JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.8.2004 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bhind in Special Case No. 2/2002 convicting appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") and thereby sentencing him to suffer R.I. of two years and fine Rs. 1000/-, in default, further R.I. of six months, the appellant has knocked the doors of this Court by preferring this appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. In brief, the case of prosecution is that at the relevant point of time appellant-Shivraj Singh Yadav was serving on the post of Patwari of Halka No. 44 in Tahsil Gohad, District Bhind. Father of Rajendra Singh Jatav (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") was a landless person, as a result of which a Patta of 2 bigha and 8 biswa of government land was given to him. After the death of the father of the complainant, the complainant (Rajendra Singh Jatav), his mother Janki Bai and brother Keshav Singh became the government lessee. In order to get that land demarcated, the complainant submitted an application before the Tahsildar Gohad D.K. Bhawasar, who directed the Revenue Inspector Gajendra Singh (PW.4) to get the land demarcated, as a result of which the complainant met to the Revenue Inspector Gajendra Singh at his residence, who told that the complainant should meet appellant-Shivraj Singh Yadav and told him that on 27th or on 28th September, 2001 he should remain present at the spot to get the land demarcated. The complainant thereafter met the appellant at his residence, where appellant made a demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/- from him. The bargaining took place between the complainant and the appellant and the matter was settled for Rs. 800/- and it was directed to the complainant by appellant to come with the bribe money. 3. Since the complainant was not keen enough to give illegal gratification to the appellant, as a result of which he submitted a complaint on 27.9.2001 in the office of Lokayukt, Gwalior, upon which a case was registered against the appellant and the case was entrusted to the Inspector Devendra Singh Kushwaha. 3. Since the complainant was not keen enough to give illegal gratification to the appellant, as a result of which he submitted a complaint on 27.9.2001 in the office of Lokayukt, Gwalior, upon which a case was registered against the appellant and the case was entrusted to the Inspector Devendra Singh Kushwaha. Simultaneously a letter was written to the Collector, Gwalior to send and to depute two gazetted officers so that they may be included in the trap party as Panch witnesses. In compliance to the direction of the Lokayukt office, the Collector, Gwalior deputed D.K. Jadhav (PW.1) Assistant Veterinary Surgeon and Dr. Virendra Kumar Sharma, Assistant Professor, Ayurvedic and these two officers arrived in the office of Special Police Establishment, Gwalior. After the arrival of these Panch witnesses in the office, they were introduced to the complainant. Thereafter in presence of Panch witness D.K. Jadhav (PW.1), another Panch witness Dr. Virendra Kumar Sharma read over the complaint of the complainant in high tone and after hearing its contents the complainant accepted the averments written in the complaint to be true and further admitted that the complaint is written by him. 4. Thereafter on submitting the currency note having denomination of Rs. 500/- and three currency notes having denomination of Rs. 100/- each, (in total Rs. 800/-) by the complainant, phenolphthalein powder was applied on them by Constable Ravindra Singh (not included in the trap party), thereafter the treated currency notes were kept by Head Constable Siyaram Sharma (PW.2) in the right pocket of the shirt of the complainant and he was directed that he should not come in contact with the treated currency notes earlier to handing over the same to the appellant. He was further pacified and directed that after handing over the bribe money to the appellant he will not shake the hands with the appellant and after passing over the bribe money to him he will rub his hand on his head which will be a signal to the members of the trap party that transaction of bribe has taken place. Constable Ravindra Singh prepared two packets of phenolphthalein powder and Head Constable Siyaram Sharma prepared the solution of Sodium Carbonate, and thereafter Constable Ravindra Singh dipped his fingers in the said solution. Constable Ravindra Singh prepared two packets of phenolphthalein powder and Head Constable Siyaram Sharma prepared the solution of Sodium Carbonate, and thereafter Constable Ravindra Singh dipped his fingers in the said solution. On dipping the fingers in the said solution the colour of solution turned to pink because Constable Ravindra Singh already came in contact with the phenolphthalein powder as he prepared two packets of it. The tinted hand wash of the hands of Constable Ravindra Singh was collected in separate bottle and the same was sealed. 5. A pre trap panchanama was prepared. Before proceeding to trap appellant, the hands of each member of the trap party were subjected to said chemical test and on dipping their fingers in the solution of Sodium Carbonate, the colour of the chemical solution was not changed. The unchanged liquid chemical whose colour was not changed was collected in separate sealed bottle. The trap party thereafter proceeded to Gohad at the place of residence of the appellant. The complainant was directed to go inside the house of appellant and also directed that after the bribe money is passed over, he will come out from the house of appellant immediately and would rub his hand on his head, which would be the signal to the members of the trap party that the transaction of bribe money has taken place. The members of trap party took their convenient position nearby the house of the appellant. After some time the complainant came out from the house of appellant and rubbed his hands on his head which was the signal to the members of the trap party, as a result of which immediately Head Constable Siyaram Sharma and Constable Kammod Singh rushed inside the house and caught hold the hands of appellant from the wrist. Thereafter the members of the trap party entered inside the house and gave their introduction to the appellant. At the spot (house of appellant) a fresh solution of Sodium Carbonate was prepared and the fingers of the hands of the appellant were washed in the said solution and on dipping the fingers of his hands the colour of the solution turned to pink, which was collected in separate bottle which was sealed. Thereafter, on being asked to the appellant where the bribe money is kept, he told that the same is kept in the Almirah. Thereafter, on being asked to the appellant where the bribe money is kept, he told that the same is kept in the Almirah. Thereafter a fresh solution of Sodium Carbonate was prepared and the fingers of the hands of Panch witness D.K. Jadhav (PW.1) were dipped, but the colour of the solution did not change. The said chemical liquid was collected in a separate bottle which was also sealed. Thereafter Panch witness D.K. Jadhav uplifted the bribe money which was kept in Almirah and tallied the numbers of the currency notes from the pre trap panchnama and they were found to be the same. The hands of Panch witness D.K. Jadhav were again dipped in a fresh solution of Sodium Carbonate and this time on dipping his fingers in the said solution the colour of the solution turned to pink. The tinted hand wash of this Panch witness was collected in a separate sealed bottle. A post trap panchnama was also prepared and after performing other necessary investigations the trap party came back to the office of Lokayukt. 6. After the investigation was over; necessary sanction was obtained to prosecute the appellant and thereafter a charge-sheet was submitted before the learned Special Judge, who framed charges punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act against the appellant, which he denied and requested for the trial. 7. In order to prove the charges prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and placed Ex.P.1 to P.32 the documents on record. The defence of appellant is that when the complainant met to him, he shook his hands with him and, at that juncture, another Patwari Pankaj Khalko was also present and for this reason when the hands of the appellant were washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonate, the colour of the solution turned to pink. This defence was also put forth by the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In support of his defence, the appellant also examined Pankaj Khalko (DW.1). 8. The learned Special Judge after appreciating and marshalling the evidence came to hold that charge under Section 13(2) of the Act is not proved against the appellant and acquitted the appellant from the said charge. 8. The learned Special Judge after appreciating and marshalling the evidence came to hold that charge under Section 13(2) of the Act is not proved against the appellant and acquitted the appellant from the said charge. However, on the basis of the evidence placed on record, the learned Special Judge came to hold that the charge under Section 7 of the Act has been found to be proved, as a result of which convicted the appellant and passed the sentence which we have mentioned hereinabove. 9. In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 10. Vehemently, it has been contended by Shri V.K. Saxena, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri M.S. Rawat for appellant that it is borne out from the testimony of the complainant as well as from the evidence of defence witness Pankaj Khalko (DW.1) that the complainant came and shook his hands with the appellant and if that would be the position, certainly if the fingers of appellant are subjected to phenolphthalein powder test, the result would be positive. It has also been put forth by learned Senior Counsel that in order to convict appellant under Section 7 of the Act there should be a demand of bribe made by the accused, but in the present case the demand of bribe has not at all been proved, because the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and has totally denied that appellant ever made any demand of bribe from him. Hence, according to learned Senior Counsel the complaint (Ex.P.1) is not at all proved and, in this context, he has placed reliance on three decisions of this Court, they are: (i) State of M.P. v. K.K. Pandey 2007 (III) MPWN 21 (ii) Arjun Singh v. State of M.P. 1997 (I) MPWN 194 (iii) Navkant Sharma v. State of M.P. 2008 (2) JLJ 386 . 11. 11. It has also been contended by learned Senior Counsel that law has also favoured the presence of shadow witness in the trap in order to ascertain that how the transaction of bribe has taken place and in order to ascertain that what actually transpired between the complainant and the appellant at the time of passing the bribe money and because in the present case since no shadow witness was sent along with the complainant, therefore, the case of prosecution becomes highly doubtful. In support of his contention, learned Senior counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Smt. Meena Balwant Hemke v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2000 SC 3377 and has also placed reliance on a Single bench decision of this Court Navkant Sharma (supra). 12. It has also been propounded by learned Senior Counsel that it is borne out from the testimony of the members of the trap party that the treated currency notes were kept in a polythene, but the polythene was not seized, and therefore, the case of prosecution becomes highly doubtful. 13. By putting deep dent on the case of prosecution, it has been argued by the learned Senior Counsel that because the complainant turned hostile and there is no other corroborative evidence, therefore, it would be hazardous to convict appellant for the charge under Section 7 of the Act. 14. Lastly, it has been contended by learned Senior Counsel that the sanction to prosecute the appellant (Ex.P.30) has been accorded without application of mind and if that would be the position, the appellant cannot be convicted. In support of his contention learned Senior Counsel has invited our attention to Section 19(1) of the Act. On these premised submissions, it has been contended by learned Senior counsel that by allowing this appeal the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the appellant be acquitted from the charge under Section 7 of the Act. 15. An alternative submission has also been put forth by learned Senior counsel that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the charge under Section 7 of the Act is proved, some leniency be adopted in passing the sentence. 16. 15. An alternative submission has also been put forth by learned Senior counsel that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the charge under Section 7 of the Act is proved, some leniency be adopted in passing the sentence. 16. Combating the aforesaid submissions of the learned Senior Counsel it has been contended by Shri J.D. Suryavanshi, learned Public Prosecutor that although the complainant was declared hostile, but merely because he was declared hostile and did not support the case of prosecution, the entire case of prosecution would not be somersaulted, if from the circumstance and other evidence it is proved that appellant made demand of bribe and has accepted the same. In support of his contention learned Public Prosecutor has placed heavy reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Hazari Lal v. The State (Delhi Admn.) AIR 1980 SC 873 . It has also been put forth by learned Public Prosecutor for Special Police Establishment that the conviction can be accorded solely on the basis of evidence of the investigating officer. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that from the testimony of the investigating officer Devendra Singh Kushwaha (PW.9) as well as from the evidence of independent Panch witness D.K. Jadhav (PW.1) the factum of demand of bribe has been proved because this fact finds place in the complaint of the complainant (Ex.P.1). Learned Public Prosecutor submits that although the complainant became hostile and deposed that whatever is written in his complaint is not the outcome of his own version, but it was dictated to him by some person of the office of Lokayukt, but, he has admitted that the complaint bears his signature as well as the same is in his handwriting. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that looking to the unimpeachable testimony of Panch witness D.K. Jadhav (PW.1), it is emphatically proved that the complaint was read over in high tone by another Panch witness Dr. Virendra Kumar Sharma in his and in the presence of the complainant and the investigating officer, and if that would be the position since after hearing the contents thereof the complainant accepted the averments of the complaint it is proved that the demand of bribe was made by the appellant. 17. Virendra Kumar Sharma in his and in the presence of the complainant and the investigating officer, and if that would be the position since after hearing the contents thereof the complainant accepted the averments of the complaint it is proved that the demand of bribe was made by the appellant. 17. It has also been put forth by Shri Suryavanshi, learned Public Prosecutor that the polythene in which treated currency notes were kept was also seized since its seizure finds place in Ex.P.4, which is a seizure memo of the bribe money. 18. So far as the sanction part is concerned, learned Public Prosecutor submits that looking to the mandate given by the Legislature in Sub-sections (3) and (4) to Section 19 of the Act even for some reason or the other, the sanction is found to be erroneous it cannot be a ground to set aside the conviction unless and until any prejudice is demonstrated by the appellant. In support of his contention learned Public Prosecutor has placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court State of Madhya Pradesh v. Virender Kumar Tripathi (2009) 15 SCC 533 . On these premised submissions, it has been contended by learned Public Prosecutor that learned Special Judge has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 7 of the Act and the appeal filed by the appellant sans substance and the same is liable to be dismissed. 19. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 20. We are not at all impressed by the submissions of learned Senior Counsel because the complainant has turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution, therefore, straightway the accused is entitled for acquittal. The Supreme Court in Hazari lal (supra) has categorically dealt this situation and has held that if the demand of bribe is proved from other circumstances and evidence, an accused can be convicted. Although, the complainant Rajendra Singh (PW.6) has not supported the case of prosecution and was declared hostile, but he has admitted that the complaint is in his handwriting and he also put his signature on the complaint. Thus, this much is proved from his testimony that he submitted the complaint, although on the insistence of some other person. The signature of the complainant is also proved on the complaint. 21. Thus, this much is proved from his testimony that he submitted the complaint, although on the insistence of some other person. The signature of the complainant is also proved on the complaint. 21. We would like to examine the evidence of other witnesses whether the complaint (Ex.P.1) in which demand of bribe said to have been made, has been proved from cogent evidence or not. In this context, it would be profitable to place reliance on the testimony of two important witnesses D.K. Jadhav (PW.1) and the investigating officer Devendra Singh Kushwaha (PW.9). Needless to say, D.K. Jadhav (PW.1) is an independent witness and is a gazetted officer. The Supreme Court in Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1976 SC 91 in para 8 has categorically held that the Anti-corruption Department should procure the assistance of independent and respectable witnesses so that the evidence in regard to raid inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. This Panch witness at the relevant point of time was serving on the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon and was a gazetted officer. He was rightly included as a member in the trap party. According to this Panch witness, when he arrived in the office of Lokayukt, the officers of the Lokayukt office informed that the complainant has given an application that a Patwari is making demand of bribe from him, at that juncture, complainant-Rajendra Singh Jatav was also present, who gave his complaint to the officer of Lokayukt and that officer handed over the complaint to Dr. Virendra Kumar Sharma, another Panch witness, (not examined), and thereafter the said Dr. Virendra Kumar Sharma read over the contents of the complaint in high tone so that the persons who are standing there may hear the contents of that application. Specifically this witness is saying that, at that juncture, the complainant was also present and after hearing the contents thereof he accepted that whatever written in the complaint is correct. This witness was cross-examined at length, but nothing is carved out from his testimony that the complaint was not read over in high tone by Panch witness Dr. Virendra Kumar Sharma, in presence of the complainant and the investigating officer. Hence, according to us, the complaint (Ex.P.1) has been emphatically proved and this fact has also been proved that appellant made demand of bribe from the complainant. Virendra Kumar Sharma, in presence of the complainant and the investigating officer. Hence, according to us, the complaint (Ex.P.1) has been emphatically proved and this fact has also been proved that appellant made demand of bribe from the complainant. We do not find any merit in the contention of learned Senior Counsel that because the case diary statement of this witness was not recorded, therefore, the evidence of this witness is not worth reliable. The presence of this witness as a member in the trap party has been found proved. In the pre trap panchnama (Ex.P.2) also it has been mentioned that in presence of this witness the complaint was read over to the complainant in which the demand of bribe was made and after reading over the said complaint to the complainant, it was accepted by him. Even for the sake of arguments, we ignore the evidence of this Panch witness, according to us, from the testimony of the investigating officer Devendra Singh Kushwaha (PW.9), the demand made in the complaint is proved, since in para 2 of his testimony it has been stated by this witness that Panch witness Dr. Virendra Kumar Sharma was requested to read over the complaint, and thereafter the said Dr. Virendra Kumar Sharma read over the complaint to the complainant, who after hearing its contents accepted it to be correct. At that juncture, this witness was also present. Necessary endorsement on the complaint (Ex.P.1) was made by the Panch witness. On going through the complaint (Ex.P.1), we find that a particular note is very much there. D.K. Jadhav (PW.1) has stated that such note was put by him and has also proved his signature and that of Dr. Virendra Kumar Sharma who signed complaint (Ex.P.1) in his presence. Hence, the essential ingredients of Section 7 of the Act that demand of bribe made by appellant from the complainant has been emphatically proved. The Single Bench decision of this Court K.K. Pandey (supra) placed reliance by the learned Senior Counsel is not applicable for the simple reason that in that case none of the prosecution witness supported the case of prosecution in respect of demand of bribe and in those circumstances acquittal was found to be proper. The Single Bench decision of this Court K.K. Pandey (supra) placed reliance by the learned Senior Counsel is not applicable for the simple reason that in that case none of the prosecution witness supported the case of prosecution in respect of demand of bribe and in those circumstances acquittal was found to be proper. However, in the present case the demand of bribe has been proved from the evidence of Panch witness D.K. Jadhav (PW.1) as well as from the evidence of investigating officer Devendra Singh Kushwaha (PW.9). Similarly another decision of Single Bench of this Court Arjun Singh (supra) is also not applicable because in that case apart from the complainant the other material witnesses also did not support the case of prosecution, and therefore, it was found that the demand was not proved. 22. Apart from the demand which is found to be proved, the acceptance of the illegal gratification by the appellant is also proved. The treated currency notes at the instance of appellant were also seized as they were found in a polythene, which was kept in a Almirah. The evidence of Panch witness D.K. Jadhav (PW.1) as well as evidence of investigating officer Devendra Singh Kushwaha (PW.9), Head Constable Siyaram Sharma (PW.2) and Constable Kammod Singh (PW.7) in this regard are quite relevant. From the testimony of these witnesses it is proved that at the instance of appellant the bribe money was seized from the Almirah which was uplifted by Panch witness D.K. Jadhav (PW.1) and he also took out the treated currency notes from the polythene. Hence, recovery of bribe money from appellant is also proved. The fingers of the hands of the appellant when dipped in the solution of Sodium Carbonate, the colour was changed, hence, it is proved that appellant came in contact with the treated currency notes and in absence of any proper explanation by the appellant that how he came into contact with the treated currency notes, according to us, it will be presumed that he accepted the bribe money. Indeed, this is the mandate of Section 20 of the Act. Indeed, this is the mandate of Section 20 of the Act. In this context, we may profitably place reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRS v. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625 , State of Maharashtra v. Rashid B. Mulani, (2006) 1 SCC 407 and B. Hanumantha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1992 CRI.L.J.1552. 23. So far as the arguments of learned Senior counsel that the complainant shook the hands with the appellant and this probable defence has been proved by him by examining D.K. Jadhav (PW.1) is concerned, we would consider this point in later paragraphs. 24. In the later decision of Supreme Court State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Satyanarayana Murthy (2008) 9 SCC 674 it was held by Supreme Court that if money is recovered from the appellant in absence of proper explanation given by him it shall be presumed that he has accepted the bribe. 25. In Kanshi Ram v. State of Punjab (2005) 12 SCC 641 the Supreme Court has held that receipt of bribe money is proved beyond reasonable doubt and no reasonable explanation offered by accused as to how the tainted money came to his possession, and therefore, it was held that under Section 20 of the Act it will be presumed that accused has accepted the bribe money. Similar is the situation in the present case. 26. We do not find any merit in the contention of learned Senior Counsel that there was no motive for the appellant to make any demand of bribe for the simple reason that the demarcation was to be ordered by Tahsildar, and therefore, when there was no motive with the appellant to make any demand of bribe, he has been wrongly convicted by the learned Special Judge under Section 7 of the Act. It is borne out from the testimony of Tahsildar D.K. Bhawasar (PW.12) that on the application submitted by Keshav Singh (PW.8), who is brother of the complainant to get the land demarcated, he directed the Revenue Inspector Gajendra Singh (PW.4) to do the needful. On x-raying the testimony of Gajendra Singh (PW.4), we find that he deputed the appellant to do the needful for demarcation. On x-raying the testimony of Gajendra Singh (PW.4), we find that he deputed the appellant to do the needful for demarcation. We can understand that the demarcation is to be made on the report of Patwari and the actual demarcation is done by Patwari in presence of Revenue Inspector with the aid of some instrument like chain (commonly known as Jari Ba) and other necessary instruments. Since the actual task of demarcation of land was required to be carried out by Patwari, although, the order of demarcation is to be made by the Revenue Officer Tahsildar, according to us, there was a motive to make the demand of bribe, and hence, we cannot accept the submissions put forth by the learned Senior Counsel that appellant was not having any occasion to make any demand of bribe. 27. So far as the defence which has been taken by appellant that complainant shook his hands when he met with the appellant and immediately thereafter the trap party arrived inside the room and if thereafter the phenolphthalein powder test was conducted certainly the result will be positive is concerned, suffice it to say that although this defence has been put forth by the appellant to the complainant who is a hostile witness, but no such defence was put forth to the independent witness D.K. Jadhav (PW.1) nor to investigating officer Devendra Singh Kushwaha (PW.9) as well as Head Constable Siyaram Sharma (PW.2) and Constable Kammod Singh (PW.7), who caught hold the hands of the appellant. According to us, if in realm this would have been said by the appellant immediately after he was caught by the Constables, certainly it would carry a great weightage because it would have been a spontaneous reaction of the appellant when he was caught by the trap party. Although, this suggestion was put to the complainant, who is a hostile witness, but according to us, this suggestion ought to have been put to the above said witnesses. True, this defence has also been taken by appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as well as he also examined the defence witness Pankaj Khalko (DW.1) in that regard, but according to us, since this defence was not put forth by the appellant to the above said important witnesses, we have no scintilla of doubt in holding that the defence of appellant is afterthought and concocted. 28. 28. We have already held hereinabove that demand of bribe has been made by the appellant which has been proved looking to the evidence of the Panch witnesses and investigating officer. Apart from this, the corroborative evidence in order to infer that appellant has received bribe money is also present in the present case since on dipping the fingers of the hands of the appellant the colour of the solution of Sodium Carbonate turned to pink, according to us, if appellant would not have touched the bribe money, how the colour of the chemical solution was turned to pink. We have already overruled the defence of appellant that firstly complainant shook his hands with him. 29. Looking to the evidence placed on record we can infer that appellant was also having possession of the bribe money, since it was kept in an Almirah by him. The demand of bribe has already been proved and when there is recovery of the bribe money the statutory presumption of accepting the illegal gratification as envisaged under Section 20(1) of the Act will come into play and it will be deemed in absence of proper explanation that the accused has accepted the bribe money. 30. So far as the corroboration of the evidence of the complainant is concerned, no doubt it is true that the complainant has turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution, but, from the other circumstances which we have highlighted hereinabove, in detail, it is proved that the demand of bribe has been made by the appellant and since by corroborative piece of evidence of phenolphthalein powder test etc. and the evidence of independent Panch witness as well as the evidence of investigating officer the recovery of bribe money is proved, according to us, learned Special Judge did not commit any error in holding that the charge under Section 7 of the Act has been proved against the appellant. 31. We do not find any merit in the contention of learned Senior Counsel for appellant that polythene in which the bribe money was kept was not seized. On going through the seizure memo (Ex.P.4), we find that the impugned polythene in which the treated currency notes were kept was also seized. 32. 31. We do not find any merit in the contention of learned Senior Counsel for appellant that polythene in which the bribe money was kept was not seized. On going through the seizure memo (Ex.P.4), we find that the impugned polythene in which the treated currency notes were kept was also seized. 32. So far as the question of proper sanction is concerned, according to us, on going through the sanction order (Ex.P.30), we find that by application of mind the officer competent to accord sanction has accorded the sanction to prosecute the appellant. Merely because the sanction order has not been proved by examining the sanctioning authority, according to us, it cannot be said that it is not proved. Even looking to the scope of sub Section (3) and (4) of Section 19 of the Act, we find that even if some error, omission or irregularity in issuing the sanction order is there, it would not be fatal, unless and until any prejudice is shown. In the present case no prejudice has been shown. We have gone through the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge convicting the appellant under Section 7 of the Act and, according to us, the reasonings so assigned by the learned Special Judge is in accordance to the law. Hence, the conviction of appellant under Section 7 of the Act is hereby affirmed. 33. It has been then addressed by the learned Senior counsel that because appellant has already lost his job and would not be entitled for pension and other service benefits, some leniency may be adopted in awarding the sentence. We find sufficient force in the submission of learned Senior Counsel. Certainly, the appellant has lost his job, indeed, he has already lost his job and would not be benefited by his service record, he would also not entitle for pension and other service benefits, and therefore, the sentence of two years R.I. is reduced to one year S.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred), in default, further S.I. of one month. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled after he surrender before the learned Special Judge. Appellant is hereby directed to surrender to serve out the remaining part of his sentence on or before 16th August, 2010. On his surrender, the learned Special Judge will send him to jail. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled after he surrender before the learned Special Judge. Appellant is hereby directed to surrender to serve out the remaining part of his sentence on or before 16th August, 2010. On his surrender, the learned Special Judge will send him to jail. It is further made clear that in case appellant fails to surrender before the learned Special Judge on or before 16th August, 2010, the learned Special Judge shall issue arrest warrant against the appellant as well as notice may also be issued to his surety and may pass necessary orders in that regard. The Registry is hereby directed to send the bail bond papers to the learned Special Judge so as to enable it to send notice to the surety in case appellant does not surrender before it. Photocopies of papers of bail bonds may be kept in the record of this file. The Registry is further directed to send the record of learned Special Judge to that Court posthaste so as to reach much before 16th August, 2010. The learned Special Judge is further directed to intimate the Registry of this Court after the appellant is sent to jail to serve out the sentence. 34. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with modification of the sentence mentioned hereinabove.