Judgment : This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant in Special Case No.29 of 1988, dated 20.9.1988 on his file. 2. The short facts which have given rise to the filing of the appeal is given below: Anbuselvam, P.W.1 is a barber by profession and he is having a barber shop at Mallamuppanpatty, Salem District. During May, 1987, the appellant Rajamani was working as Village Administrative Officer of the said village, having his office at Chittanur. At that time, P. W. 1 found an advertisement in Daily Thanthi paper that the Government of Tamil Nadu is giving bank loans for the development of barbers through the Harijan and Social Welfare Department. When Anbuselvam, P.W.1 approached the accused along with P.W.2, Palanisamy to get community certificate and income certificate, to obtain the said loan, the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.100 to issue the certificates. On 6. 1987, when again approached, the appellant/ accused agreed to receive Rs.50. P. W. 1 who was aggrieved with the attitude of the accused/ appellant demanding illegal gratification as he was very poor, made a complaint Ex.P-5 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Anti-corruption), Salem, with the help of P.W.2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.W.10, registered a case in Cr.No.3/AC/87 under Sec.161, I.P.C. and Sec.5(1)(e) read with 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and took up the case for investigation. P.W.10, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Investigating Officer requisitioned the help of P.W.3 Venkatraman, working at the time in the District Forest Office and also Thirumalai, working in the District Education Office. P.W.10 introduced P.W.3 Venkataraman and Thirumalai to P.Ws.1 and 2 in his office. Likewise, he introduced P.Ws.1 and 2 to P.W.3 and Thirumalai. Thereafter, he gave a copy of the First Information Report, to P.W.3 and Thirumalai and asked them to read the same. Thereafter, P.W.10 got Rs.50 which P.W.1 intended to give to the accused as illegal gratification. P. W. 1 gave one twenty rupee currency note, one ten rupee currency note, and four five rupee notes to P.W.10. They are M.Os.1 to 6. P.W.10 gave the currency notes to P.W.3 and asked him to read the numbers one by one and P.W.3 read the numbers. Thirumalai noted the same in a paper. P. W. 1 gave one twenty rupee currency note, one ten rupee currency note, and four five rupee notes to P.W.10. They are M.Os.1 to 6. P.W.10 gave the currency notes to P.W.3 and asked him to read the numbers one by one and P.W.3 read the numbers. Thirumalai noted the same in a paper. Thereafter, P.W.10, explained the importance of Phenolphthalein powder test to the witnesses P.W.3 and Thirumalai. Then P.W.10 smeared phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes produced by P.W.1. Thereafter, P.W.1 asked Thirumalai to count the notes. Then, P.W.10 prepared sodium carbonate solution in a glass tumbler and asked Thirumalai to dip both his hands in the solution. It became pink in colour. After explaining the same to P.W.3 and Thirumalai, P.W.10 poured the solution in a glass bottle sealed it and gave the number S-1. The said bottle has been marked as M.O.11. Then P.W.10 returned M.Os.1 to 6 to P. W. 1 and instructed him to give it to the accused, only if he demanded the illegal gratification of Rs.50. If the accused received the amount, P.W.1 was further instructed to come out of the office of the accused and give signal by combing his head with his fingers. Thereafter, P.W.10 made a note of the samples of the sodium carbonate solution and phenolphthalein powder used and they have been marked as M.Os.12 and 13. Ex.P-6, mahazar was prepared by P.W.10 for that purpose. Ex.P-6 has been attested by P.W.3 and Thirumalai. Thereafter, P.W.10 with his police party along with P.Ws.1,2 and 3 and Thirumalai went to Chittanur in two different vehicles. When they reached Chittanur, P.Ws.1 and 2 alone went to the office of the accused situate in Chittanur Iron Factory main road. They were followed by P.W.10 and others. P.Ws.1 and 2 found the office of the accused locked. When they enquired the village helper, Jagannathan, he informed the accused was not in office. Thereafter, P.Ws.1 and 2 conveyed the message to P.W.10. P.W.10 drew the proceedings Ex.P-7 to that effect. P.W.3 and Thirumalai attested the same. Thereafter, P.W.10 instructed P.W.1 and P.W.2 to come to his office at 10.30 a.m. on the next day. Accordingly, P.Ws.1 and 2 appeared before P.W.10 on 16. 1987 at 10.30 a.m. P.W.3 and Thirumalai also came there. Thereafter, P.W.10 verified the amount of Rs.50 intended to be given to the accused and returned it to P.W.1. Thereafter, P.W.10 instructed P.W.1 and P.W.2 to come to his office at 10.30 a.m. on the next day. Accordingly, P.Ws.1 and 2 appeared before P.W.10 on 16. 1987 at 10.30 a.m. P.W.3 and Thirumalai also came there. Thereafter, P.W.10 verified the amount of Rs.50 intended to be given to the accused and returned it to P.W.1. Ex.P-21, mahazar, was prepared for that purpose. Thereafter, all of them went to Chittanur in two vehicles and reached there at 1.30 p.m. After reaching the village. P.Ws.1 and 2 along proceeded the office of the accused, the Village Administrative Officer. The others followed them. Again they found that the office of the accused was closed. P.W.10. and others were hiding nearby school and watching. P.Ws.1 and 2 waited before the office of the accused. At 1.45 p.m., the accused came to the office in Explorer Moped and asked P.Ws.1 and 2 to come to his office. The accused asked P.Ws.1 and 2 whether they brought the money, for which P.W.1 answered in the affirmative. Thereafter, P.W.1 gave M.Os.1 to 6, currency notes, to the accused. The accused received the same and put it in his shirt pocket. M.O.7 is the shirt worn by the accused at that time. P.W.1 was having in his hand the loan application and application for income certificate and community certificate. The accused received the same, filled and gave it to P.W.1, P. W.2 signed as an attestor. Ex.P-2 is the loan application. Ex.P-3 is the income certificate. Ex.P-4 is the community certificate issued by the accused. After receiving them, P.W.1 came out of the office of the accused and gave signal as instructed by P.W.10. P.W.10 went inside the office of the accused along with P.W3 and Thirumalai and his party. P.W.10 instructed P.Ws.1 and 2 to meet him at 4.30 in his office. P.W.10 introduced himself and others to the accused. Thereafter, P.W.10 prepared sodium carbonate solution in the same order in two glass tumbler. Thereafter, he directed the accused to dip both his hands in the said solution. When the appellant accused did so, the solution became pink in colour. Then, P.W.10 poured the solution in two bottles and carefully sealed them. They are M.Os.8 and 9. Thereafter, P.W.10 enquired about the illegal gratification received from P.W.1. Thereafter, he directed the accused to dip both his hands in the said solution. When the appellant accused did so, the solution became pink in colour. Then, P.W.10 poured the solution in two bottles and carefully sealed them. They are M.Os.8 and 9. Thereafter, P.W.10 enquired about the illegal gratification received from P.W.1. The accused produced one twenty rupees currency note, one ten rupees currency note and four five rupees currency notes, M.Os.l to 6 and P.W.1 compared the numbers in the currency notes with the numbers in the mahazar, Ex.P-6. On the instruction of P.W.10, the accused removed his shirt and gave it to P.W.10. P.W.10 dipped the pocket portion of the shirt in the sodium carborate solution and it became pink in colour. P.W.10 then poured the solution in a bottle and sealed them. The said bottle is M.O.10. Thereafter P.W.10 prepared a mahazar regarding the happenings in the office of the accused, which is Ex.P-8, which was attested by P.W.3 and Thirumalai. Thereafter, P.W.10 summoned P.W.1 to introduce Exs.P-2 to 4 and they were seized by P.W.10 under a mahazar, Ex.P-9. Thereafter, P.W.10 prepared a rough sketch of the office of the accused, which is Ex.P-22. Then, P.W.10 arrested the accused. On the said allegations, charge sheet was filed against the accused and he was tried before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem in Special Case No.29 of 1988. 10 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution and 23 Exhibits and 13 M.Os. were marked. One witness was examined and a book containing 285 applications was marked on the side of the accused. On appreciation of the evidence placed before him, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem reached the conclusion that the charges framed against the accused under Sec.161, I.P.C., Sec.5(lXe) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused under the above sections of law. For the offence under Sec.5(1)(e) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the accused was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs.500 in default to undergo R.I. for three months. No separate sentence was imposed under Sec.161, I.P.C. Aggrieved with the above conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Magistrate, the accused/ appellant has come forward with this appeal. 3. No separate sentence was imposed under Sec.161, I.P.C. Aggrieved with the above conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Magistrate, the accused/ appellant has come forward with this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.K.V. Sridharan, forcibly contended that the alleged bribe given by P.W.1 Anbuselvam has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. The prosecution is rest content only with the marking the signature of P.W.1 in the complaint allegedly given by him in Ex.P-5 as Ex.P-1. It was argued that P.W.2 Palanisamy is inimically disposed towards the appellant and he had cunningly implicated the appellant in the case. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that the alleged loan scheme had been extended only to the towns and not to the villages and when P.W.1 approached the appellant for the issue of community and income certificates for the purpose of obtaining the loan, the appellant had clearly told him that the loan scheme is not extended to the village Mallamuppanpatty and refused to issue the certificates. However, P.W. 1 insisted for the certificates and therefore, the appellant had agreed to issue the certificates, viz., Exs.P-3 and 4. It was further argued on behalf of the appellant the father of P.W.2 was in arrears of house tax and sometime earlier P.W.2 paid the house tax and among the money paid by P.W.2, there was a torn and dirty 50 rupees currency note which the appellant declined to receive. At the time P. W.2 requested the appellant to pay the house tax with his money and some time later, he will repay the said 50 rupee currency note. On 16. 1987, P.W.2 came to the office of the appellant and paid M.Os.1 to 6 the said 50 rupees and implicated him in the case as if he received bribe from P.W.1 for issuing the certificates. One other contention that was raised on behalf of the appellant is that P.W.2 and some of his friends belonging to D.M.K. party gave a petition to the Tahsildar containing the names of 285 persons requesting those names have to be deleted from the voter’s list as the same were bogus. One other contention that was raised on behalf of the appellant is that P.W.2 and some of his friends belonging to D.M.K. party gave a petition to the Tahsildar containing the names of 285 persons requesting those names have to be deleted from the voter’s list as the same were bogus. On the instruction of the Tahsildar, the appellant made an enquiry and found only a few names were bogus and the major portion of the names were true and when he told about it to the appellant, there was enmity which also prompted P.W.2 to implicate the appellant in the case. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued, once the appellant met P.W.2 in the barber shop of P.W. 1 and took him to task for not repaying Rs.50 which he had requested him to pay towards the arrears of house tax of his father, and he had not paid it for a very long time. 4. On a careful analysis of the judgment of the lower court, we find the trial Magistrate had carefully analysed all the above said contentions and ultimately rejected them, in our opinion, rightly. From the evidence of P.W.5 Jayaraman, it is clear that the loan scheme projected on the side of the prosecution is applicable only to the towns, and not to the villages. But, in our opinion that circumstances alone will not create serious doubts in the case of the prosecution. If really the appellant was satisfied, by issuing the community and income certificates, P.W.1 will not be benefited and the certificates will not be of any help to P.W. 1 in getting the loan, he would have flatly refused to issue the certificates when a request was made by P.W.1. On the other hand, the fact the appellant had actually issued the certificates Exs.P-3 and P-4 goes a long way to show that he intended to get illegal gratification of Rs.50. 5. On the other hand, the fact the appellant had actually issued the certificates Exs.P-3 and P-4 goes a long way to show that he intended to get illegal gratification of Rs.50. 5. The second contention raised on behalf of the appellant, the father of P.W.2 was in arrears of house tax towards which P.W.2 paid the money a torn and dirty 50 rupee currency note was found and when the appellant Village Administrative Officer, demanded a new currency note, P.W.2 requested him to pay the amount from out of his pocket and he will repay the same latter, and on the pretext of repaying the said balance amount of Rs.50, P.W.2 had paid M.Os. 1 to 6 and implicated the appellant in the case, appears to be very artificial and not believable. As pointed out by the learned trial Magistrate, no satisfactory evidence had been projected on the side of the appellant to establish the father of P.W.2 was in arrears of house tax and towards the said house tax, money was paid by P.W.2. The relevant house tax register has not been marked on the side of the appellant to satisfy the court the father of P.W.2 was in arrears of house tax. Even assuming the same to be true, there is no occasion for P.W.1 accompanying P.W.2 at the time of repaying the balance of Rs.50 and phenolpthalene powder being smeared on M.Os. 1 to 6 by P.W.2 himself. The evidence adduced on the side of the appellant through D.W.1 that the appellant met P.W.2 in the barber shop of P.W.1 and took him to task for not repaying the balance of Rs.50 which the appellant paid from his pocket, and also scolded him for presenting a memorandum to the Tahsildar that names of 285 persons have been falsely included in the voter’s list and the same have to be deleted, in our view, the said suggestions put on the side of the appellant do not appear to be acceptable. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out the mere fact that P.W. 1 the main witness, namely, the alleged bribe giver, has turned hostile the entire case of the prosecution has to be thrown out, seems acceptable. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out the mere fact that P.W. 1 the main witness, namely, the alleged bribe giver, has turned hostile the entire case of the prosecution has to be thrown out, seems acceptable. It was stressed that if the other evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution is not acceptable and trustworthy then alone the case of the prosecution has to be suspected, and not otherwise. It was pointed put the investigation conducted by P.W.10, the Deputy Superintendent of Police is transparent in all respects and P.Ws.2 and 3 have given clinching evidence about the actual occurrence and receipt of illegal gratification of Rs.50 by the appellant/ accused from P.W.1 in his office on 16. 1987. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is corroborative in all material particulars and there is absolutely no reason to doubt their evidence. As a matter of fact, the learned trial Magistrate has discussed the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 in detail regarding the actual receipt of the bribe amount and there is no circumstance,in their cross examination to throw any doubt or suspicion. In our view, P.W.3 has no axe to grind against the appellant/ accused. Therefore, proper weight has to be given to his evidence. We are inclined to hold that the evidence of P.W.2 is also true and acceptable and the suggestion made in the cross examination of P.W.2 to disbelieve his evidence is the machination of the accused/ appellant to gain sympathy of the court. On a careful analysis of evidence on record, we are inclined to hold the learned trial Magistrate has appreciated the evidence with proper care and caution and he has not committed any error either factual or legal in appreciating the evidence. From the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and the investigating Officer, P.W.10, it has been clearly proved that the accused/ appellant is a public servant and he had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.50 for issuing community and income certificates, Exs.P-3 and 4 to P.W.1 for the purpose of getting bank loan from the Harijan and Social Welfare Department. From the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and the investigating Officer, P.W.10, it has been clearly proved that the accused/ appellant is a public servant and he had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.50 for issuing community and income certificates, Exs.P-3 and 4 to P.W.1 for the purpose of getting bank loan from the Harijan and Social Welfare Department. As already pointed out, the evidence of P.W.5 of the effect that the loan scheme in question had not been extended to the villages and it has been confined only to the town, in our opinion, will not affect the case of the prosecution in any way, since the appellant even though aware of the fact, had expected and received illegal gratification from P.W.1 making him believe that the loan scheme has been extended to the villages also. 7. Lastly, it was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the authority which accorded the sanction to prosecute, namely, the District Collector, had issued the sanction mechanically without carefully analysing the matter in detail and without applying this mind. Sanction accorded only by narrating the substratum of the allegations made the against the accused without referring any material or documents which have been produced to ascertain the prima facie nature of the case is an index to show that proper application of the mind has not been shown, and basing a conviction on such defective sanction as invalid and void ab initio. In support of the above arguments, the attention of this Court was drawn to the following rulings: .(1) R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antualy, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 684: 1984 Crl.L.J. 613: (1984)2 S.C.C. 183 :1984 S.C.C. (Crl.) 172. .(2) Ayyasamy and another v. State, (1996)1 M. W.N. (Crl.) 63. .(3) Krishnamurthy, S. v. State, (1996)1 L.W. (Crl.) 95. In the first ruling in para 23 at page No.194, it is observed as follows: “....By a catena of decisions, it has been held that the authority entitled to grant sanction must apply its mind to the facts of the case, evidence collected and other incidental facts before according sanction. A grant of sanction is not an idle formality but a solemn and sacrosanct act which removes the umbrella of protection of Government servants against frivolous prosecutions and the aforesaid requirements must therefore, be strictly complied with before any prosecution could be launched against public servants (See: Mohd. A grant of sanction is not an idle formality but a solemn and sacrosanct act which removes the umbrella of protection of Government servants against frivolous prosecutions and the aforesaid requirements must therefore, be strictly complied with before any prosecution could be launched against public servants (See: Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad v. State of A.P). The Legislature advisedly conferred power on the authority competent to remove the public servant from the office to grant sanction for the obvious reason that authority alone would be able, when facts and evidence are placed before him, to judge whether a serious offence is committed or the prosecution is either frivolous or speculative...” In the second ruling in para 17 at page 72, Arumugham, J. had held as follows: “....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. 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 fail because this being a defect manifest in the prosecution and as such, the entire proceeding are rendered void ab initio...” In the third ruling, the same Hon’ble Judge in para 21 at page No.107 had held as follows: “It is the settled principle of law that the granting of sanction for the competent authority to prosecute a public servant is not an empty or an idle formality but however, it is an act attached with sacrosanctity to be exercised with every solemnity, to look into every matter and materials so carefully in order to save the public servant from falsely and fictitiously roping him in a vexatious or frivolous prosecution and public servants are expected to be saved only when the competent authorities are complying with the abovesaid legal norm settled down by the Courts of Law and unless this has been fully followed, the legislative mandate nor the law settled by the Apex Court cannot be deemed to have been followed, which otherwise renders the whole proceedings void ab initio...” We have absolutely no dispute with the above principles of law, but caution should be taken as every case has to be decided on its own facts and merits, and a hard and fast rule cannot be laid down in respect of all the cases coming under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the present case on hand, the original file maintained in the concerned Collector’s Office had been summoned and perused. The sanctioning authority, namely, the District Collector, who is the competent person to remove the appellant from service, had narrated the facts of the case in detail and ultimately concluded that according sanction to prosecute is necessary and only thereafter he had granted sanction to prosecute the appellant. The sanctioning authority, namely, the District Collector, who is the competent person to remove the appellant from service, had narrated the facts of the case in detail and ultimately concluded that according sanction to prosecute is necessary and only thereafter he had granted sanction to prosecute the appellant. We are unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/ accused that several material documents have not been perused by the sanctioning authority and therefore it has to be held that he has not applied his mind while granting sanction. We are satisfied that the sanctioning authority had taken all the precautions and perused the relevant documents and after application of the mind had granted sanction to prosecute the appellant. Therefore, the principles of law laid down in the three rulings referred to above, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. We are also persuaded to hold the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.W.10 had conducted the investigation taking all the precautions at every stage and also bearing in mind that transparency should be maintained, and no prejudice should be caused to the appellant at any stage of the investigation. 8. For the reasons given above, we are inclined to conclude the learned trial Magistrate has appreciated the evidence from the correct angle and reached the correct conclusion and no interference is called for. The trial Magistrate had imposed only the minimum sentence as laid down by law and therefore, the sentence of R.I. for one year cannot be reduced. 9. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Magistrate to the appellant is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. No leave is granted. The Superintendent Central Prison shall extend the benefits of the relevant Government Orders giving remission if applicable to the case. The trial Magistrate shall issue non-bailable warrant for the arrest of the appellant/accused.