JUDGMENT - Saldanha M. F., J.:—The appellant, who at the relevant time was attached to the office of the Regional Transport Officer at Bombay in his capacity as a clerk was put on trial along with one Vishnu Ratanjankar, an Inspector of that office, on a corruption charge. The prosecution alleges that the complainant had applied for a badge for driving a three-wheeler and that he was required to be tested by one of the Inspectors. He underwent the test and was failed. He was informed by accused No. 1, who is the present appellant, that unless he paid Rs. 600/- that he cannot pass the test and according to the complainant this amount was subsequently reduced to Rs. 400/-. He has narrated the procedure for purposes of undergoing the test and he has stated that in spite of having offered to pay Rs. 200/- that accused No. 1 informed him that it was insufficient. Thereafter he lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau Authorities, who arranged a trap for 26-11-1981. On that day, however, accused No. 1 did not attend the office till 11-45 a.m. and hence the trap failed. Once again, an appointment was fixed for the 3rd December, 1981 and on this occasion after the test accused No. 1 accompanied the complainant and the Panch to the canteen where at the request of the accused the complainant handed over to him the amount of Rs. 400/-. This amount consisted of four currency- notes of Rs. 100/ - each, which has been treated with anthracene powder by the Anti-Corruption Bureau Authorities under a Panchanama. According to the witnesses immediately after passing the money, the complainant rolled his shirt sleeves up and the raiding party rushed in and caught hold of the accused, who is alleged to have thrown the notes down. The four currency-notes were recovered and on checking with the ultra violet light, it was also found that traces of anthracene powder were on the hands of the accused as also on the right side of his trousers. On completion of the investigations, the accused along with the Inspector, who was made a co-accused, were put on trial before the learned Special Judge. On completion of the investigations, the accused along with the Inspector, who was made a co-accused, were put on trial before the learned Special Judge. The Inspector, who was the original accused No. 2, came to be acquitted whereas the present appellant, who is original accused No. 1, stands convicted of offences punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year. It is against this conviction that the present appeal has been directed. 2. Shri Mohite, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant -original accused No. 1, has, in the first instance, challenged the validity of the proceeding on the ground that it stands vitiated in so far as the sanction order, which is the starting point for the proceedings, is liable to be struck down. Towards this end, Shri Mohite points out that the sanction to prosecute was accorded by the Regional Transport Officer, Bombay, Shri B.B. Malve. He states that the prosecution has not pointed out to the Court any ground on which it could be justifiably stated that Shri Malve was not available. He contends that the sanction order in question has been produced by the Desk Officer in the Transport Commissioner's office who, at the relevant time, was working as an Accountant (Establishment) in the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Bombay Central. Bhaskar Naik (P.W. 3) has stated that it was he who went through the papers that were received from the Authorities and that he prepared the draft sanction order, that he thereafter put the papers up to the Regional Transport Officer, who went through them, discussed the matter with him and accorded the sanction. He also pointed out that the services of accused No. 1 were terminated by order dated 30-4-1982. He also pointed out that the services of accused No. 1 were terminated by order dated 30-4-1982. This witness has not been cross-examined, but the point sought to be canvassed by Shri. Mohite was that even taken at its face value, this witness cannot substitute for the requirement that the authority who has accorded the sanction and who has applied his mind to the material placed before him and who is alleged to have come to the conclusion that the accused, who is before the Court, is liable to be prosecuted is required to make himself available for purposes of testing as to whether the grounds on which the sanction was accorded are valid or not. It is the contention of learned Counsel that the non-examination of this witness is fatal to the prosecution. 3. The learned A.P.P. seriously disputes this position because, according to him, the sanction order is valid in so far as the witness has personal knowledge of the fact that all the papers and material were placed before the concerned authority, namely, the Regional Transport Officer in his presence. He states that the officer went through the record, that he discussed the matter with him and thereafter accorded the sanction and this, according to the learned A.P.P., would constitute due application of mind. He submits that under these circumstances, the requirement of producing the authority himself would be rendered unnecessary because the witness concerned is not a person who has no personal knowledge of the case but he happens to be an officer who, in fact, applied his mind to the case himself and came to a particular conclusion. 4. The facts of this case present a very unusual state of affairs which I shall have occasion to comment upon. The case made out is that accused No. 2 asked the complainant as to whether he was aware as to how much he takes. He also demonstrated by showing him the four fingers of his right hand indicating that the amount in question was Rs. 400/ -. It is precisely this amount of Rs. 400/ - that forms the subject-matter of the charge. It is the submission of Shri Mohite that even taken at its very highest that the prosecution case can only establish that accused No. 1 wants to be the medium or the conduit for the payment of this money. 400/ -. It is precisely this amount of Rs. 400/ - that forms the subject-matter of the charge. It is the submission of Shri Mohite that even taken at its very highest that the prosecution case can only establish that accused No. 1 wants to be the medium or the conduit for the payment of this money. This aspect of the case, to my mind, does assume some degree of importance because we have on record through the evidence of witness Bhaskar Naik (P.W. 3) that the services of the accused came to be terminated by the Department and he has also produced a copy of the termination order. That order is at Exhibit 24 and the Regional Transport Officer has terminated the services of accused No. 1, who was appointed purely on a temporary basis. There can be no doubt about the fact that the decision to terminate the services of accused No. I must have been triggered off by the present incident. Under those circumstances, the all important question arises on the unusual facts of this case, as to whether it was at all necessary to have also directed a prosecution against accused No. 1. Where it was alleged that the corruption, which the prosecution complains of, was committed by accused No. 2 who was to be the recipient of the whole amount of money and accused No. 1 was used as a medium for the receipt or acceptance of that money, he has already paid a heavy price by losing his job and, in these circumstances, to my mind, the propriety of prosecuting accused No. 1 itself was a matter which required serious application of mind. I have had occasion in the past while considering a somewhat dissimilar situation, where the amount of illegal gratification alleged was Rs. 30/-, to have held that the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind for purposes of deciding whether or not adequate punishment could be awarded through disciplinary proceedings, having regard to the triviality of the case. This case presents a slightly different dimension of the matter, but, to my mind, one which also necessitates equal consideration. 30/-, to have held that the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind for purposes of deciding whether or not adequate punishment could be awarded through disciplinary proceedings, having regard to the triviality of the case. This case presents a slightly different dimension of the matter, but, to my mind, one which also necessitates equal consideration. Where admittedly the accused had never asked for any amount for himself and the prosecution alleges that it was the co-accused who had demanded the amount and who was to receive it, the justification for prosecuting the present appellant, who had already been punished by way of removal from service, appears inappropriate. Had the sanctioning authority been produced before the Court, to my mind, he would most certainly have been asked about this aspect of the matter and it would have been clearly demonstrated to the Court that obviously he had mechanically signed the sanction order put up by Bhaskar Naik (P.W. 3) The earlier decision in the case of (Bhagwan v. State of Maharashtra), 1992 Mh.L.J. 979, is relevant for these purposes. To my mind, the sanctioning authority must consider in a case where punishment is already inflicted or is about to be inflicted on the accused person concerned as to whether the facts of the case justify a prosecution which may go on for several years with all the attendant trauma that is involved. Essentially, the Prevention of Corruption Act provides for serious punishment and in these circumstances a judicious application of mind would be equally necessary and the cases where sanction is awarded in a cavalier fashion or a mechanical fashion without due application of mind would certainly stand vitiated in law. On the facts of the present case, learned Counsel is justified in his grievance that the sanction order is liable to be struck down and the inevitable consequence thereof is that the proceedings themselves stand vitiated. 5. Shri Mohite did canvass a number of other submissions with regard to the other submissions, but I refrain myself from recording my observations thereon because, to my mind, it is unnecessary to burden the record with any further material if the proceedings themselves stand vitiated. I cannot, however, avoid a reference to the impression created on this Court. 5. Shri Mohite did canvass a number of other submissions with regard to the other submissions, but I refrain myself from recording my observations thereon because, to my mind, it is unnecessary to burden the record with any further material if the proceedings themselves stand vitiated. I cannot, however, avoid a reference to the impression created on this Court. After a reading of the record in question it appears without any ambiguity that there was a universal practice prevailing in that office that bribes of a prescribed amount were to be paid in relation to favours that were being granted by the Inspectors. The record indicates that the complainant, who has considerable experience of driving a three-wheeler vehicle and who was also a holder of the licence for heavy duty vehicles, was failed by the Inspector on the first time and one does not need to question as to why this happened because he has been already informed that there exists a prescribed fee of Rs. 400/without which none of the applicants can be passed. This is a deplorable state of affairs and only indicates the universal level of corruption in the office of the Regional Transport Officer at the relevant time. The consequences to poor persons who approach that office even for valid purposes have been amply illustrated by the evidence in this case whereby they were harassed and blackmailed until they produced the amount that was required to bribe the Inspector. Having regard to the volume of business that is transacted in that office, one shudders to think of what the turnover must be, what is even worse is the fact that the opposite is most likely in so far as persons who are thoroughly unqualified and who are totally unfit to operate any of the vehicles could easily obtain the requisite licences or badges if they conform to the requirement of paying the requisite bribes. The number of accidents on public roads and the manner in which vehicles, particularly the public vehicles are operated is eloquent testimony of the manner in which persons of this category can obviously get away from the office of the Regional Transport Officer under the guise of having passed the requisite tests. The number of accidents on public roads and the manner in which vehicles, particularly the public vehicles are operated is eloquent testimony of the manner in which persons of this category can obviously get away from the office of the Regional Transport Officer under the guise of having passed the requisite tests. Having regard to the aspect of public interest and the safety of the public at large, the Registrar is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Secretary of the Transport Department as also to the Regional Transport Commissioner with a direction that they shall report back to this Court within a period of 4 (four) weeks as to what concrete steps and checks the Government has instituted for purposes of putting a stop to this state of affairs. 6. For the reasons recorded in this judgment, the appeal succeeds. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant-accused by the trial Court are set aside. The bail bond of the appellant-accused to stand cancelled. Appeal allowed -----