JUDGMENT Dilip Kumar Sinha, J. 1. This Cr. Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the 7 th Addl. Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge (C.B.I.), Ranchi in R.C. Case No. 5A/2000(R) on 17.1.2003 whereby and whereunder the sole appellant Bisheshwar Nath Singh was convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-. He was further convicted under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 1/2 years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default stipulation of simple imprisonment for one month and two months respectively on each count. 2. The facts of the case in short was that the complainant P.W. 5 Triveni Mahto presented a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., at Ranchi on 17.5.2000 stating therein that he was an employee as the piece rated labourer in C.C.L. Colliery, Kuju since May, 1996 but he was doing the job of casual labourer (group 5) since September, 1999 on the direction and instance of the appellant B.N. Singh, an Overman in Kuju Colliery. The complainant alleged that sometimes ago the appellant B.N. Singh offered that if he wanted to continue doing job of casual labourer on higher wages without hindrance, then he will have to pay Rs. 2500/-(as gratification) failing to oblige he would be reverted back to the junior grade job of piece rated labourer. It was further narrated that on 15.5.2000 the appellant reiterated his demand of Rs. 2500/- to which the complainant though was not inclined but assured that he would pay him the amount on 17.5.2000. The complainant came to Ranchi on 17.5.2000 and presented a complaint before the S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi. The facts of allegation stated above as made in the complaint was verified by the S.P. through the Inspector of Police (C.B.I.) and having been satisfied prima facie with the allegation, R.C. Case No. 5(A)/2000(R) was registered and a Trap Team was constituted under the leadership of P.W. 8 Shri Akhileshwar Prasad, Dy. S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi. The complainant produced Rs. 2500/- as per direction and the numbers of 25 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- each were recorded in the pre-trap memorandum. S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi. The complainant produced Rs. 2500/- as per direction and the numbers of 25 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- each were recorded in the pre-trap memorandum. The trap was laid in the Office of the appellant Bisheshwar Nath Singh, in short B.N. Singh on 17.5.2000 and it was alleged that the appellant was caught red handed accepting the bribe money from the complainant Triveni Mahto. Search of the appellant was made after challenging him in presence of the independent witnesses and his hands as well as the pockets of his fullpant were washed in the solution of sodium carbonate and upon being satisfied that the appellant had accepted phenolphthalein treated money as the said solution turned pink, a post trap memorandum was prepared with the seizure list and the appellant was arrested. The C.B.I. after investigation of the case submitted charge-sheet and accordingly charge against the appellant was framed by the Special Judge (C.B.I), Ranchi for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant denied his guilt when confronted with the incriminating materials appearing in the evidence during trial and also denied recovery of any amount from his possession in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. after the evidence was adduced on behalf of the prosecution. Yet, he admitted that his signature was obtained on a paper but, without recovery of any amount from his possession. The appellant denied that his hands were washed, when called upon to answer that the colour of milky solution of sodium carbonate turned pink when his hands were washed separately and such wash were mixed in, the solution of sodium carbonate. 3. Before initiating the argument, Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Counsel submitted that the appellant remained in judicial custody for a period of more than 3 years beyond what was awarded as sentence to him to the maximum period of 2 1/2 years imprisonment and in that manner, served out more than what was required. 3. Before initiating the argument, Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Counsel submitted that the appellant remained in judicial custody for a period of more than 3 years beyond what was awarded as sentence to him to the maximum period of 2 1/2 years imprisonment and in that manner, served out more than what was required. The learned Counsel attracted the attention by submitting that since the appellant was an employee of C.C.L., his conviction under various sections of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 seriously prejudiced his prospect in service and hence the appeal for consideration on merit for removal of stigma so that he may get all the retiral benefits due to him on his acquittal from the charges. 4. With the consent of the contesting parties, following points are formulated for the consideration of appeal: (i) Whether the sanction obtained under Section 19 of the P.C. Act from the P.W. 3 General Manager, Kuju Area was a sanction without application of mind ? (ii) Whether any independent witness came forward to prove the pre-trap memorandum, post trap memorandum, memorandum of recovery, seizure of alleged tainted notes and other seizure lists and that the witnesses borrowed from Ranchi were interested witnesses? (iii) Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 7, 13(2) of the P.C. Act was sustainable in the backdrop that the complainant was declared hostile by the prosecution? And (iv) Whether the appellant was empowered, vested with jurisdiction to convert a piece rated labourer into casual labourer. 5. Discussing the technical aspect Mr. Mazumdar submitted that Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with previous sanction necessary for prosecution, that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7,10,11,13 & 15 alleged to have been committed by a Public Servant, except with the previous sanction. According to Mr. Mazumdar in order to put a valid sanction, the order must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other materials placed before him before according sanction. This fact can also be established by extrinsic evidence. In the instant case, the sanction letter, exhibit 3 was proved by its maker P.W 3 Baijnath Singh, General Manager, Kuju Area, as he was at the relevant time of alleged occurrence. This fact can also be established by extrinsic evidence. In the instant case, the sanction letter, exhibit 3 was proved by its maker P.W 3 Baijnath Singh, General Manager, Kuju Area, as he was at the relevant time of alleged occurrence. The learned Counsel submitted that P.W. 3 no where disclosed that before according sanction he had perused the relevant documents except his admission that he interrogated certain witnesses. Yet, when called upon, the sanctioning authority (P.W.3) failed to name any witness to whom he interrogated nor he could explain the nature of documents enclosed in the instant case as evidence. Therefore, Mr. Mazumdar submitted, that the sanction alleged to be accorded ( Ext. 3) was not a true sanction under law. On the other hand, learned Counsel Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti J.C. to Standing Counsel C.B.I. controverted the contention by submitting that there was clear provision under Section 19(3) of the PC. Act, 1988 that, " notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-(a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under Sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of the Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby." 6. Having gone through the testimony of P.W. 3 Baijnath Singh, I find that he proved the sanction letter Ext. 3 issued by him under authority which was typed on his dictation by the Typist, Shri S.P. Singh with his signature on each sheet and seal of his office. I, therefore, do not find any irregularity therein so as to form an opinion that the sanction order was not properly proved which occasioned failure of justice. I do not find that the sanction was accorded by sanctioning authority without application of his mind. 7. I, therefore, do not find any irregularity therein so as to form an opinion that the sanction order was not properly proved which occasioned failure of justice. I do not find that the sanction was accorded by sanctioning authority without application of his mind. 7. The next Point for consideration is as to whether the trial court erred by not taking note of the fact that no independent witness supposed to be present at the time and place of occurrence during working hours was examined on behalf of the prosecution and that the witnesses who were borrowed from Ranchi were interested, having allegiance with the C.B.I. Similarly, the Trial Court erred and failed to take into consideration that the procedure adopted by the prosecution party in observing search, seizure was erroneous against the provisions of procedural law Mr. Mazumdar submitted that the inconsistency found in the statement of the prosecution witnesses was overlooked by the Trial Court which occasioned the failure of justice and prejudice to the appellant. 8. The judgment impugned indicates that altogether 8 witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution viz. P.W. 1 Binod Kumar Gupta, a Project Officer of Kuju Area, C.C.L; P.W. 2 Neeraj Kumar Sinha, Manager in Kuju Area C.C.L; P.W. 3 Baijnath Singh the then General Manager, Kuju Area C.C.L. and sanctioning authority; P.W. 4 Shyam Nandan Gupta, Income Tax Inspector, Ranchi; P W 5 Triveni Mahto complainant P W 6 Arun Kumar Ekka, Inspector of Income Tax; P.W. 7 Binay Kumar, Inspector of Police, C.B.I. and P.W. 8 Akhileshwar Prasad, Dy. S.P., C.B.I. Amongst the aforesaid witnesses P.W. 4 Shyam Nandan Gupta and P.W. 6 Arun Kumar Ekka were the responsible officers in the Department of Income Tax Ranchi, unconcerned with the C.B.I., and were the trap witnesses who reported in the C.B.I. Office on the direction of their superior officer to stand as witnesses and I find from their testimonies that they consistently supported the entire event of trap of the appellant by narrating the drawing of pre-trap memorandum up-to the arrestation of the appellant on acceptance of gratification from the complainant and subsequent preparation of seizure list and post-trap memorandum in their presence. They testified that they were standing close to the complainant Triveni Mahto and the appellant Baijnath Singh when Triveni Mahto delivered Rs. They testified that they were standing close to the complainant Triveni Mahto and the appellant Baijnath Singh when Triveni Mahto delivered Rs. 2500/- on demand to the appellant Baijnath Singh at the place of occurrence on 17.5.2000 and the latter accepted. They were further consistent about the demonstration of the reaction of phenolphthalein powder coming in contact with the solution of sodium carbonate during preparation of pre-trap memorandum. In their presence the complainant produced 25 notes of Rs. 100/- each and the said notes were tainted with phenolphthalein powder. The notes were returned to the complainant after recording its number with instruction and caution to deliver it to the appellant only on demand, otherwise not. The witnesses were consistent that the members of the Trap Team arrived at the place of occurrence where the complainant Triveni Mahto pointed out the place of sitting of the appellant and that the appellant was there when trap team arrived. P.W. 4 Shyam Nandan Gupta and P.W. 6 Arun Kumar Ekka narrated by testifying the sequence of transaction of the tainted notes as the eyewitnesses that the appellant Bisheshwar Nath Singh asked as to whether he had carried the money to which the complainant replied in affirmative. The appellant again enquired as to whether he had brought the entire amount Rs. 2500/-. On further affirmation, the appellant demanded and only then the complainant took out Rs. 2500/- from his pocket and delivered it to the appellant Bisheshwar Nath Singh which the latter accepted it by his right hand. The appellant counted the tainted notes with both his hands and put it in the left pocket of his fullpant. The trap witnesses further testified that on the signal given by the decoy Triveni Mahto the members of the Trap Team rushed there headed by P.W. 8 Akhileshwar Prasad after transaction was over who challenged the appellant by disclosing his identity and the appellant was apprehended. 9. The witnesses further testified that the right hand of the appellant was washed and the hand wash when mixed in the aqua solution of sodium carbonate the colour of solution turned pink. The solution was collected in a bottle, which was sealed and signed by them with the endorsement" right hand wash" and the witnesses proved the bottle, material ext. 1/1. The solution was collected in a bottle, which was sealed and signed by them with the endorsement" right hand wash" and the witnesses proved the bottle, material ext. 1/1. The hand wash of the left fingers of the appellant was also mixed with the solution of sodium carbonate which turned pink, collected, sealed and signed with the endorsement" left hand wash" and the bottle was marked material Ext. 1/2. On demand, the appellant produced the notes which he had accepted and when its numbers were compared, it tallied with the numbers earlier recorded in the pre-trap memorandum The other witnesses such as Investigating Officer P.W 7 Binay Kumar, Inspector, C.B.I, and the leader of the trap team P.W 8 Shri Akhileshwar Prasad consistently corroborated the entire event of transaction of amount and trap of the appellant with minute of details and I do not find any inconsistency in their evidence in respect of demand of gratification by the appellant and payment of the amount by the decoy complainant P.W. 5 Triveni Mahto to him pursuant to such demand. The post trap confirmatory test of the reaction of hand wash coming in contact with phenolphthalein tainted notes with that of aqua solution of sodium carbonate, prima facie proved such transaction by the material exhibits, memorandum of recovery Ext. 4 and other seizure lists in the testimony of P.W. 4 Shyam Nandan Gupta and P.W. 6 Arun Kumar Ekka. I further find that the prosecution C.B.I. took extra precaution by requisitioning these two officers of the Income Tax Department, Govt. of India to stand as independent trap witnesses. The learned Counsel though pointed out that hundreds of employees were there in the surroundings where operation of mining was going on but none of the employees was asked to stand as independent witness. The mode of laying trap to apprehend the erring person while accepting bribe, in my view, was processed with due care and caution by the C.B.I. without any room for leakage and fool proof arrangement to avoid hostility of the witnesses in future and the chance of the witnesses being gained over in coming in contact with the culprit on their day- to-days work could not be ruled out, if picked up from the place of occurrence. I, therefore, find and observe that P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 were the competent witnesses and their testimonies did not in any manner prejudice the defence of the appellant rather inspired the confidence of the courts. 10. The next question for consideration is as to whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was sustainable in the backdrop that the complainant was declared hostile by the prosecution and secondly, as to whether the appellant was empowered, vested with jurisdiction to convert a piece rated labourer into a casual labourer. I take up both the points together for consideration. 11. Mr. Mazumadar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant exhorted that the appellant was simply an Overman in C.C.L., Kujju and his duty was to supervise the work of piece rated labourer as well as casual labourer in the mines as well as on the surface and also to ensure their safety. The appellant was neither empowered nor he was having authority either inherently or by delegation and that no document was produced in the Trial Court in support that by virtue of such authority he was empowered to do so and for want of such authority demand of Rs. 25007- made from the complainant Triveni Mahto by the appellant cannot sustain. A person who can move to C.B.I. to lay trap to an innocent cannot be so ignorant that he had no knowledge about the authority of the appellant. Mr. Mazumdar submitted that it was common knowledge that a person without authority cannot convert a piece rated labourer into a casual labourer and therefore, alleged demand of gratification did not arise. The learned Counsel pointed out that entire allegation was made against the appellant after due deliberation and consultation by the complainant with the leaders of the Trade Unions. The complainant P.W. 5 Triveni Mahto very fairly admitted that he collected the amount of Rs. 2500/- from the other labourers and produced it before the S.P., C.B.I. for payment on demand by the appellant. 12. According to Mr. Mazumdar, the learned Counsel, there was no consistency in the chain of sequence of events in this case. The complainant P.W. 5 Triveni Mahto very fairly admitted that he collected the amount of Rs. 2500/- from the other labourers and produced it before the S.P., C.B.I. for payment on demand by the appellant. 12. According to Mr. Mazumdar, the learned Counsel, there was no consistency in the chain of sequence of events in this case. According to the prosecution case the complainant went to the S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi on 17.5.2000, presented a complaint before the C.B.I. on the same day, the contents of which was verified by Shri S.K. Sinha, Inspector of Police, C.B.I. on the same day, P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 were requisitioned to stand as trap witnesses and on the same day the trap was laid much far away from Ranchi at Kujju Colliery. The chain of circumstances as projected herein above by the prosecution was quite improbable except a table work. The prosecution failed to satisfy as to under what manner the preliminary enquiry was conducted by P.W. 7 so as to arrive at prima facie satisfaction of the allegation against the appellant without visiting the alleged place, seam VIII incline, Kujju Colliery where appellant was working. These unanswered facts coupled with incomplete chain of sequence was indicative that the appellant was innocent who became prey of conspiracy hatched by the fellow workers and that no money alleged to be delivered by P.W. 5 Triveni Mahto was recovered from his possession. 13. The complainant Triveni Mahto was produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution as P.W. 5. He corroborated by testifying that he was working as piece rated worker at Kujju Colliery Seam VIII on the grade of group 5 in the month of May, 2000 and during that period the appellant B.N. Singh was working as Overman who demanded Rs. 2500/- by allowing him to continue to work on the same grade to which the witness assured to pay the amount on 17.5.2000. He complained the matter before the S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi in writing and proved his complaint Ext. 5. Mr. S.K. Sinha, Inspector, C.B.I. interrogated and upon being satisfied with the reply he asked the complainant to come at 12 Oclock in his office with Rs. 2500/- and accordingly he went there, a trap team was arranged with its member 10/11 in number and two of them S.N. Gupta and Arun Ekka were requisitioned from the Department of Income Tax. S.K. Sinha, Inspector, C.B.I. interrogated and upon being satisfied with the reply he asked the complainant to come at 12 Oclock in his office with Rs. 2500/- and accordingly he went there, a trap team was arranged with its member 10/11 in number and two of them S.N. Gupta and Arun Ekka were requisitioned from the Department of Income Tax. The reaction of Phenolphthalein powder was demonstrated coming in contact with solution of sodium carbonate. Pre-trap memorandum was prepared and the notes produced by him were tainted with phenolphthalein powder. He had produced 25 notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each which were returned to him with the instruction and caution that amount was to be given only on demand by the appellant otherwise not. He with the trap team arrived at Kujju colliery at about 1.30 p.m. He contacted the appellant B.N. Singh near VIII seam of mines with Arun Ekka. He introduced P.W. 6 Arun Ekka as his relative and on demand he delivered Rs. 2500/- to the appellant which was accepted by him. The appellant after counting the amount kept it in the left side of his pocket. On his signal Dy S.P., C.B.I, and other officers arrived and challenged him. Both his hands were separately washed and the hand wash when brought in contact with the solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned pink. Solutions were collected in bottles, sealed, and signed by the witnesses. On demand the appellant produced the tainted notes taking it out from the left pocket of his fullpant. Notes were counted and compared in presence of S.M. Gupta and Arun Ekka. The numbers of the notes were found identical with the pre-trap memorandum. The notes were sealed and signed. He proved the notes being material ext. Ill to 111/24. In the cross-examination the witness admitted that the Manager of the Colliery was holding power of punishment, promotion, suspension and that the overman of the colliery was not holding such power. The duty of overman was only to ensure safety in the colliery. The complainant admitted and testified that he was having a Union whereas the complainant overman was having different union and there was no co- ordination between the two. Both the unions used to quarrel each other. The witness further testified that the amount of Rs. 2500/- was provided by the union by raising fund. The complainant admitted and testified that he was having a Union whereas the complainant overman was having different union and there was no co- ordination between the two. Both the unions used to quarrel each other. The witness further testified that the amount of Rs. 2500/- was provided by the union by raising fund. The witness described the place of occurrence which was asbestos shed near the hollage where the appellant at the relevant time was sitting and the transaction took place under the Hollage. According to the witness, there were 100/150 persons working there and he put the amount in the drawer of the table of the appellant where the Officials of C.B.I, and the independent witnesses arrived with the appellant B.N. Singh there. The occurrence was witnessed by the labourers working there. He admitted that B.N. Singh was taken to Ranchi by the C.B.I. people and the entire administrative work was completed at C.B.I. Office. 14. Upon his such unfavourable statement, the prosecution declared him hostile and with due permission of the Court the attention of the witness (complainant) was drawn towards his earlier statement. The witness admitted having narrated the event of occurrence to the Investigating Officer Binay Kumar that he had spotted and shown the appellant to the members of trap team and at that time appellant was sitting under shade, open from three sides. 15. He admitted having further stated that he with the witness Arun Kumar Ekka went to the appellant after about 2.45 p.m. whereupon the appellant asked him to come after a short-while and he was marked present in the attendance register which was lying on the table of the appellant. After 20/25 minutes the appellant asked to come at his table and the witness went there with Arun Kumar Ekka and there held interaction to which the witness reproduced the same what he had stated earlier before the Investigating Officer after trap was laid and the appellant was arrested. He further admitted having stated before the Investigating Officer that on demand he produced the tainted notes of Rs. 2500/- which was accepted by the appellant by his right hand. The witness further admitted in the Trial Court having stated before the Investigating Officer that his interaction with the appellant was clearly heard by the witness Arun Kumar Ekka who was standing near him and witnessed the occurrence. 2500/- which was accepted by the appellant by his right hand. The witness further admitted in the Trial Court having stated before the Investigating Officer that his interaction with the appellant was clearly heard by the witness Arun Kumar Ekka who was standing near him and witnessed the occurrence. The complainant- witness deposed in paragraph No. 21 that his statement was recorded in the Court on 10.4.2001 and admitted having testified before the Court that the appellant demanded as to whether he had carried the amount and when he replied in affirmative he produced Rs. 2500/- before the appellant B.N. Singh on his demand which he accepted and counted with the help of both his hands and kept it in the pocket. He admitted having testified that in the meantime B.N. Singh was trapped by the. C.B.I. Trap Team and the separate hand wash of both the hands of the appellant was mixed with the solution of sodium carbonate, its colour turned pink which were separately sealed. In paragraph No. 22 under cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution the witness testified that out of certain confusion as he could not understand the question and that he was deposing for the first time, he deposed on 24.4.2001 that Rs. 25,00-/ was collected from the Union by raising fund but, as a matter of fact, he had himself arranged the money. He further clarified that, it was not a fact that he had put the money in the drawer of the table but, as a matter of fact, he had delivered the money on demand made by the appellant B.N. Singh to him. He was matriculate and had deposed in the court for the first time. In the cross-examination on behalf of the defence the witness admitted that he had neither requested the Special Judge that certain error was committed in his testimony nor had filed any petition for the rectification of the error in his testimony. Finally he deposed that it was not a fact that he was broker of the C.B.I. 16. In the cross-examination on behalf of the defence the witness admitted that he had neither requested the Special Judge that certain error was committed in his testimony nor had filed any petition for the rectification of the error in his testimony. Finally he deposed that it was not a fact that he was broker of the C.B.I. 16. From the statements of the complainant Triveni Mahto before the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad I find that he was hesitant at the first instance to corroborate his earlier version and he testified that the amount was put in the drawer of the table of the appellant and upon such statement the prosecution declared him hostile but when his attention was drawn towards his earlier statement he corroborated his earlier Version before the Investigating Officer and clarified by testifying that such answer was sequel to the fact that he could not understand the question put to him. The witness further clarified in his testimony that he was under confusion and it was his maiden deposition in the Court He could not place the matter correctly at previous occasion and exhorted by testifying that he had delivered the bribe money of Rs. 2500/- when demanded by the appellant to him at the relevant time and place of occurrence Apart from the statement of the complainant Triveni Mahto before the Special Judge the other two witnesses viz. P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 are consistent that the transaction was made in their presence and admitted having seen Triveni Mahto delivering Rs. 2500/- to the appellant on demand. I, therefore, find that though the complainant was declared hostile as he was unfavourable to the prosecution but when his attention was drawn he consistently corroborated his earlier statement which he had delivered before the informant and also admitted certain confusion but at the end he testified in clear words by reiterating that he paid Rs. 2500/- to the appellant being the bribe money on demand and, therefore, I find that he was no longer a hostile witness to the prosecution. On the other hand, he consistently supported his case before the Special Judge which laid to the conviction of the appellant. 17. 2500/- to the appellant being the bribe money on demand and, therefore, I find that he was no longer a hostile witness to the prosecution. On the other hand, he consistently supported his case before the Special Judge which laid to the conviction of the appellant. 17. It would not be out of place to mention that the complainant Triveni Mahto admitted in the complaint that he was an employee as piece rated labourer in C.C.L. colliery, Kujju since May, 1996 but on the instance and favour extended by the appellant B.N. Singh, an overman in Kujju Colliery he was doing the job of casual labourer (group-5) since September, 1996. This fact was at no point of time refuted or controverted by P.W. 3 Baij Nath Singh, General Manager as he was at the relevant time of alleged occurrence. On the other hand, P.W. 2 Neeraj Kumar Sinha deposed under cross-examination that no power was vested in writing to the appellant Bisheshwar Nath Singh to take the work of time rated worker from a piece rated worker rather such power was exercised by the Over-man Bisheshwar Nath Singh by customs and tradition. There was no rule or administrative direction in writing to exercise such power but he admitted that power can be exercised by any officer through customs and tradition. I, therefore, find and observe that though the appellant was not expressly empowered or vested with jurisdiction to convert a piece rated labourer into a casual labourer but pursuant to prevalent customs and traditions he was exercising the power of overman and allowing a piece rated labourer to do the job of casual labourer on higher grade and scale, and by exercising such power the appellant demanded gratification from the complainant and accepted Rs. 2500/- In the manner narrated hereinabove. The judgment of Special Judge C.B.I, is based upon the materials on record produced on behalf of the prosecution and the defence failed to show any illegality or irregularity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant to call for interference. There being no merit, this appeal is dismissed.