Judgment Shashank Kr.Singh, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed against the order and judgment dated 10.8.1989 passed by Sri N.C. Lala, Special Judge, Patna in Special Case No. 157/83, by which the sole appellant has been convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He has further been convicted under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo R.I. for one month. The substantive sentence on both counts have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the appellant was a Sanitary Supervisor, Patna Municipal Corporation. The complainant, Jit Narain along with other persons, who were working as sweepers on daily wages under the appellant had made a complaint before the Vigilance Department alleging therein that as the complainant and the other sweepers had their duties during night for cleaning the road from the official residence of the District Magistrate, Patna to Rajapur Bride. The appellant is alleged to have realised Rs, 10/- from each of the sweepers every month as illegal gratification under threat that if they would not pay the same he would mark them as absent and get them discharged. The complainant and other sweepers are said to be daily wages employees. It has further been alleged that as the complainant and other sweepers did not pay Rs. 10/-for the month of February, 1978, hence the appellant had illegally marked the sweepers, namely, Kamloo Mandal and Chhotan Das absent on 15.3.1978. The said written complaint is Ext. 5. 3. On the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered and a formal F.I.R. (Ext. 6) was drawn up. A raiding party headed by the Deputy S.P.M.A. Kazmi was informed. The complainant had brought with him Rs. 50/- for giving to the appellant as illegal gratification on behalf of himself and other four sweepers, namely, Kamloo Mandal, Shyam Lal Ram, Chhotan Das and Ram Lagan Ram. The complaint produced the G.C. notes amounting to Rs. 50/- comprising of one G.C. note of Rs. 20/- and the three G.C notes of Rs. 10/- before the D.S.P.A. memorandum (Ext. 1) of the G.C. notes was prepared, which is Ext. 2. The complaint produced the G.C. notes amounting to Rs. 50/- comprising of one G.C. note of Rs. 20/- and the three G.C notes of Rs. 10/- before the D.S.P.A. memorandum (Ext. 1) of the G.C. notes was prepared, which is Ext. 2. G.C. notes were returned to the complainant with instruction that he would pay the amount only to he appellant on demand. On the same night, the raiding party reached Ashok Raj Path near District Magistrates residence. The sweepers including the complainant were engaged in cleaning the road. The appellant is alleged to have demanded bribe from the complainant. The complainant paid Rs. 50/- to the appellant on behalf of himself and other four sweepers. One Lakhinder Prasad (P.W. 3) who was instructed to watch that transaction and given signal on the acceptance of the bribe then gave signal, and the other members of the raiding party, who were scattered in the neighbourhood surrounded the appellant. Then two witnesses were also called and in their presence the search of the appellant was taken and from his possession the same G.C notes amounting to Rs. 50/- were recovered number of which was earlier noted on the memorandum. A search list was prepared and a copy of he same was given to the appellant. 4. The appellant has pleaded not guilty and has taken a defence that no such occurrence ever took place and nothing was recovered from his possession. Further, defence has been taken that the sweepers did not want to do work. As the appellant was strict on them, as such, out of annoyance, he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. 5. The prosecution altogether has examined 21 witnesses. P.Ws. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 12 are the members of the raiding party. P.W. 21 is the Deputy S.P. who was incharge of the raiding party. P.Ws. 8 and 9 are two independent witnesses in whose presence the search was made. P.Ws. 10, 15 and 16 are the three out of five sweepers on whose behalf the bribe was given. P.W. 19 is the complainant. P.Ws. 14, 11 and 13 have been tendered. P.W. 14 is Madan Lal who has submitted charge-sheet in the present case. P.Ws. 8 and 9 are two independent witnesses in whose presence the search was made. P.Ws. 10, 15 and 16 are the three out of five sweepers on whose behalf the bribe was given. P.W. 19 is the complainant. P.Ws. 14, 11 and 13 have been tendered. P.W. 14 is Madan Lal who has submitted charge-sheet in the present case. P.W. 17 is the part I.O. who has taken over investigation from the Deputy S.P. P.W. 18 is the Sectional Officer in Patna Municipal Corporation, who is a formal witness and he has proved the attendance sheet. P.W. 20 is a formal witness and has proved the F.I.R. (Ext. 6). 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that at the time of occurrence when the raid is alleged to have taken place, the petitioner being a permanent employee of the Patna Municipal Corporation, the sanction was required before taking cognizance of the present case. As the sanction has not been obtained, the whole prosecution case fails and no conviction can be awarded in lack of sanction. Even on the merit of the case, it has been argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, as according to the learned counsel these witnesses on whose presence the currency notes have been recovered, all of them except P.Ws. 8 and 9 are official witnesses meaning thereby that the members of the raiding party are interested witnesses and no conviction can be based on their testimony. So far as P.Ws. 8 and 9 are concerned, P.W. 9, Sita Ram Singh has been declared hostile. As only P.W. 8, Shyam Nandan Tiwary remains an independent witnesses to the seizure though he has supported the case regarding recovery, which was made in his presence from the pocket of the appellant but according to the learned counsel as he has also signed the memorandum, which was prepared in the Vigilance Department, as such, he also becomes an interested witness as he was present both in the Department and at the place of occurrence. 7. I have perused the seizure list (Ext. 2) as well as the memorandum (Ext. 1). P.W. 8 is said to be a tea vendor, whose shop is inside of the official residence of the District Magistrate. On the memorandum (Ext. 7. I have perused the seizure list (Ext. 2) as well as the memorandum (Ext. 1). P.W. 8 is said to be a tea vendor, whose shop is inside of the official residence of the District Magistrate. On the memorandum (Ext. 1) while putting his signature it has been stated that after going through the contents of the memorandum and after understanding the same he was signing it meaning thereby that he has subsequently signed the same. P.W. 9, Shyam Nandan Tewary has fully supported the prosecution case as far as recovery of the money from the pocket of the appellant is concerned. Nothing contradictory could be taken in his cross-examination though some discrepancy has been tried to be shown. To my mind the same is not relevant rather it goes to support the genuineness of the witnesses. So far as other prosecution witnesses with regard to recovery is concerned though they are members of the raiding party but only being a member of the raiding party to my mind will not make them interested witnesses they had to (sic) against the appellant and the factum of recovery has also been supported by the independent witnesses, who has signed the seizure list. P.W. 8 Shyam Nandan Tiwary, who is a Sectional Officer of the Patna Municipal Corporation has proved ihe attendance sheet (Ext. 6) which goes to show the signature of the appellant. As such, the contention of the appellant that he could not have marked present or absent is contrary to the document on the record. A further submission has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the appellant had denied the occurrence as a whole and as his signature on the seizure list has not been proved, no credence can be given to the said seizure list. From the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that after preparation of the seizure list, a copy of the same was supplied to the appellant and who had put his signature on the same. Nothing was put to that witness in his cross-examination regarding non-supply of the seizure list to the appellant. The denial of the occurrence under Section 313 Cr. P.C. of the appellant will not make the deposition of the prosecution witness redundant. Nothing was put to that witness in his cross-examination regarding non-supply of the seizure list to the appellant. The denial of the occurrence under Section 313 Cr. P.C. of the appellant will not make the deposition of the prosecution witness redundant. The enmity has not been alleged against the Deputy S.P., who was heading the raiding party or against the members of the raiding party. The Deputy S.P. and the A.S.I. as well as other persons of the raiding party have all supported the factum of trap and recovery of money from the pocket of the appellant. 8. To my mind in view of the said overwhelming evidence, the learned trial Court did not err in holding that the prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and has rightly convicted the appellant. The judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity orillegality which requires any interference by this Court. 9. However, before parting with the judgment I would like to discuss on the point of sanction, which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly on the date of raid, the appellant was working as a sanitary Supervisor in the Patna Municipal Corporation. However, as it has been held by the Apex Court as well as this Court that at the time of taking cognizance, it has been seen as to whether person is a public servant or not. In the present case, it has already come on the record and a fact which has not been controverted that the appellant has been dismissed from service on 16.3.1978, a date earlier even to the date when the charge-sheet was submitted in the present case. Once, the appellant has been dismissed from service, he has ceased to be a public servant. 10. in this regard, learned counsel for the Vigilance Department has relied upon a case reported in 1985 Cr Law Journal 1401 (Ajodhya Prasad Misra V/s. State of Orissa). Once, the appellant has been dismissed from service, he has ceased to be a public servant. 10. in this regard, learned counsel for the Vigilance Department has relied upon a case reported in 1985 Cr Law Journal 1401 (Ajodhya Prasad Misra V/s. State of Orissa). In the said judgment a single Judge of the Orissa High Court relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in, AIR 1980 SC 522 and AIR 1994 SC 684, has held that the appellant of the said case had ceased to be public servants before 3.5.1978, the date when the cognizance of the offence was taken, as one of the appellants had retired from service and other had been dismissed from service and the relevant date with reference to which a valid sanction is sine-qua-non for taking cognizance of an offence committed by a public servant as required by Section 6 is the date on which the Court is called upon to take cognizance of the offence of which he is accused. In view of this proposition, it was not a case in which sanction under Section 6 of the Act was necessary. 11. In this regard reliance has also been made in the case of R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay. In the said judgment the Apex Court has held that the sanction is not required regarding a person, who is ceased to be a public servant at the time of taking cognizance. 12. For the reasons, as stated above, to my mind the judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, which requires interference by this Court and as the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, no cause has been shown for interference is said to be of the year ,1970 and the appellant has remained in jail for some period, now after 19 years, to my mind, no useful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail to serve the remaining portion of the sentence. As such, to my mind, the ends of justice would suffice, if the conviction of the appellant under both counts is maintained and the sentence under the same is reduced from six months to the period already undergone. If pursuant to the judgment of the trial Court, the fine has not been deposited the appellant is not required to deposit the same. 13. If pursuant to the judgment of the trial Court, the fine has not been deposited the appellant is not required to deposit the same. 13. in the result this appeal fails and the same is dismissed with the modification in the order of sentence. The appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. Let the lower Court record be sent down to the trial Court immediately.