PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals are directed against the judgment in T. R. Case No. 17 of 1981 disposed of by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur, where both the appellants were accused persons. They stood charged under S. 5 (1) (c)/5 (1) (d) read with S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short 'the Act'), S. 34 of the Penal Code (in short 'ipc') and S. 409/471, IPC. ( 2 ) THE learned trial Judge found both the appellants guilty of the above charges and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 9,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months more under S. 5 (1) (c) (5) (2) of the Act. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each under S. 471 IPC with direction that the substantive sentences were to run concurrently. No separate sentence under S. 5 (1) (d) read with S. 5 (2) of the Act, S. 34 IPC and Section 409/ 34, IPC was imposed by the learned trial Judge. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution as disclosed in the first information report (in short 'f. I. R. ') lodged by the D. S. P. (Vigilance), Sambalpur is that appellant Hari Chandan (appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 101 of 1984) was the Range Officer, Sadar, Sambalpur since 20-11-1978 and the appellant Bhagirathi Routray (appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 100 of 1984) was the Forester under him since 23-1-1979. For construction of extension to a room in the office of Conservator of Forests, Sambalpur, the estimated amount of Rupees 26,000/- was entrusted to the appellant Hari Chandan by the Divisional Forest Officer, Sambalpur in two instalments i. e. , Rupees 16,000/- on 13-2-1979 and Rs. 10,000/- on 30-6-1979, with direction to execute the work departmentally. According to the approved plan and estimate, one room measuring 18' X 15' with adjoining verandah and portico was to be constructed having R. C. C. roof. The work was executed through the Forester, appellant Bhagirathi Routray under the direct supervision of the appellant Hari Chandan and the entire amount had been shown to have been spent by September, 1979. A sum of Rs. 8,511. The work was executed through the Forester, appellant Bhagirathi Routray under the direct supervision of the appellant Hari Chandan and the entire amount had been shown to have been spent by September, 1979. A sum of Rs. 8,511. 50 paise was claimed to have been spent, as evident from voucher No. 192 dated 18-9-1979 for putting R. C. C. slabs over the roof of the room, adjoining verandah and portico and beating of Khuas over the R. C. C. casting etc. although the said work was not done till 28-2-1980, as found during spot verification. Besides, appellant Hari Chandan Misra also claimed to have spent Rs. 45,865. 34 paise for construction of the auction hall in the office premises of the D. F. O. , Sambalpur. A sum of Rs. 290/- was shown to have been spent towards coaltarring charges of refters fixed to the roof, and voucher No. 202 dated 19-9-1979 for the said amount was submitted. As the coaltarring was not done till 4-3-1980, the voucher submitted was a false one. The informant lodged FIR against the appellants alleging misappropriation of Rs. 8,801. 50 paise out of government money entrusted to them by submission of false vouchers. ( 4 ) THE defence plea was to the following effect:- Appellant Hari Chandan Misra admitted the receipt of Rs. 26,000/- in shape of cheques from the D. F. O. , Sambalpur, but claimed to have distributed the amount amongst ten foresters according to the work entrusted to them for execution. The Foresters gave receipts for the money received from him, measured the works and made payments. After the vouchers were submitted by them, he recorded it in the cash book and copies of the cash books and vouchers were submitted to the D. F. O. When the work of the extension hall was in progress, cement was not available in the market. As verbally instructed by the D. F. O. , money was advanced to the contractors when the work was being done, vigilance officials registered the case. The work was, therefore, not finally measured, and no final bill was prepared. According to him, he had not spent any money and the entire money was spent by appellant Bhagirathi, who had got the work done through the contractors and paid the amount. The work was, therefore, not finally measured, and no final bill was prepared. According to him, he had not spent any money and the entire money was spent by appellant Bhagirathi, who had got the work done through the contractors and paid the amount. Appellant Bhagirathi took the plea that one K. K. Das who was the Forester in charge of the building construction was executing the work and being paid therefor by appellant Hari Chandan Misra on vouchers were being prepared under the latter's instruction. When irregularities were brought to the notice of the D. F. O. , he assured the appellant that the vouchers in question would be passed. Accordingly, vouchers were prepared and payments were made. Due to non-availability of cement, the work could not be completed. Appellant Hari Chandan and the aforesaid K. K. Das were utilising the materials purchased for one project in other projects. Such utilisation was done under the instruction of appellant Hari Chandan and as such there was no question of any misappropriation by appellant Bhagirathi. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the prosecution, 14 witnesses were examined while no witness was examined on behalf of the accused persons. ( 6 ) BEFORE the trial Judge the accused persons took the plea that the proceeding was vitiated, as there was no valid sanction for prosecution. It was also contended that there being no entrustment proved and / or culpability attached to their action, the proceeding was not maintainable. According to the learned trial judge the points raised for consideration were; whether valid sanction orders were obtained for prosecution of the accused-appellants; whether there was entrustment of money with the accused persons or, or with any of them; whether they misappropriated or otherwise converted to their own use the sum so entrusted; whether they by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused their position as public servants and obtained for themselves pecuniary advantage; whether the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed the aforesaid acts of criminal misappropriation and criminal misconduct ; whether the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention fraudulently or dishonestly used as valid vouchers which they knew or had reason to believe to be forged documents, and whether the explanations offered by the accused persons were reasonable and probable to be accepted. ( 7 ) ON the question whether there was proper sanction it was held that the facts constituting the offences charged were manifest on the face of the sanction order and therefore the sanctioning authorities had accorded sanction for prosecution after due application of mind. On the rest of the points which were taken up together for adjudication, it was held inter alia that the amounts covered by the concerned vouchers were entrusted with the appellants, the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused persons have misappropriated an amount of Rs. 4,950. 88 and also have committed temporary misappropriation of Rs. 2,408. 37. The plea that materials relating to one project were utilised in another project was not believed. So far as the difference between the amount as indicated in the FIR and as stated in court is concerned, it was held that there was no discrepancy. It was also held that the appellants had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 390/- towards coal-tarring, and Rupees 9,460/ - towards materials. It was held that the vouchers were forged and the appellants had the common intention and the intention of each of them was known to the other. On the analysis as made, the learned trial Judge came to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. After hearing on the question of sentence, sentences as indicated above were awarded. ( 8 ) ON behalf of the appellants various grounds of challenge relating to sustainability of the judgment were raised. After hearing on the question of sentence, sentences as indicated above were awarded. ( 8 ) ON behalf of the appellants various grounds of challenge relating to sustainability of the judgment were raised. However, at the time of hearing, the judgment was assailed mainly on three grounds; (i) the sanction orders were passed without application of mind and they were passed at the behest of the higher officials without application of mind, and without verification of materials to justify the conclusion that prosecution was warranted and thus the signing of the sanction orders was grossly mechanical: (ii) the prosecution has failed to prove and establish the factum of valid entrustment and the factum of misappropriation, or conversion to own use; and (iii) the onus which lay on the prosecution to establish the aforesaid aspects has not been discharged and even if it is assumed that the onus has been shifted, in view of the reasonable and probable explanations submitted, the trial judge was not justified in convicting the appellants. ( 9 ) ON behalf of the State it has been urged that the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial judge did not suffer from any infirmity; the sanction orders were passed after due application of mind and there is nothing on record to indicate that the relevant materials were not considered; a bare look at the sanction orders would satisfy that any reasonable man could have accorded the sanction based on the materials placed before the sanctioning authorities, it is the duty of the appellants to justify how the government money received by them was spent and utilised and they having failed to do that, the conclusions arrived at are proper; the mere fact that the higher officials enclosed a draft sanction order does not mean that there was no application of mind; the enquiry report which was submitted for consideration is sufficient to persuade the sanctioning authorities about the desirability of a sanction; the entrustment of the project having been accepted, the plea that the entrustment has not been proved is not tenable. The contentions raised by the parties require careful consideration. ( 10 ) COMING to the question of sanction, I find that the sanction orders relating to appellants Bhagirathi and Hari Chandan are Exts. 9 and 23. In respect of appellant Bhagirathi, the sanction order Ext. The contentions raised by the parties require careful consideration. ( 10 ) COMING to the question of sanction, I find that the sanction orders relating to appellants Bhagirathi and Hari Chandan are Exts. 9 and 23. In respect of appellant Bhagirathi, the sanction order Ext. 9 was passed stated to be on the basis of a consolidated investigation report submitted to the sanctioning authority (P. W. 9 ). The investigation report forwarded is Ext. 10. Similarly in respect of appellant Hari Chandan the investigation report is Exhibit 22 while the sanction order is Exhibit 23. Law is fairly well settled that grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise, but a solemn and sacrosanct act which intends to protect the specified categories of officials against frivolous prosecution. A look at the relevant documents shows that in reality the sanctioning authorities had before them pro forma sanction orders, and the sanction orders as passed were replicas thereof where only the names of the sanctioning authorities were inserted. The question is whether these per se show any application of mind. No specific form of sanction order is prescribed. The requirement in law is that the sanction order must indicate the facts constituting the offence in respect of which the prosecution is intended. It is permissible by evidence aliunde to show that the sanction order was passed after consideration of relevant materials. Extraneous evidence is also permissible to be brought on record in this regard. Therefore, it remained to be explained under what circumstances a draft sanction order was sent to the sanctioning authority. This Court has occasion to consider cases where the word "draft" was merely scored out from the draft sanction orders which were sent to the sanctioning authority. The sanction order was held to be ellicit by this Court in the case of Purna Chandra Behera v. State: (1989) 68 Cut LT 625. ( 11 ) FROM the letter of the Deputy Secretary to the Government addressed to the Chief Conservator of Forests (the sanctioning authority) in respect of both the appellants Hari Chandan and Bhagirathi, the following portion is relevant. The said letter is Exhibit 22. ( 11 ) FROM the letter of the Deputy Secretary to the Government addressed to the Chief Conservator of Forests (the sanctioning authority) in respect of both the appellants Hari Chandan and Bhagirathi, the following portion is relevant. The said letter is Exhibit 22. "i am, therefore, directed to request that necessary sanction as required u/s 6 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act may please be accorded early in respect of the said Forest Ranger Shri Haris Chandan Mishra and Forester Shri Bhagirathi Routray, and sent to this Department as early as possible for filing Charge sheet against them for their prosecution in the court of law to stand their trial in the case. Two drafts of the sanction order in respect of Shri Mishra and Shri Routray are enclosed for adoption, if the same serve the purpose. " (Underlined by me)two drafts of the sanction order were sent along with the letter in respect of the appellants. Further significant is the letter Ext. 10. By this letter dated 31-1-1981, the Chief Conservator of Forests with reference to the letter dated 29-12-1980 (Ext. 22) has indicated to the Deputy Secretary, Central Administration (Vigilance) Department that copy of the letter along with the draft sanction order was being sent to the Conservator of Forests, Bolangir ( K L) Range requesting for accord of necessary sanction against appellant Bhagirathi. A bare look at the letter shows the same is in the nature of a compliance of the request to accord sanction contained in Ext. 22 and in compliance of the veiled direction to grant sanction, the order of sanction marked as Ext. 9 was passed. The circumstances leave no scope for any doubt that the sanction order was passed without application of mind, mechanically and at the behest of the higher officials. The trial was, therefore, vitiated. The proceeding itself suffered from inherent illegality rendering it otiose. Even otherwise a case of mere extra payment does not lead to a conclusion of misappropriation. As held by this Court in Md. Sabir Hussain v. State of Orissa (1983) 56 Cut LT 288; in the absence of any specific evidence as regards any act of misappropriation, it may ultimately be a case of negligence in maintenance of accounts and if that be so, disciplinary action may be taken against the concerned official. As held by this Court in Md. Sabir Hussain v. State of Orissa (1983) 56 Cut LT 288; in the absence of any specific evidence as regards any act of misappropriation, it may ultimately be a case of negligence in maintenance of accounts and if that be so, disciplinary action may be taken against the concerned official. It is further seen that reliance has been placed on the evidence of each of the appellants to nail the other. No evidence worth-name has been adduced to show applicability of Section 34, IPC. The vouchers were verified by the D. F. O. before payments were made. This is evident from his statement as P. W. 10. He has stated that a cash book is maintained in the division office. After the vouchers are submitted they were checked in his office and after being satisfied about the correctness, orders were passed and then only the amounts were treated as spent. As stated by this witness, the amount was spent by K. K. Das and appellant Bhagirathi may have done some clerical jobs, since the former was the building Forester. There is also no acceptable evidence to show entrustment of any amount to appellant Bhagirathi. ( 12 ) JUDGED from any angle, the conviction and sentence as awarded cannot be maintained and are set aside, and the appellants are acquitted. The appeals are allowed. The fines if realised by refunded. The bail bonds be discharged. Appeals allowed.