Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANTS have preferred these two appeals against the udgment of conviction dated 7-5-1990 passed by the Special Judge, Jabalpur, in Special Case No. 4 of 1981. Since both the appeals arise out of a common judgment, this judgment shall govern the disposal of both the appeals. ( 2. ) APPELLANT Shantaram Somwanshi has been convicted under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) and Section 5 (1) (a) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections 161 and 120-B of IPC and sentenced to R. I. for one year with fine of Rs. 50/- on each count. In default of payment of fine one months further R. I. for one month on each count. Appellant No. 2, Maniklal has also been convicted under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B, 161 and 165 of IPC and has been sentenced to R. I. for one year with fine of Rs. 50/- on each count. In default of payment of fine R. I. for one month on each count. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. ( 3. ) IN brief, the facts of the prosecution case are that appellant Shantaram functioned as Station Health Inspector in Central Railway, Jabalpur, since 27-8-1979. Appellant Maniklal functioned as a Mukaddam in Central Railway and was posted at Railway Station Jabalpur under S. D. Somwanshi since 1-3-1979. While functioning as such the appellant Shantaram habitually accepted an amount of Rs. 1/- per day from every casual sweeper working under him as a motive for providing them job of casual sweeper working under him as a motive for providing them job of casual sweeper at the Railway Station Jabalpur. Thus, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant he obtained for himself pecuniary advantage as aforesaid. It is also alleged that appellant Maniklal acting under the appellant Shantaram as Mukaddam also used to accept the illegal gratification from casual sweepers on behalf of the appellant Shantaram. ( 4. ) ON 13-6-1980 complainant Suresh, who happened to be a casual sweeper made a written report to the Superintendent of Police of CBI, Jabalpur that Health Inspector Shantaram was accepting from him Re. 1/- per day for the work given to him. ( 4. ) ON 13-6-1980 complainant Suresh, who happened to be a casual sweeper made a written report to the Superintendent of Police of CBI, Jabalpur that Health Inspector Shantaram was accepting from him Re. 1/- per day for the work given to him. Sometimes he used to accept money himself and sometimes he obtained money through Maniklal. He had worked for 15 days in the month of April, 1980 and for 9 days in the month of May, 1980 but he did not pay money to him on that account, therefore, appellant Shantaram did not give him work and stated that unless the money on that account was paid, he will not be given job. On 12-6-1980 he went to Shantaram and requested him to take him on the work but he demanded Rs. 25/- and said unless that amount was paid, he shall not be taken on the job. As he did not want to give the bribe, therefore, he had brought money and wanted action against Shantaram. He further made it clear that if Shantaram accepted money, then he will pay it to Shantaram and if he directed it to be handed over to Maniklal then he will give money to Maniklal. ( 5. ) SUPERINTENDENT of Police, CBI handed over the written complainant (Ex. P-45) to Inspector Manmohan Yadav (P. W. 19) for necessary action. On receiving the written report he recorded the FIR (Ex. P-52) and verified the genuineness of the allegations from complainant Suresh and then planned to catch the accused persons red handed by arranging a trap. He requested the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jabalpur, for providing two witnesses. Services of two Inspectors of Customs and Central Excise viz. , P. W. 14 Gurudas Sen and P. W. 15 Pradeep Sane were requisitioned for participating in the trap. The aforesaid two witnesses were introduced to complainant Suresh. They perused the written report submitted by him and got satisfied about the complaint. Thereafter Suresh produced Rs. 25/- comprising of two Rs. 10/-notes and one Rs. 5 note to be handed over to accused persons by way of bribe. Inspector Yadav made the complainant and the witnesses conversant with the procedure of the trap. They perused the written report submitted by him and got satisfied about the complaint. Thereafter Suresh produced Rs. 25/- comprising of two Rs. 10/-notes and one Rs. 5 note to be handed over to accused persons by way of bribe. Inspector Yadav made the complainant and the witnesses conversant with the procedure of the trap. He applied the phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes and noted down the numbers of the notes and carried out the demonstration to show that if the hands coming into the contact of currency notes treated with phenolphthalein powder were dipped in sodium carbonate solution then the colour of solution turns pink. He was made to understand that he should not touch the notes kept in his pocket unless he had to hand over the same to the accused persons and that as soon as the bribe money is handed over to accused he has to give a signal by putting his hand on the head. After washing of the hands of the members of the trap party, Inspector Yadav along with aforesaid two trap witnesses, complainant and some other CBI officials proceeded to the Station where the accused persons were posted. Before proceeding for the trap, a Panchnama (Ex. P-40) was drawn about the demonstration carried out by Inspector Yadav. The trap party reached at the railway station at about 3. 00 P. M. The office of appellant Shantaram was closed. All the members of the trap party and the complainant waited for accused persons to come. At about 6. 00 P. M. accused Shantaram and Maniklal reached at the office and opened the lock. Suresh approached to Shantaram and informed him that he had brought money as asked by him. Shantaram asked him to wait for some time and went away after closing the office. It is said that after about 15-20 minutes accused Maniklal came there and opened the door of the office and thereafter Shantaram also came there. When Suresh again approached Shantaram then Shantaram asked him to handover Rs. 25/- to Maniklal and come on the work, thereafter Shantaram and Maniklal both went away. After about 20 minutes accused Maniklal again came at the office and demanded Rs. 25/- from Suresh. Suresh handed over money to Maniklal, which he kept in the right side pocket of his pants. Suresh gave the signal by putting his hand on his head. 25/- to Maniklal and come on the work, thereafter Shantaram and Maniklal both went away. After about 20 minutes accused Maniklal again came at the office and demanded Rs. 25/- from Suresh. Suresh handed over money to Maniklal, which he kept in the right side pocket of his pants. Suresh gave the signal by putting his hand on his head. When Maniklal was going in front of Second Class Waiting Room, Inspector Manmohan Yadav (P. W. 19) and two Inspectors of CBI caught hold of him. Inspector Yadav gave his introduction and told him that he had taken Rs. 25/-as bribe from Suresh. Maniklal admitted of having received Rs. 25/- from Suresh and said that he had taken this money on the instructions of accused Shantaram. Inspector Yadav prepared the sodium carbonate solution and dipped fingers of Maniklal as a result of which colour of the solution turned pink. Thereafter Maniklal took out Rs. 25/- from his pocket and handed over to Inspector Yadav. The pants of Maniklal was seized. On washing the pocket of pants in the sodium carbonate solution, the solution again turned pink. They recovered currency notes and seized. The solution of sodium carbonate was sealed in the bottles. It i said that when the money was being seized, accused Shantaram Somwanshi also came there, then Maniklal pointed out him and said that he had accepted the money for him. Shantaram kept quite. Inspector Yadav seized a diary (Ex. P-38) from the bag kept in the hands of of accused Shantaram Somwanshi. Inspector Yadav prepared the recovery memo. (Ex. P-41) and memo (Ex. P-43) about the whole proceeding of trap. ( 6. ) THEREAFTER, on the instructions of Superintendent of Police, CBI Investigation of the case was conducted by Inspector N. L. Kharse (P. W. 20), who during the investigation seized muster rolls and documents about the attendance of casual labours, recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses and got prepared the spot map (Ex. P-39) from Revenue Inspector M. L. Shrivastava (P. W. 13 ). After investigation, requisite sanction for prosecution against accused Shantaram was obtained from Chief Medical Officer Dr. Arvind Kumar Agrawal (P. W. 16) and as against accused Maniklal from Divisional Railway Manager, Madan Mohan Sharma (P. W. 17 ). Both the sanctions are Ex. P-46 and P-47 respectively. Charge-sheet of the case was then filed before the Court of Special Judge, Jabalpur. Arvind Kumar Agrawal (P. W. 16) and as against accused Maniklal from Divisional Railway Manager, Madan Mohan Sharma (P. W. 17 ). Both the sanctions are Ex. P-46 and P-47 respectively. Charge-sheet of the case was then filed before the Court of Special Judge, Jabalpur. ( 7. ) LEARNED Special Judge framed the charges against Shantaram Somwanshi under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2), Section 5 (1) (a) read with Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections 161, 120-B of the IPC and against accused Maniklal under Section 120-B read with Section 161 of IPC and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Sections 161, 165 of IPC and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Appellant Shantaram Somwanshi abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. His defence under Section 313 of Cr. PC was that on his report complainants father was suspended by the Assistant Superintendent, therefore, Suresh had got him falsely implicated. Appellant Maniklal also abjured the guilt and stated that he had been involved under the pressure of CBI Officers. ( 8. ) THE prosecution in support of its case examined 21 witnesses. Appellant Shantaram Somwanshi in his defence produced D. W. 1 Victor Klinton to show that Lalsingh Parsadi, Sweeper, was suspended from 25-1 -1980 to 28-5-1980. The learned Trial Court after due appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution convicted the appellants as mentioned earlier and sentenced them accordingly. ( 9. ) SHRI Arvind Pandey and Shri P. C. Paliwal, learned Counsel for the appellants while challenging the conviction of the appellants have submitted that the false case was concocted against the appellants, evidence of complainant Suresh as well as of trap witnesses viz. , P. W. 14 Gurudas, P. W. 15 Pradeep Sane and that of P. W. 19 Manmohan Yadav, Inspector of CBI was not reliable as it was discrepant and contradictory. He submitted that the prosecution story was unnatural. If the appellant S. D. Somwanshi was habitual of accepting illegal gratification then he would not have avoided the acceptance of money himself and would have accepted it on the very first occasion. He further submitted that nothing incriminating was recovered from appellant Shantaram therefore he can not be held liable for accepting the bribe. If the appellant S. D. Somwanshi was habitual of accepting illegal gratification then he would not have avoided the acceptance of money himself and would have accepted it on the very first occasion. He further submitted that nothing incriminating was recovered from appellant Shantaram therefore he can not be held liable for accepting the bribe. Learned Counsel for the appellant Maniklal contended that there was no reliable evidence to show that Maniklal was party to the arrangement for accepting the money on behalf of appellant S. D. Somwanshi, as such it could not have been held that he was sharing the common intention of appellant Shantaram Somwanshi or was acting on his behalf. Learned Counsel further submitted that since the father of complainant Suresh viz. , Lalsingh was suspended on the complaint of appellant Shantaram, therefore, in order to lake revenge he has concocted the story. Learned Counsel for the appellants further contended that the sanctions of the prosecution of the appellants were not valid sanctions and the authorities who conferred sanctions were not competent to grant the same, as such, conviction of the appellants was liable to be set aside. ( 10. ) PER contra, Shri Jayanti Nikhra, learned Counsel for the CBI contended that from the evidence adduced by the prosecution it was amply proved that the appellant Maniklal had accepted the illegal gratification on behalf of appellant S. D. Somwanshi, as per the arrangement between them and there was enough reliable evidence to show that appellant Shantaram was habitually accepting or obtaining money from casual sweepers for himself as a motive for giving them work. He submitted that both the accused persons were public servants at the relevant time and they by corrupt and illegal means abused their position as public servants for obtaining for themselves pecuniary advantage. ( 11. ) I have heard the Counsel of both the sides and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence and material on record. ( 12. ) P. W. 18 P. S. Surajiya, who happened to be Assistant Works Officer of Railway Traffic Jabalpur has stated that Shantaram Somwanshi had joined the railway service on 18-1-1968. By order dated 29-6-1979 he was transferred from Satna to Railway Station, Jabalpur, as Health Inspector. He had joined at Railway Station, Jabalpur, on 27-8-1979. He has further stated that accused Maniklal, was appointed on 16-2-1955. By order dated 29-6-1979 he was transferred from Satna to Railway Station, Jabalpur, as Health Inspector. He had joined at Railway Station, Jabalpur, on 27-8-1979. He has further stated that accused Maniklal, was appointed on 16-2-1955. Appointment orders of both the accused persons are Ex. P-48 and Ex. P-49. He further stated that Maniklal was promoted as Mukaddam by order dated 8-3-1979. He stated that as per the orders of Railway Authorities, issued on 19-8-1964, Health Inspectors were authorised to engage casual Safai Walas in case of leave or sick vacancy of the incumbents. P. W. 7 Hari Prasad, Sweeper and P. W. 11 Rajaram, Station Clerk, Jabalpur, have also deposed that accused Shantaram Somwanshi was posted as Health Inspector at Jabalpur railway station and he used to give work to substitutes on the post of casual sweepers. Thus, from the evidence on the record it is established that both the appellants were public servants and were posted at Railway Station, Jabalpur. ( 13. ) COMPLAINANT Suresh (P. W. 21) has deposed that in the year 1980 he was working as casual Safai Wala at the Railway Station Jabalpur, at that time appellant Shantaram Somwanshi was Health Inspector and Maniklal was Mukaddam. He was assigned duty by accused/appellant Shantaram and he used to get the payment for actual days of his working on the basis of the work done. Shantaram used to receive money from him at the rate of Re. 1/-per day and if the money was not given then he did not give work to him. Shantaram had assigned him duty for 25 days and had demanded Rs. 25/-from him. He stated that sometimes Shantaram himself received money and sometimes he accepted money through Maniklal. He made a complaint to union people, who advised him to report the matter to CBI Office, therefore, he approached to CBI and submitted a written report to them. Thereafter CBI Officers arranged a trap. He handed over currency notes of Rs. 25/- to them, on which some powder was applied. After touching the notes when his fingers were dipped in a solution, its colour changed to pink. According to him, on 13-6-1980 trap party reached at the railway station. When they reached near the office of Shantaram Somwanshi, it was found locked then he went in search of Shantaram, to whom he found in front of the office of Station Master. According to him, on 13-6-1980 trap party reached at the railway station. When they reached near the office of Shantaram Somwanshi, it was found locked then he went in search of Shantaram, to whom he found in front of the office of Station Master. When he approached him, Shantaram asked him to meet at his office. After some time Shantaram reached the office along with Maniklal. Maniklal opened the door and both of them went inside the office. When they sat inside the office then he went in and told that he had brought money whereupon Shantaram said that he should handover money to Maniklal. According to him, Shantaram assured him that he will take the money from Maniklal and call him on duty. Thereafter he came out and after some time Shantaram and Maniklal also came out of the office and Maniklal locked the office. Maniklal asked him to stay there. After some time Maniklal returned and asked him to give money. When he asked him as to whether he would be taken on duty, Maniklal said that he will handover the money to Shantaram and he will take him on duty. Thereafter complainant handed over phenolphthalein powder treated currency notes to Maniklal. Maniklal kept the money in the pocket of his pants. Suresh gave signal by putting his hand on the head. In the meantime Maniklal had moved towards the waiting room. They all reached there and stopped Maniklal and asked him as to whether he had received the money from Suresh whereupon Maniklal admitted and said that he had received the money for accused Shantaram Somwanshi. The money was taken out from the pocket and number of the currency notes were tallied. On dipping the fingers of Maniklal in the solution it had gone pink. Pants of Maniklal was also washed in the solution and was seized. He stated that Shantaram also reached there then Maniklal told to him that he had accepted the money on his saying but the officers caught him. Maniklal informed them that Shantaram Somwanshi used to keep a diary in which he was maintaining the record of the casual sweepers then the said diary was recovered from the bag of Shantaram and was seized. ( 14. Maniklal informed them that Shantaram Somwanshi used to keep a diary in which he was maintaining the record of the casual sweepers then the said diary was recovered from the bag of Shantaram and was seized. ( 14. ) SIMILAR story was given by P. W. 14 Gurudas Sen, Excise Custom Inspector, P. W. 15, Pradeep Sane, Inspector of Central Excise and P. W. 19, Manmohan Yadav, Inspector CBI who had arranged the trap. ( 15. ) IN the light of the submissions made by the Counsel for the appellants that the evidence with respect to the demand of bribe by accused Shantaram and acceptance of money by appellant Maniklal on his behalf, was not reliable and that the evidence with respect to arrangement of handing over the bribe to Maniklal on demand of Shantaram was not proved, on examining the evidence of complainant Suresh it appears that when the trap party had reached the railway station, office of Shantaram was found locked, therefore, he had gone in search of accused Shantaram, to whom he found in front of the office of Station Master. Shantaram asked him to come at the office and after some time Maniklal and Shantaram came there and went inside the office. When they were silting inside the office, he went in the office and had a talk with Shantaram. According to him, it was inside the office that Shantaram asked him to hand over the money to Maniklal then he came out and thereafter when both the accused persons came out of office and put the lock, Maniklal asked him to stay there. Maniklal again came back and demanded money from him which he handed over to him. On perusal of the evidence of P. W. 14 Gurudas Sen it is found that when they reached at the office of accused persons, Suresh kept on sitting at the door of the office and other persons sat there on the nearby Chabutrara. At 5. 00 P. M. accused persons came there and talked t other persons of the office then Shantaram asked him that as to whether he had brought money and then asked him to wait for some time. Thereafter Shantaram and Maniklal both went away after locking the office. At 5. 00 P. M. accused persons came there and talked t other persons of the office then Shantaram asked him that as to whether he had brought money and then asked him to wait for some time. Thereafter Shantaram and Maniklal both went away after locking the office. Again after some time both Shantaram and Maniklal came to the office and after working there for some time when Shantaram was going out, on being reminded by Suresh asked him to hand over money to Maniklal assuring him that his work will be done and asked Maniklal to receive money from Suresh. Thereafter Suresh handed over money to Maniklal. Similar statements have been made by P. W. 15, Pradeep Sane and P. W. 19 Manmohan Yadav. On critically analysing the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses it is found that they have given discrepant versions about the manner in which the bribe money was handed over and was recovered from Maniklal. It also appear to be unnatural that when appellant Shantaram had demanded money from Suresh then why he did not accept money himself when offered to him by Suresh. It is apparent that on two or three occasions when complainant approached him, he avoided and did not accept money from him. ( 16. ) FROM the evidence on record it is apparent that the amount of Rs. 25/-was not demanded by Maniklal. There is no evidence that there was any arrangement between Shantaram Somwanshi and Maniklal that Maniklal would accept this money from complainant Suresh. Therefore, it can not be held that Maniklal was sharing the intention of accused Shantaram to accept illegal gratification on his behalf. At the time of trap, according to the complainant, he had talked to Shantaram when he was sitting inside the office, whereas P. W. 14 Gurudas Sen and other witnesses have said that Shantaram had asked Suresh to handover money to Maniklal when they were outside the office and therefore they had heard the conversation between Suresh and Shantaram. Again, the evidence of Suresh is inconsistent to that of witness Gurudas Sen on the point that when they reached at the office of Shantaram, it was found locked and then Suresh had gone to search Shantaram and had found him in front of the office of Station Master. Again, the evidence of Suresh is inconsistent to that of witness Gurudas Sen on the point that when they reached at the office of Shantaram, it was found locked and then Suresh had gone to search Shantaram and had found him in front of the office of Station Master. On the contrary, witness Gurudas Sen has said that the members of the trap party and Suresh had kept on siting at the door of the office. If the conversation between Shantaram and Suresh had taken place inside the office, there was no occasion for the other witnesses to have over heard it from some distance outside the office. Another important aspect is that according to Suresh, Shantaram had come only once in the office and had asked him to hand over money to Maniklal whereas witness Gurudas Sen and other witnesses have categorically stated that Maniklal and Shantaram both had come twice and it was on the second time that Shantaram had asked Suresh to hand over money to Maniklal. Thus, in view of the inconsistent evidence of the aforesaid witnesses about the circumstances under which Shantaram asked Suresh to hand over illegal gratification to Maniklal, this part of the prosecution story does not inspire confidence and therefore, it could not be held beyond doubt that Maniklal accepted illegal gratification on behalf of appellant Shantaram in the terms of alleged agreement or arrangement between them. ( 17. ) SIMILAR situation has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Sadashiv Mahadeo Yavaluje and Gajanan Shripatrao Salokhe v. State of Maharashtra , AIR1990 SC 287 , 1990 Crilj600 , 1990 (1 )Crimes46 (SC ), JT1989 (4 )SC 569 , 1989 (2 )SCALE1253 , (1990 )1 SCC299 as under :11. ( 17. ) SIMILAR situation has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Sadashiv Mahadeo Yavaluje and Gajanan Shripatrao Salokhe v. State of Maharashtra , AIR1990 SC 287 , 1990 Crilj600 , 1990 (1 )Crimes46 (SC ), JT1989 (4 )SC 569 , 1989 (2 )SCALE1253 , (1990 )1 SCC299 as under :11. As regards accused No. 2 merely because he was entrusted with some money to be passed on to accused No. 1 it could not be held that he was guilty of any one of these offences unless it is established that he was a party to the arrangement and the arrangement arrived at was that the money would be handed over to accused No. 2 to be given over to accused No. 1 Apparently accused No. 2 was not expected to help the complainant to settle the matter, according to the prosecution was given by accused No. 1 and according to the prosecutions own case and the evidence of complainant Pandurang this arrangement was finally settled on 29-11-75 at the house of accused No. 1. Admittedly accused No. 2 was not there nor it is alleged that he had any knowledge about this settlement. The incident of 29-11-75 is said to be between accused No. 1 and Pandurang alone and the only evidence is that of Pandurang. Under these circumstances it could not be held that accused No. 2 accepted this amount for any purpose. At best as the complainant told him to pass this money on to accused No. 1 he accepted it but on that basis it could not be held that he was sharing the intention with accused No. 1 or was acting on his behalf. ( 18. ) FROM the material on record it is also apparent that appellant Shantaram was approached by the complainant for handing over the money to him twice or thrice but on every occasion he did not accept it. If, as per the prosecution story, he had demanded money from complainant Suresh then he had all the opportunity to accept money himself directly from the complainant but he did not accept it. Since nothing was recovered from the appellant Shantaram and the alleged arrangement between him and accused Maniklal for acceptance of bribe by the latter, on his behalf is found doubtful, such an inference can not be drawn that he had accepted any illegal gratification. Since nothing was recovered from the appellant Shantaram and the alleged arrangement between him and accused Maniklal for acceptance of bribe by the latter, on his behalf is found doubtful, such an inference can not be drawn that he had accepted any illegal gratification. Since the money was not recovered from appellant Shantaram, it was nothing but the failure of the trap against him. Though, it is established that accused Maniklal accepted the money from complainant Suresh, yet there is total lack of evidence to show that he accepted the money for himself as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act. There is no evidence that out of his own he could have assigned work to any substitute casual worker. In the absence of proof of aforesaid circumstances, it could not be held that Maniklal had accepted illegal gratification as a motive or reward for doing any official act. As such the conditions for drawing the legal presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, are not satisfied, therefore, such presumption can not be drawn against accused Maniklal. In view of the aforesaid discussion merely on the basis of proof of acceptance of money by appellant Maniklal it can not be held that Maniklal had demanded or accepted illegal gratification on behalf of the appellant Shantaram. Thus, the prosecution case in respect of Maniklal as well as against Shantaram so far as the charges against them for the offence under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 120-B/161 and 165 of the IPC are concerned, could not be held to have been proved beyond the reasonable doubt. The findings of conviction with respect to the aforesaid charges recorded by the Trial Court appear to be erroneous and, therefore, deserve to be set aside and are hereby set aside. ( 19. ) ON perusal of the evidence of P. W. 1 Omkar Prasad, P. W. 4 Kallu, P. W. 5 Mahesh, P. W. 6 Mohan, P. W. 7 Hari Prasad, P. W. 8 Kamrikh, P. W. 9 Gaya Prasad, P. W. 10 Rajendra Kumar and P. W. 12 Chamanlal, who all were casual sweepers at Railway Station, Jabalpur, it is found that they have categorically deposed that accused Shantaram Somwanshi used to obtain Re. 1/- per day from them for giving work to them. P. W. 1 Omkar Prasad has deposed that the money was accepted by Shantaram himself. He deposed that it was for Shantaram to decide as to who was to be given daily wages work. He stated that whenever he received his pay, he paid the money @ Re. 1/-per day to Shantaram. He had also seen other sweepers giving money to Shantaram. In Para 10 of his statement this witness said that since all the workers were giving money to Shantaram, he also use to give the same. P. W. 4 Kallu sweeper deposed that he used to pay Re. 1/- per day for his work to Shantaram. If he could not give money to him, he was not given work. P. W. 7 Hari Prasad sweeper reiterating the same thing stated that he did not make any complaint about the conduct of Shantaram because all the people used to give money secretly. He deposed that Shantaram used to say that if they will not pay Re. 1/- per day to him, he would not provide work to them, therefore, all of them used to give money to him accordingly. P. W. 9 Gaya Prasad sweeper deposed that Shantaram used to demand money from him after giving him work. He deposed that he did not make any complaint against him because if he would have made complaint, he would not have got the work. P. W. 10 Rajendra Kumar sweeper stated that if he did not pay money to Shantaram, he did not give him work. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses is natural and consistent and nothing has come in their evidence to show that they were making false allegation against Shantaram Somwanshi. On this point the learned Trial Court has meticulously appreciated the evidence and has come to a finding that appellant Shantaram Somwanshi was accepting and obtaining money from casual sweepers by way of gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward as mentioned in Section 161 of the IPC. On this point the learned Trial Court has meticulously appreciated the evidence and has come to a finding that appellant Shantaram Somwanshi was accepting and obtaining money from casual sweepers by way of gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward as mentioned in Section 161 of the IPC. Even on reappreciation of the evidence of aforesaid witnesses, I am of the opinion that the finding arrived at by the learned Trial Court in holding the charge against the accused/appellant Shantaram Somwanshi for the offence under Section 5 (1) (a) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act proved, is just and proper and does not call for any interference. ( 20. ) THE grievance raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant Shantaram that P. W. 16 Dr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Chief Medical Officer of Central Railway, Bombay, was not competent to accord sanction of the prosecution of the appellant, does not appear to have any substance. Dr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal has categorically deposed that on 24-2-1981 he was posed as Chief Medical Officer of the Central Railway at Bombay. He deposed that Chief Medical Officer had jurisdiction to remove the Health Inspector of Central Railway from service, therefore, he was fully competent to accord sanction for prosecution of the Health Inspector. From his evidence it is apparent that he was the Principal head of the Medical Department of Central Railway and there was no senior officer above him in the medical Department. In cross-examination he has stated that the Sanitary Inspectors were appointed by the Chief Medical Officer but, according to prevalent system. Personnel Officer Headquarters used to sign the appointment letters on behalf of the Chief Medical Officer. Though the appointment letters are signed by the Assistant Personnel Officer, yet he is not the appointing authority. He has further deposed that he had also jurisdiction to dismisses Health Inspectors as he had jurisdiction to appoint them,. It is relevant here to refer to Rule 2 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, which provides : 2. Definitions. Though the appointment letters are signed by the Assistant Personnel Officer, yet he is not the appointing authority. He has further deposed that he had also jurisdiction to dismisses Health Inspectors as he had jurisdiction to appoint them,. It is relevant here to refer to Rule 2 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, which provides : 2. Definitions. (1) In these rules unless the context otherwise requires, (a) appointing authority in relation to railway servant means: (i) the authority empowered to make appointments to the service of which the railway servant is, for the time being, a member or to the grade of the service in which the railway servant is, for the time being, included. (ii) the authority empowered to make appointments to the post which the railway servant for the time being holds, or (iii) the authority which appointed the railway servant to such service, grade or post, as the case may be, or ** ** *** *** Thus, it is apparent that the Chief Medical Officer, at the relevant time, had jurisdiction to appoint the Health Inspectors, therefore, he was fully competent to accord sanction for the prosecution of accused Shantaram Somwanshi. On perusal of the document of sanction (Ex. P-46) it is apparent that the Chief Medical Officer has considered the facts and circumstances of the case in detail and it can not be said that the grant of sanction was merely an idle formality. The objection in this regard raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant Shantaram Somwanshi has no merit. ( 21. ) IN view of the aforesaid factual and legal discussion I am of the considered opinion that the charge for the commission of offence under Section 5 (1) (a) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused/appellant Shantaram Somwanshi has been amply established and the finding of conviction in respect to it, recorded by the Trial Court can not be said to be erroneous or otherwise illegal calling for interference by this Court. ( 22. ) THUS, the conviction of appellant Shantaram Somwanshi for the charge under Section 5 (1) (a) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is affirmed. ( 22. ) THUS, the conviction of appellant Shantaram Somwanshi for the charge under Section 5 (1) (a) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is affirmed. His conviction under Sections 161,120-B read with Section 165 of IPC and Section 120-B read with Section 5 (1) (d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is set aside. ( 23. ) APPELLANT Maniklal is acquitted of all the charges. ( 24. ) COMING to the question of sentence learned Counsel for the appellant Shantaram Somwanshi has submitted that the accused/appellant is presently aged about 62 years, at the relevant time the minimum sentence provided for the offence was one year and for special reasons this sentence could be reduced. He submitted that the occurrence had taken place nearly 25 years back, therefore, keeping in mind long lapse of time the sentence of the appellant Shantaram be reduced in view of the aforesaid special reasons. ( 25. ) ON the aspect of awarding sentence on the conviction under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act the Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. V. Vasudeva Rao ,, 2004 (1 )BLJR357 , 2004 Crilj620 , JT2003 (9 ) SC 119 , 2004 (1 )KLT526 (SC ), (2004 )9 SCC319 , 2004 (1 )UJ580 (SC ), has observed as under :28. Coming to the question of sentence, the learned Counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is presently aged 75 years. At the relevant point of time, the minimum sentence was one year and for special reasons this sentence could be reduced. In a case involving acceptance of illegal gratification there is no scope for any leniency. The tentacles of corruption are spreading fast in the society corroding the moral fibre and consequentially in most cases, the economic structure of the country. It has assumed alarming proportions in recent times. Though the occurrence at hand took place nearly 14 years back, yet as noted at the threshold, the Act was brought on the anvil in the year of the countrys independence. The object appeared to be nip the propensity for being corrupt in the bud. It has assumed alarming proportions in recent times. Though the occurrence at hand took place nearly 14 years back, yet as noted at the threshold, the Act was brought on the anvil in the year of the countrys independence. The object appeared to be nip the propensity for being corrupt in the bud. The growth of corruption has to a great extent frustrated the purpose for which the Act was enacted, and both the act and its successor Act in 1988 do not appear to have curbed the growth of corruption and to have achieved the intended results. *** *** ** *** 31. In the present case, how could the mere fact that this was pending for such a long time be considered as a "special reason" ? That is a general feature in almost all convictions under the Act and it is not a speciality of this particular case. It is a defect inherent in implementation of the system that longevity of the cases tried under the Act is too lengthy. If that is to be regarded as sufficient for reducing the minimum sentence mandated by Parliament the legislative exercise would stand defeated. Thus, in view of the above factual and legal position sentence of the appellant Shantaram Somwanshi can not be reduced less than the minimum as already imposed by the Trial Court. ( 26. ) FOR the reasons stated above in foregoing paras Cr. Appeal No. 529 of 1990 preferred by appellant Maniklal is allowed. He is acquitted of all the charges. Criminal Appeal No. 499 of 1990 preferred by appellant Shantaram Somwanshi is partly allowed. He is acquitted of all the charges except the charge for the offence under Section 5 (1) (a) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. His conviction and sentence under Section 5 (1) (a) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act awarded by the Trial Court are affirmed. He will surrender to serve out the remaining sentence.