.1 and 2 to P.W.3 and Pattabhiraman. P.W.5 informed P.W.3 and another about the mission of P.W.1 and 2 and gave Exts.P1 to P.W.3 and Pattabhiraman to go through the same. P. Ws.3 and 4 went through Ex.P1. Thereafter P.W.5 explained the significance of the phenolphthalein test and also demonstrated the same in front of all the witnesses. P.W.2 smeared the phenolpthalein powder on the five rupee notes brought by P.W.1 and asked P.W.3 to touch the notes and dip his fingers in the solution. The solution turned pink. All of them were satisfied about the importance of the phenolpthalein test. Thereafter the ten five rupee notes, marked as M.O.1 series, were handed over to P.W.1 with instruction to give them to the accused, on demand. P.W.1 was asked to report the same to P.W.5 and his party, who would be within outside the residence of the accused. A mahazar, Ex.P2 was prepared as to what has taken place at the office of P.W.5 the same has been attested by P.Ws.1, 3 and others. At about 2-30 P.M. P.W.5 and P.Ws.1, 3 along with Pattabhiraman and others, left Cuddalore for Vattathur village, They reached Sethiathope at about 4.30 P.M. P.W.5 asked P.Ws.1 and 2 to reach the house of the accused by walk. P.W.5 followed P.Ws.1 and2 with P.W.2 and others. At about 2-30 P.M. P.W.5 and P.Ws.1, 3 along with Pattabhiraman and others, left Cuddalore for Vattathur village, They reached Sethiathope at about 4.30 P.M. P.W.5 asked P.Ws.1 and 2 to reach the house of the accused by walk. P.W.5 followed P.Ws.1 and2 with P.W.2 and others. Within a short time, P.Ws.1 and 2 came back and informed P.W.5 that the accused was not found at his residence, that they have been informed P.W.5 that the accused was not found at his residence, that they have been informed that the accused has gone to Sri Mushnam Center and that he would return only at about 8 P.M. P.W.5 asked P.Ws.1 and 2 to wait at the cross road to find out the return of the accused and left for the place where he has stationed the jeep. 3. At about 8.15 P.M. the accused alighted from the bus at the cross road. Thereafter P.Ws.1 and 2 informed P.W.5 and from there went to the house of the accused, followed by P.W.5 and others. On seeing P.W.1, the accused asked P.W.1 whether he has brought the money. P.W.1 answered the accused in the affirmative and gave M.O.1 series. The accused received M.O.1 series and placed them on the left side drawer of the table and locked the drawer. Thereafter, the accused gave two sketches, marked as Exts.P3 and P4, the extracts of the lands belonging to the family of P.W.1 at Nandeeswaramangalam. Thereafter P.Ws.1 and 2 came out of the house of the accused and conveyed to P.W.5 as to what has taken place. Immediately, P.W.5 went into the house of the accused along with P.W.3 and others. P.W.5 revealed his identity and that of others to the accused. P.W.5 prepared a sodium carbonate solution and asked the accused to dip his right hand fingers in the solution. The solution turned pink. Similarly, the left hand fingers were tested by preparing a fresh sodium carbonate solution. The solution turned pink. The accused was asked to produce the amount received from P.W.1 as bribe. The accused opened the left side drawer of the table with a key and produced M.O.1 series. After verifying M.O.1 series as the notes given to P.W.1, with the help of Ex.P2 mahazar, M.O.1 series and Ex.P11 mahazar in the presence of P.W.3 and another. The accused was asked to produce the amount received from P.W.1 as bribe. The accused opened the left side drawer of the table with a key and produced M.O.1 series. After verifying M.O.1 series as the notes given to P.W.1, with the help of Ex.P2 mahazar, M.O.1 series and Ex.P11 mahazar in the presence of P.W.3 and another. The house of the accused was searched between 9.30 and 10 P.M. A sketch of the house of the accused was also drawn, marked as Ex.P13. Thereafter, all of them returned to Cuddalore at about 11.30 P.M. The accused was kept in the lockup at Cuddalore. On the same night, P.W.5 examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and pattabhiraman. After obtaining permission from the concerned Officer for prosecuting the accused, P.W.5 filed the charge sheet on 2.6.1979. 4. When questioned about the evidence appearing against the accused under Sec.313(1), Cr.P.C., the accused has stated that the whole case has been foisted against him due to previous enmity between him and the family of P.W.1. According to him, he aspired for the post of Karnam of Vattathur Village. There was a competition for the post of Karnam of Vattathur village between him and one Arumugham. However, the accused was appointed a temporary Karnam. The further case of the accused is that there was a competition for the post of Presidentship of a co-operative Society at Nandeeswaramangalam on 4.10.1978 and the brother-in-law of the accused, Krishnaswamy, has contested for the said post. P.W.2 also contested for the same post and the brother-in-law of the accused became the President. Further, on 10.1.1979 the accused was appointed as permanent Karnam, in spite of objections from P.Ws.1 and 2. The further case of the accused is that he did not meet P.W.1 on 19.1.1979, that he did not receive a sum of Rs.25 from P.W.1, that he did not give Exts.P5 to P9 on 19.1.1979. According to the accused, Exts.P5 to P9 have been handed over to P.W.1 a week earlier to 19.1.1979. However, he denied the receipt of Rs.25 on 19.1.1979. The further case of the accused is that 26.1.1979 is a New Moon Day and that he returned to the residence late in the night, that P.Ws.1 and 3 did not meet him at his residence on 26.1.1979 at about 4 P.M. He admitted that P.Ws.1 to 5 along with a Head Constable came to his residence. The further case of the accused is that 26.1.1979 is a New Moon Day and that he returned to the residence late in the night, that P.Ws.1 and 3 did not meet him at his residence on 26.1.1979 at about 4 P.M. He admitted that P.Ws.1 to 5 along with a Head Constable came to his residence. After super, while he was sitting in his chair, P.W.5 came to his house with P.Ws.1 to 4 and arrested him and opened the drawer of his table and recovered M.O.1 series that M.O.1 series were not placed by the accused in the drawer, that P.W.1 should have planted the same in the drawer taking advantage of his absence in the village since his house was always kept open and that he is not the owner of M.O.1 series. The further case of the accused is that the Inspector there attend the accused that he should take the notes by his own hand and that he produced M.O.1 Series from the left side drawer of his table, that there is no key for the drawer, that he produced the F.M. Book relating to the village of Nandeeswaran Mangalam and that thereafter he was taken to the police station at Cuddalore. 5. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court accepted the case of the prosecution and found the accused guilty and sentenced him as stated at the outset. 6. The accused has examined one Dakshinamoorthy the then Huzur Second Assistant in the Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer as his witness and marked the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 27.8.1979 in the appeal preferred by Arumugham, who is said to have accompanied P.W.1 on 19.1.1979 to the house of the accused, as against the appointment of the accused as Karnam. 7. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as the person who received the sum of Rs.50 marked as M.O.1 series, from P.W.1 as alleged by the prosecution on 27.1.1979 of the residence of the accused? 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the whole prosecution case had been foisted on the appellant due to previous enmity. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the whole prosecution case had been foisted on the appellant due to previous enmity. In support of his contention, he pressed the following points: (i) The key that is alleged to have been used for the opening of the drawer of the accused was not seized and was not chemically tested; (ii) The shirt in which the accused has kept the key was also not seized and tested; (iii) There is no corroboration between the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 with that of P.W.3; P.Ws.1 and 5 did not speak about the shirt; P.W.1 also did not speak about the accused taking the key from his shirt; whereas P.W.3 speaks that the accused took the key from his shirt, which was hanging on the chair; there is no independent eye witness for the receipt of M.O.1, series by the accused from P.W.1 since P.W.2 stood outside the house of the accused at the relevant time; (iv) The non-preservation of the sodium carbonate solution probabilises the stand taken by the accused that no phenolphthalein test has been conducted in this case and as such the trial Court erred in convicting the appellant/accused. 9. So far as the enmity is concerned, there is no dispute about the same. But, however, Exts.P5 to P9 probabilises the evidence of P.W.1 that he got them on 19.1.1979 because Exts.P5 to P9 have been signed by the accused on 19.1.1979. If the version of the accused that he gave them to P.W.1 two weeks earlier to 19.1.1979 is true, there is no need for the accused to put the date 19.1.1979. 10. So far as the seizure of M.O.1 series is concerned, the accused has no consistent case. At one stretch he has stated that P.W.5 himself opened that drawer and has taken M.O.1 series to the surprise of the accused, and at another stretch he has stated that he was threatened to take out M.O.1 series from the left side of his drawer and, therefore, he took M.O.1 series from the drawer. He admitted that he returned to his house in the night on 26.1.1979. It is no doubt true that it would have been in the interest of the prosecution to have seized the Key alleged to have been used fey the accused as well as the shirt in which the accused kept the key. He admitted that he returned to his house in the night on 26.1.1979. It is no doubt true that it would have been in the interest of the prosecution to have seized the Key alleged to have been used fey the accused as well as the shirt in which the accused kept the key. But there is clinching evidence to prove that P.Ws.1 and 3 are speaking the truth. The version of P.W.1 that he received Exts.P5 to P9 on 19.1.1979 is corroborated from the date put by the accused in the said Exhibits. The accused admits that he came to his house late in the night and P.W.5 came to his residence along with other witnesses. P.W.3 is a Deputy Agricultural Officer working in the Agricultural Department of Cuddalore. He is an independent witness and he corroborates the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 were sitting on a parapet wall of the sluice at the cross-road of the village shows that he is not only speaking the truth but also giving evidence as to what he has seen in his own eyes. The further evidence of P.W.3 is that when they entered the house of the accused all of them saw the accused sitting on a chair and that his shirt was hanging on the chair and from the shirt pocket he took out the key and opened the left side drawer of the table. The presence of F.M.Book relating to Nandeeswaranmangalam village along with other records shows that P.W.3 is speaking the truth, because he has stated in his evidence that the F.M.Book relating to Nandeeswaranmangalam village was seized from the house of the accused. He also admits that P.W.2 was standing outside the house of the accused and he did not go along with P.W.1 to hand over M.O.1 series. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.3 clearly shows that he gave evidence only as to what he has seen in his own eyes. The trial Court has accepted the evidence of all the witnesses and has found the accused guilty and convicted him accordingly. I see no reason to come to a different conclusion, on assessing the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5. 11. The trial Court has accepted the evidence of all the witnesses and has found the accused guilty and convicted him accordingly. I see no reason to come to a different conclusion, on assessing the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5. 11. But, however, the non-Preservation of the sodium carbonate solution, according to the learned counsel for the accused, is fatal to the case of the prosecution, Since the accused has denied the conduct of Phenolphthalein test at his residence. In support of his case, he drew my attention to the Full Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court reported in Ramesh Chandra Tukaram Talekar v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1980 Guj. 1 [F.B.], wherein the Full Bench of the non-preservation of solution used for the experiment as follows: “It is necessary for the investigating agency to preserve the solution used for the experiment as regards detection of Phenolphthalein powder on the person of the accused or on his clothes or on anything that he has touched. We further lay down that in case of failure or omission of the investigating agency to preserve such solution, it is open to the court to raise an inference adverse to the prosecution at the trial depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, and to determine upon the impact of that inference on the other evidence before it”. This view was accepted by Maheswaran, J. in Kuppusamy v. State Rep. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Cuddalore, C.A.No.228 of 1989 dated 4.10.1985. However M.N.Moorthy, J. in N.Namasivayam and State by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Thanjavur, C.A.No.26 of 1978 dated 9.12.1981 and K.M.Natarajan, J. In M.Velu v. State, C.A.No.859 of 1980 dated 15.2.1985, distinguished the Gujarat High Court judgement and came to the conclusion that preservation of solution is not necessary, if the prosecution case can be accepted on the materials placed before the Court. I find that in the interest of justice, and to avoid confusion in the minds of the Subordinate Courts, an authoritative pronouncement is necessary with reference to the preservation of solution, whether the accused denies the conduct of such test or not, because the prosecution cannot presume and cannot expect what would be the attitude of the accused during the trial. In that view of the matter, I refer this question to My Lord the Chief Justice for placing matter before a Bench. In that view of the matter, I refer this question to My Lord the Chief Justice for placing matter before a Bench. “Whether the prosecution is bound to preserve the sodium carbonate solution which the prosecution has used to trap the accused”. As directed by the Honourable Mr.S.Ratnavel Pandian, the Officiating Chief Justice, this criminal appeal having been posted before the Honourable Mr.Justice David Annoussamy and the Honourable Mr.Justice Janarthanam coming on for hearing on Wednesday, the 14th day of December, 1988 upon perusing the reference made by the Honourable Mr.Justice S.T.Ramalingam, dated 24.1.86 in the above case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.K.V.Sreedharan, Advocate for the appellant and of Mr.N.Dinakar, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State, the Court delivered the following judgment. The Order of the Court was made by David Annoussamy, J.: This is a reference by S.T.Ramalingam, J. in Criminal Appeal No.868 of 1980. 2. After hearing the case, the learned single judge has referred the matter to a Bench to answer the question, which is as follows: “Whether the prosecution is bound to preserve the sodium carborate solution which the prosecution has used to trap the accused”? 3. The above question arose because a Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Rameshchandra Tukaram Talekar v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1980 Guj. 1 (F.B.), has observed that it was necessary for the investigating agency to preserve such a solution. That view was accepted by Maheswaran, J., of this Court in Kuppusamy v. State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Cuddalore, C.A.No.228 of 1989 dated 4.10.1985. 4. However, M.N.Moorthy, J., in N.Namasivayam v. State by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thanjavur, C.A.No.26 of 1978 dated 9.12.1981 and K.M.Natarajan, J. in M.Velu v. State, C.A.No.859 of 1980 dated 15.2.1985, distinguished the Full Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court and came to the conclusion that preservation of solution was not necessary, if the prosecution case could be accepted on the material placed before court. 5. S.T.Ramalingam, J., found that in the interest of justice and to avoid confusion in the minds of the Subordinate Courts, an authoritative pronouncement was necessary with reference to the preservation of solution, whether the accused denied the conduct of such test or not, because the prosecution cannot presume and cannot expect what would be the attitude of the accused during the trial. This is what prompted the learned single judge to make the reference. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant accused placed strong reliance on the Full Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court referred to above, which concluded as follows: “It is necessary for the investigating agency to preserve the solution used for the experiment as regards detection of Phenolphthalein powder on the person of the accused or on his clothes or on anything that he has touched. We further lay down that in case of failure or omission of the investigation agency to preserve such solution, it is open to the Court to raise an inference adverse to the prosecution at the trial, depending upon the impact of that inference on the other evidence before it”. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, the court has made its opinion clear on this aspect as follows: “Even in case of drawing of an adverse inference, the court has to put that inference in the scale along with all the facts found by it on other evidence and then reach its conclusion as to the guilt or the innocence of the accused. It must be made clear; however, that non-preservation of the solution and its non-prosecution when directed by the court in a given case may lend the court to find that the investigating agency was dishonest or unfair to the public servant. As to what would be the effect of this finding on other evidence led in the case would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no general proposition of law can be laid down”. 7. In other words, after laying down the principle that solution should be preserved, the court has however made it clear that such a failure would not ipso facto determine the fact of the case and that the case has to be decided on merits depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case by taking into account the fact of non-preservation along with other pieces of evidence. 8. M.N.Moorthy,J., in the judgment referred to above who had occasion to peruse the judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court, did not dispute the principle laid down, but found that in the circumstances of the case, there were sufficient evidence to convict the accused, even though the solution was not preserved. 9. 8. M.N.Moorthy,J., in the judgment referred to above who had occasion to peruse the judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court, did not dispute the principle laid down, but found that in the circumstances of the case, there were sufficient evidence to convict the accused, even though the solution was not preserved. 9. K.M.Natarajan, J., in the judgment referred to above who, also happened to peruse the judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court went a step further and observed as follows: "The whole question is whether the evidence of the witnesses to the above trap and to the test can be accepted or not and nothing would turn in not preserving the solution". He further observed that in the decision of the Gujarat High Court, it was held that the non-preservation of solution assumed importance because the evidence before court relating to the passing of currency notes between the complaint and the public servant was of such a character as it could not be accepted by it, unless it was corroborated by the production of the solution. The learned single judge found in the case, he was dealing with, that there was sufficient evidence which would prove the guilt of the accused, even in the absence of preservation of solution. 10. Maheswaran, J., in the judgment referred to above, took a different view and stated as follows: "In of the view that the sodium bi-corbonate solution which is alleged have turned pink on the accused dipping the fingers of his right hand should have been preserved as a corroborative piece of evidence and from the failure to preserve it, an adverse inference-against the investigating agency that it had been unfair to the accused, can be drawn. It should further be noted that this is not a case where the accused admits having received money and offers an explanation for such receipt." He proceeded on the basis that when the accused denies that any phenolphthalein test we conducted, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove affirmatively that such a test was conducted; and so that the solution has to be preserved. The learned Single judge has observed that in the case he was dealing with, the accused’s contention was no such test was that conducted at all. The learned Single judge has observed that in the case he was dealing with, the accused’s contention was no such test was that conducted at all. He has further observed that in the case he was disposing of excepting the evidence of P.W.1 and 2, who were interested in the trap, there was no other evidence to corroborate the receipt of money, except the solution of sodium bi-carbonate, which is alleged to have turned pink on the accused dipping his fingers of his right hand. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant accused in this case would therefore contend that the ratio of the Gujarat High Court should be accepted as observed by Maheswaran,J. 12. The learned Public Prosecutor, on his side, would contend that the dipping of the fingers into the solution is only one part of the entire test. The whole operation is attested to by the investigating officer and two independent witnesses. If their evidence is accepted, the preservation or the absence of preservation of the solution will not in any manner change the complexion of the case. If for any reason a doubt is cast on their evidence on the whole process, the effect of preservation of the solution will not in any manner improve the case because the same doubt would also pervade the solution which would be produced as the one which was used for the test and preserved. He therefore concluded that it would be wrong to lay down, as a matter of Principle, that the solution should be preserved and that an adverse inference should be drawn in the solution was not preserved. 13. In support of his stand, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hazari Lal v. The State (Delhi Administration), A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 873, in which their Lordships observed as follows: "We do wish to say that there is no rule of prudence which has crystallised into a rule of law, nor indeed any rule of precedence, which requires that the evidence of such officers should be treated on the same footing as evidence of accomplices and there should be insistence on corroboration. In the facts and circumstances of a particular case, a Court may be disinclined to act upon the evidence of such an officer without corroboration, but, equally, in the facts and circumstances of another case, the court may unhesitatingly accept the evidence of such an officer. It is all a matter of appreciation of evidence and on such matters, there can be no hard and fast rule, nor can there be any precedential guidance". 14. We have given our deep consideration to the rival contentions put forth by both the parties. The fact of dipping the fingers or any other object smeared with phenolphthalein powder into a solution of sodium bi-carbonate is a part of the entire process of trapping. The investigating officer would necessarily be keen to keep the record and material proof of whatever was employed in the trap. He may be therefore interested in keeping the solution as well if he finds it convenient and if he finds that such a solution can be produced before the court with reliable proof that such was the solution which was used in the trap. But, we cannot agree with the principle laid down by the Gujarat High Court that it is imperative for the investigating officer to preserve the solution used for the experiment and that an inference, adverse to the prosecution at the trial would be drawn in case the solution was not preserved. If the solution has been preserved, it can be produced before the court for whatever it is worth. If it is not preserved, the Court will act upon the evidence produced before court and appreciate it according to normal rules of evidence, uninfluenced by the non production of the solution. Therefore, the reference is answered in the negative. 15. The case bundles are sent back to the concerned judge for disposal of the case. If it is not preserved, the Court will act upon the evidence produced before court and appreciate it according to normal rules of evidence, uninfluenced by the non production of the solution. Therefore, the reference is answered in the negative. 15. The case bundles are sent back to the concerned judge for disposal of the case. This criminal appeal coming on for hearing this day upon perusing the reference dated 14.12.88 answered by the Honourable Mr.Justice David Annoussamy and the Honourable Mr.Justice Janarthanam in the case upon hearing the arguments of Mr.K.V.Sreedharan, Advocate for the appellant and of Mrs.D.Kalaiselvi, for the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State, the Court delivered the following judgment: ORDER In pursuance of my order of reference dated 24.1.1986, a Division Bench consisting of Justice David Annoussamy and Justice Janarthanam have answered the question posed by me in favour of the prosecution to the effect that if the solution has been preserved, it can be produced before the Court for whatever it is worth and if it is not preserved the Court will act upon the evidence produced before court and appreciate it according to normal rules of evidence. 2. In this case, the prosecution has not preserved the sodium-bi-corbonate solution. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that non-preservation of the sodium-bi-corbonate solution is fatal to the case of the prosecution has no basis and cannot be sustained. 3. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has taken a ground on the question of sanction accorded to prosecute the appellant. According to order viz., Ex.P12 has not applied his mind to the materials of this case and he was simply carried away by the statement of facts submitted to him by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. In other words, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the 162, Cr.P.C. statements, on the basis of which the prosecution has been launched, were not placed before the Sanctioning Authority and that the sanctioning Authority without looking into the materials gathered by the prosecution was simply carried away by the statement of facts presented by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. 4. In order to satisfy myself with respect to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, I sent for the records. 4. In order to satisfy myself with respect to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, I sent for the records. A perusal of the letter dated 25.4.1979 written by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram, who accorded the sanction to prosecute the appellant shows that the statements under Sec.162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recorded from the witnesses have not been placed before the Authority, who sanctioned prosecution. In fact, the letter shows that the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption has enclosed model sanction orders so as to enable the Revenue Divisional Officer to draft sanction order in those lines. On a perusal of the records placed before me, I am satisfied that the Authority who sanctioned the prosecution has not accorded sanction applying his mind but has granted the sanction order mechanically without going through the material records gathered by the prosecution. As such, I find that the sanction order is vitiated by material irregularity, which vitiates the prosecution itself. 5. In this view of the matter, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant are set aside. Fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellant.