JUDGMENT V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment rendered by Special Judge, Ahmednagar in Special Case No.11/1998, whereby appellant has been convicted for offence punishable U/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen (15) days and has been further convicted for offence punishable U/s 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen (15) days. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that appellant - Ramnath Radhakisan Mahale, was attached to Cooperative Court at Ahmednagar as a Sheristedar. He was entrusted with work of conducting scrutiny of the Suits, Election Petitions and other matters filed in the said Court. He was required to verify whether filing of the petitions, suits etc. were as per the procedure provided for and whether appropriate Court fees was paid. Complainant Shivaji Baburao Karale, a Junior Advocate, approached the appellant on 6.2.1998 with docket of an Election Petition to be filed on behalf of one Smt. Sheelabai Suryabhan Navasre. The appellant received the papers. Complainant Mr. Karale, Advocate, then requested the appellant to prepare a challan for payment of Court-fees stamp. The appellant suggestively demanded bribe money from him by saying "Will you not look at us.?" In response, complainant Mr. Karale, Advocate expressed difficulty saying that he was a Junior Advocate but the appellant told him to stop giving the lecture and asked whether he had Rs.50/-. The appellant told him that if he would give Rs.50/-, challan would be immediately prepared and registration of the Election Petition will be done. Though, complainant Mr. Karale, Advocate pleaded with the appellant, yet, he did not budge and threw the file. So, complainant Mr. Karale, Advocate went to Office of the Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged a complaint as regards demand of illegal gratification by the appellant. His complaint was reduced into writing by the Dy. S.P. - P.W. Mr.Mane. He was called next morning at the A.C.B. Office. 3. In the next morning i.e. 7.2.1998, complainant Mr. Karale, Advocate again visited Office of the A.C.B. where Panchas were called. A pre-trap panchanama was drawn. His complaint was reduced into writing by the Dy. S.P. - P.W. Mr.Mane. He was called next morning at the A.C.B. Office. 3. In the next morning i.e. 7.2.1998, complainant Mr. Karale, Advocate again visited Office of the A.C.B. where Panchas were called. A pre-trap panchanama was drawn. A currency note of Rs.50/- with coating of anthracene powder was given to him for purpose of making payment to the appellant towards illegal gratification. He thereafter went to the Cooperative Court alongwith one of the Panch witness, namely, P.W. Sambhaji Jare, whereas the other members of the raiding party followed them. He approached the appellant and placed the Election Petition on his table. He requested the appellant to fill up the challan for the purpose of payment of Court-fees. The appellant took out forms of challans and filled up one of the copy, pushed another copy of the challan towards complainant Mr. Karale, Advocate and by gestures of raising eyebrows, he indicated the demand. Thereupon, complainant Mr. Karale, Advocate gave the tainted currency note to the appellant. The appellant accepted the currency note by his right hand and placed it in his shirt pocket. The complainant - Mr. Karale, Advocate got up and gave signal to the members of raiding party. Immediately, Dy. S.P. Mane and others rushed to the place. Both hands of the appellant were caught and were examined under ultraviolet light. There appeared violet blisters on fingers of his right hand as well as on left side shirt pocket. The tainted currency note was recovered from his shirt’s pocket. A detailed post-trap Panchanama was drawn and the tainted currency note was seized then and there. 4. A request letter along with the investigation papers was sent to Divisional Joint Registrar, Nasik Division, for grant of sanction to prosecute the appellant. The Competent Authority accorded sanction to the prosecution. He was thereafter prosecuted for commission of the offences as per the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 5. To the Charge (Exh.8), the appellant pleaded "not guilty." He denied truth into the accusations. His defence before the trial Court was that the complainant was irked due to throwing away of the Election Petition papers in presence of the client and others. The complainant, it is alleged, gave false complaint about demand of bribe due to the annoyance. 5. To the Charge (Exh.8), the appellant pleaded "not guilty." He denied truth into the accusations. His defence before the trial Court was that the complainant was irked due to throwing away of the Election Petition papers in presence of the client and others. The complainant, it is alleged, gave false complaint about demand of bribe due to the annoyance. It is denied that any amount of bribe was demanded to the complainant for doing the work of registration of the Election Petition. It is also denied that the amount of Rs.50/- was accepted as illegal gratification in the morning of 7.2.1998. According to the defence, the forms of challan were pushed towards the complainant and by gesture he was urged to fill-up them but he misinterpreted the gesture and thrusted the currency note of Rs.50/- in the shirt’s pocket. The appellant took out that note and was returning to him so as to tell him that he shall purchase a stamp of Rs.45/- for which he was being told but at that juncture, he was trapped. The appellant, therefore, claimed innocence and sought acquittal. 6. At the trial, the prosecution examined four) witnesses in support of its case. The prosecution also relied upon various documents. The learned Special Judge, held that version of complainant P.W. Mr.Karale, Advocate is reliable. The learned Special Judge also came to the conclusion that the appellant demanded illegal gratification from the complainant and accepted the bribe on 7.2.1998 as per the demand. The learned Special Judge, reached conclusion that culpability of the appellant is brought home and hence, convicted him. He was sentenced as stated earlier. 7. The clinching question is whether the prosecution has proved that the appellant demanded amount of Rs.50/- towards illegal gratification from complainant Mr. Karale, Advocate for doing of the official work to register Election Petition and whether sanction order issued for prosecution of the appellant is legal and valid. 8. Before I proceed to embark upon scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, it is significant to note that complainant P.W. 1 Shivaji Karale, Advocate was then Junior. The brief of Election Petition was not directly received by him. Admittedly, it was a brief sent to him by another Advocate, namely, Mr.Chobe of Aurangabad, just for presentation and filing thereof. In other words, the complainant was not personally involved in getting the petition registered so urgently. The brief of Election Petition was not directly received by him. Admittedly, it was a brief sent to him by another Advocate, namely, Mr.Chobe of Aurangabad, just for presentation and filing thereof. In other words, the complainant was not personally involved in getting the petition registered so urgently. The Election Petition was to be filed for challenging scheduled elections for posts of Chairman and Vice Chairman of Vividh Karyakari Society, Nimbhodi. The procedure was that a Court fees of Rs.45/- was to be paid through challan, of which copy was to be annexed with the Election Petition. It is of common knowledge that forms of challans are available in the Treasury Office and other Government Offices. So, it was not that the appellant alone possessed such forms which could be filled up for the purpose of depositing the amount of Court fees through the challan in the office of the Treasury. 9. It is in the wake of above circumstances that version of P.W.1 Mr.Karale, Advocate needs to be scrutinised with due care and caution. His version purports to show that he approached the appellant on 6.2.1998 with relevant papers of the Election Petition. He requested the appellant to hand over challan for registration of the Petition. According to him, the appellant asked him to come on next day for registration of the petition. He states that he insisted for registration of the petition on the same day and thereupon, the appellant told him "Would you somehow look at us.?”(……………………………) His version shows that he told the appellant that the work was of another Advocate and, therefore, he cannot give anything. His version purports to show that the appellant thereafter threw the docket towards him and told that the Advocates are playing the same drama. In this context, his version is at variance from the recitals of the complaint (Exh.15). In his complaint (Exh.15), he narrated that the appellant told him stop it, your lecture exceeded. (...........................). The version of P.W. Mr.Karale, Advocate, further reveals that he thereafter asked the appellant what exactly was expected by him. Thereupon the appellant told him that he should "pay some amount". Here again the recitals of the complaint (Exh.15) are at variance. The complaint reveals that no such query was made by the complainant - P.W. Mr. Karale about the expectations of the appellant. Thereupon the appellant told him that he should "pay some amount". Here again the recitals of the complaint (Exh.15) are at variance. The complaint reveals that no such query was made by the complainant - P.W. Mr. Karale about the expectations of the appellant. The complaint shows that immediately the appellant asked the complainant whether he had Rs.50/- and if the amount is given, he would prepare the challan immediately. This second part of recitals of the complaint, as regards demand of the appellant, is conspicuously absent in the testimony of P.W. Mr.Karale, Advocate. 10. The version of P.W. Mr.Karale, advocate shows that he felt insulted in presence of his client. He was not willing to pay the demanded amount and, therefore, approached the Anti Corruption Bureau. He corroborates the complaint (Exh.15). His version reveals that on 7.2.1998 he again went to the office of Anti Corruption Bureau, where pre-trap panchanama was drawn after giving due instructions as to how the demanded amount should be paid and members of the raiding party be signaled on acceptance of the bribe money by the appellant. He was given tainted currency note of Rs.50/-. His version shows that currency note was smeared with anthracene powder in presence of Panchas. He and P.W. Mr. Jare, one of the panch, thereafter proceeded to the Cooperative Court on a motor-cycle, whereas the other members of the raiding party Dy.S.P. Mane followed them in an auto-rickshaw. He narrated as to how he approached the appellant in that morning and states that the appellant by his gestures of twisting the neck asked whether he had brought the money. According to P.W. Mr. Karale, Advocate, he gave positive reply and asked the appellant to prepare the challan. Thereafter, the appellant instructed peon - Kshirsagar to bring form of challan, filled one of it and numbered the Election Petition. It is stated that the appellant delivered the another challans towards him and again demanded the amount. He, thereafter, gave the tainted currency note of Rs.50/- and signaled the raiding party. In this context, it is important to note that version of P.W.2 Mr. Jare, who acted as a panch witness for the trap, would clearly show that the appellant only looked at P.W. Mr. Karale, Advocate and thereby demanded the bribe amount. He, thereafter, gave the tainted currency note of Rs.50/- and signaled the raiding party. In this context, it is important to note that version of P.W.2 Mr. Jare, who acted as a panch witness for the trap, would clearly show that the appellant only looked at P.W. Mr. Karale, Advocate and thereby demanded the bribe amount. He admitted, unequivocally, that there was no oral talk between P.W. Mr.Karale, Advocate and the appellant about giving and taking of the bribe. He admits that P.W.1 Mr.Karale, Advocate went to table of the appellant and placed his papers on the table without saying anything. Obviously, the panch witness of the trap does not subscribe to the story that the appellant repeated the demand for Rs.50/- in the relevant morning when the Election Petition papers were submitted for registration purpose. 11. P.W. Mr.Jare further admits absence of any oral talk regarding giving and taking of the bribe amount. His further categorical admission is thus : . "It is true that Mahale filled up one form, put seals on other form, then looked at Karale and pushed those forms towards Karale, during this process of transaction I did not say anything............. It is true that meaning of action of Shri Mahale, pushing the forms towards Mr.Karale and looking at Karale that Karale should fill up remaining forms. Karale did not take those forms of challan. It is true that instead of taking those forms, Karale took out powdered note of Rs.50/- from his shirt pocket." 12. Considering the testimonies of both the above witnesses, it may be gathered that P.W. Mr.Karale, Advocate was annoyed due to insult caused by the appellant on account of throwing of the docket towards him. He nurtured grudge against the appellant for non-registration of the Election Petition instantaneously. It is further explicit that on the next day i.e. 7.2.1998, the demand was not probably repeated by the appellant but his gesture of frowning and looking at complainant - P.W. Mr.Karale, Advocate was interpreted as if it was repetition of the demand for Rs.50/-. The complainant states that after delivering copy of the challan, the appellant again demanded the amount and thereafter he handed over the tainted currency note to the latter. The complainant states that after delivering copy of the challan, the appellant again demanded the amount and thereafter he handed over the tainted currency note to the latter. The panch witness, however, states that the appellant indicated the complainant to fill up the remaining forms of challan but instead of doing so, the complainant took out the tainted currency note and placed it in the shirt pocket of the appellant. Needless to say even without waiting for explicit demand of the amount, the complainant - P.W. Mr.Karale, Advocate committed haste to handover the currency note. 13. Cross-examination of P.W. Mr.Karale, Advocate reveals in no uncertain manner that there were large number of infirmities in the papers accompanying the Election Petition. The petition did not bear signature of P.W. Mr.Karale, Advocate nor it bore signature of Advocate Mr.Chobe. It was the first matter which was sent to him by Advocate Chobe, for filing of the same in the Cooperative Court. He was a Junior Advocate. It was his first experience to present the Election Petition before the Sheristedar. Naturally, he was not well versed with proper procedure to be followed like filing of Vakilpatra, signing of the petition, filing of the duly filled challan etc. His version reveals that he was not knowing whether procedure to be followed under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act was different than one followed in other Civil Courts. He was unable to tell which kind of the society it was under provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, for which the Election Petition was filed. He was unaware as to what was the period of limitation provided for. The cross-examination of P.W. Mr.Karale, Advocate shows that he presented the Election Petition in half-hazardous manner before the appellant with several infirmities which needed to be cured. It is suggested, therefore, to P.W. Mr.Karale, Advocate that on scrutinising the papers of the Election Petition and infirmities found therein, the appellant had refused to register the same and to prepare the challan on that day. It is admitted by P.W. Mr.Karale, Advocate that the appellant insulted him in presence of his client by throwing the file at him. The version of P.W. Mr.Karale shows that he had contested an election of Zilla Parishad and was also working as reporter-cum-editor of a weekly – "Police Panchanama". Obviously, P.W. Mr.Karale, felt strongly hurt due to behaviour of the appellant. The version of P.W. Mr.Karale shows that he had contested an election of Zilla Parishad and was also working as reporter-cum-editor of a weekly – "Police Panchanama". Obviously, P.W. Mr.Karale, felt strongly hurt due to behaviour of the appellant. His ego was deeply hurt when the appellant flung the file towards him. 14. The cross-examination of P.W. Karale, Advocate, reveals that on 6.2.1998, the appellant did not make any demand in words. He admits : "On that day, the accused not not made demand of bribe in words" This admission of P.W. Mr.Karale, gives serious jolt to his version as regards demand of Rs.50/- by the appellant on 6.2.1998 for purpose of registration of the Election Petition. His version further shows that before peon Kshirsagar brought the forms of challan on 7.2.1998, the appellant entered the Election Petition in the Register and numbered it. That proceeding number was required to be mentioned in the challan. Obviously, even before the payment was made, the petition was registered by the appellant without causing impediment in the process. The cross-examination of P.W. Mr.Karale, brings on surface a large number of omissions in his police statement. Though, he states in the initial part of his examination-in-chief that on 7.2.1998, the appellant repeated the demand of bribe, yet, he was pinned down to admit as follows : "It is true there was no talk in words about giving or taking of bribe amount." The interested version of P.W.Mr.Karale, appears to be untrustworthy. No implicit reliance can be placed on his version for the reason that not only that there are omissions, discrepancies and rather inadequacies in his testimony but also for the reason that his egoistic attitude could be at the bottom of lodging the complaint. Though, he was not well versed with the procedure, had not even put signature on the petition and had not filed the Vakilpatra and though the petition was undated, yet, he demanded instantaneous positive response from the appellant but the appellant flung the file. Whether behaviour of the appellant was proper or not is not the issue involved in the present case. The complainant could have immediately ventilated his grievances to the learned Judge of the Cooperative Court. Whether behaviour of the appellant was proper or not is not the issue involved in the present case. The complainant could have immediately ventilated his grievances to the learned Judge of the Cooperative Court. Instead, he went to Office of the A.C.B. because he was reporter and editor of a weekly styled as "Police Panchanama" and was therefore, confident that his complaint would be processed by Dy. S.P. Mane. 15. The quality of evidence tendered by the complainant and Panch witness is therefore, dissatisfactory. In "Som Parkash Vs. State of Punjab" (A.I.R. 1992 Supreme Court 665), the Apex Court held that the witness who form part of the raiding party can not be readily accepted as an independent witness. The testimony of such a panch witness ought to be scrutinised with circumspection. The prosecution did not examine peon Kshirsagar who was present during the course of alleged transaction. The evidence on record further shows that there were articles like driving licence, amount of Rs.257-70 and a receipt with the appellant. However, no other article was found to bear the traces of anthracene powder. When the other articles were examined under ultraviolet light then no violet blistering were found on either of them. All these are tale telling circumstances. Considering these aspects, I am of the opinion that benefit of reasonable doubt ought to have been given to the appellant. 16. In this context, I may usefully refer to "Visheshwar Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh" 1984(3) Crimes 739 . In the given case, the appellant was a Reader in Court and was convicted for having accepted bribe from the complainant in order to complete his bail bonds. It was found that there was no independent witness other than the complainant to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe nor there was any independent evidence available to conclusively establish that the recovered money was accepted by the appellant as illegal gratification. Considering these aspects, the Single Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the appellant was entitled to benefit of the reasonable doubt which emerged from the evidence on record. 17. This takes me to yet another important aspect of the present matter. The prosecution sought to rely upon version of P.W.4 Mr. Ghule, retired Divisional Joint Registrar, Nasik Division. He accorded the sanction (Exh.38) for prosecution of the appellant. 17. This takes me to yet another important aspect of the present matter. The prosecution sought to rely upon version of P.W.4 Mr. Ghule, retired Divisional Joint Registrar, Nasik Division. He accorded the sanction (Exh.38) for prosecution of the appellant. He was working as Joint Registrar and was appointing and removing authority for Class III and Class IV employees of the Cooperative Courts. His version purports to show that he received the communication from Anti Corruption Bureau along with accompaniments with a request to sanction the prosecution. He corroborates the sanction order (Exh.38). His version reveals that along with the letter dated 30.5.1998 he had received format of the sanction order and the letter contained summary of the entire incident of the trap. He admits that if the bribe amount is of trivial nature then the practice is of taking disciplinary action instead of prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He further admits that the amount of alleged bribe was only Rs.50/- and there was absolutely no prior complaint against the appellant regarding instances of his demands of illegal gratification. He further admits that the sanction order (Exh.38) reveals amount of Rs.150/- as the bribe money in column No.2 instead of Rs.50/- which should have been shown therein. He further admits that he had issued a previous sanction order wherein he quoted wrong sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and thereafter the Office of Anti Corruption Bureau resubmitted the matter to him for rectification of the relevant Sections. He admits further that he is unable to tell as to what are the Sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act which have been quoted in the sanction order after the rectification. 18. Considering the infirmities found in the version of P.W. Mr.Ghule, it may be inferred that he issued first sanction order with erroneous reference to the Sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for which the appellant was to be prosecuted. He effected the rectification as per demand of the A.C.B. Office and issued the second Sanction Order (Exh.38). There appears non-application of mind. He was well aware that when trivial amount was involved then normally disciplinary action was the proper way to deal with such an employee, instead of prosecution under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He effected the rectification as per demand of the A.C.B. Office and issued the second Sanction Order (Exh.38). There appears non-application of mind. He was well aware that when trivial amount was involved then normally disciplinary action was the proper way to deal with such an employee, instead of prosecution under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Though, there were no previous instances of demand for illegal gratification by the appellant, yet, P.W. Mr.Ghule, did not consider the option of disciplinary proceedings. No explanation is coming forth as to why he thought it necessary to sanction the prosecution instead of considering the option of disciplinary proceedings in respect of the alleged misconduct of the appellant. 19. The issuance of sanction for prosecution is not a redundant formality. The Apex Court in "Mohd.Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh" (A.I.R. 1979 Supreme Court 677), succinctly dealt with this aspect. The Apex Court observed that 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. In "Tirath Prakash (deceased by L.R.) Vs. State" (2001 Cri.L.J.4028), it was alleged that an illegal gratification demanded by accused was Rs.138/- but sanctioning authority mentioned the sum as Rs.140/- while issuing the sanction order and the contradiction in terms appearing therein was not explained. Therefore, the sanction order was held as improper and illegal. So also similar defect was found in framing of the charge. In the present case too the charge (Exh.35) indicates defect inasmuch as instead of Rs.50/- an amount of Rs.150/- is shown as the bribe money demanded and paid. The sanction order as well as the charge is, therefore, incorrect, improper and would vitiate the trial. 20. The learned Special Judge also failed to see that doctrine of triviality could be applied to the facts of the present case. The meagre amount of Rs.50/- could not regarded as sufficient ground to issue sanction order without there being proper justification in view of some other attending circumstances. In "Arun Prahlad Kale Vs. 20. The learned Special Judge also failed to see that doctrine of triviality could be applied to the facts of the present case. The meagre amount of Rs.50/- could not regarded as sufficient ground to issue sanction order without there being proper justification in view of some other attending circumstances. In "Arun Prahlad Kale Vs. The State of Maharashtra" 1992 (2) BCR 547, the learned Single Judge of this Court observed that the sanction order was liable to be struck down on the ground that there has been no due application of mind because the amount of bribe was said to be only Rs.30/-. This judgment was further followed in "Shivchalappa Gurumortyappa Loni Vs. State of Maharashtra" 1993 M.h.L.J. 573. The relevant observations in para 6 of the said judgment may be usefully quoted as follows: "6. This Court had occasion to examine a situation where a public servant is sought to be put on trial on a corruption charge which has disastrous consequences to his career and to his entire future life on the ground that he is alleged to have accepted illegal gratification of a very small amount of money. This Court has, in a decision in the case of Arun Prahlad Kale Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1992 Cri.L.J.1142; and in a subsequent decision in the case of Bhagwan Jathya Bhoir Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1992 Mh.L.J. 979 = 1992 Cri.L.J.1144, observed that 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. I have had occasion to observe in those judgments, which does not have to be repeated once again, that 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 those of the cases where the amount is small, the advisability of a prosecution is a matter which is seriously in doubt." 21. To conclude, I am of the opinion that the prosecution evidence is not sufficient to bring home guilt to the appellant. The version of the complainant and panch witnesses cannot be implicitly relied upon in view of various discrepancies, embellishments and their admissions mentioned hereinabove. It is probable that due to heart burning caused to P.W.Mr.Karale, Advocate, on account of conduct of the appellant, the complaint was lodged. The sanction order does not show due application of mind by P.W. Mr.Ghule. He rectified the second sanction order even without bothering to mention correct amount of bribe in column No.2 of the sanction order (Exh.38). The cumulative effect of all these infirmities is that the impugned order of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Special Judge is unsustainable. The appeal will have to be, therefore, allowed. 22. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the conviction and sentence rendered in Special Case No.11/1998 by the learned Special Judge, Ahmednagar is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charge for offences punishable U/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and U/s 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. His bail bonds be cancelled. The amount of fine, if deposited, be refunded to him. Appeal allowed