Per: Nirmal Singh, Judge 1. Present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.09.1997, passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-corruption, Jammu, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 5(1) (c) read with Section 5(2) of the P. C. Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and pay a fine of Rs 2 lacs (Rupees two lacs only). In default of payment of fine aforementioned, the appellant has been directed to undergo further RI for a period of one year. The appellant has also been convicted and sentenced under Section 409 RPC by the Special Judge Anticorruption, Jammu, to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and also to pay fine of Rs 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the appellant has to undergo RI for a period of one year. Both the sentences have to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are as under: The appellant remained posted as salesman at Sales Depot Batote of Food and Supplies Department in the year December 1983 to January 1985. He was subjected to departmental enquiry for having misappropriated store articles for an amount of Rs 1,93,832.45 paisa for short remittance made by him of the food grains and empty bags as per the detail given below: 1. Atta Rs. 1, 17,589.80 2. Rice Rs. 0,39,218.15 3. Sugar Rs. 1, 15,955.00 4. Empty bags Rs. 0,20,970.00 Total Rs. 1,93, 832.45 np 3. When the departmental enquiry was being conducted, the appellant did not give any explanation and instead he was reported to have been absconding. During enquiry, it was also found that the appellant embezzled an amount of Rs. 34,000/- on account of ration cards when he had been posted in the office of Assistant Director Food and Supplies Jammu. The appellant was thus found to have embezzled a total amount of Rs. 2,27,832.45 for which he had not given any satisfactory reply. Director, Food and Supplies, Jammu, vide letter No: 5242-45/Accounts dated 04.02.1987 requested the Commissioner Vigilance for registration of the case against the appellant. On receipt of the aforementioned letter by the said authority, FIR was registered against the appellant. In the meanwhile, investigation was entrusted to PW Avtar Singh Inspector, Vigilance Organization, Jammu. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the appellant in the court of Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu. On receipt of the aforementioned letter by the said authority, FIR was registered against the appellant. In the meanwhile, investigation was entrusted to PW Avtar Singh Inspector, Vigilance Organization, Jammu. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the appellant in the court of Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu. The appellant was charge sheeted under section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 409 RPC but he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. To prove the charge, the prosecution has examined PWs Sudershan Chakar the then TSO, Sudagar Mal Sharma Assistant Accounts Officer, N. L. Bakshi the then Director F&S, Om Parkash Salesman, Sakhi Mohd SGC, Sukhram SGC, Harbans Lal Accountant, Darshan Kumar, Ashwani Kumar Jr. Assistant, Balwant Raj Storekeeper, Mohan Lal Sharma ISO, M. L. Baghati Chief Accounts Officer F&S, Abdul Majid Khan Retd. Naib Tehsildar, Kuldeep Khoda the then DIG and Avtar Singh Dy. S. P. as prosecution witnesses. 5. When the appellant was being examined under Section 342 Cr. PC, he admitted that he remained posted as salesman at Batote Sales Depot during the period December 1983 to January 1985 but he denied the other allegations leveled against him. The appellant was called upon to adduce evidence in defence. In defence, he did not examine any witness. Learned Special Judge Anticorruption, Jammu, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Public Prosecutor and after appreciating the evidence led by the learned Public Prosecutor, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in para-1 of the judgment. Aggrieved of the conviction and sentence as mentioned above, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 6. I have heard Mr. D. K. Khajuria Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. B. S. Salathia AAG for the State and also perused the relevant record including the judgment impugned. 7. The moot point which requires determination in the present appeal is whether the finding of guilt arrived at by the learned Special Judge Anticorruption is justifiable on the basis of evidence on record and the law relevant thereto. 8. When the appellant was examined under Section 342 Cr. PC, he had admitted that he remained posted as salesman at Batote Sales Depot during period December 1983 to January 1985. 8. When the appellant was examined under Section 342 Cr. PC, he had admitted that he remained posted as salesman at Batote Sales Depot during period December 1983 to January 1985. So from the evidence of the prosecution, it is to be seen whether the appellant was entrusted various articles during aforementioned period and he has misappropriated and failed to maintain the accounts. The prosecution in order to prove the misappropriation of the articles entrusted to the appellant, has led oral as well as documentary evidence. 9. To prove the case, the prosecution examined PW Om Parkash who has deposed that he was store keeper in the Food and Supplies Store, Batote, during the period December 1983 to January 1985. In his capacity as a store keeper, he issued sugar, atta and rice etc to the appellant as per orders of his officers. The duty of the appellant was to receive the aforementioned articles and distribute the same at the subsidized rate to different rationees. He used to deposit the amount into the Govt. Treasury so recovered. This witness also testified that he used to issue sugar, atta and rice etc to the appellant as per the orders of his superior officer and used to obtain the receipt of the supplied articles from the appellant on the challans. Whatever articles he used to issue to the appellant, he was making proper entries on the stock register as well as on the issue register. One copy of the receipt was also being issued to the appellant so that the appellant could also maintain his own record. The witness further stated that the challans related to the Sugar shown to him in the court for different months bear his signatures as also the signatures of the appellant who signed the same at the time of receipt of the articles. The witness stated that he is fully acquainted with the signatures of the appellant. These challans marked as EXPW-OP/1 to EXPW-OP/33 have also been attested by then TSO Mohan Lal Sharma. According to the witness, the statements on the challans are in his hand own writing. The appellant in token of the receipt put his signatures on the challans EXPW-OP/34 to EXPW-OP/63. The witness further identified the signatures of the appellant on the challans exhibited as EXPW-OP/64 to EXPW-OP/97 which were attested by then TSO. According to the witness, the statements on the challans are in his hand own writing. The appellant in token of the receipt put his signatures on the challans EXPW-OP/34 to EXPW-OP/63. The witness further identified the signatures of the appellant on the challans exhibited as EXPW-OP/64 to EXPW-OP/97 which were attested by then TSO. According to the witness, these challans also bear his signatures as also the signatures of the appellant who signed the same acknowledging the receipt of the rice. These challans have also been attested by the TSO. According to this witness, statements on the challans marked 1 to 5 are correct. The witness also deposed that issue register EXPW-OP/98, OP/99 and EXPW-OP/100 are in his own handwriting and correct. Receipt register EXPW-OP/101 is also in his own handwriting and is correct. Likewise, the stock register EXPW-OP/102 is also correct and bears his signatures. Issue register shown to him in the court is in the handwriting of the appellant and bears his signatures and same has been exhibited as EXPW-OP/103. According to the witness, receipt register EXPW-OP/104 is in the handwritten of the appellant and bears his signatures. The treasury vouchers EXPW-OP/105 to EXPW-OP/195 also bear the signature of the appellant. On being cross examined by the defence, the witness admitted that the appellant was posted as salesman in the last week of December 1983 where he remained as store keeper till January 1985. The witness worked as store keeper during the period, the appellant remained posted as salesman. Job of the witness was to issue the articles to the appellant. According to the witness, he used to make the supplies of the articles on the orders of the TSO and Naib Tehsildar. The witness used to maintain the accounts and submit the same to the TSO. The witness does not know what TSO used to do with those accounts. The witness has no record with him to show that as to how much shortage was there. He, however, admitted that in the store under his control, some shortages were detected and in respect thereof payment from his pay was being made at the rate of Rs 50/- per month. According to the witness, Department has not lodged any criminal case against him. He, however, admitted that in the store under his control, some shortages were detected and in respect thereof payment from his pay was being made at the rate of Rs 50/- per month. According to the witness, Department has not lodged any criminal case against him. Whatever articles the witness used to issue to the appellant, were being issued as per orders of the TSO and Naib Tehsildar and not on his own. The appellant had to maintain the record of the empty bags. He was required to submit the record of the empty bags to the storekeeper as per the procedure. The witness has seen EXPW-OP/1 which has two columns. In the upper column quantity of the dispatched articles is reflected and in the lower column which is called acknowledgment column, quantity of received articles is shown. According to this witness, there was no necessity for the TSO or the Naib Tehsildar to put their signatures on the challans for quantity dispatched. According to the witness, EXPW-OP/22, EXPW-OP/23, EXPW-OP/25 to EXPW-OP/30 do not bear the signatures of Tehsildar or the TSO. The witness admitted that besides the challan, he has not been shown any order of the TSO or the Naib Tehsildar for the supply of the articles to the appellant. 10. Prosecution has also examined PW Ashwani Kumar who had handed over the charge of the store to the appellant on 30.11.1983. He deposed that he has handed over the charge of the Sales Depot vide charge report EXPW-AK. According to the witness, he had entrusted 252 empty bags, four quintals of rice, one quintals of sugar to the appellant. Statement of the witness has been corroborated by PW Om Parkash aforementioned. Both the aforementioned witnesses were cross examined at length but the defence has failed to controvert the statement of PW Ashwani Kumar and PW Om Parkash. Apart from that the statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342 Cr. PC. He has not disputed the signature on the challan exhibited as EXPW-OP/103. The appellant submitted that he received food-grains through challans which bear his signatures but he tried to give explanation that he was not given total quantity of food-grains mentioned in the challan. Apart from that the statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342 Cr. PC. He has not disputed the signature on the challan exhibited as EXPW-OP/103. The appellant submitted that he received food-grains through challans which bear his signatures but he tried to give explanation that he was not given total quantity of food-grains mentioned in the challan. Once the appellant has put his signatures on the challans admitting that he has received the articles mentioned therein then burden must be shifted upon the appellant to prove that he has not received the articles mentioned in the challan for which the appellant has not led an iota of evidence to rebut the statement of PW Ashwani Kumar and PW Om Parkash. 11. Prosecution has also examined PW Abdul Majid Khan Naib Tehsildar, who was working as Executive Magistrate/Naib Tehsildar Batote. The witness has deposed that he opened the sale depot in presence of TSO and other persons and prepared inventory of the articles which were lying in the store. PW Balwant Roy Store Keeper and PW Mohan Lal Sharma, TSO are the formal witness. They have attested the inventory prepared by PW Abdul Majid Khan Naib Tehsildar. They have also proved the inventory exhibited as EXPW-BR which was signed by them. PW Sudershan Chakar TSO has deposed that on the direction of Deputy Director he lodged a report with the Police Station Batote. He has proved the report exhibited as EXPW-SC. The witness prepared the shortage of the articles in the absence of the appellant which was to the effect of Rs. 1,93,832.45 and informed the same to Chief Accounts Officer, Director Office as well as Deputy Director Food and Supplies Doda. PW Sudagar Mal and PW Harbans Lal Accountant have checked the accounts of the appellant for the period December 1983 to January 1985 and found shortage. These witnesses also examined the challans marked as 1 to 33, 34 to 39 and 77 to 106. These witnesses have proved the statements exhibited as EXPW-SM, EXPW-SM/1, EXPW-SM/2, EXPW-SM/3 and EXPW-SM/4. PW N.L. Bakshi is a formal witness. He has deposed that he received complaint in his office that the appellant has misappropriated amount. He further sent the complaint vide letter exhibited as EXPW-NL to Vigilance Commissioner for taking action against the appellant. PW Avtar Singh Inspector is the investigator of the case. 12. PW N.L. Bakshi is a formal witness. He has deposed that he received complaint in his office that the appellant has misappropriated amount. He further sent the complaint vide letter exhibited as EXPW-NL to Vigilance Commissioner for taking action against the appellant. PW Avtar Singh Inspector is the investigator of the case. 12. From the evidence of the prosecution it has been proved that bags of Atta, Rice and Sugar worth Rs 1,17,589.80, Rs 39,218.15 and Rs 1,15,955/- respectively and Empty Bags worth Rs 20,970/-, totaling Rs 1,93,832.45 np were entrusted to the appellant and he has misappropriated the same. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case of the prosecution is to fail on the ground that there is no proper sanction by the competent authority under section 6 of the PC Act nor the said sanction has been proved. He further submitted that the prosecution is bound to show that before sanctioning the prosecution the authority had really applied its mind to all the facts by which the offence was sought to be proved against the appellant. He contended that the sanction is not to be treated as idle formality or a mechanical act of authority competent to grant it. He further contended that the learned trial court has erroneously taken the cognizance in the present case. In support of his submission, he has relied upon AIR 1979 SC 677, Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it has been held as under: "It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the Sanctioning Authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. This should be done in two ways: either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show the facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. Any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio. Any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio. What the Court has to see is whether or not the Sanctioning Authority at the time of giving sanction was aware of the facts constituting the offence and applied its mind for the same: any subsequent fact which may come into existence after the grant of sanction is wholly irrelevant. The grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to Government servants against frivolous prosecutions and must therefore be strictly complied with before any prosecution can be launched against the public servant concerned. It will not be correct to say that in view of the presumption which is to be drawn under S. 4 even if no facts are mentioned in the Resolution of the Sanctioning Authority it must be presumed that the Sanctioning Authority was satisfied that the prosecution against the accused should be launched on the basis of the presumption that the accused had received a bribe. " 14. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant did not raise any issue regarding the sanction by the competent authority before the court of Learned Special Judge Anticorruption, Jammu. For the first time, the appellant has raised the point that the sanction has not been obtained from the competent authority in accordance with the law. But a perusal of the record shows that sanction has been granted by the Govt. vide Order No; 40 HOME (VIG) OF 1989 Dated 27.11.1989. The said order reads as under: "Whereas it is alleged that Sh. Ashok Kumar the then Salesman Sales Depot Food and Supplies Batote misappropriated commodities of various food grains in the shape of Rice, Atta and Sugar worth Rs 163884.40 including the cost of 4194 empty bages as per the following details: i. Sugar = 13.95qtls = Rs 5890.80 ii. Atta = 498.55 = Rs 101704.20 iii. Rice IR.8 = 68.55 = Rs 15992.40 iv. Rathna Rice = 20.92 = Rs 6909.00 v. Rice PR 106 = 48.00 500 grms = Rs 12518.00 vi. 4194 empty bags = Rs 20970.00 Total amount = Rs 163884.40 Whereas it is alleged that the said Sh. Atta = 498.55 = Rs 101704.20 iii. Rice IR.8 = 68.55 = Rs 15992.40 iv. Rathna Rice = 20.92 = Rs 6909.00 v. Rice PR 106 = 48.00 500 grms = Rs 12518.00 vi. 4194 empty bags = Rs 20970.00 Total amount = Rs 163884.40 Whereas it is alleged that the said Sh. Ashok Kumar the then Salesman Sales Depot Batote abused his official position as Public Servant and by illegal means obtained pecuniary benefit to the tune of Rs. 163884.40 for himself and corresponding loss to the State exchequer : and Whereas by acting in the manner stated above, the said accused Sh. Ashok Kumar committed offences punishable u/s 5 (2) P.C Act 2006 and 409 RPC: and Whereas the Government, after examining all the material and evidence relevant to the allegations, is satisfied that the case for prosecution is made out against the accused Sh. Ashok Kumar the then Salesman Sales Depot Food and Supplies Batote u/s 5 (2) P.C Act 2006 and 409 RPC and he should be prosecuted for the offences; and Whereas the previous sanction of the Government as contemplated u/s 6 of the P. C. Act 2006 is necessary before the court can take cognizance of the said offences. Now, therefore, in pursuance of section 6 of the P. C. Act 2006, sanction is accorded to the prosecution of accused Shri Ashok Kumar the then Salesman Sales Depot Food and Supplies Batote for offences punishable u/s 5(2) P. C Act 2006 and 409 RPC in case FIR No: 10/87 P/S Vigilance Organization Jammu." 15. In 2006 CRI. L. J. 518 titled State versus K. Narasimhachary, the Apex Court held as under: "In the instant case, the order of sanction for prosecution of public servant was issued under S. 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act (1988). The Secretary to State Govt. merely authenticated the said order of sanction which was issued in the name of the Governor of State. The order of sanction was thus issued by the State in discharge of its statutory functions in terms of S. 19 of the Act. The order of sanction was authenticated. The said order of sanction was an executive action of a State having been issued in the name of the Governor. It was authenticated in the manner specified in the Rules of Executive Business. The authenticity of the said order has not been questioned. The order of sanction was authenticated. The said order of sanction was an executive action of a State having been issued in the name of the Governor. It was authenticated in the manner specified in the Rules of Executive Business. The authenticity of the said order has not been questioned. It was, therefore, a public document within the meaning of S. 74 of the Evidence Act. A public document can be proved in terms of Ss 76 to 78 of the Evidence Act. A public document can be proved otherwise also. The High Court, therefore, was not correct in invoking the provisions of S. 47 of the Evidence Act in the instant case as it was not called upon to form an opinion as to by whom the said order of sanction was written and signed. " 16. Applying the ratio of aforementioned judgment, it can be said that there has been a proper sanction by the competent authority and the authenticity of said order cannot be questioned. After scanning the entire evidence of the prosecution, it has been proved that the appellant was entrusted sugar, atta, rice and empty bags and in his capacity as a public servant, he has misappropriated the same. Learned Special Judge Anticorruption, Jammu, therefore, after appreciating the evidence of the prosecution has rightly convicted the appellant. 17. Now coming to the question of sentence, the case was registered against the appellant in the year 1987. Trial came to be concluded in the year 1997. This appeal is pending since 1997. During this period, the appellant has suffered a lot. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed by the court below under section 5(1) (c) read with Section 5 (2) of the PC Act is reduced from five years to two years (RI) and under section 409 RPC is reduced from seven years to four years (RI). Both the sentences shall run concurrently. So far as fine under both the aforementioned sections is concerned it shall remain intact. The appellant, who is on bail, his bail bonds and surety bonds, shall stand cancelled. He be taken into custody for undergoing the remaining period of sentence. 18. Appeal is accordingly dismissed with the modification in the sentence as discussed above.