Judgment :- The above two appeals are directed against one and the same judgment dated 29. 1989 delivered in Special Case No.2 of 1988 by the court of Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, convicting the appellant in the first appeal in C.A.No.807 of 1989 for an offence held proved under Sec.161, I.P.C. and Sec.5(1)(d) read with Sec.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 in default to undergo a further simple imprisonment for two months under Sec.5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and there was no separate punishment given under Sec.161 of the I.P.C. Aggrieved against such conviction and sentence passed by the court below the accused therein has filed the above criminal appeal in C.A.No.807 of 1989 and on the part of the prosecution aggrieved against the judgment of the court held in not imposing the minimum sentence provided under law, the state represented by the Public Prosecutor has filed the above other appeal in C.A.No.828 of 1995. 2. The charge against the accused and appellant in C.A.No.807 of 1989 as framed by the court below is that he being a public servant employed as an Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Madurai, accepted from one S.Periyannan, a sum of Rs.500 on 13. 1986 at 7.25 p.m. at room No.23, Vigneswara Lodge, Thanappa Mudali Street, Madurai, as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for the tax amount quoted on the sale of cotton yarn for Rs.7,000 to do the Official Act and thereby committing an offence punishable under Sec.161 of the I.P.C. Secondly on the same date, time and place and in the course of the same transaction the appellant as a public servant by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing his official position as a public servant and having obtained for himself, the said sum of Rs.500 (Rupees five hundred only) from the said S.Periyannan as a pecuniary advantage he had also committed an offence punishable under Sec.5(1)(d) read with 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. .3. .3. In proof of the above charge the prosecution, since burdened with proof beyond reasonable doubts, had examined 10 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 10, had marked 11 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-ll and further had also marked three material objects as M.Os.l to 3. On the part of the defence, the appellant had examined two witnesses as D.Ws.1 and 2, further marking 1 document as Ex.D-1. On the part of the defence, the appellant had examined two witnesses as D.Ws.1 and 2, further marking 1 document as Ex.D-1. In appreciation of the above evidence in its own way, the court below had ultimately arrived at the conclusion to convict and sentence the accused as afore mentioned testifying the validity of which the accused therein had preferred the above appeal in C.A.No.807 of 1989 on grounds: (1) that the court below ought to have found that there is no legal and reliable evidence adduced on the part of the prosecution, so as to warrant the conviction, (ii) the lower court had completely become prejudice against the accused and had arrived at the conclusion based on conjectures and surmises, (iii) the lower court had miserably failed to see that the version of the prosecution regarding material particulars stood uncorroborated, so as to connect the accused with the crux of the crime, (iv) the lower court ought to have found that M.O.2 series, the currency notes amounting to Rs.500 said to have been paid to the accused cannot be the money belonging to either P.W.1 or his wife since admittedly why P.W.1, the income tax assessee said to have made the said payment, had no debited into the account, (v) the court below ought to have found that there was no conclusive proof of demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant at his room, (vi) the court below ought to have rejected the case of the prosecution on ground that there has been no independent corroboration for both demand and acceptance apart from the raiding party, (vii) The confession statement said to have been made by the appellant is inadmissible in law and the same should not have been relied upon by the court below, (viii) the amount said to have been recovered from upon the table prior to seizure had not been subjected to tests, (ix) there was no legal or valid sanction for the prosecution, (x) the court below in spite of having disbelieved the evidence of P.W.2 should have being unreliable and uncorroborated by any other evidence especially in view of being accompliances, (xi) the court below also had miserably failed to see that the charge sheet in-the above case had been filed after an inordinate delay of two years and four months. 4. 4. On the contrary the prosecution on its part also would file C.A.No.828 of 1995 second cited above on grounds: (i) that the judgment of the trial court in not imposing the minimum sentence provided is against the law, (ii) the sentence imposed is inadequate and lenient, (iii) the learned special Judge has not furnished the reasons for not awarding the minimum sentence provided under the law and the reasons assigned by the Special Judge are neither valid not convincing, and (iv) considering the rank and status of the accused the learned Special Judge ought to have imposed a deterrent sentence. 5. Like every other criminal case, a case of bribery is subject to the rule that the accused is presumed innocent and that the burden to discharge the said innocence is paramountly on the prosecution. However strong the suspicion against the accused if every reasonable possibility of innocence has not been excluded, he is entitled to acquittal. Whenever circumstances arise, they must be proved and not by themselves presumed, No single item of evidence can be singled out and given prominence nor the accused’s theory of the case can be withdrawn from consideration. What constitutes bribery is a question of law; whether on the evidence, the crime has been committed in a question of fact. If therefore, the evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of a bribe leaves room for doubt and does not displace the presence of innocence wholly, the charge cannot be said to have been established. .6. The case of the prosecution from the point of view of the above evidence and proof placed before the court on the part of the prosecution if assessed to arrive at the conclusion whether the prosecution has proved its case to the expectations of law with proof beyond reasonable doubts, so as to justify the conclusions arrived at by the court below in passing a judgment of conviction against the accused unless we study the case in various angles and weigh the evidence in the context of the defence put forth by the appellant/accused in the lower court and in consideration of the position of law on the subject. From the evidence of D.W.I, what we could assess is that he was running a yarn business in the name of his wife under the name and style of ‘Kali & Co." and the licence for the said firm too stood in the name of his wife; that P.W.2, K.R. Rajan was the manager that the assessment for the assessment year 1984-85 reached them in November ‘85, according to which the tax to be remitted by them was Rs.14,000 Out of which Rs.6,000 had already been paid and the remaining Rs.7,000 and odd was due, that since the calculations were not done properly by the department, the tax had been levied in excess, than what was actually to be paid and-hence they appealed against the order to the Appellate Commissioner, wherein the incumbent was the appellant, that when it came up for final having on 13. 1986 his lawyer Mr. Manoharan and his manager P.W.2, attended to the court and they informed him that the appellant wanted the owner of the firm to come and meet him at his place of residence that is at room No.23 of Vigneswara Lodge, that since his wife was not in the habit of going anywhere or doing anything regarding the business; he went to see the appellant and finding him absent, once again he attemption 13. 1986 at 9.15 a.m. When himself and P.W.2 met the appellant wherein the appellant had told him that he would pass orders returning the rest of the tax amount of Rs.7,000 provided 20% of the said amount was paid to him. This witness would further say that he wanted rounding of the figures as Rs.1,000 accepting which the appellant consented to pay Rs.500 initially and the rest of the Rs.500 after the passing of the order and himself and P.W.2 went back to the place of business that day. 7. This witness would further say that he wanted rounding of the figures as Rs.1,000 accepting which the appellant consented to pay Rs.500 initially and the rest of the Rs.500 after the passing of the order and himself and P.W.2 went back to the place of business that day. 7. The further evidence of P.W.1 is that on reaching his shop along with P.W.2, arriving at the conclusion that it was unreasonable on the part of the appellant to have demanded bribe, he prepared a complaint there itself and went home at 12.30 p.m. asking P.W.2 to be present at his residence by 3.30 p.m. On his arrival, then both of them went to the office of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption at 4.00 p.m. and met the Deputy Superintendent of Police there who promised to register the case and at 4.30 p.m. the Deputy Superintendent of Police introduced him to two persons namely Mr.Ellappan, Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, and Mr.Venugopal, Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry, and handing over the complaint to them asked them to go through it and then to the-of the complaint this witness was questioned by them. Then the phenolpthalene test was held on five hundred rupee notes that he handed over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the demonstration was shown to everyone present there and all those events they took place in the office of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption that day had been reduced into writing in a mahazar by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, wherein the numbers of the currency notes handed over to him had also been entered. 8. Then the complaint given by this witness would be marked as Ex.P-1 and the mahazar attested by him would be marked as Ex.P-2. This witness would further say that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, instructed him to handover the tainted money to the appellant if only demanded and it accepted by him and to give the signal by lighting the cigarette. This witness would further say that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, instructed him to handover the tainted money to the appellant if only demanded and it accepted by him and to give the signal by lighting the cigarette. Then himself and P.W.2 went to Vigneswara Lodge by his moped followed by the vigilance officers and witnesses in the car and climbing the stairs, they went to the first floor wherein in room No.23, the appellant was sitting in the cot and on seeing them the appellant asked whether they brought the money answering in the affirmative, they handed over the sum of Rs.500 (five hundred rupees notes in denomination and counting the same the appellant kept the tainted money in his shirt pocket and told him that after passing of the order he must give the balance of Rs.500 also. Then himself and P.W.2 came to the down stairs and gave pre-arranged signal to the police authority and within two or three minutes along with the witnesses the police party went upstairs towards the room of the appellant and himself and P.W.2 went back to the Vigilance Office by his moped. The shirt that was worn by the appellant would be marked as M.O.I. He would further say that at 10.00 p.m. that day the Deputy Superintendent of Police and their party came to the Vigilance Office and examined him. The appeal memo, filed by his wife would be marked as Ex.P-3 and the order by the D.C.T.O. would be marked as Ex.P-4. The appeal memo, filed by his wife would be marked as Ex.P-3 and the order by the D.C.T.O. would be marked as Ex.P-4. In his cross-examination P.W.1 would depose that for himself and his wife both are income-tax assessees and they are maintaining separate accounts and he would not know exactly in which shop in the Mahal, the business of his wife was being run, that he did not also make a mention of the place of business in Ex.P-1 that he would not remember whether he gave a wrong address to the Dy.Superintendent of Police while giving statement to him regarding the place of business; that he did not know that the sales-tax returns should be submitted every month, that he did not know that in December, 1984 and in January, 1985, February, 1985 and March, 1985 returns, his wife’s business was being run in door No.7-A of 4th Mahal; that he would not know whether the change of address had been intimated to the Department that he gave Ex.P-64 statement; that he did not know about the tax particulars of his wife during 1984-85 and that the tax was sought for by his wife in the appeal to the extent of Rs.7,000 would be known to his manager only from whom he was given to understand the same that he did not mention either in Ex.P-1 or with the D.S.P. or even in his 164, Crl.P.C. statement about what time on 13. 1986 his manager Rajan came and told about what had been instructed by the accused and also when did the accused again wanted him to come and see that on 13. 1986 the accused was not in his room and he was told he had gone to Madras; that he did not know that the accused has conducted the appeals on 13th, 14th and 17th March, 1986, that he knew that full well; that according to law they would succeed the case; he would deny the suggestion that he did not meet the accused on 13. 1986 morning; and no such discussion as falsely alleged by him taken place, wherein the accused is said to have demanded 20% commission making it altogether Rs.1,000 that he did not meet his lawyer between 12th and 18th of March, 1986, that according to his dictation P.W.2, his manager reduced Ex.P1 into writing, but the signature is not there for having writing the same; that nowhere in Ex.P-1 it is stated that he too came along with him to the office of the Vigilance and Anti-corruption even in 164, Crl.P.C. statement no mention has been made, that P.W.2 accompanied him to the Vigilance Office or to the room of the accused and that he was with him at the time that the money is said to have been handed over to the accused; even in Ex.P-2 mahazar nothing is said about P.W.2 Rajan having been accompanied by P.W.1 or for his presence at the time that the phenolpthalene demonstration was held; This witness would simply deny that he had made P.W.2 to adduce false evidence, according to his dictates, since he is his manager, making use of undue influence. This witness would admit that having prepared Ex.P-1 report, going to his residence at 12.30 p.m. and asking the Manager to come by 3.30 p.m. that day, he was deposing that the first time only before the court. This witness would deny a firm suggestion that when the accused was in the bathroom attached to the room; he had placed the tainted money on the tabic since the doors of the room was opened (admittedly) and that it was not demanded and accepted by the accused. 9. P.W.2 would also depose adhering to the evidence in chief of P.W.1 and admittedly he is the manager of Kali & Co., firm during the relevant period. This witness would also depose that he was accompanied by P.W.1 at the Vigilance office and at the time and trap at the place of residence of the accused. 10. P.W.3 is the public witness then working as an expert in the office of the Regional Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Madurai, and his assistance is sought to have been requisitioned by the Vigilance Police on 18. 10. P.W.3 is the public witness then working as an expert in the office of the Regional Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Madurai, and his assistance is sought to have been requisitioned by the Vigilance Police on 18. 1986 and he would be present at the office of about 5 or 6 p.m. along with one Ellappan, Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, This witness would depose to all the events that took place at the office of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption as narrated by P.W.1 and thereafter he would also narrate what happened at the place of residence of the accused regarding the trap. This witness would say that P.W.1 on giving pre-arranged signal they went and reached the room of the accused which would measure 10 feet x 10 feet only and the vigilance party containing himself and 5 others entered into the room, and the D.S.P. asking the accused about the money, admitting that he received the money, the accused stated that having first inserted the money into his shirt pocket then transferred the same to the bureau and that both his hands and the shirt pockets were subjected for phenolpthalene test which proved positive and then the accused opening the bureau produced the tainted currency notes which on comparison with Ex.P-2, the numbers tallies and that they also recovered a file Number AB-99/85 on which the remarks ‘heard and reserved’ were found and then narrated every thing that happened, that then the Deputy Superintendent of Police prepared Ex.P-5 post-trap mahazar. The file recovered would be marked as Ex.P-6, M.O.1 shirt, M.O.2 series (5 currency notes in Rs.100 denomination), M.O.3 series (3 bottles containing Sodium Carbonate Clution) would also be marked through this witness. Then on search of the room Rs.4,800 and 11 files along with the rental receipts were found which have been recovered under Ex.P-7 search list. The witness would further depose that the accused got arrested by the Deputy Superintendent of Police P. W.4 who was then working as the Assistant in the office of the Assistant Commissioner Appellate Tribunal, Commercial Taxes, would depose that it was his office which was concerned with the appeals and the Assistant Commissioner was competent to hear and pass orders, that Ex.P-4 was an order passed by one Kathiresan, Commercial Tax Officer, in the matter concerned with Kali & Co., Ex.P-3 is the appeal filed against Ex.P-4 order on 22. 1986, the first date of hearing and on 13. 1986 the final date had been fixed and on that day the matter was heard and that it was he who wrote on the file as ‘heard and reserved’ and that ill 13. 1986 no order was passed. 11. P.W.5 was yet another Assistant Appellate Commissioner, Madurai North and the accused is said to be working in the same capacity for Madurai South who should be placed in charge of Madurai south also after 13. 1986. On seeing the file this witness would say that there was a hint by the accused in the file that the levied tax was wrong and by taking such hints during argument they would make use of the same at the time of passing the order. This witness in the cross-examination would categorically admit that according to the rules no tax relief could be given for such categories as one in dispute. This opinion he would after in consideration of the bills, the tax levied by the lower authorities and the items involved in the taxation etc., besides giving percentage of tax that is being levied. 12. P.W.6 was the Assistant Director, Forensic Laboratory, who on examination of M.O.3 series (3 bottles) gives opinion to the effect that all the 3 solutions contain phinclphathalenne and sodium carbonate. 13. P.W.7 is the manager of the Lodge wherein in Room No.23, the accused was staying during 23. 1985 and these facts would be ascertained through this witness. 14. P.W.8 is the lawyer, who appeared on behalf of the complainant Kali & Co., before the accused, this witness would say that the case was heard and reserved for orders, that the received instructions from P.W.2 and Unnamalai Achi. He would also identify Ex.P-3. This witness would further depose that during the hearing dates respectively on 22. 1986, 3. 1986 and 13. 1986, P.W.2 did not at all attend to the office of the accused, but he only came to the advocate’s office which is away from the office of the Assistant Commissioner by 4 or 5 kilo meters and went off. 15. P.W.9 working as the Deputy Secretary in the year 1988 in the Department of Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment would adduce evidence on behalf of the Secretary of the Department pertaining to according sanction for he prosecution of the accused in the above case. 15. P.W.9 working as the Deputy Secretary in the year 1988 in the Department of Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment would adduce evidence on behalf of the Secretary of the Department pertaining to according sanction for he prosecution of the accused in the above case. He would simply say that on 4. 1988 under Government Order 538 sanction had been accorded under Sec.l97(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Sec.6(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the order had been passed by the Secretary on 5. 1988 under Ex.P-11. In the cross examination this witness would categorically say that from the office of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption, they received only the report and no other documents such as F.I.R. Charge sheet, Model sanction order etc., and that the Government Advocate, Criminal Side had given his opinion in writing and that only seeing the report of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, the Secretary accorded sanction. 16. P.W.10, Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Investigating Officer in the above case would depose to the effect of the receipt of Ex.P-1 from P.W.1, The registration of the case in Crime No.1/86 under Sec.161 of Indian Penal Code and the requisition of P.W.3 and another; the phinoppthelne demonstration conducted before all and the significance of the same, some earning of the powder on the M.O.2 series and the instructions imparted to P.W.1 and the preparation of Ex.P-2 pre-trap mahazar and the attestation of the same by himself, P.W.1, P.W.3, and other police officers effecting the entire of the numbers of the M.O.2 series in Ex.P-2 would also speak and about the raiding party proceeding to the spot following P.Ws.1 and 2 who went in advance in the moped by 6.45 p.m. that day. He would also depose that P.Ws.1 and 2 going to the room of the accused P.W.1 came out and gave the pre-arranged signal and then the party went to the room and the accused trembling handed over M.O.2 series, collecting the same from the bureau and thus effecting of the recovery and on examining the witnesses ultimately filed charge sheet in the abvoe matter under the relevant sections of law. 17. In Sec.313, Crl.P.C. questioning by the trial court, besides denying the charge in general, the accused would specifically answer that he did not receive Rs. 500 from P.W.1 Periannan. 17. In Sec.313, Crl.P.C. questioning by the trial court, besides denying the charge in general, the accused would specifically answer that he did not receive Rs. 500 from P.W.1 Periannan. He would further say that in his long service of 32 years he had not committed any mistake and the instant case had been purposely foisted against him. 18. Two witnesses had also been examined as the defence witnesses 1 and 2. D.W.1 being the magistrate who recorded the 164 statement from the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 and another D.W.2 who was at the time working as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in the office of the accused, who would speak about the procedures that are being followed, the entries that are being, effected whenever the Assistant Commissioner leaves or goes away from the headquarters besides telling that on 13. 1986, 13. 1986, 13. 1986 and 13. 1986 he had worked in the office, that on 13. 1986 and 13. 1986 were holidays and that the headquarters for the accused was Madurai. 19. In the light of the judicial pronouncement if we barely dissect the trap case, it is the firm of one Mrs.Unnamalai Aachi i.e., Kali and Co., which is concerned with the tax but neither she does anything regarding the tax appeal even though she is said to have filed the appeal representing the firm nor has she been examined as a witness. Though being a woman, she would not have participated in each and every minute detail, still being the licence holder she ought to know as to what was happening around her business and by refraining to examine her may vital aspects of the case have not been unearthed much less subjecting her evidence to severe cross-examination; 20. It is her husband P.W.1 who is said to have been doing all necessary things regarding the business of Kali & Co., on behalf of the proprietrix, but he has only adduced inconsistent evidence without knowing anything regarding the day-to-day affairs of the business including being ignorant of the exact place of business as it comes to be known in his cross examination. 21. 21. Coming to the evidence of P.W.2, who is said to be the manager of the wife of P.W.1 the proprietrix of the firm Kali & Co., he is said to have played a crucial role in the case being accompanied by P.W.1 and witnessed everything right from the time of demand down to the handing over of the tainted money to the accused thus till the acceptance of the M.O.2 series currency notes. 22. It is the firm case of the prosecution that at the outset it is P.W.2 who is said to have met the accused in his chambers along with his lawyer C.Manoharan, P.W.8, on 13. 1986 when the accused is alleged to have directed to meet him at his lodge residence and that it is P.W.2 who in turn informed P.W.1 of the said direction. But the said lawyer C.Manoharan in spite of being examined as P.W.8 never uttered anything regarding himself and P.W.2 having met the accused on 13. 1986. But the lawyer would only adduce negative evidence to the effect that on 22. 1986, 3. 1986 and 13. 1986 on all the above three days, P.W.2 did not at all come to the court but only came to his office which was located at a place 4 or 5 kilometres away from the court of the accused and after imparting instructions, went of from the place. Only in continuation of the direction said to have been given by the accused to P.W.2 in the presence of P.W.8 lawyer, P.W.2 is said to have attempted to contact the accused and since the accused was found absent at his lodge room, again on 13. 1986, P.Ws.1 and 2 are said to have met the accused at 9, 15 a.m. when the shady deal is said to have been struck thus demanding Rs.1,000 a scribe from P.W.1 while such being the evidence of the lawyer, the demand theory of the case goes begging evidence. 23. It is the further case of the prosecution that P. W.2 was throughout accompanied by P.W.1 so far as all the acts done by P.W.1 in processing the case is concerned. 23. It is the further case of the prosecution that P. W.2 was throughout accompanied by P.W.1 so far as all the acts done by P.W.1 in processing the case is concerned. But in the cross examination of P.W.1 it would be glaring that neither in Ex.P-1 nor in his statement before the police nor even at the time of recording 164 statement by the Magistrate he said anything about P.W.2 and only at the first time in the court he was telling about his presence. .24. It is the definite evidence of P.W.3 the public witness in his chief-examination itself that all other members of the raiding party waiting downstairs, only P.W.1 went to the first floor of the lodge to hand over the tainted money to the accused thus belying the stand of the prosecution that P.W.2 witnessed the event of acceptance of the M.0.2 series currency notes. While such is the unmistakable evidence of P.W.3, and the lawyer witness P.W.8 the whole of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 regarding the participation of P.W.2 in both the demand and acceptance besides becoming false both the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2 have to be branded unbelievable and untrustworthy for consideration even regarding the other material particulars of the case are concerned. 25. There is no independent corroboration of the evidence of P.W.1 for both demand and acceptance and in such circumstances based only on the recovery and the recovery alone which too had been witnessed none but the members of the raiding party, mere recovery of the bribe money devised from the circumstances of the case cannot form the base for conviction. Moreover, even if the acceptance theory is to be accepted it is upto the prosecution to prove that the tainted money had been accepted by the accused knowingly that it was the bribe money and with a consenting mind. Absolutely no evidence comes forth to this extent and it is safe to conclude that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused proving the case with such standard of proof that is beyond reasonable doubts as expected by law. .26. Absolutely no evidence comes forth to this extent and it is safe to conclude that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused proving the case with such standard of proof that is beyond reasonable doubts as expected by law. .26. Coming to the next vital aspect of the case is according the sanction, the prosecution case is that the sanction in this case under Sec.l97(1)(b) of the Crl.P.C. and under Sec.6(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 had been accorded by the Secretary Commercial Taxes and Hindu Religious Endowment Department. But the particular secretary who is said to have accorded sanction did not appear before the court and adduce evidence. On the contrary, the Deputy Secretary P.W.9 has deposed to the effect of the sanction in this case. This witness would depose that the documents were received from the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption and Commissioner, Vigilance and sending for the opinion of the Government Advocate, the Secretary to the Government Mr.Aludia Pillai had accorded sanction on 5. 1988 as per Ex.P-11. In the cross-examination this witness would categorically state that they received only the report from the Directorate and no enclosures such as F.I.R. charge sheet and the model of the sanction order were the Secretary accorded sanction seeing the report of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. This is not the manner in which a sanctioning authority is expected to accord sanction in a case of vital importance wherein a high ranking Government official is alleged to have involved in a corruption trap case. From the evidence of P.W.9 it comes to be known in how callous and casual manner the sanctioning authority had dealt with in according the sanction. It should always be borne in mind by the sanctioning authority that he is playing a vital role and only to protect the interest of genuine public servants this power has been conferred on the departments head. Once the authority arrives at the conclusion that there is no proper ground for prosecuting the public servant after going through all the relevant records, there would be no chance for him to accord sanction at all in which event the question of holding the trial itself would not arise. Once the authority arrives at the conclusion that there is no proper ground for prosecuting the public servant after going through all the relevant records, there would be no chance for him to accord sanction at all in which event the question of holding the trial itself would not arise. Only releasing the duties and responsibilities cast on the sanctioning authority and the importance of such an order passed by him the courts have held time and again, that the sanction is not an idle formality but a sacro sanct Act. From the evidence of P.W.9 and the cydolostyle manner in which the sanctioning order has been ratified by the Secretary to Government would only indicate that no valid sanction had been accorded in this case in consideration of the vital documents and the facts and circumstances encircling the entire case and in application of mind and hence it has to be concluded that there is no valid sanction accorded in this case at all. The sanction being a mandatory provision of law and precondition for trial and if it fails the entire case of the prosecution collapses and the same has happened in this case. 27. If the case of the prosecution is assessed in the light of the above evidence, the conclusion that is to be arrived at, is whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts with valid, abundant and overwhelming evidence that it does not leave any doubt in the mind of the Judge with regard to the guilt of the accused. Only because innocent and honest Government servants should not be made scapegoats on baseless and make-believe allegations of parties and on the part of the prosecuting officials to make out a case some how or other, the law as laid down by various judicial pronouncements require independent corroboration from other than those belonging to the raiding party including the public witnesses. The standard of evidence and proof required by law for both demand and acceptance is defined in very many cases in the following terms: “The act being one of the important legislation on the criminal side, all allegations are required to be put to severe test of proof and all evidences led should be examined and weighed very carefully, thus in a case (Ayyaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1992 Crl.L.J. 608 (S.C.), it was observed that to prove demand of bribe, independent evidence is required. Therefore, where there is no independent evidence available it does not prove the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable counts, conviction was considered to have been based on probability and was liable to be set aside. Also in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vishnu Prasad Babele, 1991 Crl.L.J. 1983.” Same was in a case alleging offence of accepting illegal gratification. ‘Witnesses forming part of raiding party were not found independent and hence it was held that evidence regarding handing over money to accused was not believable and therefore sanction was not sustained in Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, 1992 Crl.L.J. 490 (S.C.). Thus for trap cases under Prevention of Corruption Act what has been held in the case Darshan Lal v. Delhi Administration, 1974 Crl.L.J. 307 (S.C.), still holds good. It was observed by the Apex Court that in cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, there should be independent and trustworthy corroboration of evidence of trap witnesses. In another judgment the same court observed that in cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, evidence of interested and partisan witnesses who are concerned in the success of trap must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In proper case, before conviction of the accused person as held in Ram Prakash Arora v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 498: 1972 Crl.L.J. 1293. 28. In the above circumstances the court below has erred in not properly appreciating the evidence in its perspective and no conviction could sustain on appreciation of the evidence of each witness in a piecemeal as resorted to and done by the lower court. An overall view of the entire case and the evidence has to be taken and appreciated in the context of each other fact giving the impact of the same on the case as a whole. An overall view of the entire case and the evidence has to be taken and appreciated in the context of each other fact giving the impact of the same on the case as a whole. In my view the lower court has failed to achieve this object in appreciating the evidence as a result of which it had arrived at the erroneous conclusion to convict the accused. 29. In the above circumstances, this Court is left with no option but to arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused with valid, abundant, consistent overwhelming and voluminous evidence as warranted by law, thus miserably failing to bring home the guilt of the accused. 30. In result, C.A.No.807 of 1989 is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment and the fine imposed by the Court of Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, in Special Case No.2 of 1988 dated 29. 1989. The appellant (C.A.No.807 of 1989) is set at liberty and the fine amount paid by him shall be refunded to him. In view of the disposal of C.A.No.807 of 1989 in the above manner the other Criminal Appeal No.828 of 1985 preferred by the State for enhancement of the sentence shall stand dismissed.