Judgment : The appeal is by the accused who has been convicted under Sec.161 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.5(1)(d) read with Sec.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act under Sec.161, I.P.C. he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.250 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Separate sentence has not been imposed under Secs.5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was an Assistant in the office the Regional Transport Officer, Ramanathapuram. According to the prosecution the driving licence of P.W.3 Jalaluddin was lost. Therefore he wanted a duplicate licence. For this he made an application through his brother P.W.1 Jamaluddin. That application is Ex.P-1 and that has been signed by P.W.1. The application was given to the accused on 7. 1985. According to the prosecution the accused told P.W.1 that necessary particulars will be furnished only if P.W.1 would pay a sum of Rs.150 P.W.1 pleaded that he was not able to pay the amount, and that amount was reduced to Rs.100. Then it was agreed that P.W.1 would pay the amount next day. 3. P.W.1 intimated this to P.W.13 Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. P.W.13 arranged for a trap. As per the trap P.W.1 after payment of the amount to the accused in the office shall come out and make a signal by wiping his face with hand kerchief and the police party would immediately come inside the office. Accordingly on 7. 1985 P.W.1 went to the office at 4.30 p.m. and tendered the sum of Rs.100 to the accused and that was received by him. Then P.W.1 came out and made the signal as arranged. Immediately the police party rushed inside, and on questioning the accused he handed over the sum of Rs.100 (M.Os.l to 3 viz. one 50 rupee note, two 20 rupee notes and one 10 rupee note). Ex.P-1 was recovered from the office. Then after investigation the accused was charge-sheeted. 4. The accused denied the charge. He pleaded that when Ex.P-1 was handed over to him by P.W.1 he told him that it must be signed by his brother P.W.3 Jalaluddin and unless it is done the required particulars cannot be given. Ex.P-1 was recovered from the office. Then after investigation the accused was charge-sheeted. 4. The accused denied the charge. He pleaded that when Ex.P-1 was handed over to him by P.W.1 he told him that it must be signed by his brother P.W.3 Jalaluddin and unless it is done the required particulars cannot be given. At this P.W.1 got enraged and he went out threatening that he would see that the suffering meted out to the public by the persons of the office like the Regional Transport Officer would be put an end to, and on the date in question i.e. 7. 1985 P.W.1 came to the office and he did thrusted M.Os.l to 3 inside his pocket and while the accused was objecting to it he rushed away and then the police came and recovered the said amounts. 5. The court below on consideration of the evidence adduced believed the case of the prosecution and rejected the plea of the accused, and in the result it convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. 6. Now in the appeal Mr.Backiaraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused first contends that the charge framed by the court is that the accused received the bribe from P.W.1 on 7. 1985 at 10.30 a.m. but the prosecution case is that the accused received the amount on 7. 1985 at 5.00 p.m. and therefore there is no evidence supporting the charge and hence the accused is entitled to acquittal. 7. It appears from the records that this point has not been argued before the lower court and it is for the first time it is argued now here. On perusal of the entire records it is found that throughout it is the case of the prosecution that the demand was on 7. 1985 and the amount was received on 7. 1985, and it appears quite clear that it is a mistake that the court has committed in framing the charge as it now reads. The learned Public Prosecutor while answering this argument would point out that under Sec.464, Crl.P.C. on account of any error committed by the lower court in the charge, unless because of that the accused has been put to serious prejudice and it has occasioned a failure of justice, the conviction and sentence of the lower court shall not be interfered with. In view of this Sec.464, I do not think that the conviction and sentence passed by the lower court can be set aside. 8. The learned counsel next argued that there is no proper sanction order in the case. It appears the sanction order Ex.P-19 has been prepared by the police and sent to P.W.12 who is the sanctioning authority and he has signed it. P.W.12 in his evidence has stated that on receipt of Ex.P-19 from the Inspector he went through it and he was satisfied. He has further stated that he read the documents, and then he gave the sanction for prosecution of the accused. It is argued that it is not known what documents the witness P.W.12 perused. But it is well settled law that the sanction order need not mention the particulars of all the documents perused by the sanctioning authority. In the cross-examination no question has been put to P.W.12 as to what all documents he perused, and no suggestion has been made that he has not perused any document as claimed by him. The only question put to him was that Ex.P-17 sanction order has been given on a wrong basis. Considering this I do not think that there is any infirmity in the sanction order as contended. 9. Thirdly, the learned counsel argued that as regards the demand of the bribe amount by the accused, apart from P.W.1 no other independent witness has been examined. But I do not think any law requires that such independent evidence is necessary. It all depends upon whether the evidence of P.W.1 can be believed or not. If his evidence can be believed conviction can be imposed on that. Considering the entire circumstances in the case I do not see why his evidence should not be believed. 10. Thus considering, I find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, the accused is entitled for the remission of the sentence of imprisonment awarded under G.O.Ms.No.296, dated 20.2.1993. In this view the accused need not surrender.