JUDGMENT N. S. Rao, J.-Deb Nandan Mahto, appellant, stands convicted under section 5(1) (d) punishable under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act along with section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for all the charges in total. Feeling aggrieved, he has preferred this appeal. 2. One Deo Dutt Singh was a license of D.B.B.L. Gun No. 167409 under Licence No. 1/1400 Ranchi. That gun was lying deposited with M/s Sah & Sons, Arms & Ammunition Dealer, Ranchi in safe custody under orders dated 25.9.1968 No. 3661G of the Arms Magistrate, Ranchi. Subsequent to the death of Deo Dutt Singh, his nephew Raj Kishore Singh P.W. had obtained a licence, and wanted the gun of his late uncle to be transferred in his name. 3. The prosecution version, in brief, is that Raj Kishore Singh PW had approached the appellant, who was then serving as an Arms Clerk In the Collectorate of Ranchi, on 10.9 1969 with an application for getting transferred his uncle's licensed gun in his favour. The appellant had then demanded Rs. 300/-. Rs. 200/- in the first instance to be paid to the Arms Magistrate and the balance of Rs. 100/-later for the work. Raj Kishore Singh PW had then returned and complained in that behalf to Shri Martin Tigga PW, then D.S.P. Vigilance. Shri Martin Tigga PW had thereupon instructed constable Hhagwan Singh PW, one of the watchers, to verify that fact. Constable Bhagwan Sinha PW had accompanied Raj Kishore Singh PW and the latter's friend Arjun Prasad Jaiswal PW to the office of the appellant, and heard the appellant requiring Raj Kishore Singh PW to give him that amount on the coming Monday. Constable Bhagwan Singh PW had, on return, submitted his report Ext. 2 before Shri Martin Tigga PW. Then on 15.9.1969, constable Bhagwan Singh and Arjun Prasad Jaiswal PWs had again contacted the appellant in his office. The appellant had then inquired from them as to why Raj Kishore Singh PW had not come with them. Constable Bhagwan Singh and Arjun Prasad Jaiswal PWs had conveyed to the appellant that Raj Kishore Singh PW had gone out of Station urgently, he could not come on that day for the desired purpose. On return constable Bhagwan Singh PW had again submitted his report Ext. 3 before Shri Martin Tigga PW. Constable Bhagwan Singh and Arjun Prasad Jaiswal PWs had conveyed to the appellant that Raj Kishore Singh PW had gone out of Station urgently, he could not come on that day for the desired purpose. On return constable Bhagwan Singh PW had again submitted his report Ext. 3 before Shri Martin Tigga PW. Shri Tigga PW, having felt convinced about the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant, had passed a message to his headquarters at Patna, and thereupon. Shri S.M. Ahsan, D.S.P. accompanied by Shri Nanhe Prasad, Special Magistrate, Vigilance; Inspectors am Had Prasad Shrivastava and Ram Chandra Giri, and a few other constables had arrived at Ranchi on 25.9.1969 and contacted Shri Martin Tigga PW at his residence. Raj Kishore Singh PW too, as required, had reached there. 4. The prosecution version further proceeds that on that day (25.9.1969) at about 2.00 P.M., Sri S.M Ahsan, DSP had again sent Raj Kishore Singh PW in the company of Inspector Om Hari Prasad Shrivastava PW to the appellant for verifying that he was waiting for receiving the illegal gratification. When Raj Kishore Singh PW had met the appellant in the presence of the Inspector Om Hari Prasad Shrivastava PW, he (appellant) had come out of the office and then accompanied those PWs to a ne'1rby betel shop. Shri Raj Kishore Singh PW had inquired from the appellant as to if he was to deliver the money at that very time. The appellant had replied that in case he would not do that, he (appellant) would have to pay that amount from his own pocket. Raj Kishore Singh PW had, thereafter, parted the company of the appellant while saying that he would be contacting him again shortly thereafter. Inspector Om Hari Prasad Shrivastava PW had also gone away with Raj Kishore Singh PW. These PWs had then reported in that behalf to Shri S.M. Ahsan DSP. Raj Kishore Singh PW had submitted his complaint Ext. 15 before the DSP. Statement Ext. 7 of Raj Kishore Singh PW was recorded by Shri Nanhe Prasad PW, Special Magistrate, Vigilance. Then on being asked, Raj Kishore Singh PW had delivered the currency notes bearing No. AB. 31/365972 and AB. 53/688935 of the denomination of Rs. Raj Kishore Singh PW had submitted his complaint Ext. 15 before the DSP. Statement Ext. 7 of Raj Kishore Singh PW was recorded by Shri Nanhe Prasad PW, Special Magistrate, Vigilance. Then on being asked, Raj Kishore Singh PW had delivered the currency notes bearing No. AB. 31/365972 and AB. 53/688935 of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each to Shri S. M. Ahsan D.S.P. Those currency notes were returned to Raj Kishore Singh PW with the direction that those be passed to the appellant on demand. Inspector Om Hari Prasad Shrivastava PW was required to accompany Raj Kishore Singh PW for his seeing the tainted amount being passed to the appellant, and for overhearing the talks between Raj Kishore Singh and the appellant at the time. 5. Further prosecution case is that Raj Kishore Singh PW accompanied by Om Had Prasad Shrivastava PW, the shadow witness, had thereafter arrived in the office of the appellant on that day (25.9.1969) at about 4.00 P.M. and found him at his seat. Those PWs. as per instructions, had brought the appellant out of the office, while indulging in casual talks with him, to a nearby betel shop. The other members of the raiding party, including Inspectors Ramesh Chandra Giri and M.M. Dutta, and constable A. K. Bhattacharya and Samir Kumar Sarkar, Shri Nanhe Prasad, Special Magistrate, Sri Martin Tigga PW and Shri S.M. Ahsan D.S.P. had taken their positions at some distance from them. Also were standing there a number of constables armed with lathis as police force had earlier been requisitioned by Shri S. M. Ahsan. D.S.P. Raj Kishore Singh PW had then handed over the two currency notes of Rs. 100/- each to the appellant. On 5eeing the appellant accepting that amount, Inspector Om Hari Prasad Srivastava PW had started rubbing his face with handkerchief, the pre-arranged signal. In the meanwhile, the appellant had started going to his office. On receipt of that signal, the other members of the raiding party had surrounded the appellant and secured him. Shri S.M. Ahsan DSP had carried out personal search of the appellant inside his office, but no amount was recovered from his possession. However, during the search of his office, those two currency notes were found lying in the gap of two almirahs. These were taken into possession vide Memo Ext. Shri S.M. Ahsan DSP had carried out personal search of the appellant inside his office, but no amount was recovered from his possession. However, during the search of his office, those two currency notes were found lying in the gap of two almirahs. These were taken into possession vide Memo Ext. 6 attested by Shri Nanhe Prasad, T. K. Raj, K.N. Prasad, Yogendra Nath and Radha Gobind Bose. Vide this very Memo, some papers, collected from the office of the appellant, were also taken into possession. The appellant was arrested. Shri S.M. Ahsan DSP had sent his report Ext. 14 to the Police Station, Sadar Ranchi, and on its basis, the first information report was registered. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted. 6. The prosecution, for proving its case, had examined constable Bhagwan Singh PW1, Inspector Om Hari Prasad PW 2, Inspector M. M. Dutta PW3, Arjun Prasad Jaiswai PW4, constable A. K. Bhattacharya PW5, constable Samir Kumar Sarkar PW6, Sri Nanhe Prasad, Special Magistrate, Vigilance PW 8, Sri Martin Tigga DSP, PW8, Inspector Ramchandra Giri PW9, Sachidanand Prasad PW10. Paras Nath Singh PW11, Raj Kishore Singh PW12, Nand Kumar Lal PW13 and Inspector Zahir Ahmad PW14. Out of them PWs 5 and 6 were only tendered for cross-examination. The evidence of PWs, 10, 11, 13 and 14 is of formal character. PW10 had proved the signatures of the Sub-divisional Magistrate on some of the seized papers. PW11 had contacted PW8 on 23.9.1969 to inquire about the complaint of PW12. PW 13, an Assistant in the Legal Cell had proved the sanction Ext. 13 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, in the case. PW 14 had identified the writing and the signatures, of Sri S.M. Ahsan, D.S.P. on various documents. 7. The appellant, in his examination had denied the prosecution allegations and stated that he was innocent. He had maintained that he had told the complainant (PW 12) that• the gun of his late uncle Deo Dutt Singh could not be released in his favour and relevant entries made in his licence without production of a succession certificate, but as PW12 was not prepared to obtain that certificate, he had falsely complained against him (appellant), and got him implicated in the case. The appellant had not examined any witness in his defence. 8. The appellant had not examined any witness in his defence. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional P.P. appearing for the State, as also going through the records, I am of the considered view that there is merit in this appeal and the same deserves to succeed. 9. It has remained admitted that the appellant was working as an Arms Clerk in Ranchi Collectorate in September, 1969, and even prior thereto. There is also no denying that on 10.9.1969, PW 12 had contacted the appellant and requested him to help in getting transferred the licensed gun of his late uncle in his favour. The defence case to the effect that the appellant had then told PW 12 that for that purpose a succession certificate would be required, stands admitted by PW 12 himself. PW 12 had admitted in his cross-examination that he wanted to get the gun released in his favour without obtaining the succession certificate. Therefore, there appears a ring of truth in the defence case that some controversy had developed between the appellant and the PW 12 on question of production of succession certificate and feeling frustrated PW 12 had complained against the appellant to the Vigilance authorities. Officers of the Vigilance Department, as further appears, had believed the words of PW 12 and thought in terms of laying a trap on the appellant. 10. Admittedly, the alleged tainted amount in the shape of two currency notes of Rs. 100/-each were not recovered from the personal search of the appellant. These were found lying in the gap of two amirahs in his office. PW 12 had stated that no sooner the appellant had obtained that amount from him near the betel shop at some distance from his office, the other members of the raiding party had surrounded and secured the appellant there and then. PW 12 had further stated that on seeing the appellant being so secured, he himself bad gone away. Now if the appellant had so been apprehended near the betal shop, it is not understood as to why those currency notes were not recovered from his personal search there, but were subsequently found lying in the gap of two almirahs inside the office. No PW had deposed that he had seen the appellant throwing those currency notes in that gap. No PW had deposed that he had seen the appellant throwing those currency notes in that gap. Here, it deserves mention that as that amount was admittedly not recovered from personal search of the appellant, its recovery was, perhaps, not considered as an incriminating circumstance against him, and, therefore, no question regarding the recovery of that amount was put to the appellant in examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (old). 11. Even otherwise, the evidence led by the prosecution regarding the happenings at about 4.00 P.M. on 25.9.1969, is not worth relying upon. Admittedly, services of independent persons were not requisitioned during the raid. The role of shadow witness was assigned to PW 2, an Inspector of the police. That approach of the investigating agency was contrary to the interpretation of aw on the point in Darshan Lal vs. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court 218 wherein it was observed that there should be independent and trust worthy corroboration of the evidence of the trap witness. In Raghubir Singh vs. State of Punjab, AI.R. 1976 Supreme Court 91, it was observed that the officers functioning 10 the Anti-corruption Department must seriously endeavour to secure really independent and respectable witnesses so that evidence in regard to the raid inspires confidence in the mind of the Court and the Court is not left in any doubt as to whether or not money was paid to the public servant by way of bribe. They should insist on observing this safeguard for the protection of public servants against whom a trap may have been laid. Like that case of Raghubir Singh (supra), in the instant case also the search witnesses were interested witnesses, and, therefore, their evidence with regard to the giving of bribe and the recovery of the amount from the appellant does not deserve to be relied upon. Again, as was further observed in Raghubir Singh's case (supra), where a trap is laid on a public servant, it is desirable that the marked currency notes, which are used for the purpose of the trap, are treated with phenolphthalein powder, so that handling of such marked currency notes by the public servants can be detected by chemical process and the Court does not have to depend on oral evidence which is sometimes of dubious character for the purpose of deciding the fate of the public servant. In the case in hand not only that procedure was not employed, even the allegedly recovered currency notes were not even produced in the trial court. 12. PW 2, the shadow witness had deposed that he had taken PW 12, the complainant, along to the office of the appellant shortly at about 2.00 P.M on 25.9.1969 for satisfying that the appellant was actually demanding the bribe. However, PW 12 in his evidence had not stated anything regarding visit to the appellant at that time. The version of PW 2 in that behalf had thus remained uncorroborated. Then, as to what had happened at the time of the actual raid on that day at 4.00 P.M. the evidence of the PWs is contradictory. As stated above, PW 12, the complainant had stated that, the appellant had been secured near the betel shop. However, other PWs would contradict him by deposing that the appellant was apprehended inside his office. Again, although PW2 was projected as a shadow witness, but from his evidence, it cannot be inferred that he bad actually heard the talks transpired between the appellant and the complainant rd3ting to the acceptance of any illegal gratification Neither he nor the complainant had given out in his evidence in verbatim the conversation, which had taken place between the complainant and the appellant at that crucial time. Rather, from the evidence of PW2, it appears that not only he had nut over-heard those talks, but bad also not seen the actual passing of the tainted money. Then as per PW 12’s own showing, he ha had parted company of the appellant near the betal shop and as such was not in a position to know as to what had happened subsequently inside his office. The remaining witnesses i.e. PWs, 1, 7 and 9 and for that matter other members of the raiding party were then at such a distance from the appellant from where they could neither hear their talks nor see the complainant handing over any amount to the appellant. Their evidence for proving that the appellant had accepted any bribe in the shape of currency notes from the complainant was thus not available to the prosecution. 13. Their evidence for proving that the appellant had accepted any bribe in the shape of currency notes from the complainant was thus not available to the prosecution. 13. As regard the talks transpired between the appellant and the complainant on days earlier to 25.9.1969, the evidence of the PWs examined runs short in establishing that the appellant had during those talks come out with a clear demand of any bribe further, the prosecution is guilty of withholding material witnesses. Even Sri S.M. Ahsan, D.S.P, who was heading the raiding party, and the investigating officer of the case, were not examined as witnesses, Non-examination of such material witnesses by the prosecution has seriously prejudiced the defence case. Thus the conviction of the appellant in the case deserves to be set aside on this score as well. 14. Again, the prosecution had not proved the original sanction issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for prosecution of the appellant in the case. PW 13, examined on the point, had only proved certain notings of various officials contained in the file. Then after closure of the prosecution case, another noting was produced for showing that Sri S.B. Shukla, then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi had accorded sanction in the case. Not only that writing had not been exhibited, it was not even in the handwriting of the Deputy Commissioner. He had only put his signatures underneath the words "prosecution sanctioned" on 14.3.1970. That cannot be said to be a valid sanction in the case. On this important point of sanction, the following observations made in Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. A.I.R. 1979 Supreme Court 677 are worth reproducing :- "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 the facts placed before the sanctioning authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. Any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio. Any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio. 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; any subsequent fact which may come into existence after the grant of sanction is wholly irrelevant. The grant of sanction h 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. It will not be correct to say that in view of the presumption which is to be drawn under S. 4, even if no facts are mentioned in the Resolution of the sanctioning authority, it must be presumed that the sanctioning authority was satisfied that the prosecution against the accused should be launched on basis of the presumption that the accused bad received a bribe. In the first place, there is no question of the presumption being available to the sanctioning authority because at that stage the occasion for drawing a presumption never arises since there is no case in the court. Secondly, the presumption does not arise automatically but only on proof of certain circumstances, that is to say, where it is proved by evidence in the Court that the money said to have been paid to the accused was actually recovered from his possession. It is only then that the Court may presume the amount received would be deemed to be an illegal gratification. The question of sanction arises before the proceedings come to the Court and the question of drawing the presumption, therefore, does not arise at this stage." Undoubtedly, the prosecution case against the appellant deserves to be rejected for want of proper sanction also. 15. Before parting with this judgment, it must be said that the appellant was denied his constitutional right of speedy justice. Records speak that the charge-sheet in the case was submitted on 14.8.1970 and thereafter the charges were framed against the appellant on 3.2.1971. Then on 17.7.1972 the prosecution had withdrawn this case: on the ground that the charges had been framed against the appellant without taking any cognizance. Records speak that the charge-sheet in the case was submitted on 14.8.1970 and thereafter the charges were framed against the appellant on 3.2.1971. Then on 17.7.1972 the prosecution had withdrawn this case: on the ground that the charges had been framed against the appellant without taking any cognizance. Thereafter, on an application filed by the prosecution on 6.10.1972 the cognizance in the case was taken vide order dated 24.11.1973. The prosecution had started leading its evidence from 12.4.1980 onwards, and the last PW was examined as late as on 26.11.1 986. Examination of the appellant was recorder on 29.11.1986 and the case was fixed for hearing the arguments on 5.12.1986. After the arguments of the parties had concluded, the judgment was pronounced on 3.1.1 987. The inordinate delay in concluding the case against the appellant had resulted in his under going an ordeal and mental torture. This delay appears to have primarily taken place because of lethargic attitude on the part of the functionaries of the State Government in investigating and prosecuting agencies in not producing its evidence with the required promptness resulting in untold miseries to the appellant. This was highly tragic and unfortunate, to say the feast. 16. For the reasons stated above this appeal succeeds and is hereby accepted. The conviction and the sentence of the appellant are set aside. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is discharged from the liabilities of the same.