Judgment : This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli dated 23. 1990 and made in Special Case No.2 of 1988, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence under Sec.5(2) read with Sec.5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs.500 in default to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months; and for the offence under Sec.161, I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and ordering the sentences to run concurrently. The appellant was tried for the offences on the allegations that the appellant employed as Accountant (Assistant) in the Karungulam Panchayat Union at Seidun-ganallur and being a public servant in such capacity at about 5.30 p.m. on 29. 1987 at his office demanded a sum of Rs.100 by way of bride in consideration to expedite the sanction proceedings to get a sum of Rs.1000 as subsidy being the subsidy portion of the loan of Rs.3,000 sanctioned to Tmt.Gnanasoundari Ammal under the Massive Agricultural programme by Bank of Tamil Nadu, Vallanadu Branch and that on the said basis at about 4.25 p.m. on 29. 1987 in front of the Office of the District Rural Development Agency, Tuticorin, the appellant has received a sum of Rs. 100 by way of bribe from one Sudalaimuthu Asari, husband of Tmt.Gnanasoundari Ammal. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as culled out from the evidence and records of the trial court are stated as follows: P.W.1 Sudalaimuthu Asari along with his wife Gnanasoundari P.W.7 and his son Nagarajan P.W.4 are the residents of Vellanadu Village and P.W.7 owns an extent of 2 Acres and odd lands by way of purchase, situated in survey numbers 274, 639 and 452 in patta number 337 as evident from the certificate issued by P.W.14, the Village Administrative Officer and the certificate Ex.P-28, This land is situated within the Karungulam Panchayat Union in which P.Ws.5, 6,18,19 and 20 are the employees. This land is being looked after by P.W.1 for the purpose of cultivation and improvement. This land is being looked after by P.W.1 for the purpose of cultivation and improvement. Being a small farmer, classified in the Revenue records, P. W.7obtained a loan of Rs.6,500 for the purpose of installing a motor pump set in a joint well situated in the said land and that she has discharged the said loan amount by transferring the deposit amount standing in name of P.W.1 subsequently. This is evident from the evidence of P.W.13, the Manager of the Bank, Tamil Nadu Vallanadu Branch and Ex.P-23. The said discharge was done by transfer of the deposit account of P.W.1 on 17. 1986 and finally, the said loan was discharged on 8. 1987, It is the case of the prosecution that even in getting the said loan thus discharged, it was the appellant who attended all the papers relating to the said loan in Karungulam Panchayat Union. Subsequently, P.W.7 appears to have applied for granting of a loan of Rs.3,000 for the purpose of constructing a pump-set room and the application is Ex.P-24 and the application sent to Karungulam Panchayat Union is Ex.P-15 and that the order passed by the Panchayat Union has been marked as Ex.P-25 and the letter addressed by the Block Development Officer of the said Union to the Manager, Bank of Tamil Nadu, for the grant of subsidy is Ex.P-18, on 2. 1987, P.W.13 forwarded the said application to his head office and got the sanction for the loan of Rs.3,000 on 30.6.1987 and that has been marked as Ex.P-26. Then, on 7. 1987, he wrote a letter Ex.P-5 to the Commissioner of the Karungulam Panchayat Union requesting for the subsidy for the said loan. P.W.13 has made an endorsement in Ex.P-5 showing the very purpose for which the loan was granted. Since no order has been received from the Karungulam Panchayat Union regarding subsidy, the Bank of Tamil Nadu, Vallanadu branch could not disburse the loan of Rs.3,000 to P.W.7. In the meanwhile, P.W.7 wrote Ex.P-27 to the bank requesting to grant the loan of Rs.3,000 without any deposit. P.W.6 is the Manager working in the Karungulam Panchayat Union from 16. 1987. In the meanwhile, P.W.7 wrote Ex.P-27 to the bank requesting to grant the loan of Rs.3,000 without any deposit. P.W.6 is the Manager working in the Karungulam Panchayat Union from 16. 1987. He claims to the factum that in granting the loan to small farmers, l/4th of the same is to be given by way of subsidy and that in the case of very small farmers 1/3rd of the loan amount is to be granted as subsidy. Accordingly, during the first loan discharged by P.W.7, the appellant accused then working as Village Welfare Officer has recommended for the above subsidy and accordingly as per Ex.P-12, Exs.P-13, P-14 and P-15 has forwarded the papers for the sanction of subsidy in favour of P.W.7. The prosecution claims that all the details found in Ex.P-15 was prepared by the accused/appellant in the capacity of village Welfare Officer. On Ex.P-15, the then Co-operative Extension Officer has recommended for the loan and the B.D.O. has also recommended the same. In Ex.P-10, the personal register maintained by the accused appellant, there was no reference about Ex.P-5 though it was handed over to him on 7. 1987 for further action as per the endorsement made in the distribution register Ex.P-16 as serial number 6017, but no action was taken upon Ex.P- 5. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused/appellant had rounded serial number 6017 but substituted the previous current number 131 of 1986 in its place but even then, he did not take any further action upon Ex.P-5. The relevant register for the Agricultural Development maintained by the Panchayat Union is Ex.P-6. Ex.P-5 has been entered at page 62 on 29. 1986 as evident from Ex.P-8 with the serial number 33/86 referring to Ex.P-5 in particular. With regard to relating documents Exs.P-5, P-9, there were no endorsements for further actions taken by the accused nor any note put up by the accused. P.W.5 has spoken with reference to the abovesaid facts. P.W.19 was working as A-5 (Assistant) in Karungulam Panchayat Union Office for the period upto 110. 1986 and during the said period he was also attending the subject ‘subsidy’ Regarding Ex.P-15, the application for the subsidy, the Block Development Officer, has sent a certificate Ex.P-25 to the Bank of Tamil Nadu, Vallanadu branch. P.W.19 was working as A-5 (Assistant) in Karungulam Panchayat Union Office for the period upto 110. 1986 and during the said period he was also attending the subject ‘subsidy’ Regarding Ex.P-15, the application for the subsidy, the Block Development Officer, has sent a certificate Ex.P-25 to the Bank of Tamil Nadu, Vallanadu branch. It is the further case of the prosecution that in Ex.P-15 and all its connected papers, the accused/appellant had attended and written everything in his own hand-writing and signed the same in the capacity of welfare Officer and further endorsed by the Cooperative Extension Officer on 19. 1986. In the register maintained by the Panchayat Union relating to the applications for loan at page 62, the accused/ appellant has written that the loan application given by P.W.7 has been sent to the Bank of Tamil Nadu and endorsed by P.W.20. According to P.W.20 planning office and project office is the same and that has been named as District Rural Development Agency. During 7. 1987 to 17. 1987 P.W.10 was incharge of the Block Development Officer, Karungulam Panchayat Union. During that time, Ex.P-5 came to his perusal and accordingly, he has signed it and after perusal, he claims that he had called for the appellant accused and asked him to send the proposal. As was pointed out by the appellant/accused, that the purpose forwhich the loan was asked for had not been mentioned, the accused/appellant wanted that application to be returned and accordingly, P.W.10, returned the said application Ex.P-5 of P.W.1, husband of P.W.7 and that therefore, P.W.10 had scored off his signature subscribed in Ex.P-5. Then P.W.1, took the application Ex.P-5 to the bank and the bank authorities represented that they would write a proper letter to the panchayat Union Office. 3. In this backdrop, after a lapse of one week, when P.W.1 met the appellant/ accused and asked for the stage of his loan application, it was the case of the prosecution that he had requested P.W.1 to come after a week and that after another week when P.W.1 asked the appellant/accused, he had stated that he did not receive any paper from the bank. So also happened on 29. 1987. Then, to the narration of P.W.1, P.W.4 his son wrote a petition in which P.W.1 had put his signature and that petition was sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tuticorin. So also happened on 29. 1987. Then, to the narration of P.W.1, P.W.4 his son wrote a petition in which P.W.1 had put his signature and that petition was sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tuticorin. A case was registered as per Ex.P-1 and P.W.1 had signed that he had received the copy of the first information report. 4. As per the instructions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, P.W.21, the Inspector of Police, registered the complaint given by P.W.1, Ex.P-1, in V.A.C.Cr.No.1 of 1987 under Sec.161, I.P.C.,and took up investigation. 5. At about 11.45 a.m. on 29. 1987, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.W.21 along with one Jeyachandran of Vigilance and Anti-corruption called upon P.W.2 and one Tamilmani to their office and P.W.21 introduced P.W.1 and P.W.2 to each other. P.W.2 was working as Assistant Engineer in Tuticorin Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board and the said Tamilmani was working as Junior Draughtsman in that office and both of them read over the contents of Ex.P-1 and verified with P.W.1, the contents of Ex.P-1 and upon doing so, P.W.1 had admitted the truth of the contents of Ex.P-1. When P.W.21 asked P.W.1 as to whether he had brought the amount he took Rs.100 which consisted of 20 five rupee notes. As requested by P.W.21, P.W.2 counted the same. Then P.W.21, prepared a solution of sodium carbonate in a clean glass tumbler and tested through P.W.2. No.1 are the currency notes above referred. On these notes phenol pthalein powder was spread. Then P.W.21 explained the role of phenolpthale in test to be conducted. He instructed P.W.1 as to how he should act during the trap. Accordingly, if the accused received the amount of Rs.100 then P.W.1 should come out, take out his spectacles and try clean the same with the border of his dhothi and this was the signal for P.W.21. Thus setting up everything for the trap and for conducting the phenolpthale-in test including all arrangements, he prepared mahazar Ex.P-2 in which P.W.21, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Inspector Jeyachandran, P.W.1, P.W.2 and one Tamilmani signed the same. The numbers of the 20 five rupee notes were also written in Ex.P-2. 6. Thus setting up everything for the trap and for conducting the phenolpthale-in test including all arrangements, he prepared mahazar Ex.P-2 in which P.W.21, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Inspector Jeyachandran, P.W.1, P.W.2 and one Tamilmani signed the same. The numbers of the 20 five rupee notes were also written in Ex.P-2. 6. After having thus made all the arrangements for the trap, P.W.21 took P. Ws.l, 2 and Tamilmani in a Jeep belonging to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption at about 2 p.m. on 29. 1987 and reached Karungulam Panchayat Union Office. After returning from the said office, P.W.1, informed P.W.21 and others that the loan clerk/accused had gone to the project office at Tuticorin. Then they had been to the project office, Tuticorin, and reached there by 4.15 p.m. and stopped near Thenammal Hospital about 200 feet from the project office. P.W.1 has been to the project office as instructed by P.W.21. Sometime later, the accused/appellant came out from the project office. Subsequently P.W.1 came out and demonstrated the signal of removing specs aspects and attempting to clean the same with his dhothi. P.W.21 met the appellant/accused and introduced himself, P.W.2 and others to him. The accused appellant was found shivering. Then, the accused was taken to a place situated in front of ‘Sankari Salt Works’ and where P.W.21 conducted the phenolpthalein test to the accused and questioned him about the money he received from P.W.1. Accordingly, the appellant/accused produced M.O.I series to P.W.21. After verifying the numbers of M.O. series in front of P.W.2, he got the shirt of the appellant/accused removed and caused the same also for phenolpthalein test and so also for the fingers of the right hand of the appellant/accused. Then, after conducting the phenolpthalein test in accordance with the rules, he preserved the sodium carbonate Mixtures and put them into three bottles marking them as A, B and C. M.Os.3, 4 and 5 are the three bottles. M.O.2 is the shirt subjected to the chemical test, belonging to the appellant/accused. P.W.21 prepared a mahazar relating to the test and recovery in which P.W.2, Tamilmani and Deputy Superintendent of Police have attested. The P.W.21 arrested the accused and proceeded by the Panchayat Union office and recovered the connected records relating to accused designated as ‘A6’ under the cover of Mahazar Ex.P-4 attested by P. Ws.5 and 6. P.W.21 prepared a mahazar relating to the test and recovery in which P.W.2, Tamilmani and Deputy Superintendent of Police have attested. The P.W.21 arrested the accused and proceeded by the Panchayat Union office and recovered the connected records relating to accused designated as ‘A6’ under the cover of Mahazar Ex.P-4 attested by P. Ws.5 and 6. P. Ws.9 and 10 were examined by the prosecution to show that during the relevant time, the appellant/ accused was in charge of the loan papers to be attended and forwarded for the grant of subsidy. P.W.10 claims that on the day of occurrence but before the arrest, the accused appellant came to his Tuticorin Project Office and attended the papers at his instruction and assured that he would rectify everything in connection with his official work and papers. P.W.12 claims to the fact that work in general in some of the panchayats including Karun-gulam was not completed and that accordingly P.W.10 had called the accused by telephone. He would claim further that at about 4.30 p.m. on 29. 1987 when he came out of the Project Office for the purpose of having a tea, the accused/appellant followed him and asked him as to what was to be done for the applications for the previous period and that consequently he instructed him to get a new application and put the old current number to the same and attend it and that in the meanwhile, police came and took the appellant/ accused in front of Sankari Salt Works. 7. Then P.W.21 released the appellant/accused on bail and examined the witnesses. He visited the Project Office at Tuticorin, prepared a rough sketch Ex.P-32. Then, he sent a requisition to the court to send M.Os.3 to 5 for chemical analysis. P.W.11 on the receipt of requisition Ex.P-20 sent M.Os.3 to 5 for chemical analysis with the covering letter of the learned Magistrate, the office copy of which has been marked as Ex.P-21. P.W.15 spoke about the receipt of M.Os.3 to 5 for chemical analysis, the test conducted and the result of such analysis. The relevant analysis report has been marked as Ex.P-22, P.W.21 sent the seized case records under Ex.P-4 to the court and examined further witnesses. P.W.15 spoke about the receipt of M.Os.3 to 5 for chemical analysis, the test conducted and the result of such analysis. The relevant analysis report has been marked as Ex.P-22, P.W.21 sent the seized case records under Ex.P-4 to the court and examined further witnesses. P.W.16 spoke to the factum of the report sent by the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption to the District Collector with his official note and according to him, the District Collector has perused all the records and gave the sanction to prosecute the appellant/accused under Ex.P-29. On receipt of Ex.P-29, sanction for prosecution P.W.21 laid the final report against the accused for the offences under the sections above referred. 8. When the accused was examined under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence, he had denied his complicity in the crime. He did not choose to examine any witnesses on his behalf but had filed a written statement. 9. Though 21 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 3 did not support the prosecution and accordingly, they were treated as hostile during the trial. On assessing the entire oral evidence adduced through P.Ws.1 to 21 and the documentary evidence through Exs.P-1 to P-32 and M.Os.l to 5 relied on by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge, after elaborate discussion in his lengthy Judgment has found the appellant/ accused guilty for the offences for which he was tried, convicted and sentenced him as noted supra. Aggrieved, the appellant has come forward with this present appeal. 10. Mr.Maseed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, among the grounds urged in the grounds of appeal, relied on the following two grounds in attacking the impugned judgment. Aggrieved, the appellant has come forward with this present appeal. 10. Mr.Maseed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, among the grounds urged in the grounds of appeal, relied on the following two grounds in attacking the impugned judgment. (1) that the evidence of P.W.1 who is the author of Ex.P-1, demolishes the whole fabric of the prosecution case as he has not supported the case of the prosecution by claiming so specifically that the appellant/accused never demanded the bribe nor that he received any amount M.O.I, series, as bribe from him on the day of occurrence and that he himself has voluntarily pocketed M.O.I series into the pocket of the appellant/accused and that therefore, the very overt act of the appellant/ accused in receiving the bribe as contemplated in the relevant provisions of law has not been proved nor established by the prosecution, which casts a serious and grave doubt on the Prosecution case and the benefit of the same should go in favour of the appellant/accused herein. While so submitting, the learned Counsel contended that the evidence given by P. W.2 and other prosecution witnesses do not provide any corroboration nor establish any circumstances totally adverse to the applicant but on the other hand, provides the prosecution to a vacuum, particularly with reference to the overt acts of the appellant/accused and that therefore, the prosecution case against the appellant is to be rejected. .(2) that Ex.P-29, the sanction order given by the District Collector on 7. 1988 is not valid in law as the sanctioning authority has not applied his mind while according the sanction to prosecute the appellant herein. 11.Per contra, Mr.Sriramulu, learned Public Prosecutor, countered the same by contending that though P.W.1, the author of Ex.P-1 did not support the prosecution case and consequently, he was treated as hostile in cross-examination, the prosecution has established that there are clinching circumstances which clearly establish the guilt and complicity of the accused/appellant and that the conflicting evidence of P.W.1 before the witness box was the result of his being won over the appellant subsequently, and therefore, his evidence before the trial court, cannot render the whole prosecution case as false. In other words, the Public Prosecutor submitted that inas much as Ex.P-1 and its contents were admitted and not controverted in any other manner, the aspect that P.W.1 did not support the prosecution does not affect the prosecution in any manner and therefore, the learned trial Judge was perfectly right in finding the appellant guilty for the offences with which he was charged. With regard to the second point raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor countered the same and contended that Ex.P-29, the sanction was accorded by the District Collector, the head of the administration of the District by perusing all the relevant papers and records produced before him and after having fully satisfied with the investigation records and everything and applying his mind in full, he accorded sanction and a mere perusal of the same itself proves that it is a valid sanction and that therefore, the attack upon Ex.P-29 cannot at all be sustained. 12. In the light of the above rival contentions, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has established the guilt and complicity of the appellant beyond the realm of doubt as contemplated by law? 13. From the oral evidence adduced through PWs.l to 21 coupled with the documentary evidence Exs.P-1 to P-32, extracted by the learned trial Judge, it is seen that the appellant was working as Loan Assistant in Karungulam Panchayat Union and that on prior occasion, he was working as Welfare Officer of the same Union and that during the said period, P.W.1 was able to obtain a loan of Rs.6,500 from the Bank of Tamil Nadu, Valla-nadu Branch as recommended and forwarded by the Karungulam Panchayat Union Office and that subsequently, it was discharged wholly by P.W.1 and P. W.7. It is seen further that for a further loan sought for by P.W.1 in the name of his wife P.W.7 to the extent of Rs.3,000 a subsidy of Rs. 1,000 was also sought for as per the various schemes projected and implemented by the Karungulam Panchayat Union as evident from the claim made by the prosecution witnesses. The further fact that the appellant was working only as loan Assistant in the Panchayat Union Office is admitted by the prosecution. 1,000 was also sought for as per the various schemes projected and implemented by the Karungulam Panchayat Union as evident from the claim made by the prosecution witnesses. The further fact that the appellant was working only as loan Assistant in the Panchayat Union Office is admitted by the prosecution. Therefore, there is no difficulty at all to hold that the appellant is not the final of sanctioning authority for the subsidy of Rs.1,000 as requested by P.W.1, but only an Assistant expected to process the said paper through the established procedure to the higher authorities. The further fact that the application Ex.P-5 requesting the subsidy by P.W.7 was being attended by P.W.1, her husband to get it finalised was also not in controversy in any manner. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to the evidence of P.W.10 who was working as Accountant in the Rural Development Agency, Tuticorin, from 19. 1987 to 26. 1988. His evidence shows that he has also worked as Deputy Block Development Officer of Karungulam Panchayat Union from 6. 1987 to 7. 1987 that during that time, the appellant worked as an Assistant ‘A6’ in the said Office. His claim before the trial court was that while he was working as Deputy Block Development Officer, Ex.P-5 came to his perusal and in token of which, he put his initial in the same and that after perusing the same, he called for the proposal from the appellant but however as the appellant stated that Ex.P-5 was to be returned for the reason that the purpose for which the loan was sought had not been mentioned therein and that therefore for the said reason P.W.10 had returned the said Ex.P-5 to P.W.1 and that he had scored out his initial put therein. 14. It was the further claim of this witness that at about 4.15 p.m. on 29. 14. It was the further claim of this witness that at about 4.15 p.m. on 29. 1987, when he came out of the Project Office, he was followed by the appellant and during that time he had seen P.W.1 talking with the appellant and that afterwards, when he and the appellant were waiting for the tea ordered by them, the appellant had asked P.W.1 as to what action should be taken for the loan applications submitted during the previous year as the procedures to deal with the same had since been changed and that for which, P.W.10 had instructed him to get a new application form from the concerned person and put therein the old sanction order so as to get the sanction for subsidy. It was his further claim that after the talk held by P.W.1 with the appellant, another person, namely the President of the Milk Society, had also talked with the appellant and then only both were waiting for the tea. It was at this juncture, police came and took the appellant for the purpose of recovery of M.O.I series, the alleged bribe money, the phe-nolthelene test and so on. On a careful perusal of the entire claim made by P.W.10 and the other official witness examined by the prosecution, it was made very clear that the appellant is not the final or sanctioning authority for the subsidy sought for by P.W.1 for the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.3,000 on the second occasion under Ex.P-5 but only an Assistant. Expected to attend the process alone and that since the said application Ex.P-5 was an old one returned by P.W.10 for proper compliance to P.W.1, he had further instructed the applicant regarding the procedure to be adopted for getting the sanction of subsidy expeditiously. 15. With regard to the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, but for the non-supporting performance of P.W.1 before the trial court, I do not propose to enter into the controversy by means of scanning the whole evidence. However, it is seen that P.W.1 as the star witness who had given Ex.P-1 to the police on 29. 1987 and whereupon, the whole process of the trap by the Vigilance Police, had been schemed out and carried on. However, it is seen that P.W.1 as the star witness who had given Ex.P-1 to the police on 29. 1987 and whereupon, the whole process of the trap by the Vigilance Police, had been schemed out and carried on. Since P.W.1 the author of the complaint Ex.P-1 did not support the prosecution nor the trap or the overt act by the appellant, it is seen that the learned trial Judge has considered very elaborately the probative value of Ex.P-1, the xerox written complaint, the other oral evidence and the circumstances brought out in the instant case and upon the basis of which, he has found the appellant guilty. The reasoning for such conclusion by the learned trial Judge was based mainly on Ex.P-1. It was admittedly written by P.W.4, the son of P. W.1 to his narration and that on the said score P.W.1 and P.W.4 had admitted about the factum of the said complaint with reference to its contents, with regard to the contents of the said complaint, P.W.7 the wife of P.W.1 has been examined. At this stage, it has become necessary to note that P.W.1 has not been cross-examined with reference to the claim of P.W.7 and the factum of giving the complaint and soon and that in as such as P.W.7 has not claimed by means of oral evidence that P.W.1 told her that he had given a complaint to the police, in my firm view, that part of the evidence given by P.W.7 is only ‘hearsay’ and as such cannot be deemed to be admissible evidence in law. Therefore, it is seen that there remains the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4. It has to be noted that P.W.1 and P.W.4 have admitted the factum of giving Ex.P-1 to the police which has been registered. But since the author of Ex.P-1 namely, P.W.1 was treated as hostile and did not speak to the contents of Ex.P-1 the whole controversy as contended by the Bar arises in this case. It has to be noted that P.W.1 and P.W.4 have admitted the factum of giving Ex.P-1 to the police which has been registered. But since the author of Ex.P-1 namely, P.W.1 was treated as hostile and did not speak to the contents of Ex.P-1 the whole controversy as contended by the Bar arises in this case. To elucidate the rationale of Ex.P-1 in the context of the diversified and changed theory of P.W.1, it has become necessary to extract the relevant portion of the contents made in Ex.P-1, which runs as follows: The portion above referred to found in Ex.P-1 was admittedly written by P.W.4 to the narration of P.W.1, and it was addressed to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Ami Corruption, Chidambaranar District. On the receipt of the said complaint, it is seen that the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police had instructed P.W.21 to register the same into a case under Sec.161, I.P.C. and investigate the matter. With regard to the abovesaid complaint, P.W.2, working an an assistant Engineer in Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board had claimed that he had verified the contents of the same by questioning P.W.1 and as admitted by him, he found out that it was correct. But however, the above portion of the contents given by P.W.1 was completely recited by P.W.1 during witness box. 16. P.W.1 during his performance before the trial court has claimed as follows: He would further add about his conduct during his cross-examination that upon his complaint a Head Master and a Tahsildar were transferred already and that if Government servants were not acting according to his whims and fancies, it was his habit to lodge complaints against them. He would further qualify during his cross-examination that because of his lodging the complaint Ex.P-1, out offear,he had thrust M.O.I series into the pocket of the appellant. In other respects, P.W.1 owns the contents of Ex.P-1, his statement before the police. On a mere glance of the impugned Judgment by the trial court, it is apparent that the learned trial Judge has disbelieved the changed version of P.W.1 before the witness-box but however, held that the contents of the written complaint Ex.P-1 must be true as it was given by P.W.1 voluntarily to the Deputy Superintendent of Police at whose instruction, the case was registered and the whole wrap was carried out. It is the well settled principle of law that the evidence of a hostile witness need not be rejected in toto as he has not supported the prosecution and has turned hostile and that the court can rely on such portion of his evidence if found and satisfied but it must be true and upon the basis of which the court can base its conviction in a criminal case and that the rest can be rejected as having no bearing on the case. It is manifest that the learned trial Judge has followed the same legal ratio and that with regard to the same rationale, there cannot be any dispute or controversy. 17. But however, it has to be seen that if at all Ex.P-1 is to be accepted and believed for any purpose as spoken to by P.Ws.1, 2 and 21 in the context that P. W.3also turned hostile, it may proceed to establish the fact that there was a demand for bribe or illegal gratification by the appellant from P.W.1 and nothing else. The very contents of Ex.P-1 would project the demand of the bribe by the appellant made on 29. 1987 at the Panchayat Union Office situated at Karungulam and nothing else. So far as the overt act of the appellant for the offences alleged is concerned, there is not even an iota of evidence direct, adduced by the prosecution. P.W.3 turned hostile. P.W.2 though a responsible State Government Officer, did not claim anything about the payment of M.O.1 series to the appellant by P.W.1 at about 4.25 p.m. on 29. 1987 in front of the salt grinding factory at Tuticorin. The only evidence available in this case to the necessary overt acts is that of P. W. 1 also but unfortunately, he never supported the prosecution case. His clinching and specific claim was that the appellant never demanded the bribe nor he had paid the bribe of Rs.100 M.O.1 series but he thrust M.O.1 series into the pocket of the appellant voluntarily and that by questioning as to why he had thrust something into his pocket when the appellant took the same and verified, police came and took him. Therefore, the evidence given by P.W.1 did not project any of the passing of money M.O.1 series by P.W.1 to the appellant nor he received the bribe as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence given by P.W.1 did not project any of the passing of money M.O.1 series by P.W.1 to the appellant nor he received the bribe as alleged by the prosecution. It is thus seen that the very evidence by P.W.1, who set the law in motion for laying the trap against the appellant is totally missing in establishing the complicity and overt act of the appellant for the offences alleged against him. In this context, I may mention that the learned trial Judge has totally mistook the contents of Ex.P-1 into the realm of complicity of the appellant/accused, which is not correct, in my firm view, for the reason that the entire Ex.P-1 projects to an incident that happened on 29. 1987 and not on the day of occurrence, namely on 29. 1987. It is rather strange to see that the very contents of Ex.P-1 was taken as a direct evidence to prove the complicity of the appellant, which happened on 29. 1987 but however, the same has been totally resciled and denied by P.W.1 himself. At this juncture, it is seen that the defence taken by the appellant was that when he came out of the project Office and was waiting for the tea ordered, P.W.1 came and thrust M.O.1 series in his pocket and that when he took out the same and verified as to what it was, police came and took him, conducted the chemical test and recovered the said currency and that he never received any bribe from P.W.1. 18. It is also relevant to note that among the attestors of Ex.P-3, the mahazar which narrates the whole occurrence, P.W.2 alone has corroborated it. P.W.3 did not support the prosecution. Except P.W.2 none else has been examined to support or corroborate P.W.1. As was elaborately discussed and considered by the learned trial Judge, there is overwhelming and abundant evidence for the concept of recovery of M.O.1 series and the conduct of Phenopthalene test. There was no controversy projected by the Bar with regard to the subsequent events to the occurrence. But however, as I have already referred, the only circumstances which assumes every significance is whether P.W.1 has given M.O.1 series at the relevant day and time of occurrence and the appellant has received by way of bribe? There was no controversy projected by the Bar with regard to the subsequent events to the occurrence. But however, as I have already referred, the only circumstances which assumes every significance is whether P.W.1 has given M.O.1 series at the relevant day and time of occurrence and the appellant has received by way of bribe? I have already referred to above and my considered opinion and view upon the careful perusal of the factual aspects and evidence spoken to by the prosecution is that there is no iota of evidence or circumstance proved or established by the prosecution to show the complicity and the guilt of the accused in receiving a sum of Rs.100 from P.W.1 by way of bribe and that even so, the explanation by means of evidence given by P.W.1 is so convincing, acceptable and has not been controverted in whatever manner and that as such, the evidence of P.W.1 can be safely accepted. 19. Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the recovery of M.O.1 series coupled with M.Os.2, 3, 4, and 5 under the cover of mahazar Ex.P-3 prepared by P.W.21 attested by P.W.2 and others and the giving of complaint Ex.P-1 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, the registering of the same, the preparation of Ex.P-2 mahazar, and the trap that followed as spoken to by P.W.2, a responsible Officer of the State Government are the circumstances clearly established by the prosecution to prove the guilt and complicity of the appellant and that P.W.1 turned hostile because he was made to oblige for the appellant. With great constraint, I am not inclined to endorse the said argument advanced by the public prosecutor for the simple reasoning that the consistent claim of P.W.10 who was all along very close and nearby to the appellant just prior to the arrest of the appellant by the police on the day of occurrence does not support the claim of P.W.2. As I have already observed that the appellant was not the sole authority and the designated person to sanction subsidy and he need not expect any bribe or illegal gratification for sanctioning the subsidy sought for. As I have already observed that the appellant was not the sole authority and the designated person to sanction subsidy and he need not expect any bribe or illegal gratification for sanctioning the subsidy sought for. That apart, the trap set up by the police upon the registering of Ex.P-1 was intended only at the Panchayat Union Office at Karungulam but however, it is seen that the same has been carried out at Tuticorin in front of the project office. The explanation given by P.W.1 that because he had lodged Ex.P-1 to the police, out of fear, he had thrust M.O.1 series into the pocket of the appellant voluntarily on the day of occurrence cannot be eschewed so lightly. Viewed from this angle, it is noticed that the learned trial judge has not bestowed his attention on the abovesaid legal aspects but however, it appears that he has proceeded to hold that the prosecution had established all circumstances projecting the guilt of the accused only on the basis of pure imaginations, conjectures and surmises, which cannot be sustained, in my considered view. In this regard, I am satisfied to endorse my view to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant on the first point. 20. With regard to the procedure adopted in the receipt of the loan application and the process to be undertaken for the sanction, the same including the subsidy under various schemes as spoken to by the prosecution witnesses since there is no controversy but remains undisputed as was discussed by the learned trial Judge, I do not propose to traverse the same once again, which are unnecessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. 21. In Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Administration), 1980 M.L.J. (Crl) 73, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: "It is well settled that where witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their 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 circumstance no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses........Mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused under Sec.5(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act and/Sec 161, Indian Penal Code, when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable.“ 22. The Delhi High Court in Anand Sarup v. State, 1988 Crl.L.J. 756, has also held as follows: ”In a case of bribery, 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.“ 23. It is thus seen that since the recovery of M.O.1 series in the instant case from the appellant as claimed by the prosecution witnesses consistently is of no consequence available totally adverse to the appellant herein in establishing his guilt and complicity for the offences alleged in the context of the specific and consistent claim of P.W.1 before the trial court. Thus having considered every aspect of the oral and documentary evidence and other established circumstances, I am of the firm view that there is every force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant on the first point and consequently, I am totally unable to accept the contentions made by the learned Public Prosecutor in this regard. 24. Coming to the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the validity of sanction order Ex.P-29, which is a legal question, I have to extract the contents of it, which is as follows: PROCEEDINGS OF THE COLLECTOR, CHIDAMBARANAR DISTRICT, TUTICORIN. Present: Thiru R. Arumugham, I.A.S. Roc Val/77495/87 Dated:7. 1988 Sub: Sanction to prosecute in a Court of Law Thiru D. Charles Walker Devadoss, M.A.P. Accountant (Assistant) of Karungualam Panchayat Union at Seidunganallur in Chidambaranar District. Ref: Report of Director, Vigilance and Anti- Corruption, Madras in RC. No. 62/87/RDP/CD dated 30.9.1987 and connected materials. Order: Whereas, the accused Thiru D.Charles Walker Devadoss was working as the Accountant (Assistant) Massive Agricultural Programme, in the Office of the Karungulam Panchayat Union at Seidunganallur in Chidambaranar District and he is a Public Servant. 2. Whereas it is alleged that on 29. 1987 at about 17.30 hours at the Office of Karungulam Panchayat Union at Seidunganallur the said Thiru D.Charles Walker Devadoss demanded a Sum of Rs.100 as gratification other than legal remuneration from Thiru. M.Sudalaimuthu as a motive for expediting action for sanction of Rs.1000 being the subsidy portion of the loan of Rs.3,000 sanctioned to Tmt.Gnanasoundari Ammal, wife of the said Thiru M.Sudalaimuthu by Bank of Tamil Nadu, Vallanadu Branch under the Massive Agricultural Programme and in pursuance of the said demand, on 29. M.Sudalaimuthu as a motive for expediting action for sanction of Rs.1000 being the subsidy portion of the loan of Rs.3,000 sanctioned to Tmt.Gnanasoundari Ammal, wife of the said Thiru M.Sudalaimuthu by Bank of Tamil Nadu, Vallanadu Branch under the Massive Agricultural Programme and in pursuance of the said demand, on 29. 1987 at about 16.25 hours in front of the Office of the District Rural Development Agency (also called as project Office) Chidambaranar District, Tuticorin accepted a sum of Rs.100/- from Thiru M.Sudalaimuthu, as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive for the purpose mentioned above. 3. Whereas it is further alleged that in the course of the same transaction and at the abovesaid place, date and time, Thiru Charles Walker Devadoss being a public servant viz., Accountant ‘(Assistant) Massive Agricultural Programme, Karungulam Panchayat Union Office at Seidunganallur by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing his official Position as such public servant,, obtained for himself a sum of Rs.100 as pecuniary advantage from the said Thiru. Sudalaimuthu under the circumstances mentioned above. 4. Whereas the abovesaid acts constitute Offences under Sec.161, I.P.C. and Sec.5(1) (d) read with Sec.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.” 5. And whereas, I, Thiru R.Arumugam, I.A.S., Collector, Chidambaranar District being the authority competent to remove the said Thiru D.Charles Walker Devadoss, Assistant, Massive Agricultural Programme, Accountant of Karungulam Panchayat Union at Seidunganallur in Chidambaranar District from office, after carefully and fully examining the materials and records placed before me in regard to the said allegations and circumstances of the case, I am fully satisfied that the said Thiru D.Charles Walker Devadoss should be prosecuted in a Court of Law for the abovesaid offences. 6. Now, therefore I do hereby accord sanction under Sec.6(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947) for the prosecution of the said Thiru D.Charles Walker Devadoss for the said offences and for the taking of cognizance of the abovesaid offences by a court of competent jurisdiction. sd/-......... 7. 1988. To The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madras.“ In paragraph 5, the relevant portions are seen in these words: “5. sd/-......... 7. 1988. To The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madras.“ In paragraph 5, the relevant portions are seen in these words: “5. And whereas, I, Thiru R.Arumugham, I.A.S., Collector, Chidambaranar District being the authority competent to remove the said Thiru D.Charles Walker Devadoss, Assistant, Massive Agricultural Programme, Accountant of Karungulam Panchayat Union at Seidunganallur in Chidambaranar District from office, after carefully and fully examining the materials and records placed before me in regard to the said allegations and circumstances of the case, I am fully satisfied that the said Thiru D.Charles Walker Devadoss should be prosecuted in a court of law for the abovesaid offences.“ In giving the above sanction as found in paragraph 5 of Ex.P-29, it appears that the sanctioning authority had merely repeated the allegations made in the charge sheet leading to the offences framed against the appellant herein alone. But however in the above order, there was a reference made in the same pertaining to the report of the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madras in Rc.No.62/87/RDP/CD, dated 30.9.1987 and connected materials. Taking advantage of this reference filed, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the sanctioning authority, viz. the District Collector has passed the order by applying his full mind to the entire report forwarded by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and that as such, the sanctioning authority arrived at its full satisfaction of the prima facie case found detected against the appellant and therefore, accorded the sanction under Ex.P-29. This concept was seriously controverted by the learned counsel for the appellant by stating that the sanction order was a mere mechanical one and the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind nor gave any reasons for according sanction. 25. In Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A.P., A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 677, Supreme Court has laid down the legal ratio in this regard which is as follows: ”It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the Sanctioning Authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. This should be done in two ways; either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show the facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. This should be done in two ways; either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show the facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. Any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void, ab initio. What the court has to see is whether or not the sanctioning authority at the time of giving sanction was aware of the facts constituting the offence and applied its mind for the same; any subsequent fact which may come into existence after the grant of sanction is wholly irrelevant. The grant of sanction 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 must therefore be strictly complied with before any prosecution can be launched against the public servant concerned." Following the ratio of the Apex Court, this Court in Periyasamy v. Inspector of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tiruchirapalli, 1992 L.W. (Crl.) 582, has held that the sanction order given by authority to prosecute an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act is not an empty formality but it should be after full satisfaction on the basis of the materials and evidence made available with regard to the allegations made against the particular accused and that the non giving of any reasons pertaining to the grounds of satisfaction amounts to invalidate the sanction order itself and not in accordance with law. The Allahabad High Court in Har Bharosei Lal v. State of U.P., 1988 Crl.L.J. 1122, has also observed that court cannot act on surmises or conjectures nor will have to be guided by extraneous considerations or matters which are not on record. The grant of sanction is not an idle formality but a solemn and sacrosanct act which provides protection to public servants against frivolous prosecutions. This requirement of law has not been complied with before launching prosecution against the appellant. 26. It is thus seen that in according sanction to a prosecution as contemplated under Sec.6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the sanctioning authority should necessarily apply its mind and get itself satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out, constituting the offences. 26. It is thus seen that in according sanction to a prosecution as contemplated under Sec.6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the sanctioning authority should necessarily apply its mind and get itself satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out, constituting the offences. The prosecution has to prove this in two ways, either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction, and (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show that facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. A case instituted without adopting the above referred legal concept and ingredients must necessarily fall because this being a defect manifest in the prosecution and as such, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio. Though a report of the Director of Vigilance and Ami Corruption with particular reference number has been referred to in the column of "reference" to Ex.P-29, and in paragraph 5 careful and full examination of the materials and records placed before the sanctioning authority was referred to, it is manifest and apparent that it is not known what are all the documents that have been relied upon by the Sanctioning Authority to arrive at the satisfaction and what are all the grounds of satisfaction, are totally absent in this case. Above all, evidence aliunde involved in this case prostrating the facts leading to the offence before the sanctioning authority and his perusal of the same is also absent totally in this case. In short, I would like to add that the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind with reference to the evidence leading to the facts constituting the offence committed by the appellant herein and whereupon, he has accorded the sanction. There is nothing available in Ex.P-29 to show that the sanctioning authority has applied its mind fully with reference to such of the documents and evidence aliunde in according the sanction as observed by the Apex Court in the above referred citations. There is nothing available in Ex.P-29 to show that the sanctioning authority has applied its mind fully with reference to such of the documents and evidence aliunde in according the sanction as observed by the Apex Court in the above referred citations. Though P.W.16, Sherishtadar, working in the development sections of the Collectorate of Chidambaranar District was examined, who speaks about the placing of the report and other document before the District Collector with a note and that the District Collector after perusing the same has accorded the sanction, his part of the evidence does not find place in Ex.P-29, therefore, under the circumstances referred to above, I am fully satisfied to hold that the legal mandate laid down by the Apex Court, in according sanction to prosecute under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the proper procedure has not been followed in this case and that therefore, Ex.P-29 is not a valid document. In the result, the proceeding is void ab initio. Nothing was contended on behalf of the prosecution in support of the oral evidence given by P.W.16. Even so, in the context of the legal ratio clearly spelt out by the Apex court in the first citation referred to above, Ex.P-29 is to be held as not valid for the non-mentioning of any grounds of satisfaction or the details of evidence of aliunde produced before the sanctioning authority. 27.Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor in support of his contention that Ex.P-29 is a valid document relied on the case law in Indu Bhusan Chatterjee v. The State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 148:1958 S.C.R.999, for the position that if the evidence produced before the sanctioning authority however shows that he has perused and went through all the papers placed before him which gave him the necessary material upon which he decided that it was necessary in the ends of justice to accord his sanction. In State of Rajasthan v. Tarachand, 1973 Crl.L.J. 1396.A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2131: 1973 S.C.C. (Crl.) 774: (1973)2 S.C.W.R. 282: 1973 S.C.D. 738, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: “The burden of proof that the requisite sanction had been obtained rests upon the prosecution. Such burden includes proof that the sanctioning authority had given the sanction in reference to the facts on which the proposed prosecution was to be based. Such burden includes proof that the sanctioning authority had given the sanction in reference to the facts on which the proposed prosecution was to be based. These facts might appear on the face of the sanction or it might be proved by independent evidence that sanction was accorded for prosecution after those facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority.” Learned Public Prosecutor then relied on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Damodaran, 1992 Crl.L.J. 522, for the position that a perusal of the report of the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption by the sanctioning authority is valid in law and deemed to have been accorded after fully applying its mind and satisfying the existence of the prima facie case against the accused. 28. With great respect, on a careful perusal of the above case laws, I am totally unable to persuade myself to accept the contention of the learned public prosecutor in the context that it is not known as to what are all the documents amounting to the evidence aliunde leading to the facts involved in this instant case had been perused and examined carefully and fully by the sanctioning authority before according sanction under Ex.P-29 and it is further not known as to what are all the grounds on which the satisfaction was arrived at by the sanctioning authority before according sanction so as to make the above legal ratios applicable to the instant case. A mere reference to a report with current number of the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption alone does not amount to the application of mind in full by the sanctioning authority inasmuch as the grounds of satisfaction and the details of the documents that formed part of the materials placed before him has not been mentioned in the sanction order. Therefore, the above case laws relied on by the Public Prosecutor will not render any assistance or help to the prosecution. Therefore, the above case laws relied on by the Public Prosecutor will not render any assistance or help to the prosecution. On this ground, for the opinion of my reasonings given above, I am of the firm view in observing that Ex.P-29 is not a valid sanction order as contemplated by Sec.5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act itself and that the sanctioning authority has given Ex.P-29 without applying his mind with reference to any grounds of satisfaction or evidence aliunde constituting the offence against the appellant herein and accordingly, the entire proceeding is void ab initio as it is without a valid and proper sanction. No other points were argued before me in this appeal. 29. For the reasons in my foregoing observations and discussions with reference to all the oral and documentary evidence and materials, in the context of the rival contentions and established facts, I am fully constrained to hold that the prosecution has virtually and miserably failed to establish the guilt and complicity of the appellant in the crime and that there is serious doubt inherent in the case of the prosecution and it should go necessarily in favour of the appellant. 30. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Judge in Special Case No.2 of 1988 are hereby set aside. Fine amount if any paid by the appellant is ordered to be refunded immediately. The bail bond shall stand cancelled.