Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. This appeal by the sole appellant is directed against the judgment dated 4th February, 1989 passed in Special Case No. 11/82 by Smt. Rekha Kumari, Special Judge, CBI (South Bihar), Patna by which he was convicted for the offence under Section 409 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a find of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo further rigouous imprisonment for six months. The appellant was further convicted under Seciton 477-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The learned Special Judge also convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 5(1) (c), 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. But no separate sentence was passed against him under the aforesaid sections. The sentence were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that in March, 1982 the appellant and one Arvind Singh were posted as A.G. (III) FCI, FSD, Khagaul. According to the prosecution case in the period between 3-3-1982 to 14-3-1982, 23864 bags of DAP fertilizer were unloaded at Danapur. The appellant was deputed to receive this consignment at Danapur Railway Station and Arvind Singh was deputed to, assist him. In between 6-3-1982 to 11-2-1981 new empty bags were supplied to the appellant for replacing/refilling damage and torn bags. However, the appellant took delivery of 23864 bags in all without any remark of any damage in them. But despatched a total of 20.130 bags only to the storage Dept. of Fertilizer Corporation of India (in short the FCI), Khagaul. Thus, a balanced 3734 bags remained at the close of the operations on 14-3-1982. Mahbub Ali, the District Manager FCI was informed about this shortage. He came to Railway siding and found a shortage of 386 bags. It has further been alleged that the appellant produced gate pass No. 42971 dated 15-3-1982 for 225 empty bags purported to bear signature of B. K. Pandey H/T contractor. But Shri Pandey disowned his own signature. The appellant failed to account of 225 serviceable bags out of 500 bags supplied to him. The FIR was lodged by Shri K. N.Gupta, Inspector of Police, SPD (CBI), Patna in which charg-sheet was submitted after investigation. But Shri Pandey disowned his own signature. The appellant failed to account of 225 serviceable bags out of 500 bags supplied to him. The FIR was lodged by Shri K. N.Gupta, Inspector of Police, SPD (CBI), Patna in which charg-sheet was submitted after investigation. The cognizance of the offence was taken and the appellant was put on trial before the learned Special Judge who convicted him in the manner indicated above. In all there were five accused in this case out of whom only the appellant was convicted. The rest were given benefit of doubt and were acquitted. 3. In this appeal the appellant has contended that there was no shortage of bags of fertilizer and only there was a counting mistake 31 PWs were examined in this case but the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the appellant. As will appear from the various exhibits 28017 bags were despatched from Vishakhapatnam a short delivery of 238 bags was made by the Railways for which a claim was lodged. The total number of bags unloaded from wagon was 27784 and these bags were handed over to H/T contractor for transporting the same. Thereafter it was the duty of H/T contractor to properly account for these bags and the appellant cannot be held responsible for any shortage or any kind of damage in transit. 4. There has not been proper sanction in this case. The sanctioning authority in the case of the appellant is the Managing Director but the sanction for the prosecution of the appellant was not granted by him. The sanction for the prosecution was granted by the Senior Regional Manager which also was withdrawn. Thus, in the eyes of law there was no legal and proper sanction for the prosecution of the appellant and on this ground alone the conviction of the appellants is fit to be set aside. 5. The learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate that all the bags at the Railway siding were handed over to H/T contractor and the appellant cannot be held responsible for any shortage thereafter there was only a shortage of 17 bags for which the recovery has already been made from H/T contractor. The prosecution failed to produce any gate pass bearing No.42971 dated 15-3-1982. On the other hand a truck chit of this humber was produced and marked as Ext. 20/1. The prosecution failed to produce any gate pass bearing No.42971 dated 15-3-1982. On the other hand a truck chit of this humber was produced and marked as Ext. 20/1. The findings of the learned Special Judge are not based on the evidence of this case. On these grounds amongst others it has been contended that the judgment of conviction of the learned Court below be set aside and the appellant be acuitted. 6. I will firstly take up for consideration the point raised on behalf of the appellant about the want of proper sanction in this case. According to the appellant the proper sanctioning authority is the Managing Director of FCI but the sanction in this case was not granted by him but by the Senior Regional Manager whbahas not been authorised under law to sanction the prosecution. Even this sanction order has been withdrawn by the prosecution as will appear from exhibits." 7. As against it the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that the appellant was category HI staff of FCI and by virtue of Special Regulation 1971 framed under the provisions of Section 45 of the Food Corporation Act, 1964. The Senior Regional Manager was the competent authority to sanction prosecution for the staff of category III. It has further been contended that in the instant case the sanction for the prosecution was granted by the Senior Regional Manager of FCI and as such there is no defect on this account. I have perused the sanction order which is Ext. 3. It appears that the sanction order dated 5-2-1983 has been passed by the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Patna. Hence on this ground there does not appear to be any defect. 8. On behalf of the appellant it has further been contended that even this sanction order was withdrawn by the prosecution as will appear from exhibits as a result of which the prosecution of the appellant was without any sanction. Exhibit is, however the verification filed by District Manager, FCI, Gaya referring to Exhibits T, X and J/2 which were authority letters dated 5-2-1983, note sheet and letter dated 23-11-1984 of District Manager, FCI gave to Advocate, FCI, Gaya. This cannot be treated to be letter withdrawing the prosecution. Exhibit is, however the verification filed by District Manager, FCI, Gaya referring to Exhibits T, X and J/2 which were authority letters dated 5-2-1983, note sheet and letter dated 23-11-1984 of District Manager, FCI gave to Advocate, FCI, Gaya. This cannot be treated to be letter withdrawing the prosecution. Moroever the District Manager, FCI, Gaya or any authority of his rank was not authorised to be withdrawn the sanctiort granted by the Senior Regional Manager, FCI. Under the aforesaid circumstances I do not find any merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the defence. 9. I have perused the judgment of the learned Court below and this question has been dealt with in its paragraph Nos. 27 and 28. It has been pointed out in paragraph 28 that the certified copy of the orders of the Sessions Judge, the High Court and the Supreme Court were also referred to by the learned Prosecutor to prove that the appeal against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh was filed by FCI and the same was allowed. From this also it would appear that the sanction for this case was neither withdrawn nor cancelled. On the grounds stated above I accordingly hold that there has been proper sanction of the prosecution of the appellant in this case. 10. From the prosecution case it appears that a total of 23864 bags of DAP fertilizer were received by the appellant who took delivery of the same from Danapur Railway Station without any remark of any damage in the bags. However, only 20130 bags of the fertilizer were discharged to storage depot Khagaul, leaving a balance of 3734 bags at the close of the operation on 14-3-1982. There was unsuccessful attempt off load empty bags from a truck bearing No. BHQ 2205 which could not be accomplished due to opposition of the watch mand. In the meantime, Mahbub Ali, District Manager came to the Railway siding at 11.30 a.m. on 15-3-1982 and on verificiation he found a shortage of 386 bags. There was unsuccessful attempt off load empty bags from a truck bearing No. BHQ 2205 which could not be accomplished due to opposition of the watch mand. In the meantime, Mahbub Ali, District Manager came to the Railway siding at 11.30 a.m. on 15-3-1982 and on verificiation he found a shortage of 386 bags. It has further been alleged that it was the appellant himself who had produced gave pass No. 42971 dated 15-3-1982 for 225 empty bags on which the signature of one B. K.Pandey was alleged to be forged, before me it has been contended that this was not a gate pass but a truck chit of the same number which has been marked as Ext. 20/1. However, on behalf of the State it has been submitted that this was a gate pass and it was produced by no body else but the appellant himself and as such at this stage he cannot be allowed to say that this was not a gate pass but a truck chit. On proper accounting, however, it transpired that there was a shortage of 386 bags of DAP fertilizers and the conclusion to this effect by the learned Court below appears to be based on proper facts and circumstances of this case as well as on the basis of the documents produced before the Court. 11. I have carefully gone through the judgment of the learned Court below. I find that the learned Special Judge has properly appreciated the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of this case. As a matter of fact I find that she has gone into all details of oral and documentary evidence adduced in this case and I find that her conclusions on the basis thereof are absolutely correct. Under the aforesaid circumstances I do not propose to discuss the oral and documentary evidence on record which will only result in the repeatation specially when I agree with the conclusions arrived by her. It may be stated here that the learned Special Judge has gone in great detail and has thoroughly discussed the facts and circumstances of this case and also the oral and docu mentary evidence on record. On close scrutiny I find that her conclusions are correct and based on the evidence adduced in this case as such I do not want to repeate them here. On close scrutiny I find that her conclusions are correct and based on the evidence adduced in this case as such I do not want to repeate them here. The findings arrived at by the learned Special Judge are hereby confirmed. 12. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence of the learned Court below are hereby confirmed.