JUDGMENT:- The accused/appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction recorded by the Special Judge, Aurangabad, in Special Case No.3/1992, dt.30th Oct., 1996, whereby the accused/appellant is convicted for an offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and for an offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act, directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, on both counts. 2. There were controversies and dispute between Uttarn Chandel (PW 7) and one Bhimraj Chandel (PW 5) and his father Karbhari on account of the land. PW 7 Uttam Chandel had reported the matter to Police vide Exh.13. The accused/appellant was directed by PW No.4 Prakash Lagad to carry inquiry and to take necessary preventive action. On 26.4.1991 Bhimraj (PW 5) also filed report (Exh.II) against Uttam Chandel (PW 7) and his family members with identical allegations, which was also marked to accused by PW 3 Nivrutti for inquiry. 3. On 27.4.1991 PW 5 Bhimraj approached the complainant who is elder brother of PW 5's father-in-law) and informed that there was threat from the accused to arrest him and, consequently, the complainant joined PW 5 and met the accused who, in turn, informed the complainant and PW No.5 Bhimraj about the application of PW No.7 Uttam, due to which Accused will arrest them. Consequently, as per the direction of the accused. they accompanied him to Waluj Police Station. However, at his instance, they slept in the Varandah of Police Station and on 28.4.1991, they again met the accused and requested that they should not be arrested. At such time the accused demanded Rs.500/- to desist from arresting PW 5 and his father. However, he told, he will initiate chapter proceedings. Complainant Shamrao (PW 1) paid Rs.l00/- and assured to give the balance amount of Rs.400/- on 30.4.1991, the accused directed to pay the amount on that day at the Police Station itself. 4. Complainant Shamrao approached officials of Anti Corruption Bureau (hereinafter referred to as "A.C.B.") at Aurangabad and lodged his report (Exh.7), recorded by PW No.12 P.I. Digamber Gadhekar. Services of two Government employees from the office of Director of Health Services were solicited and, consequently, Sudhakar Baviskar (PW 6) and one Rajput acted as Panch, they were introduced to the complainant. Complainant Shamrao approached officials of Anti Corruption Bureau (hereinafter referred to as "A.C.B.") at Aurangabad and lodged his report (Exh.7), recorded by PW No.12 P.I. Digamber Gadhekar. Services of two Government employees from the office of Director of Health Services were solicited and, consequently, Sudhakar Baviskar (PW 6) and one Rajput acted as Panch, they were introduced to the complainant. They had gone through the report (Exh.7) of PW No.1 Shamrao and also made inquiry with him. The currency notes of Rs.400/- with Anthracene powder were kept with complainant with instructions not to touch the notes till the time the demand is made by the accused. All these pre-raid details were recorded in the Panchanama Exh.17. The complainant Shamrao (PW 1) along with Panch Baviskar (PW 6) proceeded ahead to meet the accused at the Police Station followed by team of officials. However, since the accused was at his home, which is located nearby, Bhimraj (PW 5) who also had come there, went to call the accused, the accused sent a message that he will be coming within short time. At the instance of accused, they went to Rajasthan Uphargriha, where they had Lassi and then, the accused demanded the bribe, PW 1 paid the amount of Rs.400/- to the accused as demanded by him, and then he gave signal, as instructed by the Police Officer. The amount of Rs.400/- was found in the left side pocket of his shirt which indicated presence of Anthracene powder, which was also visible on the right hand thumb and index finger, including shirt pocket of the accused. The traces of Anthracene powder were also verified on the right hand and shirt pocket of complainant. The number of currency notes recorded vide pratap panch nama were verified by the panch with the notes on the person of the accused. 5. PW 12 Police Officer lodged report (Exh.47) against the accused with Waluj Police Station, vide crime No.II-4/1991. PW 12 reported the matter to his superior officers on 29.6.1991. D.C.P. PW 10 Rameshwar Dahate was contacted by letter Exh.27 with documents on 7.12.1991 and sanction order (Exh.26) came to be issued by PW 10 Dahate. 6. After the charge-sheet, charge was explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty to the same. PW 12 reported the matter to his superior officers on 29.6.1991. D.C.P. PW 10 Rameshwar Dahate was contacted by letter Exh.27 with documents on 7.12.1991 and sanction order (Exh.26) came to be issued by PW 10 Dahate. 6. After the charge-sheet, charge was explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty to the same. The defence of the accused, in his statement under Section 313, CLP.C. is that, he was not knowing the complainant, the complainant suddenly came, tried to put money in his pocket, which was resisted by him; by his right hand. Consequently, the currency notes fell down. It was Panch Rajput who had put money in his pocket forcibly. The accused/appellant also came with a defence that Police Officer Nalawade had owed Rs.l,500/- as the accused had supplied him some building material and, at the instance of said PI Nalawade, the present prosecution is launched. However, the Accused did not discharge these facts from any witness and the defence is proved to be unsustainable. There is no element of preponderance of probability in the explanation tried to De set up by Accused. 7. On analysing the evidence, following facts can broadly be stated to be not in dispute: (a) The accused was a public servant at the relevant time (Exh.48) having his posting at Waluj Police Station. (b) PW 4 Prakash Lagad was PSI at Waluj Police Station. (c) A report (Exh.13) was filed with Police Station and PW 4 PSI Lagad has directed the accused/appellant for making inquiry of the application made by Uttam (PW 7). (d) Panch Rajput is not examined. (e) PW No.6 Sudhakar Digambar Baviskar acted as a Panch. He is a Government employee. (f) Tainted notes of Rs.400/- were recovered from accused. 8. PW 2 Arun Murlidhar Joshi drew - sketch, Prakash Dattatraya Lagad (PW 4) was the officer attached to the Waluj Police Station from 22.7.1990 to 21.4.1992. On 23.4.1991, a non cognizable report was registered at the Police Station by Uttam Dagadu Chandel (PW 7) vide No.171/1991 (Exh.13), which was recorded by Head Constable Lakade (accused). PW 4 directed accused to make inquiry and to take preventive action as said immovable property was situated in his beat. Accused called the persons concerned on 29.4.1991 at 10 a.m. Those two persons were produced before the witness. PW 4 directed accused to make inquiry and to take preventive action as said immovable property was situated in his beat. Accused called the persons concerned on 29.4.1991 at 10 a.m. Those two persons were produced before the witness. However, since PSI Lagad had emergency election meeting at Vaijapur, he directed the accused to take preventive action against those two persons (Karbhari Bhavsing and Bhimrao Karbhari) and left the Police Station. Bhimraj Karbhari Chandel is PW 5. Sudhakar Digambar Baviskar (PW 6) is the Panch. He proved Panchnamas at Exhs.17, 18 and 19. PW 7 Uttam Dagadu €handel proved his report against PW no.5 Bhimraj and Karbhari. PW 8Daulatrao Parvatrao More is a Police Patil at village Takali. He was with accused, at the thrashing field when PW 5 and Karbhari were summoned to Police Station. 9. PW No.9 Ramu on 30.6.1991, was at the cash counter of Rajasthan Uphargriha, the accused, along with two other persons had Lassi (sweet curd) and one of the person, who was with the accused, paid the bill, by giving currency note of Rs.20/-, he handed over the balance. Police Officer Gadekar collected back the currency note of Rs.20/- from PW 9. PW No.10 Rameshwar Namdeo Dahate is the sanctioning authority. He tendered sanction order dt. 7 .1.1992 at Exh.26, the office copy of the letter at Exh.27 and draft sanction order at Exh.28. PW 11 is Sk. Ajgarali s/o. Sk. Sultan who received the report lodged by A.C.B. Officer Shri. Gadekar against the accused. PW 12 Digamber Sarjerao Gadekar was Police Inspector of A.C.B., Aurangabad and has received the report from PW 1 Shamrao. 10. Learned defence Counsel, while assailing the judgment, thoroughly took me through the entire evidence and pointed out the contradictions, omissions and improvements. According to him, the sanction for prosecution is in mechanical manner, no material was scanned by sanctioning authority. The theory of demand, acceptance and recovery is not proved. Motive is not proved, the currency notes were thrust by the Panch Rajput, who is not examined. PI Nalawade accompanied the raid without any reason. Learned defence Counsel relied on following judgments: (1) AIR 1994 SC 1538 (Babu Lal Bajpai Vs. State of V.P.). (2) 2007 CRI.L.J. 2919 (State of M.P. Vs. Anil Kumar Verma). (3) AIR 2004 SC 1728 (State of A.P. Vs. T. Venkateswara Rao). (4) 2005 CRI.LJ. PI Nalawade accompanied the raid without any reason. Learned defence Counsel relied on following judgments: (1) AIR 1994 SC 1538 (Babu Lal Bajpai Vs. State of V.P.). (2) 2007 CRI.L.J. 2919 (State of M.P. Vs. Anil Kumar Verma). (3) AIR 2004 SC 1728 (State of A.P. Vs. T. Venkateswara Rao). (4) 2005 CRI.LJ. 4450: [2005 ALL MR (Cri) 1482] (State of Maharashtra Vs. Anant Gurunath Jotrao). (5) 2000 CRI.LJ. 1760 (Umesh Kumar Chaubey Vs. State of M.P.). (6) 2001 CRI.LJ. 2695 (H. S. GotIa Vs. State). In the said case, sanction was granted by Deputy Superintendent, who was in-charge and Court observed that it does not make him Superintendent of Police and he could not continue investigation. (7) 2003 CRI.L.J. 4701 (Charan Dass Vs. State and others). The case relates to Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act (13 of 2006 Smvt). The recovery of tainted currency notes were proved by prosecution. However, there was no evidence showing that the complainant had put the money into the pocket of the accused on his asking. The Court observed, it cannot be validly inferred that the accused had accepted the bribe voluntary in pursuance of his demand. Mere recovery of money from the accused, without proof of voluntary acceptance thereof, does not attract application of Section 4(1) of the said Act (corresponding to Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act). (8) 2003 CRI.LJ. 4286 (Kailash Chandra Pandey Vs. State of W.B.). In the said case, the Calcutta High Court recorded that the motive for demand could not be established as the bills, which were due, were already released. (9) 1982 CRI.L.J. 720 (Allahabad High Court) (Deewan Chand Vs. State). In the sanction, the words "any other offences punishable under other provisions of law in respect of the acts aforesaid" were added towards the end of sanction order and the learned Judge felt that this clearly indicates that Shri. P. Sahai did not dictate relevant portion of the sanction and he merely signed on the draft prepared by the Head Clerk Charyan. (10) 1894 CRI.LJ. 1809 (Behari Lal Gupta Vs. State of H.P.). (10) 1894 CRI.LJ. 1809 (Behari Lal Gupta Vs. State of H.P.). In the said case, the learned Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court held, "Where sanction order does not show as to on what material the sanctioning authority satisfied itself that a case for sanction was made out and independent of the sanction order, no other evidence has been adduced to prove this fact, the order is bad in law". (11) 1993 CRI.LJ. 2051 (N. P. Lotlikar Vs. C.B.I. and another). In that case, draft sanction order was put up by the investigating authority. The learned Judge noticed glaring defects in computing total emoluments, salary of the accused for six years. No opportunity was given to the accused either by the investigating officer or by the sanctioning authority to account for the assets ascribed to him. Consequently, there is violation of principles of natural justice. (12) 1994 MCR561 (Dnyandeo Ranganath Asher Vs. State of Maharashtra). In that case, it was found acceptance of money as bribe was not proved. There was non- observance of Section 5-A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, as the officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police carried investigation without permission of the Magistrate. The High Court did not believe the demand of bribe to be trustworthy. (13) 1993 B. Cr.C. 866 (Shivchalappa Gurumorty Appa Loni Vs. State of Maharashtra). The learned Judge observed, "One of the cardinal requirements for the appointing authority of a public servant to evaluate is the question as to whether the gravity of the charge is sufficient to warrant a prosecution. Disciplinary proceedings do provide for punishments many of them of a rigorous nature and, therefore, before mechanically sentencing a public servant who is alleged to have accepted a small amount of money to the trauma of one or two decades of litigation, it is very essential for the sanctioning authority to evaluate the seriousness of what is alleged against the public servant, where the facts are gross and where a criminal trial and a possible jail sentence appear to be very much in order sanction must certainly be accorded, but in all the cases where the amount is small, the advisability of a prosecution is a matter which is seriously in doubt." (14) 2007 CRI.L.J. 532 : [2007 ALL MR (Cri) 199] (Bombay High Court) (Prabhakar Balaji Bhoge and another Vs. State of Maharashtra). State of Maharashtra). In that case, the hostility of the witnesses was taken into consideration and the conviction was set aside. (15) 1980 CRI.L.J. 1096 (1) (Supreme Court) (Gulam Mahmood A. Malek Vs. The State of Gujrat). The Hon'ble Lordships of the Supreme Court observed, "In appreciating the evidence in this case the background should not be forgotten. The complaint was prepared by Natvarlal who was accused in at least four cases. He did not have the least compunction in saying that he used to give money to the accused on several occasions." The Hon'ble Lordships found that there was delay in effecting recovery of the money. (16) AIR 1979 SUPREME COURT 1408 (Suraj Mal Vs. The State (Delhi Administration). Hon 'ble Lordships observed, "Where witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses." mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable." (17) AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT 498 (Ram Prakash Arora V s. The State of Punjab). The Court did not believe search witness and also found no acceptable corroboration. (18) 2008 ALL SCR 64 (State of Karnataka Vs. Ameer Jan). Hon'ble Lordships of the Supreme Court observed, "The order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner. Purpose for which an order of sanction is required to be passed should always be borne in mind. Ordinarily, the sanctioning authority is the best person to judge as to whether public servant concerned should receive the protection under the Act by refusing to accord sanction for his prosecution or not." (19) 2007 CRI.L.J. 754: [2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1201 (S.C.)] (V. Venkata Subbarao Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police A.P.). Hon'ble Lordships of the Supreme Court accepted the observation of the Special Judge in acquitting the accused on facts of the case. 11. The learned Counsel pointed out that in paragraph no. 15, PW No.1 has accepted that the currency notes were folded twice while keeping in his pocket. They were one after another and then were folded. Hon'ble Lordships of the Supreme Court accepted the observation of the Special Judge in acquitting the accused on facts of the case. 11. The learned Counsel pointed out that in paragraph no. 15, PW No.1 has accepted that the currency notes were folded twice while keeping in his pocket. They were one after another and then were folded. The currency notes of Rs.l00/- were above and currency notes of Rs.50/- were inside the bundle, while PW 6 Panch Sudhakar Bawiskar states, in para no.7 that, currency notes which were kept in left chest pocket of complainant Shamrao were folded only once, while keeping the same in the office of A.C.B., at Aurangabad. 12. The defence claimed, the accused could not count the notes as the counting required involvement of more than 2/3 fingers while the glazing due to Anthracene powder was found only on the tip of two fingers. Consequently, the theory of acceptance of the amount is doubtful. 13. PW 4 Lagad has had asked the accused to take preventive action based on Exh.13, which was handed over to accused for inquiry. PW 8 Daulatrao More repels contentions of the accused, as the application of Uttam Exh.13 was brought to him at the instance of the accused whereupon the accused had directed PW No.8 More to keep Karbhari and Bhimraj (PW 5) present at the Police Station, which was complied by PW 8. There were subsequent directions from the accused to produce above witnesses at the Police Station, which was again intimated to PW No.5 Bhimraj and Karbhari. Thereupon, since those two persons did not visit the Police Station, in compliance with the direction of the accused, it was the accused who visited the village Takali and went to the threshing field of Karbhari. PW No.8 Daulat accompanied him. Consequent upon order and command of the accused, PW No.5 Bhimraj, his father Karbhari, with Bhimrao, a relative, went to Police Station at Waluj. The order of the accused is at Exh.23 dt.26.4.1991, directing PW No.8 Daulat to arrange to keep Karbhari and Bhimraj present. PW No.8 Daulat accompanied him. Consequent upon order and command of the accused, PW No.5 Bhimraj, his father Karbhari, with Bhimrao, a relative, went to Police Station at Waluj. The order of the accused is at Exh.23 dt.26.4.1991, directing PW No.8 Daulat to arrange to keep Karbhari and Bhimraj present. Thus, the accused, under the ruse of his authority, through PW No.8 Daulat, called PW 5 Bhimraj and his father to Police Station and it is established by PW 5 Bhimraj and PW 1 Shamrao that the accused demanded Rs.500/-, not to handcuff PW 5 Bhimraj and Karbhari and only to file chapter case before Tehsildar. Thus, some proceedings were pending with accused. It may be a pretence of accused, which was running in his mind but, the agriculturists, like PW No.1 or PW No.5 were naturally trembling and dismayed as the accused renewed his demand of Rs.500/- to skip away putting handcuffing and in compliance of such demand, initially PW No.1 paid Rs.l 00/- to him. The mindset of the accused at the material time also requires attention as he directed PW 5 and his father to remain at the Police Station, in the night, under a guise to discuss the issue in the morning. It is not that PW No.1 wanted to give bribe to the accused but, it was the accused who had made the demand. This establishes that there was a demand made by the accused to PW No.1 Shamrao, PW No.5 Bhimraj, to desist from arresting them. Thus, the motive for acceptance of the bribe by the accused, in the set of above circumstances,is established. There was no animus between PW 1 and the accused for PW No.1 approaching A.C.B. official, to make grievance against the accused for making demand of Rs.500/- and already having paid Rs.lOO/-. The complainant being closely related to PW 5 was accompanying PW 5, and had paid initial amount of Rs.'lOO/- on demand of the accused. 14. The raid was arranged pursuant to application made by PW No.1 (Exh.7). The application of Anthracene powder to the currency notes is established by PW No.6, PW No.1, PW No.12, for which there should not be any doubt. 14. The raid was arranged pursuant to application made by PW No.1 (Exh.7). The application of Anthracene powder to the currency notes is established by PW No.6, PW No.1, PW No.12, for which there should not be any doubt. During the raid, on the direction of PW No.12, it was PW No.1 and the shadow witness (PW No.6), who had gone to meet the accused and the accused was at his house having gone for meals, PW No.5 Bhimraj was present. He was asked to see whether the accused is at his house or not when the accused gave message that he will be coming soon. The presence of PW No.5 Bhimraj or Bhimraj going to see the accused at his residence, cannot be said to be a doubtful situation. It was at the instance of the accused that PW No. 1, PW No.6 and PW No.5 Bhimraj accompanied him to Rajasthan Upahargriha where they had their Lassi. PW No.1 paid Rs.20/- currency note to him. This fact is established by PW No.9 Ramu, the owner. The defence contention that they had no visit to the hotel, in the fact situation, is difficult to digest. 15. The evidence of PW Nos. l, 5 and 6, in unequivocal terms, illustrates that the accused, when he came near them, enquired with PW No.1 as to why they have came late, he was in hurry, as he had Bandobast duty at Nandeda, at his instance they went to Hotel for Lassi and, on the way, the accused asked Shamrao (PW No.1) whether they had brought the amount. After Lassi, when they came out, at the demand of the accused, PW No.1 Shamrao took currency notes from his left chest pocket with his right hand and held it before the accused. The accused took them in his right hand and put the same in his left chest pocket. After the signal from complainant, members of raiding party came there and caught the accused. The evidence of these three witnesses, coupled with PW No.9, indicate that they met each other, there was demand and acceptance of Rs.400/- by the accused. The accused took them in his right hand and put the same in his left chest pocket. After the signal from complainant, members of raiding party came there and caught the accused. The evidence of these three witnesses, coupled with PW No.9, indicate that they met each other, there was demand and acceptance of Rs.400/- by the accused. The variation in the evidence of PW No.6 and PW No.1 about the folds to the currency notes, will have to be looked into proper perspective as it is either one fold or two folds to the currency notes, it will not change the nature of the note or, gravity of Anthracene powder smeared on them and, in particular, when the currency note numbers were recorded in the pre-trap panchnama and the same numbered currency notes were recovered at the Police Station from the pocket of the accused in presence of the witnesses. It is the individual skill of counting notes which is paramount and it is not necessary for one to have his both the hands engaged. The presence of Anthracene powder on the two fingers is established by PW 12 also. The discrepancies, if any, as regards counting of the notes by the accused, cannot be said to be detrimental as PW No.6 pointed that the accused, after receiving the tainted notes, kept the same in his shirt pocket. 16. The accused canvassed, the currency notes were forcibly put in his pocket by PW No.1 Shamrao and that the accused threw them, which Rajput, another Panch, picked and again put back in the pocket of the accused, which is disputed by the witnesses. The status of PW No.1 or the other Panch PW 6 or Rajput will not make them dare to touch the Police Head Constable, like the accused and without his wish and desire, to thrust the currency notes. The defence is apparently to divert legitimate evidence of demand and acceptance. The improved version of PW 5 that Police Patil informed him of Uttam lodging complaint against him or PW 6 said he would not take Lassi are not prejudicial to accused. PW No.6 was categorical in denying that there was any force by the complainant in putting the notes. The improved version of PW 5 that Police Patil informed him of Uttam lodging complaint against him or PW 6 said he would not take Lassi are not prejudicial to accused. PW No.6 was categorical in denying that there was any force by the complainant in putting the notes. The details of the currency notes and the statement of the witnesses recorded immediately illustrates that the accused did state that the currency notes were thrust in his pocket, however, evidence of PW Nos.1, 5 and 6, in the set of above facts, coupled with evidence of PW No.12 cannot be disbelieved. 17. The attack on the sanction by PW No. 10 Dahate needs to be looked into. The draft sanction (Exh.28) is practically identical to the sanction order (Exh.26), however, that by itself will not mean that there was non application of mind or the sanctioning authority acted mechanically. PW No. 10 has gone through all the papers of investigation along with covering letter (Exh.27). Learned Counsel invited my attention to the original record in relation to Exhs.27, 27-A and 26. There is endorsement at Exh.27 that, he has received the papers on 11.12.1991 - then why the sanctioning authority took nearly 30 days for according sanction on 7.1.1992. The sanctioning authority, in the set of situation, cannot be said to have acted mechanically or that there was non application of mind. The sanctioning authority referred to the events in sanction, based on documents and then accorded sanction being competent to do so, since he is the appointing authority and also competent to remove the accused. It was incumbent on the defence to impress that there was a failure of justice due to any error, omission or irregularity on the part of the sanctioning authority. The sanctioning authority having gone through the papers, took reasonable time to approve for sanction to prosecute the accused. It was incumbent on the defence to impress that there was a failure of justice due to any error, omission or irregularity on the part of the sanctioning authority. The sanctioning authority having gone through the papers, took reasonable time to approve for sanction to prosecute the accused. Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, starts with non obstante clause and conceives - "(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),- 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 that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby; (b) No court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice. (c) No court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings." The criticism about endorsement on Exh.27 or Exh.27 -A, is not sustainable. PW 10 had rightly endorsed on Exh.27-A that he has read the report and read investigation papers and he found sufficient evidence to accord sanction to send the papers to Court. The sanction at Exh.26, though may be word to word identical, with little difference, to the draft sanction Exh.28, however, the evidence of PW No.10 removes the mist as he has gone through the document and then only applied his mind to pass the order. The sanction was given in respect of facts constituting the offence. There is no quarrel, sanction to prosecute is an important matter. In the circumstances, the sanction at Exh.26, cannot be said to be mechanical or, cannot be said to be without application of mind. The learned A.P.P. rightly pointed that there is already a judicial filtering to sanction. The sanction is to check the frivolous cases and safeguard honest officials against malicious or mischievous allegations by interested person. In the circumstances, the sanction at Exh.26, cannot be said to be mechanical or, cannot be said to be without application of mind. The learned A.P.P. rightly pointed that there is already a judicial filtering to sanction. The sanction is to check the frivolous cases and safeguard honest officials against malicious or mischievous allegations by interested person. The objection to sanction should not be raised as umbrella for protection to the accused when provenly he was found to have indulged infracting statutory obligation for personal gains. 18. The stress that another Panch Rajput is not examined, will not be going adverse to the prosecution or, prejudicial to the accused since PW 6 was an independent Panch and has witnessed the accused accepting tainted currency notes and even witnessed the presence of Anthracene powder on pocket and finger tips of the accused. The assessment of evidence of these witnesses by the learned Judge and reassessment by me, does not indicate that the witnesses were tutored or wanted to falsely implicate the accused. Thus, the crystallisation of the evidence establishes that there was I motive, demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted notes. S 19. In the result, the appeal is S dismissed. The judgment of conviction recorded in Special Case No.3/1992, by the Special Judge, Aurangabad, dt.30.10.1996, is confirmed. The accused/appellant to surrender before the Special Judge on 8.12.2008, for undergoing the sentence. Appeal dismissed.