V. GOPALASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and further convicting him under Section 5 (1) (c) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act without imposing any separate sentence thereunder. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case may be briefly stated as follows: Accused was the Forester of Mahulpali Section within Bamra Forest Division of Sambalpur district during the period from 1972 to 1977. On 22/6/1976 he went to village Balimal where P. Ws. 1 and 2, who are brothers, were constructing separate buildings and accused them of having committed theft of logs from the forest. As the accused demanded Rs. 400. 00 from P. W. 1 and Rs. 200. 00 from P. W. 2 away of penalty, they paid the amounts so demanded to the accused. The accused, after receiving the moneys from P. Ws. 1 and 2 told them that they can collect from him at Mahulpali the receipt for the amounts paid to him. Accordingly P. W. 1 went to Mahulpali about 8 or 10 days thereafter and received the receipt marked TXT for identification from the accused. But P. W. 2 could not receive any receipt from the accused in spite of his approaching the accused several times demanding of him to give the receipt. The accused has not initiated any forest case against P. Ws. 1 and 2, nor did he show the amount of Rs. 600/- realised from him in the accounts of Mahulpali Section. On receiving information about it, the Inspector of Vigilance lodged the F. I. R. Ext. 10 and on the direction of the S. P. , Vigilance, Sambalpur, took up investigation of the case and after duly completing the investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused. ( 3 ) THE accused pleaded that during the period from 20-6-1976 to 23-6-1976 he was on duty at Bamra and on 22-6-1976 he did not go to Balimal and he did not receive any moneys from P. Ws. ( 3 ) THE accused pleaded that during the period from 20-6-1976 to 23-6-1976 he was on duty at Bamra and on 22-6-1976 he did not go to Balimal and he did not receive any moneys from P. Ws. 1 and 2 at any time and the case was falsely foisted against him. The accused examined D. W. 1 in support of his plea. ( 4 ) THE prosecution has examined in all ten witnesses to prove its case; P. Ws. 1 and 2 are brothers who claim to have paid Rs. 600/- to the accused at Balimal in relation to which the charge of misappropriation is levelled against the accused. P. W s. 3,4 and 5 are also residents of village Balimal and they are examined as independent witnesses to prove the payment of Rs. 600/- to the accused by P. Ws. 1 and 2. P. W. 6 joined as a Forester at Mahulpali in the year 1977 and there is nothing in his evidence to support the prosecution. P. W. 7 was at Bamra as a Range Officer from 25-10-1978 to 10-6-1981. P. W. 9-was the Inspector of Vigilance who submitted the report Ext. 10 against the accused and on the direction of the S. P. , he took up investigation of the case. P. W. 8 took over charge of the investigation of the case from P. W. 9 on 29-5-1978. P. W. 8 handed over the charge of the investigation to the case of one P. K. Panda on 27-8-1980 and the latter submitted the charge-sheet in the case. P. W. 10 is aforesaid who worked with the accused at different stations. ( 5 ) THE prosecution relied on the oral evidence of P. W s. 1 to 5 to prove its case against the accused. So their evidence merits careful consideration. P. W. 1 was examined on 23-8-1982. The evidence of P. W. 1 shows that about 7 years back in the month of Jestha the accused came to his village and charging him that he had committed theft of logs from the forest without permit, threatened to seize the logs and told him to pay a penalty of Rs. 400/- and accordingly he paid the penalty of Rs. 400/- to him in the presence of P. Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5. 400/- and accordingly he paid the penalty of Rs. 400/- to him in the presence of P. Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5. It is in his evidence that the accused asked him to collect the receipt from him at Mahulpali and about 8 to 10 days thereafter he went to Mahulpali and collected the receipt marked TXT for identification. P. W. 1 further stated that on that very day the accused collected a sum of Rs. 200/- from his brother P. W. 2 as well accusing him (P. W. 2) that he had also-committed theft of logs from the forest. In cross-examination P. W. 1 stated that he cannot give the date of payment of the money. In cross examination he merely stated that he had permits for some of the logs used in his building. In his evidence P. W. 1 is not clear whether the accusation of theft of logs said to have been made against him by the accused is true or false. P. W. 1 stilted in cross-examination that the accused told him that he was fined Rs. 400/ -. If there is any truth in the said statement, he would have enquired subsequently whether any case was initiated against him for having committed any forest offence. But his version in cross-examination disclosing that even by the date of his deposition he did not enquire if any case had been started against him is not consistent with his plea that he paid Rs. 400/- to the accused by way of fine. The statement of P. W. 1 that he went to Mahulpali and obtained the receipt from the accused regarding the money paid to him is the most material part of his evidence as it establishes the payment of the money to the accused and so it is not expected of P. W. 1 that he would be omitting to state about it before the 1. 0. The defence has proved through the 1. 0. P. W. 9 that P. W. 1 has not stated before him about his going to Mahulpali and obtaining the receipt from the accused and the same is such a material omission that it seriously impeaches the credibility of P. W. 1 regarding the payment of Rs. 400/- to the accused on the relevant date. ( 6 ) P. W. 2 was examined on 23-8-1982. 400/- to the accused on the relevant date. ( 6 ) P. W. 2 was examined on 23-8-1982. His evidence in chief-examination is to the effect that about years back accused came to his village and collected from him Rs. 200/- and from his brother P. W. 1 Rs; 400/-by way of fines in the presence of witnesses on the allegation that they committed theft of the logs from the forest. P.W. 2 deposed that he went to Mahulpali twice or thrice for obtaining the receipt from the accused as the latter had earlier told him to obtain the receipt from him at Mahulpali, but the accused did not grant him any receipt P. W. 2 stated in his cross- examination that he cannot say on which day in the week they paid the amount to the accused, but he paid the amount in the month of Jestha. The evidence of P. W. 2 that he went to Mahulpali to collect the receipt from the accused but the accused did not grant him any receipt, is an important piece of evidence as it greatly probabilises the truth of P. W. 2ts version that he paid Rs. 200/- to the accused, and so it is hot normally expected of P. W. 2 to omit to state about it before the 1. 0. P. W. 2 admitted in cross-examination that he did not state before the 1. 0. that he went to Mahulpali to collect the receipt and the accused did not grant him any, receipt and the said admission creates a serious doubt whether at all P. W. 2 paid Rs. 200/- to the accused as alleged by him. If P. Ws. 1 and 2 bona fide believed that they were liable to pay-the amount of Rs. 400/- and Rs. 200/- by way of fine and they paid the amounts on the promise made by the accused to give them receipts, they would have complained against the accused when few days thereafter the accused did not give any receipt to P. W. 2 in spite of the latters demand for the same on more than one occasion. The admission of P. W. 2 in cross-examination that they did not report to any authority about the payments made by them reveals suspicious conduct on the part of P. W. 2. From the above evidence of P. Ws. The admission of P. W. 2 in cross-examination that they did not report to any authority about the payments made by them reveals suspicious conduct on the part of P. W. 2. From the above evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 it is seen that they are highly interested witnesses and so their evidence must be received with caution and cannot be relied on unless the same is corroborated by reliable independent witnesses. ( 7 ) P. W. 3 was examined in August, 1982. According to P. Ws. , 1 and 2, P. W. 3 was also present at the time when they paid the above amounts to the accused. P. W. 3 merely deposed that the accused came to his village about 6 or 7 years back and charged both P. Ws. 1 and 2 that they had committed theft of logs from the forest and so forest cases would be initiated against them. In chief-examination he stated that he had not seen payment of any amount by P. Ws. 1 and 2 to the, accused. So P. W. 3 does not corroborate the version of P. W s. 1 and 2 regarding the payment of Rs. 600/- by them to the accused. No doubt P. W. 3 was declared hostile by the prosecution. But then, there is nothing in his evidence to suggest that he had any motive to depose falsely in favour of the accused and discredit the version of P. Ws. 1 and 2 who are his co-villagers. P. W. 3 was confronted with his statement before the 1. 0. that the accused had realised Rs. 400/- from P. W. 1 and gave him a forged receipt for Rs. 400/ -. The said statement of P. W. 3 would suggest as if the accused had given the receipt soon after his receiving the amount of Rs. 400/- and that he (P. W. 3) was a witness to the giving of the receipt by the accused to P. W. 1. But then it is not the prosecution case that the accused had given the receipt on the very day after receiving Rs. 400/- from P. W. 1. Likewise P. W. 1 categorically stated that no one else was present when the accused gave the receipt to him. ( 8 ) P. W. 4 deposed about his being present at the time when Rs. 400/- from P. W. 1. Likewise P. W. 1 categorically stated that no one else was present when the accused gave the receipt to him. ( 8 ) P. W. 4 deposed about his being present at the time when Rs. 600/- was paid by P. Ws. 1 and 2 to the accused by way of fine. He states that P. W. 3 was also present at that time. But as earlier found, P. W. 3 does not corroborate the versions of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 4 regarding the payment. Of Rs. 600/- to the accused by P. Ws. 1 and 2. P. W. 4 states that on being called by P. W. 1 he went to his house and reached his house at about 12 noon and about an hour thereafter payments were made. It is in the evidence of P. W. 2 that there was, no bargain regarding the amounts to be paid by them. So it is difficult to understand as to why it took about an hour for making the payments by P. Ws. 1 and 2 to the accused as stated by P. W. 4. It is highly significant that P. W. 4 does not stated anything about the accused agreeing to grant receipts to P. Ws. 1 and 2 acknowledging the receipt of the amounts paid by them. So P. W. 4 does not corroborate the version of P. W s. 1 and 2 regarding the most material aspect of their evidence. P. W. 5, besides stating about payment of Rs. 600/- to the accused by P. Ws. 1 and 2, has further stated: The accused took our signatures on a paper. The statement of P. W. 5 about the accused taking signatures on a paper is very vague and that apart none of the witnesses said to have been present at the relevant time deposed anything about the accused taking signatures of anyone on a piece of paper. His evidence in chief- examination that he witnessed the payment of Rs. 600/- by P. W s. 1 and 2 to the accused is contradicted by his own statement in cross-examination that by the time he reached the house of P. W. 1 the money had already been paid to the accused. P. W. 5 omitted to state before the 1. 0. about the accused asking P. Ws. 600/- by P. W s. 1 and 2 to the accused is contradicted by his own statement in cross-examination that by the time he reached the house of P. W. 1 the money had already been paid to the accused. P. W. 5 omitted to state before the 1. 0. about the accused asking P. Ws. 1 and 2 to collect the receipts nom him at Mahulpali and the same is a material omission and therefore P. W. 5 cannot be believed when he states that the accused told P. Ws. 1 and 2 to collect the receipts from him at Mahulpali. Hence on a careful scrutiny of the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 5 it is seen that the nature of their evidence is such that it does not inspire the confidence of the court. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the F. I. R. the allegation was that the accused had received the amounts of Rs. 400/- and Rs. 200/- from P. Ws. 1 and 2 on 22-6-1976. The trial against the accused proceeded on the footing that the accused had received the amounts in question on 22-6-1976. Hence only, the accused had adduced evidence through D. W. 1 to prove that on 22-6-1976 he could not have gone to the village of P. Ws. 1 and 2 as he was engaged at Bamrain official duty. In paragraph 7 of the judgment the trial court discussed at length the evidence of P. W. 1 showing that the accused was at Bamra during the period from 20-6-1976 to 23-6-1976. On a careful scrutiny of the entire prosecution evidence 1 find tilat no witness on the side of the prosecution has stated that the accused went to the village of P. Ws. 1 and 2 on 22-6-1976 and received the amounts from P. Ws. 1 and 2 on that day P. Ws. 1 and 2 are the most competent witnesses to depose on the aspect as to on which date they paid the amount of Rs. 600/- to the accused. Both P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined on 23-8-1982 and they deposed that about 7 years back the amounts in question were paid by them to the accused. So according to P. Ws. 1 and 2 it would be in the month of Jestha of the year 1975 that the amounts in question were allegedly paid by P. Ws. Both P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined on 23-8-1982 and they deposed that about 7 years back the amounts in question were paid by them to the accused. So according to P. Ws. 1 and 2 it would be in the month of Jestha of the year 1975 that the amounts in question were allegedly paid by P. Ws. 1 and 2 to the accused. So the very evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 that the amounts in question were paid to the accused about 7 years back, in the light of the other evidence placed on record, would not support the charge against the accused that Rs. 600/- was paid to him on 22-6-1976 by P. Ws. 1 and 2, The receipt marked X in the case is supposed to have been given to P. W. 1 within 8 or 10 days after 22-6-1976, i. e. the date of alleged payment of Rs. 600/- to the accused. The prosecution has confronted P. W. 10, a witness declared hostile by it, with his version before the 1. 0. that he stated before the 1. 0. that the money receipt bearing No. 616 for Rs. 400/- showed to him was issued on 22-6-1975. So according to the prosecution the receipt marked TXT was dated 22-6-1975 and therefore, it does not fit in with the prosecution wise that the amount was paid to the accused on 22-6-1976; On a perusal of the receipt marked X it is seen that it bears the date 22-6-1975. So there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that it was on 22-6-1976 that the amount in question was paid to the accused by P. Ws, 1 and 2. On the other hand, the evidence is to the effect that on someday in the year 1975 P. Ws. 1 and 2 had allegedly given the slim of Rs. 600/- to the accused. ( 10 ) THE definite case of the prosecution is that the accused demanded and obtained Rs. 600/- from P. Ws. 1 and 2 on 22-6-1976. P. Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5, the witness to the alleged payment of Rs. 600/- have uniformly stated that the amount was paid in the month of Jestha. But on verification of the Oriya Almanac it is seen that the date 22-6-1976 falls in the month of Ashadha and not Jestha. 1 and 2 on 22-6-1976. P. Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5, the witness to the alleged payment of Rs. 600/- have uniformly stated that the amount was paid in the month of Jestha. But on verification of the Oriya Almanac it is seen that the date 22-6-1976 falls in the month of Ashadha and not Jestha. So, when on such a material fact, P. Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have spoken a falsehood, and consistently gave the wrong month, the only reasonable inference is that they are all tutored witnesses. ( 11 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution the receipt marked X was allegedly given by the accused acknowledging the receipt of the Sum of Rs. 400/- and the same was in his own handwriting and bears his signature, but the accused denies it. So if the receipt is proved to be in the handwriting of the accused it goes a long way to prove the payment of Rs. 400/- to him by P. W. 1. The accused served as a Forester during the period from 1972 to 1977. So the handwriting of the accused in the receipt marked TX and his signature therein could have been very easily proved by any person acquainted with the handwriting of the accused. But then, the prosecution has not sincerely made any attempt to prove the receipt marked TX. If the receipt was seized during the course of the investigation it is not known how the charge-sheet was filed against the accused alleging truth the amounts in question were received by the accused on 22-6-1976, when the receipt shows the date of payment of the amount mentioned therein to be 22-6-1975. In any event, the conduct of the prosecution in not duly proving the receipt marked TX is a circumstance which goes very much against the truth of the prosecution story. ( 12 ) ADMITTEDLY according to P. W. 1, six other Forest Guards were present at the time he and his brother paid Rs. 600/- to the accused. So the Forest Guards are material witnesses in the case. But curiously enough none of the Forest Guards was examined in the case. The non-examination of such material and independent witnesses is another circumstance which discredits the testimony of P. Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 regarding the alleged payment of Rs. 600/- to the accused by P. Ws. So the Forest Guards are material witnesses in the case. But curiously enough none of the Forest Guards was examined in the case. The non-examination of such material and independent witnesses is another circumstance which discredits the testimony of P. Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 regarding the alleged payment of Rs. 600/- to the accused by P. Ws. 1 and 2 and more so as there is no acceptable explanation for such non-examination. ( 13 ) THE alleged offence was said to have been committed by the accused on 22-6-1976. As a result of the m is appropriation of the amounts in question the persons aggrieved are P. Ws. 1 and 2 and the Forest Department, but peculiarly enough none of them have complained against the accused at any time. Even the present case was initiated by the Inspector of Vigilance on his own information and he lodged the F. I. R. on 13-4-1978. There is absolutely no explanation on the side Of the prosecution for the delay in the lodging of the F. I. R. From the facts of the case it is seen that the facts are not complicated and the prosecution had ultimately relied on the oral evidence of P. Ws, 1 to 5. Under the circumstances it is some what surprising that the charge-sheet should have been filed on 31-3-1981, i. e. about 3 years after the lodging of the F. I. R. By such inordinate delay in the filing of the charge-sheet both the prosecution as well as the defence would be handicapped in the conduct of the case as the necessary material may not be available due to the lapse of time to prove their respective contentions. ( 14 ) D. W. 1 was the Range Officer of Bamra Range Circle in June, 1976. P. W. 1 stated that Mahulpali Section was under Bamra Range Circle and the accused was the Forester of Mahulpali Section in June, 1976. Ext A is the tour diary of the accused for the month of June, 1976 and the same was maintained by him and the entries were made therein in the course of the discharge of his official duties and so the same is admissible under Section 21 (1) of the Evidence Act D. W. 1 deposed with reference to the entries therein. By referring to the entries made in Ext. By referring to the entries made in Ext. A, D. W. 1 stated on oath that the accused was at Bamra from 20-6-1976 to 23-6-1976 (both days inclusive) and he left Bamra on 23-6-1976 at 12 noon. It is in his evidence that he had scrutinised the diary and passed his comments thereon. The diary bears the initial of D. W. 1 (Ext. A/i ). On a perusal of Ext. A it is seen that the diary was submitted before D. W. 1 on 1-7-1976. Nothing substantial was elicited in the cross-examination of D. W. 1 to suggest that the diary Ext. A was a fabricated document for the purpose of the case. The F. I. R. in the case was lodged on 13-4-1978. So there is absolutely no basis for presuming that anticipating a criminal case against him the accused would have made false recitals in Ext. 4. So the probabilities also support the truth of the entries in Ext. A. There is no reason to disbelieve D. W. 1 when he deposed with reference to the entries in Ext. A that from 20-6-1976 till 12 noon on 23-6-1976 the accused was at Bamra. So the oral evidence of D. W. 1 and the recitals in Ext. A can be safely relied on for coming to a finding that on 22-6-1976 the accused was at Bamra and so the prosecution case that the accused illegally obtained Rs. 600/- from P. Ws. 1 and 2 on 22-6-1976 at Balimal cannot be accepted as true. ( 15 ) APART from other infirmities from which the prosecution case suffers, it also suffers from another serious infirmity in that there is no valid sanction even for initiating the prosecution against the accused. Under Section 6 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the sanction accorded must be prior to the date of taking of cognizance in the case. On a perusal of the order sheet of the trial court it is seen that the arguments were heard in the case on 21-3-1983 and the case was posted for judgment on 25-3-1983. It was only on 25-3-1983 the Special Public Prosecutor filed a petition for marking the sanction order as an exhibit. The defence objected to it but all the same, the sanction order was straightaway marked as Ext. 12 and the objection was noted. On a perusal of Ext. It was only on 25-3-1983 the Special Public Prosecutor filed a petition for marking the sanction order as an exhibit. The defence objected to it but all the same, the sanction order was straightaway marked as Ext. 12 and the objection was noted. On a perusal of Ext. 12 it is seen that it does not bear any date and the purported sanctioning authority has merely put his initial which it is difficult to decipher. It is the settled position of law that 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 therefore be strictly complied with before any prosecution can be launched against the public servant concerned. (See Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh,1. A mere look at the sanction order would show that the sanctioning authority has not attached any sanctity to the sanction order when he merely initialed it even without putting the date. There is no means of knowing that the sanction was accorded prior to the date of taking of cognizance against the accused. It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been accorded by the sanctioning authority. (See Madanmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A. I. R. 1954 Supreme Court 637 and Mohd Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra ). There is no evidence to show that the person who initialled in the sanction order was the appropriate authority for according the sanction and that he had accorded such sanction after due application of his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. From the above circumstances I hold that there is no reliable evidence to show that a valid sanction has been accorded for prosecuting the accused and on that score also the prosecution case must fail. ( 16 ) A careful consideration of the evidence placed on record leads me to the reasonable inference that this is a false case foisted against the accused. The trial Courts approach to the evidence in the case is most superficial and it ignored to consider some of the most salient features of the case. ( 16 ) A careful consideration of the evidence placed on record leads me to the reasonable inference that this is a false case foisted against the accused. The trial Courts approach to the evidence in the case is most superficial and it ignored to consider some of the most salient features of the case. Filing of charge-sheets against the public servants, without any reliable evidence to substantiate the charges, as in the present case, would not in any way help in eradicating bribery and corruption and on the other hand as such cases ultimately and in acquittal, they may send the wrong signals to those public servants, who are really corrupt. The tendency to file such charge- sheets resulting in huge waste of public money and public time ought to be checked and in achieving this object, the sanctioning authorities and the Special Judges have an important role to play. ( 17 ) IN the result, I find the accused-appellant. Biswanath Dalabehera not guilty of the offences under Sections 5 (1) (c) and 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and so I acquit him of both the charges and the order of conviction and sentence passed thereunder by the trial court against the accused is hereby set aside and accordingly the appeal is allowed.