Judgment NARENDRA NARAIN SINGH, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and drder of sentence, dated 31st of March, 1989, passed by Special Judge. (Vigilance) South Bihar, Patna, in Special Case No. 174 of 1983, arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 34 (5) 79, by which this appellant was convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5(i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 600/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months more respectively. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that complainant, PW-14, Jagat Bihari Sah, was residing in a rented house in Mohalla Lodipur and when he had gone out of Patna on 25-03-1979 and returned on 27-03-1979, he found that one Pano Devi, along with some goondas, had broken open the lock and had occupied the house. Jagat Bihar Sah is said to have given a written report regarding the occurrence in Buddha Colony Police Station, whose Officer-in-Charge, at the relevant time, was this appellant. Further case of prosecution was that this appellant demanded Rs. 600/- from Jagat Bihari Sah for taking action against the trespassers. After about 10 to 15 days, the complainant, with the help of Inspector of Police, Suresh Prasad of Gandhi Maidan Police Station, got the trespassers removed, but he found his belongings missing and when he approached the appellant for action the demand of payment of aforesaid of Rs. 600/- was made by the appellant. The complainant, thereafter, filed a complaint (Exhibit 7) on 14-05-1979 before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cabinet, Vigilance, for taking action against this appellant. On receiving that complaint, Ram Pravesh Tiwary PW-4, watcher, was deputed to verify the allegation. The case of prosecution is that on 15-05-1979 he, along with Jagat Bihari Sah PW-14 went to Buddha Colony Police Station and he reported that in his presence also, the accused demanded Rs. 600/- for submitting charge-sheet in the case filed by complainant, Jagat Bihari Sah, and that complainant on that very day paid Rs. 100/- to this appellant who accepted it and asked him to pay remaining Rs. 500/- which the complainant assured to pay within a week. 600/- for submitting charge-sheet in the case filed by complainant, Jagat Bihari Sah, and that complainant on that very day paid Rs. 100/- to this appellant who accepted it and asked him to pay remaining Rs. 500/- which the complainant assured to pay within a week. The report (Exhibit 1) of the watcher was submitted on the same day and the complainant was directed to come on 22-05-1999 with the money which he proposed to pay to this appellant. On 22-05-1979 a case was instituted against this appellant and a raiding party was organised headed by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ramesh Kumar Singh. The complainant produced five G.C. notes of Rs. 100/- each in the presence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Special Magistrate, Shri V.S.Pathak, PW-6 and a memorandum (Exhibit 4 of the G.C. notes was prepared and the G.C. notes were then returned to the complainant with a direction that he would pay the same to the appellant only on his demand as bribe. The watcher was also instructed to go along with the complainant to this appellant and he was further instructed to give signal by rubbing his head and the appellant accepted the bribe money. The case of prosecution is that the raiding party reached at Buddha Colony Police Station at about 09.00 a.m. and the complainant and the watcher went inside the police station, while others waited in the neighborhood for signal. Further case of prosecution is that this appellant demanded and accepted the sum of Rs. 500/- given by the complainant in presence of the watcher PW-4 and kept G.C. notes in this upper pocket of bush-shirt and, meanwhile, the watcher went out of the room and gave signal whereupon members of the raiding party rushed in. It is alleged that this appellant tried to take out and throw the money from his pocket but the Vigilance staff resisted but the appellant any how threw the notes on floor by tearing off his pocket. Thereafter, independent witnesses were called and in their presence the thrown-out notes of Rs.500/- and his torn pocket were seized and were compared with the memorandum of G.C. notes prepared in the Vigilance Department. The case of prosecution is that the recovered G.C.notes were the same which were mentioned in the memorandum of G.C. notes (Ext. 4). Seizure list (Ext. Thereafter, independent witnesses were called and in their presence the thrown-out notes of Rs.500/- and his torn pocket were seized and were compared with the memorandum of G.C. notes prepared in the Vigilance Department. The case of prosecution is that the recovered G.C.notes were the same which were mentioned in the memorandum of G.C. notes (Ext. 4). Seizure list (Ext. 5) was prepared and a copy of the same was given to the appellant and the appellant was arrested. 3. After due investigation and obtaining sanction for prosecution, charge-sheet was submitted against this appellant, who, after taking cognizance, was put on trial and was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 4. The defence of the appellant was that he was falsely implicated in this case at the instance of Suresh Prasad, Sub-Inspector of police of Gandhi Maidan Police Station and Nandu Prasad, a clerk in Vigilance Department related to the complainant. In his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the case of the complainant was that complainant, Jagat Bihari Sah, wanted to keep some rupees in his pocket, when he was talking to some persons and that he hit him in his hand, as a result of which the money fell on the ground and seeing the raiding party he (Sah) tore off his pocket and threw it. Further defence of the appellant was that Jagat Bihari Sah was a criminal and his nephew, Om Prakash, and brother-in-law, Jagdish Prasad, were also accused in a number of dacoity cases in which this appellant had to execute process against them and being annoyed and in collusion with Nand Lal Sah, Sectional Officer, Vigilance, and Suresh Prasad Sao, Inspector of Police, Gandhi Maidan Police Station, against whom Samdhi of this appellant had filed a case, this appellant was implicated. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined altogether fifteen witnesses, out of whom, PW-1, Mahadev Ghosh, PW-2, Raghubeer Prasad Singh, PW-3, Ramni Shankar Jha, PW-8, Surajdeo Singh, PW-9, Rohan Gope, and PW-15, Lakhendra Prasad, were tendered for cross examination. PWs-5, 7, 12 and 13 are formal witnesses while PW-5, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Arvind Prasad, proved the sanction order (Exhibit 3) and deputation chart (Exhibit 2). PWs-5, 7, 12 and 13 are formal witnesses while PW-5, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Arvind Prasad, proved the sanction order (Exhibit 3) and deputation chart (Exhibit 2). PW-7, Pramanand Prasad, is a witness on seizure list (Exhibit 7) and PW-12, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Krishna Bihari Singh, proved the formal First Information Report (Exhibit 6) and PW-13, Ganesh Pandey, the then G.R. Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who stated to have received the charge-sheet. The remaining five witnesses are on the point of occurrence. PW-4, Ram Pravesh Tiwary, was deputed to go with the complainant as a watcher and PW-6 is the Special Magistrate, Shri Vijay Shankar Pathak. PW-10, Kedar Singh, and PW-11, Madhusudan Singh, were members of the raiding party, who claimed to have witnessed the payment by Jagat Bihari Sah to this appellant through a window in the eastern side of the room of Buddha Colony Police Station in which this appellant was sitting. The defence also examined Shri Dinesh Prasad Sharma, an Advocate, who stated that he had filed a criminal case against police officer, Suresh Sah and that he was Samdhi of the appellant. The learned trial Court in its judgment from paragraphs 10 to 17 discussed the evidence of PWs and summed up the evidence of the witnesses in paragraph 18 of its judgment and held that this appellant had demanded bribe and had accepted Rs.100/- on 15-05-1979 in the presence of watcher, PW-4 and on the date of raid, i.e., on 22-05-1979, he accepted Rs. 500/- which he hurriedly threw toring his own pocket on seeing the members of the raiding party and, as such, the money thrown was recovered from the floor along with cloth of torn pocket. 6. The learned Advocate for the appellant, in course of argument, challenged the validity of the sanction order (Ext. 3) alleging that this was not valid sanction as it was accorded in a mechanical way without examining the documents connected with this offence. He further contended that this sanction order (Exhibit 3) did not indicate that all materials were considered and the sanctioning authority exercised his mind before according the sanction. This sanction order was proved by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Arvind Prasad, PW-5. He further contended that this sanction order (Exhibit 3) did not indicate that all materials were considered and the sanctioning authority exercised his mind before according the sanction. This sanction order was proved by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Arvind Prasad, PW-5. The learned Advocate for the appellant placed reliance on decision reported at Rajdeo Prasad Srivastava v. State of Bihar, 1978 PLJR, 264, and decision reported at Mansukh Lal Bithal Das Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1997 SC 3400 , reliance was also placed on one unreported decision of this Court in Cr. Appeal No.428 of 1984, dated 02-02-1989, in which the sanction order was found defective and the accused was acquitted. In this unreported judgment of Cr. Appeal No. 428 of 1984, the sanction order was found defective because only the application for according sanction was sent to the sanctioning authority and no other document was sent and it was mentioned in the order that supervision note of City Superintendent of Police, Patna, was also considered though no supervision was made by City Superintendent of Police, Patna, in that case. In the case reported at AIR 1997 SC 3400 , the sanction was found defective on the ground that the order of sanction was passed by the sanctioning authority mechanically in obedience of mandamus issued by the High Court and, as such, it was not found valid. 7. Shri Bibhuti Prasad Pandey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Department, submitted that there is nothing in the sanction order (Ext. 3) to show that sanctioning authority had not applied his mind before according sanction rather order of sanction indicated that after perusal of the request (Memo No.16436, dated 12-11-1979) and its enclosures as well as the case diary of the case and further considering that this appellant was a public servant removable from his office by him the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, had accorded the sanction for prosecution of this appellant. He contended that from perusal of the sanction order (Ext. 3), it appears that the sanctioning authority had considered the request for granting sanction with the enclosures sent along with the request and had also perused the case diary of the case before according the sanction. He contended that from perusal of the sanction order (Ext. 3), it appears that the sanctioning authority had considered the request for granting sanction with the enclosures sent along with the request and had also perused the case diary of the case before according the sanction. He further placed reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalpanath Rai v. State (through CBI), reported at AIR 1998 SC 201, in which it was held that "error or irregularity in a sanction for prosecution would not vitiate the prosecution unless a failure of justice has been occasioned thereto". He placed reliance on another decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Orissa v. Mritunjay Panda, reported at JT 1998(1) SC 77; AIR 1998 SC 715 , in which it was held 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. 8. I agree with the contention of the learned Advocate for the Vigilance Department that no defect in the sanction order could be pointed out for holding that the sanction order was defective or that there was failure of justice. Thus, I do not find any merit in this objection raised on behalf of the appellant that the sanction order (Exhibit 3) was defective or it was accorded mechanically without application of the mind. 9. In the instant case, in order to establish the charge under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant, the prosecution was required to prove that: (i) The appellant was public servant at the material time, (ii) The appellant accepted or obtained from the complainant, Jagat Bihari Sah, a gratification other than legal remuneration and (iii) The gratification was for submitting charge-sheet in that case filed by Jagat Bihari Sah against the accused. 10. 10. It has been held in the case of C. K. Damodaran Nair v. Government of India, reported at (1997) 9 SCC 477 , that "from the combined reading of Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is evident that if the prosecution had succeeded in proving the first two ingredients, not only the first two ingredient but also the third ingredient stands proved in view of the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, whieh the Court is bound to draw, unless the accused has succeeded in rebutting that presumption. With this guideline we proceed to examine the evidence adduced in this case and considered by the Court below in convicting the appellant. The learned trial Court has discussed the evidence of the complainant PW-14, Jagat Bihari Sah, in paragraph 24 of its judgment. He stated about filing of written complaint, regarding illegal occupation by Pano Devi in his rented house. He further claimed that this appellant asked him to pay Rs. 600/- for taking action. PW-14 stated that he got the house vacated with the help of Inspector, Suresh Prasad of Gandhi Maidan Police Station after ten days but his belongings were missing from the house. He stated to have approached this appellant, who occupied on seeing that unless money was paid he would not take any action and then he claimed to have failed the written omplaint (Ext. 7) in the Vigilance Department on 14-05-1979. He stated to have gone, along with Ram Pravesh Tiwary (PW-4), a watcher of the Vigilance Department, to the appellant to whom PW-4 was introduced as his friend. This witness stated that the appellant asked him whether he had brought money and then in the presence of PW-4, he paid Rs. 100/- to the appellant, who stated that he would submit charge-sheet in the case on receipt of the balance amount. PW-4 in his evidence has fully corroborated the above evidence of PW-14 which happened in his presence on 15-05-1979. He submitted his verification report (Exhibit 1) whereupon raiding party was organised. On the point of payment of Rs. 500/- regarding which a memorandum (Ext. 4) was prepared before proceeding for the raid and evidence of PW-14 and PW-4 on this point was that Jagat Bihari Sah Paid Rs. 500/- to the appellant in his presence. He submitted his verification report (Exhibit 1) whereupon raiding party was organised. On the point of payment of Rs. 500/- regarding which a memorandum (Ext. 4) was prepared before proceeding for the raid and evidence of PW-14 and PW-4 on this point was that Jagat Bihari Sah Paid Rs. 500/- to the appellant in his presence. The other two witnesses, PW-10, Kedar Singh, and PW-11, Madhusudan Singh, who were also members of the raiding party also corroborated the evidence of PW-14 and PW-4 by stating that from the window in the eastern side of the room where they were standing, they saw this appellant receiving the amount and keeping that in his pocket. The subsequent story, as stated by PW-14 was that seeing PWs. 10 and 11, who entered in the room on signal given by PW-4, the appellant tried to throw out the money and in that course, he tore his pocket and throw the money and torn pocket on the ground. PW-6, Special Magistrate, Vijay Shankar Pathak, stated to have entered in the room on receiving signal from PW-4 and saw the notes and the pocket thrown on the ground. 11. The defence of the appellant, as stated in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was that he was sitting in his room and was talking to some persons, when Jagat Bihari Sah PW-14 came to him on his left side and tried to keep some money in his pocket, which he resisted by hitting on his hand, as a result of which the notes fell down on the ground and when he tried to stand up Jagat Bihari Sah tore his pocket and kept the torn pocket in his hand and when he tried to catch him the members of the raiding party entered in the room and over powered him and then Jagat Bihri Sah picked up the notes and along with the torn pocket he threw them below his table. This assertion of appellant was not supported by PW-4, watcher, Ram Pravesh Tiwary, PW-6, Special Magistrate, Vijay Shankar Pathak, PW-10, Havaldar, Kedar Singh, and PW-11, Madhusudan Singh, who were members of the raiding party. This assertion of appellant was not supported by PW-4, watcher, Ram Pravesh Tiwary, PW-6, Special Magistrate, Vijay Shankar Pathak, PW-10, Havaldar, Kedar Singh, and PW-11, Madhusudan Singh, who were members of the raiding party. PW-6, Special Magistrate, Vijay Shankar Pathak, stated that when he entered in the room he found the money and torn pocket on the ground near the appellant and he was informed by PW-4 that this appellant, after receiving the money and keeping that in his pocket, seeing the members of the raiding party threw it on the ground and in that course his pocket was torn by him. 12. The event which is stated to have followed in quick succession in the instant case, as stated by PW-14 and PW-4, supported by PW-10 and PW-11 lead us to the only inference that the money seized was obtained as bribe by the appellant. This presumption is, of course, rebuttable, but it was not done. Though, it was claimed by the appellant that some other persons were also present there when this occurrence did take place, none of them was examined to support the version of the appellant. The learned trial Court has discussed all these materials and has rightly come to the conclusion in paragraph 32 of its judgment that the prosecution was able to establish that this appellant, being a public servant and Officer-in-Charge of Buddha Colony Police Station, had demanded Rs. 600/- from the complainant for showing favour in the case lodged by the complainant and he had accepted Rs. 100/- on 15-05-79 and Rs. 500/- on 25-05-1979 for showing favour to the complainant. The trial Court has discussed about non-examination of the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the raiding party and of the investigating officer and has rightly held that there non-examination did not prejudice the case of defence. Shri Pandey, learned Counsel for the Vigilance Department, rightly contended that from the evidenced adduced by prosecution this much is established that this appellant obtained Rs. 600/- by corrupt and illegal means and by abusing his position as public servant and even without the aid of the statutory presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the charge under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(i) (d) of the Act is also established along with Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and in this obtainment of Rs. 600/-, the initiative vested in the appellant, who received the money on his demand. 13. The learned Advocate for the appellant contended that in such trap cases the notes offered should have been treated with phenolphthalein powder to establish conclusively that the appellant had received the notes in question. He placed reliance on decision of the case of RaghuLeer Singh v. The State of Punjab, reported at AIR 1976 SC 91 , in which it was observed that "in a trap case it is desirable that marked currency notes, which are used for the purpose of trap, are treated with phenolphthalein powder". In the instant case such procedure of phenolphthalein test would not have been successful where the appellant claimed to have resisted thrusting of the money in his pocket and in that course he could have an explanation that in course of his resistance and obstruction, he had touched the notes and, as such, result of such examination was positive. Of course, phenolphthalein test is not required to be made under any provision of law. Such test is conducted for conscientious satisfaction and, as such, I find that in the instant case non-application of phenolphthalein powder on the notes offered, received and recovered would not make the prosecution case unworthy of reliance. 14. Summing up the entire discussion, made above, I find and hold that trial Court was perfectly justified in holding this appellant guilty under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. My attention was drawn by the learned Advocate for the appellant that this case remained pending for twenty years, during which period the appellant was under constant strain of receiving punishment. It was also submitted that this appellant was in custody for more than one month at the initial stage between the period 22-05-1979 to 28-06-1979. It was also submitted that no useful purpose would be served in sending this appellant to jail after twenty years. I find a guideline in the case of Bhagwan Das Keshwani and others v. State of Rajasthan, reported at AIR 1974 SC 898 , in which for the special reason of pendency of the case for twelve years, the sentence of the accused was reduced to period already undergone by him. I find a guideline in the case of Bhagwan Das Keshwani and others v. State of Rajasthan, reported at AIR 1974 SC 898 , in which for the special reason of pendency of the case for twelve years, the sentence of the accused was reduced to period already undergone by him. Applying the same reasons, find and hold that sentence of the appellant be reduced to period already undergone regarding sentence of imprisonment of the appellant under both the Sections and in addition a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand) and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act would meet the ends of justice. 15. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, this appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to deposit the fine, imposed, within three months from the date of this judgment, failing which the trial Court would take steps for realisation of fine and for arrest the appellant in default thereof.