Judgment Prafulla C. Pant, J. 1) This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, (for short Cr.P.C.) is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.02.2000, passed by Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Dehradun in C.B.I.; Case No. 1 of 1975, whereby said court has convicted the accused/appellant Babu Ram Sant under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced him to imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. The trial court has further directed that out of Rs. 2,20,300/- (recovered and seized amount, at the time of raid by C.B.I.) a sum of Rs. 2,08,624.52 be confiscated in favour of the State. Accused/appellant Babu Ram Sant has died during pendency of this appeal, and his widow Smt. Sarswati Devi is pursuing the appeal under proviso to Section 394 Cr.P.C.. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. 3) Prosecution story in brief is that accused/appellant Babu Ram Sant was an Income Tax Recovery Officer posted at Agra, who was arrested on 11.05.1971 by Central Bureau of Investigation (for short C.B.I.) in connection with a trap case of accepting Rs. 2.00 lakhs. In follow-up action, searches were conducted by C.B.I. at his office and residential premises at Agra on 13.05.1971 and another amount of Rs. 2,20,3000/- was recovered from his Almirah. Thereafter, another case R.C. No. 25 of 1971 (from which present case has arisen) was registered by C.B.I. (as this amount was separate from earlier amount). After investigation it was found that the assets acquired by the accused (B.R. Sant) were proportionate to known sources of his income. The check period was between 10.08.1963 to 13.05.1971. The assets were found worth Rs. 2,49,998.29/- out of which Rs. 2,19,574.52/- remained without satisfactory explanation. Initial investigation was conducted by Inspector A.G. Dande and completed by PW11 Vidhya Bhushan. After investigation chargesheet (Ex. A262) was filed against the accused Babu Ram Sant for his trial in respect of offence punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2,49,998.29/- out of which Rs. 2,19,574.52/- remained without satisfactory explanation. Initial investigation was conducted by Inspector A.G. Dande and completed by PW11 Vidhya Bhushan. After investigation chargesheet (Ex. A262) was filed against the accused Babu Ram Sant for his trial in respect of offence punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 4) After giving necessary copies, the then Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Lucknow before whom charge sheet was filed, after hearing the parties, framed charge of offence punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 to which accused B.R. Sant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case was transferred from Special Judge, Anti Corruption Lucknow to Special Judge, Anti Corruption Dehradun. Prosecution got examined PW1 A.H. Rizvi, Income Tax Officer, PW2 Chander Bhushan Shah (a liquor shop owner), PW3 Ramji Dass Gupta (a petrol pump dealer), PW4 Ram Chandra (a class IV employee in Income Tax Department), PW5 A.K. Banerjee (Audit Officer), PW6 R.B. Paliwal (Income Tax Officer), PW7 Ram Dutt Lohani (Tax Assistant), PW8 K.R. Bhalla (Audit Officer of Accountant General, Audit II, Allahabad), PW9 Shri Krishan Dubey (a resident of village Sarai Agat), PW10 Shyam Behari Saxena (Tax Recovery Officer), PW11 Viddya Bhushan (who completed investigation), PW12 Jagat Lal (Desk Officer of Departmental of Personnel and Training Government of India in New Delhi), and PW13 Gyan Prakash Kalra, the then under Secretary of Government of India. 5) The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which he pleaded that he was the only son of his parents. He further pleaded that the evidence adduced against him relating to disproportionate income is wrong. However, he admitted that he joined service in the year 1957. He also admitted in his statement under 313 Cr.P.C. that a case R.C. No. 23 of 1971 was also registered against him (in respect of a trap relating to acceptance of Rs. 2,29,000/-) on 11.05.1971. He further admitted that in said case he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one year, but the appeal was reported to be pending. The accused B.R. Sant also admitted in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that on 13.05.1971 in the search operation in his office and residence Rs. 2,29,000/-) on 11.05.1971. He further admitted that in said case he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one year, but the appeal was reported to be pending. The accused B.R. Sant also admitted in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that on 13.05.1971 in the search operation in his office and residence Rs. 2,20,300/- were recovered from his almirah in office but he pleaded that said amount was property of the joint family. It was also pleaded by him that his Grandfather used to do business of export of hides and bones. He further told that his parents had money-lending business apart from the agricultural income. The accused further pleaded in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that amounts of Rs. 255 and Rs. 11 towards the traveling allowance bills are not included by the C.B.I. in his income. It also stated by the accused that sanction for prosecution granted against him is not valid. As to the statement of the witness Shri Krishan Dubey (PW9) it is stated that he has given evidence against him due to enmity. As to the statements of A.H. Rizwi (PW1), R.P. Paliwal (PW6), Ram Dutt Lohani (PW7), and Shyam Behari Saxsena (PW10), it is stated by the accused that their evidence is correct. According to the accused rest of the witnesses have adduced is wrong evidence. In defence accused B.R. Sant got himself examined as DW1 after obtaining permission under Section 315 of Cr.P.C. 6) The trial court after hearing the parties found that prosecution has successfully proved the charge of offence punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5 (1) (e) of Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1947 against the accused B.R. Sant and convicted him accordingly. After hearing on sentence, the convict was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. Aggrieved by said judgement and order dated 23.02.2000, passed by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Dehradun in C.B.I., Case No. 1 of 1975, this appeal was filed by the convict before the Allahabad High Court from where it is received under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, for its disposal. 7) Admittedly, accused B.R. Sant was an Income Tax Officer, posted as Tax Recovery Officer at Agra. 7) Admittedly, accused B.R. Sant was an Income Tax Officer, posted as Tax Recovery Officer at Agra. It is also admitted that on 11.05.1971 a trap was laid and accused B.R. Sant was arrested while allegedly accepting Rs. 2 lakhs as illegal gratification. It is not disputed that in respect of said incident R.C. No. 23 of 1971 was registered by C.B.I.. In the follow up of action C.B.I. appears to have raided at the residential and office premises of B.R. Sant on 13.05.1971. It is admitted to the accused that the Rs. 2,20,300/- were recovered from his Almirah kept in his office, regarding which another case crime no. RC 25 of 1971 (from which this case arisen) was registered against him. It is not denied by the accused that Rs. 2,20,3000/- was recovered from the Almirah kept in the office. It is not a case against the accused that the said amount had anything to do with his official recovery of the tax, rather as DW1 B.R. Sant has stated that amount recovered from his Almirah was the property of his Hindu Divided Family and the amount was kept in his Almirah as marriage of his sister was arranged. Once the accused has admitted as above the burden of prosecution has already been made easy. 8) PW1 A.H. Razvi, Income Tax Officer has simply proved the letters and communication relating to the assets of the accused and explanation sought from him. 9) PW2 Chandra Bhushan Shah, who is an owner of liquor shop has stated that between the year 1966-1972 accused B.R. Sant was posted at Purnia (Bihar) and he used to buy 4-5 bottles of Black Knight whisky every month. 10) PW3 Ramji Das Gupta, who used to run a petrol pump in Mainpuri stated that accused B.R. Sant (when posted there) used to take petrol from his petrol pump for his vehicle bearing registration no. WBE 7933 (suggesting that accused was maintaining a car). 11) PW4 Ram Chandra is a class IV employee in the tax department, who was posted in Mainpuri. He told that in June 1970 B.R. Sant came to Mainpuri as an Income Tax officer, according to this witness in the family of accused apart from his spouse, two children and two sisters used to live with him. 11) PW4 Ram Chandra is a class IV employee in the tax department, who was posted in Mainpuri. He told that in June 1970 B.R. Sant came to Mainpuri as an Income Tax officer, according to this witness in the family of accused apart from his spouse, two children and two sisters used to live with him. PW4 Ram Chandra has further stated that during those days accused had engaged one Rajendra as a Driver and one Yadav as a domestic servant. 12) PW5 A.K. Bannerjee, has proved the pay and allowance statements relating to the accused to show the known sources of his income. 13) PW6 R.P. Paliwal, an Income Tax Officer has stated that after the present incident when the accused placed under suspension notices were issued to him, which he avoided to accept and services were made by him by affixation. 11) PW7 Ram Dutt Lohani, Tax Assistant has stated that he had been a stenographer to the accused B.R. Sant. He has simply corroborated that the accused maintained a car. 12) PW8 K.R. Bhalla, the Audit Officer has also proved the details of the amount received by the accused entitled officially as per the record of the office of Accountant General. 13) PW9 Shri Krishan Dubey, who is resident of village Sarai Agat situated in District Etah has stated that the accused B.R. Sant originally belonged to his village. He further told that Etwari Lal (father of accused) was a Labour who used to work as a cobbler. The witness further stated that the father of the accused had six-seven bighas of agricultural land and his income was hardly Rs. 400/- per year. 14) PW10 Shyam Bihari Saxena, was posted as Tax Recovery Officer, Income Tax Department, Agra. He is the witness of the raid conducted by the C.B.I. on 13.05.1971. He has proved recovery of Rs. 2,20,300/- from the Almirah of the accused kept in his office. 15) PW13 Gyan Prakash Kalra, the then under Secretary of Income Tax has proved the sanction (Ex. A264) granted for prosecution by the competent authority. The witness in his cross examination has stated that the papers for sanction were placed before the then Hon’ble Minister Shri Om Mehta, who was looking after the affairs of the Personnel Department, he proved that Hon’ble Minister endorsed in the file “I agree” and the necessary sanction order was issued. A264) granted for prosecution by the competent authority. The witness in his cross examination has stated that the papers for sanction were placed before the then Hon’ble Minister Shri Om Mehta, who was looking after the affairs of the Personnel Department, he proved that Hon’ble Minister endorsed in the file “I agree” and the necessary sanction order was issued. 16) On behalf of the appellant it is argued that the sanction for prosecution in the present case is not the valid sanction. It is pointed out that the PW12 Jagan Lal has stated that the sanction order issued on behalf of the authority concerned by G.P. Kalra, under Secrertary, but he has not stated that all the documents were seen by the authority concerned. However, since PW13 G.P. Kalra, has himself been examined and cross examined and he has explained that all the papers were seen before the sanctioning order was issued for prosecution, this Court does not find, any reason to hold that the sanction order not valid. In Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim (2011) 4SCC (page 402) it has been held that a mere irregularity in sanction cannot considered to be fatal unless it has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 17) Next argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that, that the amounts of traveling allowance bills have not been included in the income of the accused. As such the amount of the disproportionate income is wrongly calculated. However, on close scrutiny of all the evidence on record it appears that the traveling allowance amount is less than Rs. 300/-. As such even if said amount is included, it does not explain the disproportionate asset found possessed by the accused amounting more than Rs. 2 lakhs. 18) Lastly, it is submitted that the DW1 B.R. Sant has explained from the documents proved by him that his mother was an income tax payee and his grand father had export business in Calcutta. In reply to this learned counsel for the C.B.I. submitted that the documents have been prepared after this case was initiated against the accused. Assuming that the grand father of the accused used to run his business in Calcutta and that his mother had landed property and she was an income tax payee, even then the defence has failed to prove the admitted recovery of Rs. 2 lakhs from his Almirah in the office. Assuming that the grand father of the accused used to run his business in Calcutta and that his mother had landed property and she was an income tax payee, even then the defence has failed to prove the admitted recovery of Rs. 2 lakhs from his Almirah in the office. It is pertinent to the mention here that in the cross examination of the PW11 Viddya Bhushan (Investigation Officer) accused himself has suggested that the amount kept in his office was his ancestral money. It cannot be believed that such amount was lying in the office of the accused. 19) Having gone through the entire evidence on record, after considering the rival submissions of the parties this Court does not find force in this appeal, which is liable to be dismissed. 20) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Lower court record be sent back.