Judgment D.K. Sinha, J.-This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction under section 7 as also under section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi in Special Case No. 39 of 1989 on 25.4.2000 whereby and whereunder the sole appellant, Ramnath Prasad Singh has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation on each count. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story as it stands narrated in the written report of the informant, Puran Oraon (P.W.1) presented before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Cabinet Vigilance Department. Ranchi on 10.8.1989 was that by the order of District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi vide No. 359 dated 30.1.1989 his salary as I.A. trained (selection grade) was approved w.e.f. 1.4.1981 and pursuant to that the informant requested the Headmaster of the school, Ramnath Prasad Singh (appellant) several occasions for payment of arrears through Treasury bill which was subterfused by him. However, he got his arrear bill prepared and made it over to the Headmaster on 10.4.1989. It was alleged that the headmaster(Appellant) agreed to get the bills processed only on the commission of 5% as the treasury expenses and he forcibly took Rs. 700/-from him in presence of the teachers of the school on 30.6.1989. Yet on 3.7.1989 after getting the arrears bill of the informant passed through Treasury to a sum of Rs. 13,797.80 paise, he deposited the said amount in his own account No. 372 of Pandra Branch of the State Bank of India. On persistent request the appellant-headmaster agreed to issue a cheque to the informant of his such amount only on payment of the balance treasury expenses amount of Rs. 300/- to him. On the promise of the informant, the headmaster (appellant) of the Government middle school Kulli (Bero) issued a cheque on 13.7.1989 but without mentioning his account number as a result of which the cheque could not be honoured. On pointing out, the appellant transferred the said amount in the account of the informant on 21.7.1989, yet the appellant continued demanding Rs. 300/- from the informant in the manner, a money lender does. The informant requested the Addl. On pointing out, the appellant transferred the said amount in the account of the informant on 21.7.1989, yet the appellant continued demanding Rs. 300/- from the informant in the manner, a money lender does. The informant requested the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Cabinet Vigilance Department, Ranchi to protect him from exploitation of the headmaster(appellant).The signature of the informant on the written report has been proved (Ext.1 ).The Addl. Superintendent of police by his endorsement on the written report asked the Inspector of Police Garbet Hembram to verify the complaint made by the informant and to report. 3. Pursuant to that, P.W. 9 Garbet Hembram verified the allegation and reported the matter to be true (Ext. 9) before the Additional Superintendent of Police. On receipt of the verification report, Patna Vigilance P.S. case No. 41 of 1989 was registered on 2.9.1989 for the offence under section 7 and 13(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 13(i)(d) of the said Act against the appellant, Ramnath Prasad Singh. 4. On demand the informant produced six G.C Notes of Rs. 50/- each total to the tune of Rs. 300/- before the Addl. S.P. to which a memorandum was prepared after treating the notes with Phenolpthaline powder and it was returned to him with specific direction to the informant to deliver it to the appellant only on demand by him as bribe. The informant then put his signature on the memorandum of G.C. Notes (Ext. 3). The Addl. Superintendent of Police, Cabinet, Vigilance Department then constituted a raiding party on 5.9.1989 with appropriate briefing to its members. P.W. 13 Bhola Sharma, Inspector, Vigilance Department was made the shadow of the informant to accompany him and nab the culprit with the bribe money on there being received by him. The informant was briefed to give signal by raising his right hand on his head after the transaction was over. The trap was led on 5.9.1989 at 9.30 a.m. and all the members of the raiding party proceeded to village Kulli on the departmental vehicles where they reached at 11.30 a.m. It was learnt that the headmaster (appellant) was in his house as it was closing day in the school due to village market day and thereafter, the informant proceeded with the members of raiding party to his house. The informant entered inside the house of the appellant followed by the shadow witness Bhola Sharma and after 20 minutes the informant signaled whereupon the shadow member Bhola Sharma and the other members of the raiding party entered into house of the appellant, disclosed their identity and further expressed that they had to make search of his house. Meanwhile, villagers also assembled there and from amongst them, Mahadeo Bhagat (P.W. 3) and Mangra Oraon (P.W. 4) were requested by the members of the raiding party to be witnesses and after giving personal search by Sri Kindo in presence of P.W. 18 Ratan Kumar, Executive Magistrate, the body of the headmaster was searched and it was alleged that six G.C. Notes of the informant total Rs.300/- were recovered from the ground where the appellant was sitting and the numbers of notes were compared with the memorandum of notes and upon finding both being tallied, the notes were seized and a seizure list was prepared in presence of the aforesaid witnesses and the appellant was taken into custody. After performing certain formalities by washing his both hands which came in contact with Phenolphthaline powder contained in G.C. Notes, when mixed with the solution of sodium carbonate, the acqua solution turned pink which were collected in bottles and sealed. 5. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the appellant under section 7 read with Section 13(ii) and 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 after obtaining sanction for prosecution from the competent authority against the appellant. Charge was framed against the appellant in the court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi and accordingly the appellant was put on trial. 6. As many as 20 witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution. Besides, the prosecution proved the signature of informant in his written report (Ext.1), signature of the informant on the memorandum prepared of G.C. Notes Ext. 2, memorandum of G.C. Notes Ext. 3, signature of B.R. Kindo on the memorandum of G.C. Notes Ext. 4, signature of the members of raiding party on the G.C. Notes Exts. 4/1 to 4/7. Similarly, signatures of the members on the documents constituting raiding party were proved as Exts. 4/8 to 4/19, the seizure list was proved as Exts. 5 and 5/1, whereas Exts 6 and 6/1 were the endorsement made on the seizure list by the police officer. 4/1 to 4/7. Similarly, signatures of the members on the documents constituting raiding party were proved as Exts. 4/8 to 4/19, the seizure list was proved as Exts. 5 and 5/1, whereas Exts 6 and 6/1 were the endorsement made on the seizure list by the police officer. The endorsement made on the memo of G.C. Notes Ext. 7, the verification report submitted by P.W 9 Garbet Hembram is Ext. 8 and endorsement made on the verification report of P.W 9, Garbet Hembram Ext. 9. The sanction order for launching prosecution against the appellant was proved as Ext.10 and endorsement of the Executive Magistrate on the memorandum of G.C. Notes was proved and marked Ext. 11. 7. All the six G.C. Notes of the denomination of Rs.50/- each alleged to be recovered from the possession of the appellant were proved and marked material Exts. 1 to 1/5. 8. After examination of the prosecution witnesses the appellant (accused) was examined and his statement was recorded under section 313 of Cr. P.C. The appellant specifically denied his guilty and pleaded his false implication, explaining that he had obtained the charge of Headmaster of the school from Purno Oraon, who was incharge Headmaster of the said school and thereafter Purno Oraon started working there under him as assistant teacher which caused grudge to him and he got the appellant involved on false allegation pursuant to Criminal conspiracy. He further denied any seizure list prepared in his presence. 9. Mr. B.M. Tripathy, advancing his argument submitted that the appellant is innocent person who fell prey of certain conspiracy of the teachers of the school including the informant' in collusion with the State Vigilance Department. Admittedly, the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of six G.C. Notes of Rs. 50/- each, total sum of Rs. 300/- from the physical or conscious possession of the appellant, and according to the prosecution case, the notes were recovered from Dhaba of the house as indicated in the seizure list Ext. 5 which cannot be said to be recovery from the conscious possession. There was no evidence on record in support of the fact that the appellant demanded Rs. 300/- from the informant as gratification for personal satisfaction and pleasure and the informant paid the demanded amount and that the trial court miserably failed to take into consideration of such aspect. 5 which cannot be said to be recovery from the conscious possession. There was no evidence on record in support of the fact that the appellant demanded Rs. 300/- from the informant as gratification for personal satisfaction and pleasure and the informant paid the demanded amount and that the trial court miserably failed to take into consideration of such aspect. Similarly, preliminary report submitted by P.W. 9 supporting the allegation made against the appellant specifying the words 'illegal gratification' alleged to be demanded by the appellant from the informant did not disclose the circumstances under which demand was made from the informant and whether such demand at all came within the mischief of illegal gratification. None of the witnesses of raiding party such as P.Ws. 9, 12, 13 and 14 has supported the prosecution case that Rs. 300/was demanded by the appellant in their presence as illegal gratification and that it was delivered by the informant Purno Oraon to appellant. In this manner charge against the appellant could not be proved. Mr. Tripathy exhorted that neither tainted notes nor sealed bottles of Phenolphthalein + sodium cabonate solution which turned pink were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for compare and as such there is no report on record. Similarly the seized materials were not brought in the court to be proved as material exhibits. 10. Mr. Tripathy further submitted that sanction accorded for the prosecution of the appellant was not a valid sanction under the law as the same was accorded on cyclostyle format, without application of mind of the sanctioning authority. The sanction order did not disclose as to from whom the appellant accepted bribe and therefore, the sanction order has got no sanction in the eyes of law and therefore, the criminal prosecution of the appellant, without proper sanction order is liable to be set aside. The prosecution failed to prove the case and charge against the appellant and hence he be acquitted. 11. Mr. A. K. Kashyap, the learned Special P.P., State Vigilance Department, submitted that the prosecution has proved its case for the charge against the appellant on all material facts and accordingly, the appellant has been convicted. The prosecution failed to prove the case and charge against the appellant and hence he be acquitted. 11. Mr. A. K. Kashyap, the learned Special P.P., State Vigilance Department, submitted that the prosecution has proved its case for the charge against the appellant on all material facts and accordingly, the appellant has been convicted. The documentary evidence was proved on behalf of the prosecution in the trial court to reveal the fact that the appellant was in authority as the headmaster of the school to process and countersign the bills of the assistant teachers including arrear salary of the informant and he demanded 5% of the total amount as the treasury expenses which was illegal. The witnesses are consistent that in the first instalment the appellant obtained Rs.700/ - from the possession of the informant and admittedly, the appellant did not complain of such illegal act of the appellant. When the total bill amount was transferred in the account of the informant after it was passed by the treasury the appellant persistently demanded the balance of Rs. 300/- from the informant and being fed up of such persistent demand, the informant complained the matter before the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Cabinet Vigilance Department, Ranchi and the matter was verified to which a preliminary enquiry was made by P.W. 9 Garbet Hembram who submitted his verification report finding allegation against the appellant prima facie true. 12. Advancing his argument Mr. A.K. Kashyap submitted that on the material date and time of occurrence the raiding party with the informant came to the house of the headmaster as it was closing day in the school on account of village market day and the informant tendered the balance of Rs. 300/- viz. six G.C. notes of the denomination of Rs 50/- each which was accepted by the appellant and on the signal of the informant, the raiding party including the shadow witness P.W. 13 Bhola Sharma appeared there and challenged the appellant by holding his both hands. When his hands were washed and the same was mixed in the acqua solution of sodium carbonate, the solution turned pink. It would not be out of place to mention from the statement of facts as contained in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who were the members of the raiding party and the independent witness viz. When his hands were washed and the same was mixed in the acqua solution of sodium carbonate, the solution turned pink. It would not be out of place to mention from the statement of facts as contained in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who were the members of the raiding party and the independent witness viz. P.W. 3 Mahadeo Bhagat that all the G.C. notes were recovered from the Dhava where the appellant was sitting and that too in his presence, and the seizure list of the said notes has got bearing of the signature of the appellant and the seizure list has been proved. 13. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Spl. P.P. further submitted that similar situation fell for consideration before the Apex Court in the 'State of West Bengal vs. Kailash Chandra Pandey' reported in (2004)12 S.C.C. 29 wherein following was observed:- "Learned Counsel for the accused respondent has tried to show some minor discrepancy in the statement of the witnesses that whether the money was handed over in the presence of one representative of Singapore Airlines and he has not been produced. P.W. 5 Debarata Munshi (PA) says that he did not know whether these persons met the accused in his chamber or not. It is alleged that the bills were passed earlier and later on the trap was arranged on the basis of the complaint by Shri Sengupta and the complainant was inimically motivated. The complainant was interested in trapping the accused. All these cosmetic contradictions cannot improbabilise the prosecution story. A Similar attempt was made to highlight such trifle contradiction in written submissions. The fact of the matter is that the money was accepted by the accused from the complainant and it was recovered by the investigating officer and the money was paid primarily for an illegal purpose i.e. to facilitate the passing of the bills of P.W. 3 Shankar Prasad Sengupta and not to deduct amount from the bills. Therefore, under these circumstances, we are of opinion that the easy approach adopted by the High Court was not correct." 14. He further relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Kanshi Ram vs. State of Punjab reported in (2005)12 S.C.C. 641 wherein their Lordship observed:- "The counsel for the appellant contended before us that there was no independent witness to prove the prosecution case. We are not inclined to accept this contention. He further relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Kanshi Ram vs. State of Punjab reported in (2005)12 S.C.C. 641 wherein their Lordship observed:- "The counsel for the appellant contended before us that there was no independent witness to prove the prosecution case. We are not inclined to accept this contention. Evidence of Jugraj Singh and P.W. 5, the inspector, proved beyond reasonc1ole doubt that the appellant had received the money and the money was recovered from his house and explanation' offered by the appellant was neither reasonable nor satisfactory. Fact is that he had received the money and in the absence of a reasonable explanation as to how he tainted money came to his possession, there would be a presumption that he accepted the bribe and section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is attracted. Hence the explanation offered by the appellant was not sufficient to rebut that presumption. The appellant had rightly been convicted by the Special Judge and the High Court had committed no error in confirming that conviction and sentence". 15. Finally Mr. Kashyap submitted that the prosecution case with respect to charge framed against the appellant of accepting bribe for the offence under sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 are proved except certain cosmetic contradictions in the statement of the witnesses which can be ignored. 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, I find that specific charge against the appellant was of demanding Rs. 300/- as the balance amount of the bribe money out of Rs. 1000/- and of acceptance of the same from the informant P.W. 1 Purno Oraon, an assistant teacher in his school. 17. I further find that on the complaint submitted by the informant Purno Oraon before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Cabinet Vigilance, Ranchi, a preliminary enquiry was directed to be made and pursuant to that P.W.9 Garbet Hembrum, Inspector of Police, after verifying the allegation and finding it true not only submitted the verification report against the appellant but also substantiated before the trial court. 18. Mr. Tripathy, the learned counsel in course of argument expressed his concern that the sanction obtained in this case for launching prosecution against the appellant was nothing but mechanical exercise by the authority. The sanction letter Ext. 18. Mr. Tripathy, the learned counsel in course of argument expressed his concern that the sanction obtained in this case for launching prosecution against the appellant was nothing but mechanical exercise by the authority. The sanction letter Ext. 10 has been proved by its author P.W. 16, Shri Dasrath Ram, District Education Officer, Ranchi, who testified in clear words that he was the appointing authority of the appellant and pursuant to the proposal received, he accorded sanction for criminal prosecution of the appellant in respect of a criminal case instituted against him of accepting bribe. The witness admitted having examined the relevant documents including the FIR, carbon copy of the case diary and upon being satisfied with such documents he accorded sanction for criminal prosecution of the appellant, Ramnath Prasad Singh. I, therefore, find that the sanction for criminal prosecution was accorded by the competent authority upon conscious consideration and application of mind and that it was not merely a mechanical exercise. 19. Out of galaxy of 20 witnesses produced on behalf of prosecution I find that 7 witnesses were tendered. Yet, I find that the informant, Purno Oraon (P.W. 1) supported his case categorically and stood to the test of cross examination. Similarly-P.W. 3, Mahadeo Bhagat, an independent seizure witness has supported the seizure of six G.C. Notes of denomination of Rs.50/- each, total Rs.300/- from the conscious possession of the appellant and the statement of this independent witness is very relevant in arriving at conclusion which leads to guilt of the appellant. Many other witnesses, who were the members of the raiding party, have also categorically supported the recovery of bribe money from the possession of the appellant. It would not be out of place to mention that all the six G.C. Notes were produced by the informant at the first instance before P.W. 11 B.N.P Singh and other witnesses which were returned to him after noting its number in the memorandum prepared and after treating it with phenolpthaline powder. The witnesses are consistent that the informant was cautioned to deliver the G.C. Notes to the appellant only on demand and the same was executed by the informant in the manner cautioned by the police officers of the Vigilance Department. 20. The witnesses are consistent that the informant was cautioned to deliver the G.C. Notes to the appellant only on demand and the same was executed by the informant in the manner cautioned by the police officers of the Vigilance Department. 20. I am of the firm view that in absence of the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory in respect of the test of the tainted currency notes and phenolpthaline test conducted for ascertaining the allegation of accepting the bribe the prosecution case cannot be disbelived in view of the consistent eye witnesses of the prosecution who proved the acceptance of bribe money and its recovery from the conscious possession of the appellant. 21. Corruption is creating menace in the present civilized society and if the same is not nipped in the bud it would ruin the society. The Apex court, in State of M.P. and Ors. vs. Shri Ram Singh reported in 2000 SAR (Criminal) 307 expressed:- "Corruption in a civilized society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to maliganise the polity of the country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as Royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence shaking of the socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society." 22. In the facts and circumstances, I find that the prosecution case is well proved as against the appellant, Ramnath Prasad Singh. The judgment of conviction under section 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and order of sentenced passed on both counts against the appellant is upheld and confirmed. This appeal is dismissed and the provisional bail granted by the trial court to the appellant and affirmed during the pendency of this appeal is vacated. He is directed to surrender to serve out remaining period of sentence.