Judgment N.N.Singh, J. 1. On the death of the sole appellant Shivendra Nath Sahay, normally this appeal would have got abated, but his son Ranjit Sahay availed himself a remedy envisaged in the proviso to Section 394(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and applied for leave to continue the appeal presumably to remove the stigma fastened on his late father by the order of his conviction on corruption charge by the Special Judge (Vigilance) of South Bihar, Patna. The leave was granted after condoning the delay involved in making such application. The appeal was originally preferred by the sole appellant Shivendra Nath Sahay who was convicted by Special Judge (Vigilance). South Bihar, Patna on 15.7.1988 in Special Case No. 5 of 1985 convicting him for an offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 161 of the IPC and R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(d) of the Act with a direction that sentences would run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, was that Shivendra Nath Sahay was a public servant employed as Fishery Extension Supervisor attached to the Fishery Office of the Fishery Development Officer, Munger and it was alleged that on 18th he received Rs. 500/- from complainant Mahabir Paswan (P.W. 5) for settlement of a pond. The complainant who was not willing to pay the bribe, filed a complaint (Ext. 3) against Sri Sahay before I.G. (Cabinet) (Vigilance), Bihar, Patna, on which S.I. Ramesh Chandra Giri (P.W. 2) was deputed to verify the allegation. Further case of the prosecution was that on 17.1.1985 complainant Mahabir Paswan and S.I. Ramesh Chandra Giri went to the office and in presence of the verifying S.I., the appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- for recommending the case of the complainant for settlement of the pond. It was also alleged that on that day the appellant took Rs. 25/- from the complainant and asked him to bring Rs. 500/- on the next day. Thereafter verifying S.I. (P.W. 2) submitted his report (Ext. 2) and on receipt of his report, the case was registered and a trip was arranged. It was also alleged that on that day the appellant took Rs. 25/- from the complainant and asked him to bring Rs. 500/- on the next day. Thereafter verifying S.I. (P.W. 2) submitted his report (Ext. 2) and on receipt of his report, the case was registered and a trip was arranged. According to the prosecution case, on 18.8.1985 a raiding party headed by Dy. S.P. Bihari Lal (P.W. 11) reached Vigilance Office at Munger and the complainant (P.W. 8) handed over five currency notes of Rs. 100/- each regarding which a memorandum was prepared and after noting their numbers, the notes were returned to the complainant to pay the same to the appellant only on his demand as bribe and verifier S.I. (P.W. 2) was also instructed to remain with the complainant and to give signal by rubbing his hairs by his right hand when the appellant accepted the bribe. Further case of prosecution was that when the complainant (P.W. 5) and S.I. (P.W. 2) went to the appellant, the appellant enquired whether he had brought the money and then the complainant paid Rs. 500/- which the appellant accepted and kept the notes in the almirah of his office and locked it and then proceeded towards the chamber of Chief Executive Officer (District Fishery Officer). Meanwhile the S.I. (P.W. 2) gave the signal and the members of the raiding party reached there, whom he told about accepting the bribe and keeping that in almirah and going to the chamber of Chief Executive Officer by the appellant. Thereafter the Dy. S.P. and members of the raiding party went to the Chamber of the Chief Executive Officer and after giving introduction they brought the appellant in his room and in presence of two independent witnesses, the appellant opened the almirah after taking out the key from his pocket and that Rs. 50/-currency note of 10/- each were recovered from that almirah, number of which tallied with the numbers noted down in the memorandum and then seizure list was prepared, a copy of which was given to the appellant and the almirah, key and the file relating to settlement were seized. On completion of the investigation and after receiving sanction for prosecution of the appellant from the Secretary of Animal Husbandary & Fishery Department, Govt. On completion of the investigation and after receiving sanction for prosecution of the appellant from the Secretary of Animal Husbandary & Fishery Department, Govt. of Bihar, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and he was put on trial and was convicted as aforesaid. 3. The defence as gathered from the suggestions put to P.Ws., evidence of D. W. 1 and the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. was that he has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of one Communist Party leader B.K. Chand who was annoyed as the settlement was not made in his name and that almirah was used by three employees and the key of the almirah used to be kept on the table of the Chief Executive Officer. 4. Witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case out of whom P.W. 4 Prabhu Dayal, P.W. 7 Upendra Nath Sinha, P.W. 10 S.I. Parmanand Singh, P.W. 13 Md. Sarwar Khan, watcher and P.W. 15 Muni Lal, driver were tendered for cross-examination. P.W. 3 Mukti Nath Mishra is a formal witness who handed over the sanction order to the I.O. and P.W. 12 is Satendra Kumar Singh who proved the sanction order (Ext. 6). P.W. 5 is Mahendra Paswan, the complainant from whom the bribe was demanded and P.W. 2 is S.I. Ramesh Chandra Giri who is verifier of the allegation and who accompanied P.W. 5 when the demand was made and the bribe money of Rs. 500/-was paid. P.W. 9 Vaidehi Saran Mishra, Special Magistrate, P.W. 14 Shardanand Singh Inspector Vigilance, P.W. 6 Suresh Singh, S.I. Vigilance and P.W. 11 Bihari Lal, Dy. S.P, Vigilance were members of the raiding party. P.W. 8 Krishnadeo Choudhary and P.W. 14 Chandra Mauleshwar Sharma are witnesses on the point of recovery of bribed money and seizure, P.W. 16 Hanuman Pd. Thakur, D.S.P. Vigilance is the part I.O. of this case. One defence witness D.W. 1 Hira Lal Yadav, the then District Fishery Officer, Munger was examined by the defence to show that the key of the almirah was kept on his table and that the Almirah was used by three clerks of the office. 5. The learned trial Court has discussed the evidence of P.W. 5 Mahabir Paswan in paragraphs 9 and 10 of its judgment in which P.W. 5 Mahabir Paswan, supporting his complaint (Ext. 5. The learned trial Court has discussed the evidence of P.W. 5 Mahabir Paswan in paragraphs 9 and 10 of its judgment in which P.W. 5 Mahabir Paswan, supporting his complaint (Ext. 3) stated that the appellants for settlement of the pond demanded Rs. 500/- from him regarding which he filed complaint in the Vigilance Department and a verifier, Sub-Inspector Ramesh Chandra Giri was deputed to accompany him with whom he went to the appellant in office on 17.8.1985 when the appellant took Rs. 25/- from him and asked to pav Rs. 500/- on next day. He further stated that on 18.8.1985. He had produced Rs. 500/- in five currency note at the vigilance department office at Munger, the number of which were noted down and then he accompanied with verifier Sub-Inspector (P.W. 2) went to office and after being satisfied that in the file the appellant had noted favourable note, he paid Rs. 500/- to the appellant, who kept the money in the almirah and after locking it went with the file to the chamber of the then Chief Executive Officer. When signal was given to the raiding party who were waiting out side the office, and on their arrival, the appellant by taking out the key from his pocket, opened the almirah from which the same five currency notes handed over to the appellant, numbers of which were noted down earlier, were recovered and verified. P.W, 2, the verifying S.I. of Vigilance Department. Ramesh Chandra Giri, supported the evidence of P.W. 5 which was discussed by the trial Court in paragraphs 11 and 12 of its judgment. The two independent seizure-list witnesses P.W. 8 and P.W. 14, supported seizure of Rs. 500/- from the almirah unlocked by this appellant. 6. Sri Shyameshwar Dayal, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there was no evidence that the money was recovered from the possession of the appellant and that the appellant was not arrested while allegedly taking bribe. He also contended that no arrangement was made to smear phenolphthalein powder on currency notes in order to satisfy that the bribed money was actually handled by the appellant. The learned Addl. P.P. rightly submitted that when prosecution case is that the appellant after taking the bribe money, kept the same in almirah and locked it, there was no question of its recovery from the person of the appellant. The learned Addl. P.P. rightly submitted that when prosecution case is that the appellant after taking the bribe money, kept the same in almirah and locked it, there was no question of its recovery from the person of the appellant. He also submitted that the raiding party could come only after receiving the signal and the signal could be given only after the bribe money was handed over to the appellant and as such, it was not at all possible that the appellant be caught just when the bribed money was being handed over to him. He admitted that phenolphthalein test was not done but such test is not provided as necessary in law and such test is conducted only for conscientious satisfaction. The Addl. P.P. pointed out that evidence of P.W. 5 and P.W. 2 is unshaken regarding payment of bribe money of Rs. 500/- to the appellant and its payment by P.W. 5 on 18.8.1985. He also stated that recovery of currency notes, number of which were noted in the memorandum (Ext. 1) was supported by P.Ws. 8 and 14 in presence of which the seizure-list (Ext. 5) was prepared and the number of currency notes were the same which were noted down earlier in the memorandum. The members of the raiding party P.Ws. 1, 6, 9 and 11 also fully supported the prosecution case regarding recovery of the five currency notes number of which tallied with that noted in the memorandum (Ext. 1). 7. Shri Dayal, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that it has come in the evidence of D.W. 1, who happened to be the then District Fishery Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer that the almirah was used by three employees sitting in that room and that the key used to be kept on his table and that on that day the same lifted from his table when the raiding party came to his chamber and insisted upon the appellant to open the almirah. The Addl. P.P. Sri Gupta submitted that such statement of D.W. 1, made for the first time in Court could not be relied upon when the then District Fishery Officer, Hiralal Yadav was examined by the I.O. and he had not stated so than as he has stated in the Court. Sri Gupta Addl. The Addl. P.P. Sri Gupta submitted that such statement of D.W. 1, made for the first time in Court could not be relied upon when the then District Fishery Officer, Hiralal Yadav was examined by the I.O. and he had not stated so than as he has stated in the Court. Sri Gupta Addl. P.P. placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1975 SC 216 (R. Kondaiah and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh), where it was held that testimony of such witness, who do not come forward and told the Investigating Officer what he long after stated in the Court, can be condemned as an after-thought. 8. Sri Dayal raised another point that the file seized was not produced in Court, in fact, the file was not produced in court but its non-production does not make the prosecution story unreliable as it is not disputed that the settlement of the pond was pending. 9. Another point raised by Sri Dayal was that there was no valid sanction for prosecution of the appellant as the sanction order (Ext. 6) was made by the different authority, when the Director of Fishery Department was a competent authority, being the appointing authority of the appellant to accord sanction for prosecution. No doubt, the sanction order was passed by the Secretary of the Animal Husbandary and Fishery Department, the Addl. P.P. submitted that the Secretary of the Department being the controlling officer of even Director of Fishery, was quite competent to accord sanction for prosecution. He pointed out that this matter was discussed by the trial Court in paragraph 34 of its judgment in which the trial Court held that there was valid sanction of the prosecution of the accused. Even assuming that there was error or irregularity in according the sanction for prosecution, unless it is shown that there was failure of justice occasioned thereby, the prosecution is not vitiated. This is the view of the Supreme Court taking in the case of Kalapnath Roy v. State (through C.B.I.), reported in (1997) 8 SCC 732 . Even assuming that there was error or irregularity in according the sanction for prosecution, unless it is shown that there was failure of justice occasioned thereby, the prosecution is not vitiated. This is the view of the Supreme Court taking in the case of Kalapnath Roy v. State (through C.B.I.), reported in (1997) 8 SCC 732 . Similar view was taken in another decision of the case of State of Orissa v. Murtunjaya Panda, reported in JT 1998 (1) SC 77, where it was held that "Section 465 of Cr PC expressly lays down inter alia that any error or irregularity in any sanction for prosecution shall not be a ground for reversing an order of conviction by the appellate Court, unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact, been occasioned thereby." Nothing was brought before me to show that any failure of justice excepting this technical objection has been occasioned and in absence of that relying on the aforesaid judgments, I find and hold that this technical objection raised on behalf of the appellant is of no avail. 10. From the discussions made above regarding broad features of the evidence, it is clear that the disputed area had narrowed down to a very limited radius as to whether the appellant did receive the amount and kept that in almirah from where signed currency notes of Rs. 500/- number of which were noted down in the memorandum (Ext. l) were recovered from the almirah opened by the appellant himself. It has been discussed above that evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 2 regarding demand and payment of Rs. 500/- to the appellant and evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 14 regarding recovery of the same currency notes from the almirah opened by the appellant are strong circumstances suggestive of the truth of the prosecution version. It is difficult to conceive that somebody also would have placed the currency notes in the almirah in presence of the appellant. Since the key was with the appellant these notes could not have been kept in the almirah by some one in absence of the appellant. 11. In the result, I find no merit in this appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.