JUDGMENT 1. - Laxman Prasad, who, on the day of laying trap was holding the post of Station House Officer, Police Station Sawar (District Ajmer), has assailed in this appeal his convictions & sentences imposed by the trial Court, under Section 161, IPC, & S. 5(1) (d) read with Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He has been sentenced to undergo one year's RI with a fine of Rs. 300/- (in default, 2 month's RI), under each count. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. To begin with, I feel it necessary to give a resume of the prosecution case before I proceed to examine whether or not the inferences drawn by the trial Court from the facts on record are legally correct & lead to only one hypothesis, namely that the accused is guilty. 3. It appears that an F.I.R. was registered at P.S. Sawar (Ajmer) upon a report lodged by Padam Singh of village Sadari, against present decoy, Sangram Singh, for offences punishable under Sections, 323, 324, & 452, IPC. The case was being investigated by the present appellant. According to the impugned complainant (Ex. P. 1) lodged in by Sangram Singh with the Anti-Corruption Department, the decoy (Sangram Singh) was granted pre-arrest bail in the said case by the Sessions Judge, and while furnishing bail bonds in deference to the pre-arrest bail order, the appellant is alleged to have accepted Rs. 200/- as bribe for his release but, demanded further amount of Rs. 800/- as bribe for helping him in the case and trying to get him discharged of an offence punishable under Section 452, IPC, by deleting that section and to which, the decoy is alleged to have expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount and, therefore, the deal was struck at Rs. 400/- with the stipulation to accept it in two instalments, first before and second after the work to be executed. 4. After having settled the final parleys in the matter of the payment of the bribe, the complainant contacted and presented the complainant with the averments detailed out above, on 28.8.78 before the Superintendent of Police, (ACD), Jaipur who assigned the matter to be investigated by Sawai Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (ACD). The Dy. S.P. (ACD) directed the complainant to be present at Kekri so as to arrange a trap on 29.8.78. The Dy. The Dy. S.P. (ACD) directed the complainant to be present at Kekri so as to arrange a trap on 29.8.78. The Dy. S.P. alongwith a trap party consisting of an Inspector, Devilal, Ramgopal (HC), Surendra Singh (Lc), Sardar Singh (Lc), Gopilal (Lc), Ramveer Singh (Lc), Suresh Chand (Lc), Prabhu Dayal (Lc), & Jagdish Prasad (PC) besides Jai Singh (driver of jeep No. RSG 4314), reached the court pre campus at Kekri on 29.8.78 where he found the complainant standing and Ram Gopal (HC) was asked to call two motbir witnesses therefore. Ram Gopal presented Ganpat Ram & Gokal Chand as motbir witnesses so as to accompany with the trap party. These witnesses are said to have been read over the contents of the complainant (Ex. P. 1) and apprised of laying a trap against Laxman Prasad SHO PS Sawar. Thereupon, Rs. 200/-(currency notes-three, fifty rupee two, twenty rupee & one, ten rupee denomination) were produced by the complainant before the Dy. S.P. and serial numbers of the currency notes were noted down vide Ex. P. 2 and they were dusted with phenophthlein powder. Demonstration was also given in respect of the effect of phenophthlein powder in the presence of motbir witnesses. The were also given necessary directions, that they have to remain quite close to the complainant and hear and see what transpires between the complainant and the accused. The complainant was instructed to give the powder dusted currency notes on demand by the accused to him and after giving it, to give a signal by winding his wrist watch after taking it in his left hand. 5. After drawing the aforesaid preparatory reports, at about 2.45 p.m. on 29.8.78, the raiding party in the jeep proceeded from Kekri to Police Station Sawar and at a few distance before the police station, at about 3 p.m. the complainant was alighted from the jeep and was asked to go inside the police station and to have his transactions of offering and giving the bribe money to the accused and contemporaneously the members of the trap party took their respective position as instructed by the Dy. S.P. around the police station. But, after 15-20 minutes, the complainant came back from the police station and said that the accused had gone to Kekri. S.P. around the police station. But, after 15-20 minutes, the complainant came back from the police station and said that the accused had gone to Kekri. Therefore, thereupon, the raiding party alongwith accompanying witnesses turned back to Kekri from Sawar and reached Kekri near about 5 p.m. and the jeep was parked at Bus stand, Kekri. The complainant was instructed to go to the accused and the accompanying witnesses were instructed to take their position as directed earlier, so as to watch and over hear the transaction that takes place in between the complainant and the accused. 6. According to the Dy. S.P. the complainant gave pre-arranged signal at about 7.15 p.m. and thereby, the trap party consisting of accompanying witnesses and police official rushed to Nav Prabhat Hotel where they drew recovery proceedings. The tainted notes were recovered from the left side pant pocket of the accused and the same were seized by the Dy. S.P. under the seizure memo (Ex. P. 3) prepared at 7.20 p.m. on 29.8.78 at Hotel Rajneesh. Kekri (near bus stand). The recovered & seized tainted notes were got tallied with the numbers earlier noted by the Dy. S.P. On completion of the investigation, after obtaining the necessary sanction for prosecution the accused, the charge-sheet was presented. 7. The accused denied of having demanded or accepted any bribe. According to him, the complainant, motbir witnesses, Ganpatram & Gokul Chand who all belong to the Ruling Janta Party (as it then was), bore grudge against him because, he had arrested, handcuffed & paraded Hajari-active member of the Junta Party in a criminal case registered against him and the complainant. That being, so, they foisted this false case. 8. The prosecution has examined in all 12 witnesses to prove its case. Out of which, seven are police officers. The accused was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Six witnesses have been produced in defence. 9. At the very inception, I would like to consider the prosecution evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused. As regards demand, there is only evidence of the decoy (PW 1). And, there is no corroboration to his version in this regard. 9. At the very inception, I would like to consider the prosecution evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused. As regards demand, there is only evidence of the decoy (PW 1). And, there is no corroboration to his version in this regard. As held in Panalal D. Rathi v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1979 SC 1191 ) wherein it was laid down that after introduction of Section 165-A of the IPC making the person who offers bribe guilty of abatement of briber the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that of an accomplice and corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon, I have no option, in the case at hand, but to search for independent corroboration to the material particulars connecting the accused with the crime. 10. The decoy in his examination-in-chief deposed that the appellant in a criminal case lodged in against him accepted Rs. 200/- while verifying his bail bonds presented before him in deference to the bail order passed by the Sessions Judge, Ajmer. Such a version stands falsified by his own admission when he in second breathe during his cross-examination by the defence counsel, stated that bail bonds were filled in by Babulal Dewan and at that time, the accused was not present in police station. Even in the next two three lines, he deposed that on the day of furnishing the bail bonds at the police station, stayed there for about 2 hours and on that day, neither any talk took place nor any transaction of offering and giving bribe had taken place. In the complainant, he has come with his grievance that the appellant had demanded the money for deleting a section of the Penal Code, i.e. 452, while submitting charge-sheet, but in cross examination, he has developed the story by saying that Rs. 800/- were demanded by the appellant for demolishing the whole case including that of Sections 323 & 324, IPC. As regards the date on which the alleged demand was made by the appellant, there is contradictory statement full of congruities and exaggeration. In examination in chief, he stated that the appellant demanded money on the day when he presented himself with bail bonds but in cross examination he said that before 27-8-78, the appellant never demanded any money. As regards the date on which the alleged demand was made by the appellant, there is contradictory statement full of congruities and exaggeration. In examination in chief, he stated that the appellant demanded money on the day when he presented himself with bail bonds but in cross examination he said that before 27-8-78, the appellant never demanded any money. He further recited that he has told Tyagiji that the accused demanded money to give on 27th, 28th & 29th. But such a version is not there in his complainant (Ex. P.) about which he stated no explanation in his cross-examination. Even he admitted that he had already apprised the Dy. S.P. that the accused demanded money to give on the aforesaid dates. But such a version is also missing in his police statement (Ex. D. 5) and to which also he pleaded no reasons. He persistently pointed out in cross examination that the appellant demanded money to give on the aforesaid dates and not on the particular date 29-8-78. But his version does not find any corroboration from his earlier statement which casts doubt on his veracity, and makes it clear that he has tried to exaggerated in order to make his case strengthened in whole hog. 11. The decoy has not come with his version that either the demand of money by the accused was in presence of any body else or even at the time of handing over the bribe money at the place of trap, the accused had demanded money in the presence of persons or that the talks about the demand of money were over-heard either by the persons present in the hotel premises or by any of the accompanying or shadow witnesses with the trap party. Thus viewed, there is no evidence of any person so as to corroborate the version of the decoy about any demand before the trap was laid or thereafter. 12. According to the accompanying/shadow witnesses, Ganpatram & Gokul Chand, they had seen the decoy & the accused going inside the Metel and coming out of it after about more than one hour. 12. According to the accompanying/shadow witnesses, Ganpatram & Gokul Chand, they had seen the decoy & the accused going inside the Metel and coming out of it after about more than one hour. On the contrary the decoy has exaggerated his version by stating in his cross-examination that at one time, he has gone in side the hotel and had a sitting with the appellant and after some talks in between him and the appellant, he came out side the hotel and suggesting the appellant that he would be returning after sometime arranging the money; and that, for arranging the money he took a by-cycle on hire from a cycle shop nearby the hotel and then took round wandering hither and thither to it, and that after his return on cycle, he went inside the hotel with money after apprising the matter of demand to the Dy. S.P. while he was loitering on cycle. It is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid version given out by the decoy finds no corroboration either from his own police statement (Ex. D. 5) or from the evidence of other prosecution witnesses, including Dy. S.P., and other shadow witnesses. He resiled from his version given out during investigation in Ex. D. 5 on the material particulars. So, it is reasonable to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution on the score of the veracity and conduct of the decoy. 13. It is the say by the prosecution witness Ram Singh (PW5) proprietor of Navprabhat. Hotel where the offer and acceptance of the bribe was allegedly made, that at the time when the appellant and the decoy had come in his hotel, there were some customers including Narendra Singh, Rajak Driver, Mangilal, and there in his presence, no transaction took place and that the appellant took wine in his hotel, and then meals. Shadow witness, Gokul Chand (PW 3) in his evidence on 24.10.80 in cross examination admitted to know Narpat Singh & Narendra Singh but about their presence in the hotel, he pleaded ignorance. However, he admitted to have seen the customers coming in and outside the hotel when they were standing outside it. That, apart, the Dy. S.P. in his statement during cross-examination admitted that Ram Singh (PW 5) was present in his hotel and had been serving his customers. However, he admitted to have seen the customers coming in and outside the hotel when they were standing outside it. That, apart, the Dy. S.P. in his statement during cross-examination admitted that Ram Singh (PW 5) was present in his hotel and had been serving his customers. This makes it clear and proved that the customers were also present in the hotel. Therefore, it is highly improbable that the accused would have demanded or accepted the bribe amount in the presence of so many customers. In any event, there is no explanation from the prosecution side as to why any of other customers present in the hotel at the time of occurrence, was not examined by the prosecution. Rather, some of them have been produced by the accused in his defence. Failure to examine independent witnesses present when bribe was allegedly offered and accepted may prove fatal to the prosecution. So, such non-examination of the other independent witnesses is also a significant circumstance which goes against the prosecution. 14. It is trite law that in trap cases, an independent witness would be accompanying the decoy, to witness the actual offer and acceptance of the bribe and to over hear the conversation that takes place between the accused and the decoy at the relevant time. In this view of the matter, such a shadow witness must be really independent so that his evidence can be safely relied on. The decoy is always seen to be a highly interested witness and so a person closely associated with him is likely to share his interestedness and that being so, making such a person as the accompanying witness would in no way help the prosecution, And, their Lordships of the Apex Court in Raghubir Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1976 S.C. 91 ), laid down the proposition of law that it is always necessary to associate really independent and respectable witnesses to a trap party to inspire confidence in the mind of the court. 15. The Dy. S.P. (IO) (PW 11) has tried to impress upon the court that the accompanying witnesses (PW 2 & PW 3) were independent as they were picked up by Ram Gopal (PW 10) at random, whereas Ganpatram admitted during cross-examination that when he was coming out of Kekri court premises, he was summoned/called by the Dy. 15. The Dy. S.P. (IO) (PW 11) has tried to impress upon the court that the accompanying witnesses (PW 2 & PW 3) were independent as they were picked up by Ram Gopal (PW 10) at random, whereas Ganpatram admitted during cross-examination that when he was coming out of Kekri court premises, he was summoned/called by the Dy. S.P. and Gokul Chand (PW 3) merely stated that Ganpatram was accompanying him, & that both of them have good relations having friendship. However, contrarily, the decoy has given out a different version which goes against the prosecution raising a reasonable adverse inference that the accompanying witnesses were not independent. The decoy in examination in chief stated that Sawai Singh Dy. S.P. had directed him to reach Kekri Court alongwith two witnesses, on 29.8.78 and on which date, when he welcome the Dy. S.P. alongwith the trap party in the court campus and again he was instructed to fetch two witnesses and thereupon he was accompanied by one constable so as to summon witnesses from the market where he found Ganpatram & Gokul Chand and they were taken to the Dy. S.P. and according to the decoy and the shadow witnesses, they were very well know to each others. And, the version given out by the decoy falsifies the version of the Dy. S.P. that he picked up. The shadow witnesses also bore grudge against the appellant. They are highly interested witnesses and the evidence of the Dy. S.P. that he picked up them at random and made them joined the trap party cannot be accepted as true. 16. Keeping in view the aforesaid evidence of the complainant regarding the alleged demand made by the accused for the alleged deletion of Section 452, IPC without independent corroboration, his evidence on this score cannot be easily accepted as true. The non-examination of the customers or persons alleged to have been present at the time of the talks took place either before accepting the alleged in the hotel bribe or before or after furnishing the bail bonds at the police station or on 27.8.78, casts aspersions and serious doubt on the veracity and about the truth of the testimony of the decoy. In this view of the matter, I find that there is no reliable evidence to show that there was either a prior illegal demand made by the accused for the payment of the bribe in question in pursuance of which the complainant had allegedly paid the bribe on the crucial day. Therefore, once the story of demand fails through, the authenticity of the trap becomes highly doubtful because, acceptance of bribe germinates through demand and without any demand, the bribe is not likely to be accepted in view of the fact that the evidence of demand of bribe constitutes backbone of an offence under Sec. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that being so, failure to prove demand renders the prosecution case highly suspicious. And, as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in G.V. Nanjundiah v. State (Delhi Administration), ( AIR 1987 SC 2402 ) , once there is no reliable as is in the case at hand, to prove the prior or any demand it is a circumstance which very much weighs against the prosecution. 17. Admittedly the prosecution case and evidence on record are that the alleged transaction of the offer and giving bribe money took place in side the hotel of Ram Singh (PW 5) and out side it, the shadow witnesses, (PW 2 & 3) were waiting to receive the pre-arranged signal. Both these witnesses in their evidence admitted that from the place where they were standing outside the hotel of Ram Singh, they could not have seen as to what was transpired in that hotel because, in both left & right sides of their, the buses were standing. They further admitted that 10 paces away from their place of standing outside the hotel of Ram Singh, the trap party members including the Dy. S. P. were waiting at the bus stand. They further admitted that 10 paces away from their place of standing outside the hotel of Ram Singh, the trap party members including the Dy. S. P. were waiting at the bus stand. Moreover, all the prosecution witnesses including shadow witnesses and accompanying members of the Trap party admitted that they rushed to the place where the alleged bribe was paid only after the decoy came out of the hotel room and gave the pre-arranged signal and they were standing outside the hotel of Ram Singh at some distances, thereby certainly the conversation between the decoy and the accused could not be over-heard from such a distance nor they could have seen the transaction of offering, demanding or giving and accepting the alleged bribe from the distances in between their place of standing outside the hotel and inside the room of the hotel, as is evident and proved from the admissions wrung out from the prosecution evidence. That being so, the members of the trap party besides shadow witnesses are not witnesses to the actual demand, offer, giving and acceptance of the bribe money. 18. Recovery of currency notes dusted with phenolphthalein powder proves nothing because, in bribery cases, mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid, is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable - as has been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Surajmal v. State (Delhi Admn.) ( AIR 1979 SC 1408 ) . 19. As noticed above, from the testimony given out by the decoy in his evidence during examination in chief & cross-examination, it is his admission that before 27.8.78 no demand was made by the accused. But, in his complainant which was presented to the S.P. on 21.8.78 after only one day of the alleged demand, there is no version that the demand was made by the appellant on just prior a day to 28.8.78. If, in fact, the appellant would have demanded bribe from the decoy just on the previous day, it is not understandable why this fact was not stated in the complainant presented by the decoy to the S.P. on 28.8.78. If, in fact, the appellant would have demanded bribe from the decoy just on the previous day, it is not understandable why this fact was not stated in the complainant presented by the decoy to the S.P. on 28.8.78. This shows that the witness made two inconsistent statements in his evidence and as held in Surajmal v. State (Delhi Admn.) supra, if the witnesses make two inconsistent evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances, no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses like the decoy in the case at hand. 20. In the case at hand, the evidence of recovery of money also smacks of contradiction (illegible) credence and do not help the prosecution, as it has divorced from other circumstances, as noticed above. The transaction of handing over the alleged bribe money took place inside the hotel of Ram Singh (Pw 5) and the appellant after receiving the pre-arranged signal from the decoy from outside the hotel, was caught and apprehended outside the hotel as is evident from the recovery memo and the prosecution evidence. But, surprisingly enough, upon a bare look at the top of the recovery memo, I find that the recovery memo was prepared not at Navprabhat Hotel of Ram Singh (Pw 5) but at Rajneesh hotel situated away at some far distance from Navprabhat Hotel. In this regard, I find no explanation from any of the prosecution witnesses and it is not understandable as to why the recovery memo was prepared and why the recovery of the tainted notes from the appellant was made at the place other than that where the transaction took place and why there was any gap of such nature. It creates a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution evidence. Moreover the accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. by submitting his written version has denied the recovery of the money by saying that he was under intoxication and he had no consciousness at the time when the recovery memo was prepared and that because of his intoxication & the state of his unconsciousness, he had no knowledge about the alleged trap; and further stated that he has been implicated falsely. The unconsciousness and the state of under intoxication of the appellant stand proved by his defence witnesses, recovery and arrest memos, the prosecution evidence of Ram Singh (PW5) & Avinash Kumar (PW8) & his medical prescription (Ex. D. 11). In this state of his health condition, his defence plea seems to be probable that he has been falsely implicated by way of thrusting bribe money in his pant pocket. Moreover, in view of the evidence of the prosecution witness Ram Singh (Pw 5) who has albeit been declared hostile and it is his version that the decoy came with the appellant and they took wine together in his hotel and the decoy instructed him to hand over the money stated to have fallen at the ground from the pant pocket of the appellant, to the appellant and thereupon he put the notes in the pant pocket of the appellant, and even he has given out that the appellant was full of intoxication at that time, the defence plea of the appellant that the alleged money was put in his pocket and he has been falsely implicated, seems to be probable and plausible raising reasonable inference against the prosecution. 21. The decoy stated that the accused had given the money to the owner of the hotel (Ram Singh PW 5) for its counting and Ram Singh after counting to the accused. Before such version, the decoy merely stated that when the Thanedar asked him to pay the money then he replied that he has taken/fetched the money and he drew out of his pocket the tainted & dusted notes and gave them to the accused. Pertinently to mention that his evidence about demand of money has been disbelieved by me as discussed above. I advert to state that the decoy does not say as to with which hand the accused received the money or whether he received the money with both the hands, before the money was either given to Ram Singh or was kept in the left side of his pant pocket. He stated that after Ram Singh counted the tainted notes Ram Singh gave them to the accused & (illegible) the money in his left side pant pocket. He stated that after Ram Singh counted the tainted notes Ram Singh gave them to the accused & (illegible) the money in his left side pant pocket. According to the decoy's version, quoted above, the money was allegedly kept by the accused in his left side pant pocket and in there circumstances, certainly, the accused would have used his left hand for putting the tainted notes in his left side pant pocket and according to the recovery memo, the notes were recovered from left side pant pocket. But, there is nothing in the evidence to show that the accused was in the habit of using his left hand more commonly than his right hand. The decoy has not stated that the money was taken from him by the appellant with both the hands. This tends to raise a question as to with which of the hands the accused had received the tainted notes. But, the evidence in the case at hand does not give any answer to the question. And such a lacuna in the prosecution evidence assumes considerable significance in view of the defence plea that the tainted currency notes were planted in the pant Pocket during the state of unconsciousness & intoxication of the appellant. Even plantation of and putting of the tainted notes in the left side pant pocket of the accused stands corroborated by the evidence of Ram Singh, owner of the Nav Prabhat Hotel. Thus, because after such planting if the accused had to touch his either left or right side pant pocket even unconsciously with his left or right hand, the hand wash of that hand with sodium carbonate solution is likely to give a pink coloured solution. 22. In this view of the matter, I must hasten to add that here the prosecution evidence suffers from so many serious infirmities as pointed out above that it lends support to the defence plea that the notes were planted in the pant pocket. 23. And, the presence of phenolphthalein powder on the hands and the pant pocket of the accused stands fully explained as the same was likely to fall in the afore narrated circumstances. 23. And, the presence of phenolphthalein powder on the hands and the pant pocket of the accused stands fully explained as the same was likely to fall in the afore narrated circumstances. I must reiterate that as discussed above, it is a case where there is total lack of corroboration by any independent witness, and the accompanying & shadow witnesses have been held by me to be not independent so as to corroborate the version of the decoy on material particulars which may connect the accused with the crime, about the actual offer and acceptance of the bribe and over-hearing of the conversation that takes place between the accused & the decoy. I further repeat that since none of the prosecution witnesses including especially the accompanying & shadow witness who were members of the trap party stated that they were either at a short distance away from the room of the hotel of Ram Singh or had over-heard the conversation that took places in between the accused & the decoy about the actual offer, demand, giving and acceptance of the bribe, thus, they are not the witnesses of independent nature on the aforesaid scores. In this view of the matter, there is no evidence to prove the handing over the tainted notes, actual offer, and overhearing of the conversation that took place between the accused. And, it is a circumstance very much significant which weighs against the prosecution. The innocence of the appellant is reflected from the material on record. The recovery of bribe money stands shrouded in mustry and no conviction in law could be sustained. My view is fortified from the decision ( AIR 1987 SC 2402 ). 24. Another significant circumstance, which need emphasis here and which makes a reasonable inference to draw in favour of the appellant is that (illegible) of alleged offer, demand, giving (illegible) acceptance of the bribe money, he was not in a position to help the decoy because, the brief of criminal case was already sent to the concerned A.P.P. after the report that charge of Section 452, IPC, in addition to other Sections prima facie made out against the decoy so as to take cognizance against him by the Court. And, this fact does not find mention in the narration of the facts detailed out in the order of prosecution sanction. And, this fact does not find mention in the narration of the facts detailed out in the order of prosecution sanction. This aspect would be dealt with by me a little later. It is in the prosecution evidence on record that the file in F. I. R. No. 27/78 lodged against the decoy was summoned from the A.P.P. and has been seized from his possession and it was not in the police station nor in possession of the appellant who was Incharge of the police station. The file had already reached the office of the A.P.P. with a report that charge of Section 452, IPC, was also made out prima facie against the decoy. It reached there before the trap was laid. Thus, on the day of the trap laid, after the appellant had completed the investigation and submitted the file to A.P.P. for filing a challan in the Court, these facts stand proved from the statement of Dy. S. P. A.P.P. & other prosecution witnesses, it was not within his domain to change the opinion. Ku. Govind Singh (Pw 9) DIG (as he then was) in cross-examination admitted that the S.H.O. was not competent to take his independent opinion and his opinion was not final and he had no competence to make out any change for inserting and deleting any of the Sections in the file or brief of a criminal case and that it was only within the domain of the Circle Officer. This makes it improper (illegible) appellant to have demanded bribe after sending the file in criminal case against the decoy to the A.P.P. for submission of the challan in the Court. The prosecution has thus no merit. That apart, it must fail on the technical ground that there is no valid sanction for initiating the prosecution against the accused. It is trial 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 vexatious prosecution and must therefore be strictly complied with before any prosecution can be launched against the public servant concerned, as has been laid down in AIR 1979 SC 677 . 25. Upon a bare look at the sanction order (Ex. 25. Upon a bare look at the sanction order (Ex. P. 12) I find that there is no mention in it about the place where the trap was laid and the decoy offered, gave and got caught red handed the appellant for the alleged crime. On the contrary, the sanctioning authority (Pw 9) in his cross-examination stated that in the sanction order, it has been mentioned that the tainted notes were recovered from the appellant at Navprabhat Hotel. It filsifies the recovery memo and other prosecution evidence which give out that the recovery was made at Rajneesh Hotel. Non-mention of the place of recovery and the place of transaction took place or between the decoy and the accused, tends to disclose that the sanctioning authority had not issued the sanction order after due application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. Once the sanctioning authority appearing in the witness box, admitted in cross examination that the opinion of the S.H.O. of the police station in the file of criminal case was not final unless approved by the Circle Officer, then it makes clear that the S.H.O. like the appellant was not in the capacity to help the decoy for the proximate cause of the trap and there was no occasion or probability for him to have demanded the bribe or accept it. This significant facts and circumstances do not find place in the sanction order and thus it makes clear that had the sanctioning authority (PW 9) taken into consideration and satisfied with the aforesaid salient features of the circumstances of the case, then there was no occasion for any prosecution against the appellant. Thus, viewed, the sanctioning authority did not apply its mind, and it made its satisfaction without due application mind. And, there is no evidence to show that a valid sanction to prosecution the accused was accorded after due application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. On that score also, the prosecution case must fail. 26. And, therefore, the benefit of the aforesaid circumstances creating doubt in the mind of court goes in favour of the accused, entitling him to an acquittal, 27. On that score also, the prosecution case must fail. 26. And, therefore, the benefit of the aforesaid circumstances creating doubt in the mind of court goes in favour of the accused, entitling him to an acquittal, 27. Now, I am constrained to observe after careful perusal of the appellant's written plea submitted by him during his examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that admittedly, in criminal case (FIR) No. 31/78 which was against Ganpat & Gokul (PWs 2 & 3, here) he had gone to the Hotel of Ram Singh (PW5) with one, Mangilal Gujar Panch and his own subordinate, driver, namely, Rajak and both of them arranged wine which he took, and he was under intoxication. These facts stand proved by his defence witnesses. It is a matter of probe whether his behaviour and conduct appeared at the hotel of Ram Singh (PW 5) on 29.8.78, when he admittedly was found to be under intoxication which was not expected from the public servant, come within the purview of misconduct under the relevant service rules? For, the State Authority will be free to take any action against the appellant under the relevant service rules and his acquittal will not come in any way. Such an inquiry if initiated will be afresh and only confined to his behaviour and conduct appearing from his finding as in intoxication. For his acquittal in criminal case he will be entitled to all consequential benefits. If such an inquiry for the aforesaid conduct of his appearing in intoxication, has already been initiated during the pendency of his appeal, then there will be no action to be taken, as observed above. 28. In the result, I allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment dated 19.6.82, and hold the appellant not guilty of any of the charges levelled against him and he is acquitted of the offences charged. He is on bail and need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged. The record be sent back. *******