JUDGMENT Harbans Lal, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment/order of sentence dated 6.5.2004 passed by the court of learned Special Judge, Amritsar whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused Santokh Singh, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity, the Act) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 13(2) of the Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, with a further direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Shortly put, the facts of the prosecution case are that Bakshish Singh PW approached the accused who was posted as revenue Halqa patwari, for getting the certified copies of jamabandi. He was put off on one pretext or the other. On 21.7.2000 he again went to the accused and requested him for supply of such documents. The accused demanded an amount of Rs.5000/- as illegal gratification for giving these documents. Ultimately, this amount was reduced to Rs.25,00/-. On 25.7.2000 he alongwith Mangal Singh went to Vigilance Bureau, Amritsar. He produced two currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500/- each before Ranvir Singh D.S.P. After observing the usual formalities, the raiding party was constituted. Bakashish Singh alongwith Mangal Singh went inside the office of the accused. On receipt of appointed signal, the members of the raiding party went inside. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the right side drawer of table of the accused. The formalities were observed. The accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was laid in the court for trial of the accused. 3. The accused was charged under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Act to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined Bakshish Singh complainant PW-1, Angrez Singh Constable PW-2, Kuljit Singh PW-3, Mangal Singh shadow witness PW-4, DSP Ranvir Singh PW-5, Joginder Singh Naib Sadar Kanungo PW-6, Jarnail Singh MHC PW-7, Malkiat Singh Field Kanungo PW-8 and closed its evidence. 4. In order to bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined Bakshish Singh complainant PW-1, Angrez Singh Constable PW-2, Kuljit Singh PW-3, Mangal Singh shadow witness PW-4, DSP Ranvir Singh PW-5, Joginder Singh Naib Sadar Kanungo PW-6, Jarnail Singh MHC PW-7, Malkiat Singh Field Kanungo PW-8 and closed its evidence. 4. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded innocence as well as false implication. He has come up with the plea that on 24.7.2000 Bakshish Singh complainant had an altercation with him and had threatened him in the presence of Anokh Singh on account of issuance of jambandi. In his defence, he has examined Anokh Singh DW-1, Kirpal Singh DW-2 and Tarsem Singh DW-3. 5. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he has preferred this appeal. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. 7. On behalf of the appellant, it has been canvassed at the bar that a glance through the alleged sanction Ex.PM. accorded for prosecution of the appellant would reveal that it is undated and the column of the date has been left blank, which clearly reflects non-application of mind of the sanctioning authority. Sequelly, this sanction cannot be taken into consideration. As against this, the learned State counsel pressed into service that of course, this sanction does not bear the date, but this omission in itself is not enough to hold that the sanction is defective. 8. I have well considered the rival contentions. 9. Admittedly, Ex.PM. does not bear the date. Joginder Singh PW-6 has been examined to prove it. He has merely stated that “ I am conversant with the signatures of Shri Narinderjit Singh, the then Collector, Amritsar. I identify his signatures on Ex.PM vide which Shri Narinderjit Singh Collector Amrtisar had sanctioned prosecution of the accused in this case.” This is all the examination-in-chief of this witness. He has no where stated that the draft sanction alongwith material documents was placed before Mr. I identify his signatures on Ex.PM vide which Shri Narinderjit Singh Collector Amrtisar had sanctioned prosecution of the accused in this case.” This is all the examination-in-chief of this witness. He has no where stated that the draft sanction alongwith material documents was placed before Mr. Narinderjit Singh, Collector, Amritsar and after applying his mind, he had approved the same and thereafter the fair sanction was signed by him in his presence. A glance through this document would reveal that some words in this sanction have been omitted by applying fluid. At the fag end of this sanction, it has been mentioned that “this sanction has been issued under my signatures and seal of my office.” A meticulous perusal of it would reveal that it also does not bear any seal of office. To me, it appears that it has been got signed in routine by the concerned official from the Collector, Amritsar. So, it can be legitimately and reasonably inferred that without applying his mind to the facts of the case as well as the supportive documents, the Collector, Amritsar appended his signatures on it. As such, it cannot be deemed to be the requisite sanction. 10. It has been further argued that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the recovery of tainted currency notes was not effected from the person of the accused rather from the drawer of his table which clearly strengthens the assertion of the appellant that the prosecution has failed to establish that he had himself received the illegal gratification. The possibility of Bakshish Singh PW himself having stealthily inserted the tainted currency notes in the drawer of the table without accused’s knowledge cannot be ruled out. To overcome this submission, the learned State Counsel maintained that as a matter of fact, the appellant after having received the tainted currency notes from Bakshish Singh PW had placed the same in the drawer of his table and it is for this reason that the recovery could not be effected from his person. 11. I have well considered these submissions. 12. To constitute the charged offence, it was obligatory upon the prosecution to prove that the money was demanded as illegal gratification by the accused and the same was accepted by him and the recovery was effected. 11. I have well considered these submissions. 12. To constitute the charged offence, it was obligatory upon the prosecution to prove that the money was demanded as illegal gratification by the accused and the same was accepted by him and the recovery was effected. DSP Ranvir Singh (sic) has testified that “thereafter I searched the table of the accused to find currency notes Ex.P-1 to Ex.P.17 from the right drawer of the table of the accused.” On reading his evidence word by word, it emanates that he has no where stated that it was told by the accused that he after having received the tainted currency notes had placed the same in the drawer of his table or Bakshish Singh complainant or Mangal Singh shadow witness had told him that after receipt, the accused had put these notes in the drawer of his table. In the absence of such evidence, the question mark arises as to how this witness came to know that the tainted currency notes were lying in the drawer of the table of the accused. He is absolutely silent about the fact that initially he had offered his personal search to the accused and thereafter, he had carried out the personal search of the latter. It has been left in the womb of mystery, as to how it sneaked into the mind of this witness that the currency notes were lying in the drawer of the table. It is in the evidence of Bakshish Singh complainant PW-1 that “at the asking of the DSP, the accused took out Rs.2500/- from his drawer and handed over to DSP which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PC,” whereas Ranvir Singh DSP is absolutely silent about this fact. 13. It is worth pointing out here that Mangal Singh PW-4 the shadow witness has been declared hostile. When he was cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, no material favourable to the prosecution could be elicited from him. Thus, testimony of Bakshish Singh(sic) does not find corroboration with regards to the fact that the accused had demanded the money for providing the certified copies of the jamabandies and on being tendered such amount, the same were supplied by the accused after accepting the bribe money. Thus, testimony of Bakshish Singh(sic) does not find corroboration with regards to the fact that the accused had demanded the money for providing the certified copies of the jamabandies and on being tendered such amount, the same were supplied by the accused after accepting the bribe money. The accused has come up with a specific plea that on 24.7.2000 i.e. a day before this occurrence, Bakshish Singh complainant had an altercation with him and had threatened him in the presence of Anokh Singh on account of issuance of jambandies. Anokh Singh when examined in defence as DW-1 has stated in categoric terms that “ on 24.7.2000 I went to patwarkhana of my village and from Santokh Singh accused who was then Halqa Patwari asked for copy of jamabandi which he did. At that time, Bakshish Singh came there and started quarrelling with Santokh Singh that he will see him if Santokh Singh will provide me copy of joint share. Santokh Singh tried to prevail upon Bakshish Singh but Bakshish Singh threatened him to teach a lesson.” Tarsem Singh Halqa Patwari DW-3 while deposing from the official record has testified that “as per entry No.4241 in mutation register regarding exchange of land of Niranjan Singh with Mohinder Singh son of Jawand Singh measuring 2 Ks 11 Ms was prepared by me, is Ex.D-1 showing mutation at Mark A. I have brought copy of roznamcha dated 24.7.2000 as per which Anokh Singh son of Mohinder Singh had obtained copy of jamabandi. As per entry no. 365 Bakshish Singh son of Chanchal Singh misbehaved with Santokh Singh Patwari.” This evidence goes a long way in proving that a day before the alleged raid, an altercation had ensued between the accused and the complainant. Thus, to wreak his vengeance the latter might had been all out to implicate the former falsely. On taking into consideration the evidence of Ranvir Singh D.S.P. it emerges out that the recovery of tainted currency notes was effected from the drawer and not from the person of the accused. It appears as if the currency notes were inserted into the drawer surreptitiously by playing a trick and subsequently, the recovery was shown. In Sat Pal Singh (died) through L.Rs Vs. State of Punjab, 2004(1) Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal) 830(P&H) the accused was working as a patwari. He had demanded Rs.200/- from the complainant for supply of copies of jamabandi. It appears as if the currency notes were inserted into the drawer surreptitiously by playing a trick and subsequently, the recovery was shown. In Sat Pal Singh (died) through L.Rs Vs. State of Punjab, 2004(1) Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal) 830(P&H) the accused was working as a patwari. He had demanded Rs.200/- from the complainant for supply of copies of jamabandi. A trap was laid and Rs.200/- were recovered from the accused. One of the PWs was given up as won over. The shadow witness had stated that no demand was made in his presence. This Court was pleased to hold that the essential ingredients of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were missing. In Meena (Smt.) wife of Balwant Hemke Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002(2) Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal) 661 it was held by the Supreme Court that mere recovery of currency notes and the positive result of the phenolphthalein test is not enough to establish the guilt of the appellant on the basis of perfunctory nature of materials and prevaricating type of evidence. In R.V.Subha Rao Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Kakinada Range, 2005(4) Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal) 716 (A.P.) there was no witness to the demand of bribe except the complainant. It was held that in case of bribery , mere recovery of amount from the accused not sufficient for conviction when the substantive evidence is not reliable. In Pritam Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1992(3) Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal) 139 (P&H) also there was no evidence of shadow witness that the accused had made a demand. This court held that the complainant was not truthful. 14. Reverting back to the instant one, the recovery has been effected from the drawer. The shadow witness Mangal Singh did not lend support to the prosecution version. So, the demand of illegal gratification by the accused or acceptance thereof is not established. In Anand Parkash Vs. State of Haryana [2008(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 557] : 2008(2) Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal) 335, the tainted currency notes were recovered from the almirah and not from the personal search of the accused. The prosecution version was not corroborated by independent witness. It was held that mere recovery of tainted currency notes is not sufficient for conviction, when the substantive evidence is not reliable. 15. The prosecution version was not corroborated by independent witness. It was held that mere recovery of tainted currency notes is not sufficient for conviction, when the substantive evidence is not reliable. 15. Coming to statement of Kuljit Singh PW-3 an official witness, he also went on to say in his cross-examination that “ I did not notice if any other document was lying in the drawer abovesaid as it was opened by DSP Ranvir Singh. No one from the public came to the office of accused during the period we spent there. The saucer over which hands of the accused were got washed was brought by the raiding party. xx xx xx The currency notes recovered from the accused were put in an envelope by the DSP.” The possibility of the saucer having been already treated with phenolphthalein powder before the hands of the accused were got washed on it, cannot be ruled out under the circumstances. It is unintelligible and inconceivable as to how the members of the raiding party had pre-conceived that the accused would demand and accept the tainted currency notes and in that eventuality, the saucer would be required for hand wash of the accused. According to Kuljit Singh PW-3, the currency notes were recovered form the accused though Bakshish Singh PW as well as Ranvir Singh DSP PW have stated that these were recovered from the drawer of the table of the accused. Axiomatically, they are discrepant and contradict each other on a very material point. Thus, either the former is telling a lie or the latter. 16. In view of the infirmities enumerated above, this appeal is accepted by setting aside the impugned judgment/order of sentence. The accused-appellant is hereby acquitted of the charged offence by giving him benefit of reasonable doubt. Since the appeal has been decided, all pending Criminal Miscellaneous, if any, also stand disposed of. ----------------