JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - This appeal is directed against an order passed by the Special Judge (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar in T.R. No. 46/47 of 1999/ 93 convicting the Appellant u/s 420, Indian Penal Code (for short the "I.P.C") and Section 13(1)(j) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the "P.C. ") and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months on each count, and directing the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that while the Appellant was working as Senior Doctor in C.G.H.S., Dispensary in A.G. Colony, Unit IV, Bhubaneswar, in his official capacity he issued a hit to the Staff Nurse on 6.3.1990 for giving delivery of eight vials of Omnatex injection worth Rs. 1180/- to the wife of one S. Raja Rao, holder of Health Book No. 285. Since issue of injection outside the dispensary had been prohibited, the Staff Nurse, Smt. Giri, raised objection to issue of such injections whereafter the accused directed the said Nurse to issue those injections to him (appellant) and after putting an initial on the injection book, he (appellant) took eight vials of Omnatex injection. Suspecting some foul play, the Staff Nurse reported the matter to the Deputy Director of the dispensary and the Deputy Director on enquiry found that the wife of S. Raja Rao was never ill and she never took the injection,. It was further found that there was no entry in the Health Book No. 285 about any illness or advice for taking any Omantex injection. It is further stated that after the episode came to the light, the accused-appellant admitted to have taken the injections for his mother and gave a letter admitting his fault. He also returned the Omnatex injections. The C.B.I. got the information about the aforesaid illegal action of the Appellant and on suo motu information, the investigation was conducted and accordingly charge-sheet was submitted on the allegation that the accused being a public servant by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing his position as such public servant obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs. 1180/- by cheating the C.G.H.S. Dispensary and A.G. Authority. 3. The plea of the accused-appellant is one of complete denial. 1180/- by cheating the C.G.H.S. Dispensary and A.G. Authority. 3. The plea of the accused-appellant is one of complete denial. It is stated by him that the wife of the Health. Book holder, S. Raja Rao, was ill and when the husband of the patient narrated the illness to him he referred the case to the Specialist of Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar and the Specialist prescribed Omnatex injections to be given to the patient and basing on this prescription he directed the Nurse to issue those injections. His further plea was that the Deputy Director was hostile to him and he forcibly took his signatures and writings and that he never admitted his guilt at any time. 4. The prosecution examined six witnesses and exhibited several documents to bring home the charge. Ultimately, the trial Court, after evaluating the evidence on record, found that the ingredients of the offences u/s 420 I.P.C. and Section 139(1)(d) of the P.C. Act were established against the Appellant for which the trial Court convicted him and sentenced as already stated above. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the evidence on record and other materials on record do not establish a case u/s 420 I.P.C. and that there are several deficiencies in the case of the prosecution which cast a cloud of doubt regarding the truth of the allegation. 6. The plea of defence during the trial was one of the denial and a specific plea was taken in his statement u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure that he had prescribed the Omnatex injection and the same was taken for the wife of S. Raja Rao. It was further stated that his signatures were taken forcibly by the Deputy Director. In this regard the key witness in this case is the wife of S. Raja Rao, who has been examined as P.W. 4. 7. During the course of argument, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, apart from raising doubt as to the alleged incident, raised the question of sanction saying that the sanction for prosecution had not been taken in the proper manner for which the trial should not have proceeded with, besides the question of delay in filing the F.I.R. 8. P.W. 4 has stated that she was a beneficiary along with her husband in the aforesaid hospital. Her husband was working as Gardener in the office of Accountant General, Bhubaneswar. P.W. 4 has stated that she was a beneficiary along with her husband in the aforesaid hospital. Her husband was working as Gardener in the office of Accountant General, Bhubaneswar. She stated that she had not taken any injection nor had she gone to the hospital situated in Unit IV. It is not out of place to mention here that while filing the charge-sheet, prosecution cited 13 witnesses, one of them being S. Raja Rao, who was the holder of the card bearing No. 285. P.W. 1 was the Deputy Director, C.G.H.S. dispensary, who conducted the enquiry and before whom it was alleged that Ext.3 was signed by the present Appellant, wherein in the Appellant alleged to have admitted his guilt. P.W. 1, in course of his examination-inchief, has stated that normally injections are not allowed to be given outside the Dispensary, and permission is necessary to take those injections outside, where the patient is unable to come to the hospital. Ext. 1, which is the Health Book issued to S. Raja Rao, has been exhibited through the Deputy Director and he has categorically stated that no Omnatex injection was prescribed to Smt. S.S. Rao, wife of S. Raja Rao, and no such injection was also supplied to her. He has further stated that the present Appellant received the Omnatex injections, procured from outside, on behalf of the wife of S. Raja Rao after putting his signature in the Register. During the course of his cross-examination he has stated that a criminal case was previously initiated on the report of the accused against the son of S. Raja Rao and the present Deputy Director was a witness. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant in this regard submits that it is a fact that an F.I.R. was submitted against the son of S. Raja Rao, who was indulged in anti-social activities in the hospital campus and the present P.W. 1 was a witness in that case, but in course of trial he turned hostile. Though, there is nothing on record to indicate whether the' other criminal case ended in acquittal or conviction, from the evidence of P.W. 1, it is crystal caller that he was a witness in the case against the son of S. Raja Rao and the present Appellant was the informant and he has not stated anything in that case. Though, there is nothing on record to indicate whether the' other criminal case ended in acquittal or conviction, from the evidence of P.W. 1, it is crystal caller that he was a witness in the case against the son of S. Raja Rao and the present Appellant was the informant and he has not stated anything in that case. P.W. 2 was the Staff Nurse in C.G.H. S Dispensary. In course of her examination, she has stated that Omnatex injections were procured from outside on the strength of written direction issued by the present Appellant. P.W. 3 was the medical supplier, who supplied the injections to the Dispensary. This aspect was not disputed by any of the witnesses. P.W. 5 was the sanctioning authority, who has signed the sanction order, Ext. 12, and Ext. 12/1 is his signature. He has stated that he has not put any date below his signature in the order of sanction. 10. P.W. 6 was the I.O., who was the Inspector of C.B.I., Bhubaneswar. He has stated that as per the direction of Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Bhubaneswar, he drew up the F.I.R. Ext. 13, and seized the documents. The charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 420 I.P.C. and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988. During the course of his cross-examination he has stated that witness Yotsna Giri had not directly stated before him that she received the injections from the accused, but she stated that she received the injections on the direction of the Director and one Kapila Nandi. Kapila Nandi and S. Raja Rao (Book holder No. 285) were cited as witnesses in the charge-sheet. It is further stated that S. Raja Rao stated before him that his wife was referred to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar by Dr. R. Das, the present Appellant, for further examination, and he could not take his wife to the Specialist due to want to time. So far as the fact mentioned in the foot note of the order of sanction, i. e. Ext. 12 "Ministry's order of even number dated 10.12.1992 may please be treated as cancelled", is concerned, the answer of the I.O. to this is that the order dated 10.12.1992 has not been filed along with the charge-sheet. 11. So far as the fact mentioned in the foot note of the order of sanction, i. e. Ext. 12 "Ministry's order of even number dated 10.12.1992 may please be treated as cancelled", is concerned, the answer of the I.O. to this is that the order dated 10.12.1992 has not been filed along with the charge-sheet. 11. The key witness in this case definitely is S. Raja Rao, who is cited as a charge-sheet witness, but he has not been examined in the case. No explanation has been advanced by the prosecution for withholding such a witness. The evidence of the I.O. goes to show that the said S. Raja Rao had categorically stated before him regarding the fact that his wife was referred to the Capital Hospital by the present Appellant which belies the evidence of P.W. 4 that she was never treated by the Appellant. Secondly, there is some force in the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the earlier order passed on 10.12.1992 was the order in which sanction was refused initially. Non-production of the letter dated 10.12.1992, which was subsequently treated as cancelled, the fact of which was mentioned in the foot note of Annexure-12, indicates that the prosecution has not come up with clean hands. That apart, non-examination of material witness like S. Raja Rao, whose son was previously involved in a criminal case as per the F.I.R. filed by the present Appellant, has not been disputed by P.W. 1. In that case, P.W. 1 was a witness, who turned hostile. This being the conduct of P.W. 1 coupled with non examination of material witness, i.e., S. Raja Rao, the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that S. Raja Rao arid the Deputy Director had some grudge against the Appellant cannot be ruled out. 12. Taking the entire facts and circumstances into consideration, one will find, the story revolves round S. Raja Rao and his wife. While his wife stated that she was never treated by the Appellant, the I.O. in his evidence stated that while examining S. Raja Rao he stated before him that his wife was referred to Capital Hospital by the Appellant, which means that his wife was under treatment of the Appellant. The document, i.e., Ext. While his wife stated that she was never treated by the Appellant, the I.O. in his evidence stated that while examining S. Raja Rao he stated before him that his wife was referred to Capital Hospital by the Appellant, which means that his wife was under treatment of the Appellant. The document, i.e., Ext. 3 upon which the prosecution story heavily relies and the prosecution terms it to be an admission made by the Appellant, indicates that it was a letter by the Appellant to the Deputy Director indicating "as wanted by you issued injection Omnatex on 7.3.90". That was given at the instance of the Deputy Director. The circumstance under which this was given has never been clarified in course of the evidence of the Deputy Director, P.W.1. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and looking into the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that non examination of charge-sheet witness S. Raja Rao without any reason is fatal to the prosecution case, because examination of S. Raja Rao would have unfolded facts on which the case of the prosecution was based and he could have been put to cross-examination by the accused in order to elicit the truth. Added to this, failure of the prosecution to bring the letter dated 10.12.1992 on record which would have thrown some light whether the order which had been cancelled was the order passed by the competent authority refusing to accord sanction at the first instance, is also fatal. All these aspects were lost sight of by the trial Court. Non-examination of vital witness, i. e. S. Raja Rao, creates a doubt in the mind of this Court regarding the truth of the prosecution case. The prosecution has not established in case beyond all reasonable doubts. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is accordingly set aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the charges. The bail bond of the Appellant is discharged. Final Result : Allowed