JUDGMENT - AGUIAR A.S., J.:-This is an appeal from order dated 8th December, 1995 passed by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for one month. The appellant was also convicted of the offence punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that the appellant/accused was a Police Constable posted at the relevant time with the S.B.I. CID unit of Greater Bombay, when he is alleged to have demanded and accepted a bribe from the complainant P.E. 3 Mohan Pawar. The complainant P.W. 3 Mohan Pawar was at the relevant time working as an attendant in a cloth shop at Kalbadevi. With a view to improving better his prospects desired to join the service with the BEST as a driver. In order to obtain the job as driver he was required to obtain badge from R.T.O. office. The said badge would be issued only on production of a character certificate from S.B.I. CID. Accordingly the complainant made an application in the proforma, Exhibit 12 collectively. The said form was duly numbered and returned to the complainant for carrying the same to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Head Quarters, SB-I, CID, Bombay, Rubber stamp was affixed in all the three forms and a request was made to the Deputy Commissioner of Police to verify the character and the antecedents of the complainant for issuing the badge. The complainant presented these documents in triplicate at the counter of SB-I CID. He was then instructed to take all the three forms to SB-I CID office and to hand over those forms there along with a demand draft in the sum of Rs. 50/-. Accordingly the complainant obtained a demand draft of Rs. 50/- and submitted the forms and demand draft at the RTO counter in the SB-I, CID and was issued a receipt (Exhibit 23). 50/-. Accordingly the complainant obtained a demand draft of Rs. 50/- and submitted the forms and demand draft at the RTO counter in the SB-I, CID and was issued a receipt (Exhibit 23). The complainant was told that he would have to visit the office 2-3 months later to collect the character verification certificate. After necessary steps for issuing the same were undertaken by the complainant, the brother of the complainant Dattu, who had visited the SB-I office informed him that the relevant papers had gone been sent to the native place of the complainant for verification. Accordingly the complainant sent to his native place, contacted the local police Patil, obtained a character certificate from him and presented it to the Wathar Police Station. Wathar Police Station informed the complainant that the papers would be processed soon and verification report would be sent. Thereafter the complainant returned to Bombay. On 9-3-1990 the complainant visited S.B.I. CID branch and was told that he should enquire with the writer by name Sawant in the 'G' branch on the first floor. He showed writer Sawant the receipt dated 3-1-1990 (Exhibit 23) issued by SB-I CID. Thereupon the accused/appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 50/- from him as bribe. The complainant P.W. 3 replied that he had already paid the amount of Rs. 50/- officially through demand draft. Thereafter the accused again demanded Rs. 50/- and the complainant reluctantly agreed to that suggestion. The accused told the complainant that the verification report of the agency outside Bombay was awaited and he should enquire with him at some later date. The accused then asked him to visit the office on 11-3-1990 at 12.00 noon to collect the character certificate. Thereupon the complainant lodged the complaint at Exhibit 24 on 17-3-1990 with the A.C.B. 3. A trap was laid as set out in the pre-trap panchnama (Exhibit 26). Five marked notes were handed over to the complainant in denomination of Rs. 10/- each which was covered with anthraces powder. On handing over the money to the accused the pre-arranged signal was given and the officers of the anti-corruption department came and apprehended the accused and recovered the marked notes from his left side shirt pocket. The necessary formalities were completed as set out in the post-trap panchnama (Exhibit 13). The accused was placed under arrest and released on bail. On handing over the money to the accused the pre-arranged signal was given and the officers of the anti-corruption department came and apprehended the accused and recovered the marked notes from his left side shirt pocket. The necessary formalities were completed as set out in the post-trap panchnama (Exhibit 13). The accused was placed under arrest and released on bail. The papers were sent to Commissioner of Police for sanction under section 90 of the I.P.C. and the sanction order was obtained on 14th October, 1990. Thereafter the charge-sheet was filed. Charges were framed against the accused by the Special Judge on 29-8-1991 (Exhibit 6) to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After the matter was heard the Special Judge was pleased to convict the accused as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal. 4. Before this Court the learned Advocate for the appellant/accused has raised several contentions, inter alia, that the sanction order was issued without application of mind. The sanction order has not been proved as the sanctioning authority, the Commissioner of Police has not been examined to prove the sanction but his subordinate P.W. 6, Administrative Officer has been examined to prove the sanction. It is further pointed out from Exhibit 39 i.e. the draft sanction order that the same has been signed by the Commissioner but no date has been affixed under his signature, while sanction order (Exhibit 34) bears the signature with date of the Commissioner. It is further pointed out that Exhibit 34, which is the final sanction order, shows that the blanks have been filed up not by the Commissioner but by a third person. This indicates that the Commissioner has blindly signed the order without actually reading the same. 5. It is further pointed out that from the post-trap panchnama it can be seen that bluish glow was found on the left side chest pocket of the 'T' shirt of the accused as well as on his left cheek near the ear lobe. It is submitted that this indicates that the accused was resisting all the while the offer with his hands and hence the bluish glow is found both on the shirt pocket as well as on the neck of the accused. 6. The learned Advocate for the accused has also pointed out the improbability of the demand made by the accused as claimed by the complainant. 6. The learned Advocate for the accused has also pointed out the improbability of the demand made by the accused as claimed by the complainant. It is pointed out that the alleged demand was made on 9th March, 1990, when in fact the character certificate was not ready till 12th March, 1990. Since the documents came into existence only on 12th March, 1990 the accused could not have in anticipation made the demand on 9th March, 1990. 7. It is further pointed out that while the demand was allegedly made on 9th March, 1990 the F.I.R. was lodged on 17th March, 1990 after a delay of 8 days. This delay has not been explained. Further more, P.W. 3, the complainant has stated that his complaint which he made orally was written down by P.I. Ambre, P.W. 5. Thereafter he contradicts himself and states that P.I. Ambre dictated it to the typist. The F.I.R. at Exhibit 24 is a typed document. Furthermore, the complainant has stated that on 17-3-1990 he had gone to the A.C.B. office but he did not sign any paper there. Therefore the complainant could not have signed the F.I.R. on 17th March 1990, the apparent date of the F.I.R. shown at Exhibit 24. The delay in filing the F.I.R. has not been explained. 8. Another contention taken by learned Advocate for the accused is that P.I. Ambre, the Investigating Officer was not competent to investigate the offence. Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act specifies that the Police Officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police should investigate the offence in Bombay, being a Metropolitan city and that P.W. 5 P.I. Ambre was a Sub-Inspector of Police and was not competent to investigate. He was a Sub-Inspector and only for the purpose of investigation he was given one step promotion as Inspector. P.I. Ambre himself has stated in cross-examination that it is true that when he was serving as Inspector on one step up promotion, his name continued to be there in the gradation list meant for Sub-Inspectors Police, and thereafter in the gradation list of the Asstt. Police Inspector and only in September, 1990, i.e. much after the offence, he got promoted as Inspector of Police. 9. Police Inspector and only in September, 1990, i.e. much after the offence, he got promoted as Inspector of Police. 9. In view of the above discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, which the trial Court has failed to consider, serious doubts, arise as to whether the marked currency notes were demanded and accepted by the accused. 10. Apart from the aforesaid infirmities in the prosecution case the main ground on which the conviction requires to be set aside is on the basis of the well known legal maxim de minimis non curat lex-the law does not concern itself with trifles. In the present case the accused is alleged to have demanded and accepted a paltry sum of Rs. 50/-. In view thereof the sanctioning authority ought to have considered whether it was worth while to prosecute an employee for accepting such a paltry amount considering the time, energy and effort that is required to prove the case and whether it would not be more proper to adopt departmental proceedings to punish the accused if found guilty in connection with the crime in question. 11. This Court in the case of (Bhagwan Jathya Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra)1, reported in 1992(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 81 has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Veeda Menezes v. Yusuf Khan)2, reported in A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1773 wherein the doctrine of triviality has been discussed. The short question is as to whether the sanctioning authority should treat the acts complained about as an "offence" and the law conclusively states that trivial acts are not to be treated as offences. The institution of a prosecution in such case would clearly be barred. 12. In the present case had the sanctioning authority applied its mind that this was just an isolated case and not the case of a habitual offender he could have ordered disciplinary proceedings against the employee and punishment commensurate with the offence could have been awarded in the disciplinary proceedings instead of a lengthy criminal prosecution, requiring the State to undergo huge expenses, untold efforts and years of time in launching the prosecution and obtaining a conviction. 13. In the result the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/accused is set aside. Bail bond of the accused stands cancelled. Fine, if paid shall be refunded to the appellant. Appeal allowed. -----