CHINNAPPA, J. ( 1 ) P. W. 9 Chandrakanth Bhandare who was the Police Inspector and Inspector of Lokayukta at the relevant time received an oral complaint from P. W. 4 Mounesh which was reduced into writing as per Ex. 9-12 alleging that P. W. 4 had registered his name in the employment Exchange, Raichur for the post of peon and in that connection he had approached this appellant on 19. 11. 93 to sponsor his name for the appointment of peon in the office of the Director, animal Husbandry, Raichur, and at that time the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 250/ -. PW. 9 obtained the signature of P. W. 4 and sent the FIR to the Court through the P. C. Siddaramappa P. W. 7 as per ex. P. 25. Immediately thereafter, he sent two requisitions - one to the RTO Office and another to the health office to depute its staff to be the witness for the raid as per Exs. P. 26 and P. 27. He introduced p. W. 4 the witnesses and read over the FIR to both the witnesses and the complainant which the complainant has admitted as having stated before P. W. 9 in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter, P. W. 9 prepared an entrustment panchanama and complainant had given rs. 200/- of Rs. 100/- denomination which were treated with phenolphthalein powder. He had also asked P. W. 5 Govindaraj to touch the notes and thereafter his hands were washed and he then instructed them as to how the money was to be paid to the appellant in the presence of P. W. 5 Govinda Raju. For that purpose a panchanama was drawn as per Ex. P. 18. Immediately thereafter, P. Ws. 4 and 5 went to the office where the appellant was working and at that time, the appellant asked as to whether he had brought the money and P. W. 4 answered in the affirmative. Immediatety he took p. Ws. 4 and 5 to the record room of the Employment Exchange where he was given two currency notes. The appellant received that amount and kept it in the handkerchief M. O. 5 and thereafter, P. W. 4 signalled as instructed by P. W. 9 and immediately they came and recovered the money from the floor of the room and they washed the notes m. O. 6. The appellant received that amount and kept it in the handkerchief M. O. 5 and thereafter, P. W. 4 signalled as instructed by P. W. 9 and immediately they came and recovered the money from the floor of the room and they washed the notes m. O. 6. They also put a seal marked as 'aj' for purposes of identification marked as M. O. 7. The appellant also gave a statement as per Ex. P. 19. The engineer had prepared the spot mahazar. The seized articles were sent to the Chemical Examiner's office for report. After completing the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet in spl. Case No. 4/94 for the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short 'the act') on the file of the Sessions Judge, Raichur. The appellant has denied the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution has examined P. Ws. 1 to 9 and Exs. P-1 to P-34 and M. Os. 1 to 7 were marked. After assessing the evidence, the Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 and failed to prove the offence under Section 13 (1) (d ). Accordingly, he sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of 15 days. However, he was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d ). Being aggrieved by the Judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl. S. P. P. for the respondent. ( 3 ) AT the very outset the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant himself has turned hostile and there is no evidence whatsoever to hold that the appellant has demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 200/- on 19. 11. 93. ( 4 ) IT is no doubt true that P. W. 4 the complainant at whose instance the Lokayukta Police registered a case, conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet turned hostile. But that itself is not sufficient to reject the case of the prosecution if other materials are sufficient to hold that the appellant is guilty of the offence. ( 4 ) IT is no doubt true that P. W. 4 the complainant at whose instance the Lokayukta Police registered a case, conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet turned hostile. But that itself is not sufficient to reject the case of the prosecution if other materials are sufficient to hold that the appellant is guilty of the offence. Under those circumstances, it is now necessary to refer to the Judgment of the supreme Court in ( 1996 (5) SCC 369 ) wherein it is held that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness if he is only reliable. Corroboration is required when he is only partially reliable. Similarly, in ( 1996 (3) SCC 338 ). Their Lordships have held that conviction can be recorded on the testimony of police official if found reliable. However, they being interested in the result of the case, their evidence requires more careful scrutiny. In 1997 (11) SCC 139 it is held that merely because the witness belongs to police force, the evidence cannot be said to be biased. With these principles in mind, it is now necessary to consider the evidence of the prosecution to find out as to whether the Court has rightly held him guilty under Section 7 of the Act. It may also be mentioned that the prosecution has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal order passed in respect of the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act. ( 5 ) P. W. 1 Mallikarjun was the Dist. Employment Officer during there levant time. From his evidence it is clear that on 19. 11. 93 the appellant was working in the Vacancy and Despatch Section. He has also stated that upon receipt of vacancy notification from a concerned department the appellant had to prepare the list of vacancy particulars such as age, qualification, number of posts, posts reserved for each category and furnish it to the Employment Exchange Officer. He has also stated that in 1993 he was entrusted with the list of candidates for the Dept. of Animal Husbandry for 15 posts of Group 'd' and in that connection he has produced Ex. P-1 the particulars furnished by him. Ex. P-2 is a copy of the fetter which bears the acknowledgment and Ex. P-3 is the service particulars of the appellant. of Animal Husbandry for 15 posts of Group 'd' and in that connection he has produced Ex. P-1 the particulars furnished by him. Ex. P-2 is a copy of the fetter which bears the acknowledgment and Ex. P-3 is the service particulars of the appellant. Ex P-4 is the requisition received from the Department. The Attendance Register Extract marked as Ex. P-5 discloses that on 19. 11. 93 the appellant had attended the office. He has also produced Photostat copy of the employment card as per Ex. P-6. In his cross-examination he has clearly stated that he is the final authority for forwarding the list of candidates to the employer. Exs. P-1 to P-6 are through letter correspondence and not by personal visit of Lokayukta Police before him, etc. ( 6 ) P. W. 2 Balwant Joshi is the Dy. Director of Animal Husband ryand he has sent a letter in Form A-6 which is marked as Exs. P-7 and P-8 and Exs. P-7 and P-8 were sent through his letter Ex. P-9. The requisition by Lokayukta is marked as Ex. P-10. Therefore, from this it is clear that P. W. 2 has requisitioned to fumls the particulars of candidates from the Employment Exchange Office where the appellant was attached to that particular section. P. W. 4 though turned hostile, from his evidence it is clear that he is a S. S. L. C. fail candidate. He registered his name in the Raichur Employment exchange in 1984 and renewed it upto 1986. He did not secure any employment through the Employment Exchange, Raichur. Though he claims that he had not filed any complaint, he admits that Ex. P- 12 the complaint bears his signature. According to him he signed ex. P-12 in Employment Exchange Office. As far as his evidence is concerned, it is clear that he registered his name in the Employment exchange for the post of peon and he also admits his signature in the complaint Ex. P-12. Except that all other statements made in the complaint as well as before the Lokayukta Police and other formalities observed have been denied. ( 7 ) P. W. 5 is an important witness in this case. P-12. Except that all other statements made in the complaint as well as before the Lokayukta Police and other formalities observed have been denied. ( 7 ) P. W. 5 is an important witness in this case. He was requisitioned by the i. O. and he was present when the entrustment mahazar was drawn and he also accompanied P. W. 4 to the office and he categorically states as to how the trap was laid, the demand made by the appellant and also the payment made by P. W. 4. He has also stated that the I. O. had come on being signalled by P. W. 4. Immediately, his hands were washed and the wash turned to pink colour. The handkerchief was also secured and as far as his evidence is concerned, inspite of lengthy drilling cross-examination, nothing could be elicited as to why he is speaking against the appellant. He has nothing against the appellant. He is working in a different department altogether. Under those circumstances, the Court below has rightly accepted his evidence. ( 8 ) IT is true P. W. 6 Siddanna who is also an independent witness has not supported the case of the prosecution but he is a colleague of the appellant. Therefore, it is natural that he did not support the prosecution case. But however, he has admitted that he was clerk in the record room. He also admits that the appellant was allotted the work of vacancy and despatch and he produced Ex. P-21 the work distribution of the office during the relevant period. However, he has stated that he had not seen P. W. 4 Mounesh. He was entrusted with the work of renewing the cards of the candidates and he admits that Ex P-6 bears his initial which was renewed by him. He also admits that he was present in office when Lokayukta Police came to raid his office but however he does not know what was done by lokayukta Police except that he came to know that they came from lokayukta on that day. He also says that he was not present when the trap was laid and panchanama was drawn in the office. However, he admits that on 19. 11. 93 he was present in office on duty. Therefore, he was treated hostile and cross-examined. He also says that he was not present when the trap was laid and panchanama was drawn in the office. However, he admits that on 19. 11. 93 he was present in office on duty. Therefore, he was treated hostile and cross-examined. ( 9 ) P. W. 7 Sidramappa is the P. C. attached to the Lokayukta and he has stated that on 19. 11. 93 P. W. 4 Mounesh lodged a complaint. He produced the sealed cover containing FIR to the Spl. Judge, raichur, at 10. 59 A. M. and he prepared the sample demonstration. He smeared phenolphthalein powder on two currency notes of Rs. 100/- each produced by P. W. 4 Mounesh the complainant. He also states that there were two witnesses - one from RTO Office and another from Health Office and he has spoken about the manner in which the demonstration was done in the presence of the PSI. He has also accompanied the Investigating Officer when P. Ws. 4 and 5 went to the office of the appellant and at 1. 10 P. M. to 1. 20 P. M P. W 4 signalled by cleaning his face with his handkerchief and they entered the office and enquired with Thammanna as well as the complainant and they revealed the passing of the money to the hands of the accused, Etc. Thereafter, he also speaks that they arrested the appellant and released him on bail. He recovered Rs 200/- with the hand-kerchief which had fallen on the ground and the amount was seized under panchanama. Thereafter, he was entrusted with the articles to be carried to the FSL, Bangalore. Accordingly he delivered the same to the FSL, Bangalore on 23. 11. 1993 and he brought them back and produced before the I. O. Even in his cross- examination also nothing could be elicited as to why he should speak against the appellant. ( 10 ) P. W. 8 Gangaram is the Director of Employment and Training. He speaks about the sanction granted to prosecute the appellant. ( 11 ) P. W. 9 Chandrakanth, Police Inspector, Lokayukta, Raichur, is the Investigating Officer. He speaks about the receipt of the complaint, the entrustment of the money to P. W 4, thereafter raiding the office of the appellant, seizure of the notes and thereafter entrusting the matter to the FSL and completing the investigation. ( 11 ) P. W. 9 Chandrakanth, Police Inspector, Lokayukta, Raichur, is the Investigating Officer. He speaks about the receipt of the complaint, the entrustment of the money to P. W 4, thereafter raiding the office of the appellant, seizure of the notes and thereafter entrusting the matter to the FSL and completing the investigation. ( 12 ) THE evidence of these witnesses fully corroborates with the evidence of P. Ws. 5 and 7. From this it is abundantly clear that the prosecution has placed sufficient material to show that the appellant demanded money from P. W. 4 and that the trap was laid and the investigating Officer was successful in establishing that the appellant had demanded and accepted the bribe amount to do official favour to P. W. 4 to recommend his name to the Animal Husbandry department to be appointed as a peon. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no corroboration to establish the case of the appellant is liable to be rejected. The evidence of independent witness P. W. 5 fully corroborates with the evidence of P. Ws. 7 and 9. Therefore, the Court below has rightly held that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offence. ( 13 ) HOWEVER the learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that the sanction granted by P. W. 8 Gangaram is not in accordance with law and therefore, it is liable to be rejected. This contention was raised before the Sessions Court and the learned sessions Judge has considered this argument in detail. The learned sessions Judge also placed reliance on the decisions reported in hazarilal vs STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) N. W. MOHIUDDIN vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, SURESH KUMAR shrivastava vs STATE OF M. P. , in regard to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and those principles are correctly applied to the facts of the present case. ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that sanction order is not in consonance with the principles of law laid down by the various High Courts and the Supreme Court. In support of his argument he placed reliance on a decision reported in MOHD. ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that sanction order is not in consonance with the principles of law laid down by the various High Courts and the Supreme Court. In support of his argument he placed reliance on a decision reported in MOHD. IQBAL AHMED vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH wherein their lordships have held: it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. This should be done in two ways; either (1 i by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (2) by adducing evidence to show the facts placed before the sanctioning authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it.- in this case, the sanction order is produced and marked as Ex p-2 and in support of it, P. W. 8 Gangaram, the Director of employment and Training, Bangalore, has been examined. He has clearly stated that after perusing the records, he was satisfied that a prima facie case was made out and therefore, he granted sanction as per Ex. P-24. A perusal of Ex P-24 the proceedings makes it -clear that P. W. 8 referred to the letters written by the Inspector General of Police and also the Directorate and the Inspector General of Police, bureau of Investigation, etc. in connection with the suspending of the officer and also the fact that he was involved in a trap case, etc. He has referred to the letter dated 7. 5. 1994 in which he was informed that there was sufficient evidence available on record to clearly establish that a prima facie case existed against the A. G. O. under sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 32 of the Act and he was satisfied that he was liable to be prosecuted under a competent court of law. He has further mentioned that after going through the investigation report sent by the Inspector General of Police, he was satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the appellant and he felt it necessary that the AGO be prosecuted for the offence under the Act and accorded sanction. He has further mentioned that after going through the investigation report sent by the Inspector General of Police, he was satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the appellant and he felt it necessary that the AGO be prosecuted for the offence under the Act and accorded sanction. However, when he was examined before Court, he has stated that the Lokayukta Police furnished to him the FIR Copy, list of witnesses and detailed report dated 17. 5. 95, the statement of witnesses, the trap panchanama, the statement of the appellant given before the Lokayukta Police and after having studied the papers, he passed the sanction order. In his cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that his office staff prepared the order and he has signed it He has admitted that he had not issued any notice before issuing the sanction order. However, he has also contended that copies of witnesses referred by the Lokayukta was not furnished to him except the report and he denied the suggestion that he passed the orders mechanically to oblige the Lokayukta Police and that he has not applied his mind before according sanction, etc. In view of this, the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that from the perusal of the sanction order, it is clear that he had not looked into the papers but for the first time in the evidence he stated that had perused all the records. Therefore, this sanction order is illegal. This argument is unsustainable. ( 15 ) AT the very outset, it is clear that he has referred to all the documents and he was also satisfied that there was a prima facie case to prosecute the appellant and there is nothing to indicate that any prejudice is caused to the appellant in according sanction to him. Under those circumstances, I am of the considered view that the sanction order is in accordance with law and a valid one. This asoect also was considered by the Court below in greater detail. Therefore, viewed from any angie, I hold that the Judgment of the court oeiow does not call for interference. The Court also, has considered regarding the adequacy of sentence and imposed the minimum sentence as prescribed under law. Therefore, on this ground also the appeal has no merit. ( 16 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Therefore, viewed from any angie, I hold that the Judgment of the court oeiow does not call for interference. The Court also, has considered regarding the adequacy of sentence and imposed the minimum sentence as prescribed under law. Therefore, on this ground also the appeal has no merit. ( 16 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He shall surrender and serve out the sentence imposed by the Court below. --- *** --- .