ORDER 1. THE APPELLANT CALLS IN QUESTION LEGALITY OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY A LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AT AHMEDABAD UPHOLDING HIS CONVICTION UNDER SECTIONS 7 AND 13(L)(D) READ WITH SECTION 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 (IN SHORT "THE ACT"). THE LEARNED SPECIAL JUDGE, AHMEDABAD HAD HELD THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY AND SENTENCED HIM TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE YEAR AND TO PAY A FINE WITH DEFAULT STIPULATIONS FOR EACH OF THE AFORESAID OFFENCES. 2. BACKGROUND FACTS NECESSARY TO BE NOTED FOR DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS: PW 3 THE POLICE INSPECTOR, ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, AHMEDABAD HAD RECEIVED INFORMATION ABOUT LARGE-SCALE CORRUPTION IN CERTAIN DEPARTMENTS. HE ASKED PW I A TRADER, TO BE A DECOY AND OFFER MONEY TO THE APPELLANT AT THE OCTROI CHECKPOST. PW 1 THE OWNER OF THE GOODS, AND THE DRIVER WERE TRAVELLING IN THE TRUCK. PW I AGREED TO BE A DECOY AND CERTAIN PANCH WITNESSES WERE CALLED. TWO CLERKS SERVING IN THE OFFICE OF THE MARITIME BOARD AGREED TO BE A PART OF THE PARTY. CURRENCY NOTES SPRINKLED WITH ANTHRACENE POWDER WERE HANDED OVER TO PW 1. THE MANNER IN WHICH THE NOTES WERE TO BE USED WAS ALSO INDICATED TO HIM. IT WAS SUGGESTED TO HIM THAT WHEN THE MONEY IS ACCEPTED BY THE ACCUSED A SIGNAL HAS TO BE GIVEN. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH INSTRUCTIONS PW 1 PAID THE MONEY IN QUESTION ON DEMAND BEING MADE BY THE A ACCUSED. THE RAIDING PARTY MADE PERSONAL SEARCH OF THE ACCUSED AND THE POWDERED NOTES WERE RECOVERED FROM THE CASH BOX. TESTS WERE CONDUCTED WHICH PROVED THAT THE FINGERS OF THE ACCUSED CLEARLY SHOWED THAT HE HAD ACCEPTED MONEY SPRINKLED WITH ANTHRACENE POWDER. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID OCCURRENCE, A COMPLAINT WAS LODGED, THE ACCUSED WAS ARRESTED AND FINALLY THE MATTER WAS PLACED FOR TRIAL. THE MAIN WITNESSES EXAMINED WERE B TRADER (PW 1), PANCH WITNESS (PW 2) AND THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER (PW 3). SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION WAS GIVEN BY SHRI UPENDRA SING, DEPUTY MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER (GENERAL), AHMEDAHAD ON 25-8-1995. THE DEFENCE PLEA WAS ONE OF DENIAL. CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THE ACCUSED GUILTY, CONVICTED HIM AND IMPOSED SENTENCE AS AFORESAID. 3. IN APPEAL, SEVERAL POINTS WERE URGED QUESTIONING THE CONVICTION. THE MAIN STAND WAS THAT THERE WAS DISCREPANCY AS TO THE ALLEGED MODE OF DEMAND OF BRIBE. THE DEFENCE PLEA WAS ONE OF DENIAL. CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THE ACCUSED GUILTY, CONVICTED HIM AND IMPOSED SENTENCE AS AFORESAID. 3. IN APPEAL, SEVERAL POINTS WERE URGED QUESTIONING THE CONVICTION. THE MAIN STAND WAS THAT THERE WAS DISCREPANCY AS TO THE ALLEGED MODE OF DEMAND OF BRIBE. WHILE THE WITNESSES DEPOSED THAT THE DEMAND WAS MADE BY GESTURES AND SIGNS, THE SANCTION ORDER REFERRED TO THE MANNER OF DEMAND BEING ORAL. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER SANCTION. THE HIGH COURT DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED AND BY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT CONFIRMED THE CONVICTION AND THE SENTENCE. 4. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL, THERE WAS DISCREPANCY AS TO THE ALLEGED MODE OF MAKING THE DEMAND. THE PROSECUTION VERSION SUFFERS FROM SERIOUS INFIRMITIES AND THE FACT THAT SOME OTHER CURRENCY NOTES SPRINKLED WITH ANTHRACENE POWDER WERE RECOVERED, HAD BEEN WRONGLY AND LIGHTLY BRUSHED ASIDE BY THE TRIAL COURT AND THE HIGH COURT. THE SANCTION ORDER WHICH HAS A VITAL ROLE TO PLAY IN A PROSECUTION UNDER THE ACT WAS NOT PRODUCED AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, THOUGH IT WAS SUBMITTED IN EVIDENCE AFTER CONSIDERABLE LENGTH OF TIME. WHETHER THERE WAS SANCTION BY THE SANCTIONING AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE INTO THE OFFENCE OR NOT, WAS NOT PROVED BY THE PROSECUTION AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. 5. IN RESPONSE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT SUBMITTED THAT IF THE EVIDENCE OF PWS 1, 2 AND 3 IS READ TOGETHER, IT SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO F INFIRMITY. MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS SOME MINOR VARIANCE AS TO THE MODE OF DEMAND THAT LOSES SIGNIFICANCE IN THE BACKGROUND FACTS, THAT IS, RECOVERY OF TAINTED MONEY. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE SANCTION ORDER WAS A PART OF THE RECORDS WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE CHARGE-SHEET. COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS WERE SUPPLIED TO THE ACCUSED. THERE WAS NO OBJECTION RAISED AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE SANCTION ORDER WHEN THE DOCUMENT WAS PRAYED TO BE FORMALLY ACCEPTED IN THE CASE. THE ONLY OBJECTION WAS THAT THERE WAS DELAY IN BRINGING IT. THERE WAS NO OBJECTION RAISED THAT IT WAS NOT A PART OF THE DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING THE CHARGE-SHEET OR THAT THE ACCUSED WAS NOT AWARE OF ITS EXISTENCE. IT WAS NOT EVEN SUGGESTED THAT A COPY OF IT HAD NOT BEEN SUPPLIED EARLIER. THE ONLY OBJECTION WAS THAT THERE WAS DELAY IN BRINGING IT. THERE WAS NO OBJECTION RAISED THAT IT WAS NOT A PART OF THE DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING THE CHARGE-SHEET OR THAT THE ACCUSED WAS NOT AWARE OF ITS EXISTENCE. IT WAS NOT EVEN SUGGESTED THAT A COPY OF IT HAD NOT BEEN SUPPLIED EARLIER. EVEN OTHERWISE, IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN AS TO HOW THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN PREJUDICED. SO FAR AS THE SANCTION FOR INVESTIGATION IS CONCERNED, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT H NO SUCH PLEA WAS TAKEN EITHER BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT OR BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. 6. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE TESTIMONY OF PWS 1, 2 AND 3 HAS NOT BEEN SHAKEN AND THEY HAVE CONSISTENTLY SPOKEN ABOUT THE DEMAND, THE ACCEPTANCE AND THE RECOVERY OF MONEY. MINOR VARIANCE AS REGARDS THE MODE OF DEMAND IS REALLY OF NO CONSEQUENCE TO CORRODE THE CREDIBLE AND COGENT EVIDENCE OF PWS 1, 2 AND 3. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIAL COURT AND THE HIGH COURT HOLDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY. 7. SO FAR AS THE QUESTION OF SANCTION IS CONCERNED, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANYTHING TO SHOW THAT ANY DEFECT OR IRREGULARITY THEREIN CAUSED FAILURE OF JUSTICE, THAT PLEA IS WITHOUT SUBSTANCE. AS REGARDS AUTHORITY OF PW 3 UNDER SECTION 17 TO INVESTIGATE ANY OFFENCE UNDER THE ACT IS CONCERNED, IT APPEARS THAT THESE QUESTIONS WERE NOT RAISED EITHER BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT OR BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THAT BEING THE POSITION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE PLEA THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS WITHOUT PROPER SANCTION. 8. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY INFIRMITY TO WARRANT INTERFERENCE. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.