JUDGMENT L. NARAYANA SWAMY, J.-These two appeals are filed by the accused being aggrieved of the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Court below in Special (CBI) C.C. No. 2 & 3/2000 on the file of Principal Sessions & Special Judge, Dharwad sentencing the appellant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- & Rs. 15,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for four months for offence under Sections 13(1)(c) & (d) punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 respectively in both the cases. 2. The appellant has challenged the above judgment and sentence of conviction on the following grounds: (i) The appellant was not incharge of Railway Hospital to discharge the special duty referred in the charge. Hence criminal breach of trust and provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act are not attracted. (ii) Before investigation of the complaint against the appellant, no sanction as required under the provisions of Railway Board Manual is obtained and what has been produced is only a xerox copy and original sanction letter has not been produced. (iii) There is no material for having collected prescribed fee beyond the office hours and not depositing the same as the appellant was not incharge officer for all the 24 hours and the concerned doctors and other officials were incharge and dereliction of duty committed by the others could not have been attributed to the appellant. It is the duty of the duty doctors to collect the amount/fees towards treatment of patient and to see that it is deposited in the cash office. (iv) The charges alleged against the appellant are as vague as they could be which has caused prejudice to the appellant. (v) Section 409 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(c) are similar in nature and therefore conviction under both the Sections of different enactments is nothing but double jeoparde violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. 3. On behalf of the respondent, the learned counsel submits to dismiss these appeals as the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 3. On behalf of the respondent, the learned counsel submits to dismiss these appeals as the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was working as a Junior Clerk in the office of the Senior Medical Superintendent, Railway Hospital, Hubli from December, 1997 to November, 1998 and was entrusted with the property as such a public servant, committed criminal breach by dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriating Rs. 18,054/-. In order to prove the said charge, the prosecution has examined 33 witnesses and in all the 24 instances he has collected to the tune of Rs. 18,054.00 and the persons who have paid the amount, were examined and thus the charges are proved. PW-32 & 33 are the police inspectors who are investigating officers and PW-10 & PW-20 are the doctors. The prosecution has also marked documents Ex.P1 to P88(b) and the list of documents exhibited on behalf of the accused are as per Ex.D1 to D3 and the appellant did not chose to examine any witnesses on his behalf. 4. I have heard both. I have gone through the L.C.R. 5. The first ground urged by the appellant is that there was no sanction for the purpose of Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Section 19 contemplates that a person shall not be prosecuted without there being previous sanction from a person who has employed in connection with affairs and is removable from his office. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 should be understood for the purpose of sanction, is the authority who has power to remove an official. In the instant case, the Divisional Manager is the appointing authority for the appellant herein who has issued sanction to prosecute the appellant. In order to find out whether proper sanction has been given to prosecute the appellant, I have examined Ex.P11 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Hubli dated 11.12.2000. This sanction was given to prosecute the appellant for 40 instances in which it is alleged that he has misappropriated money which was entrusted to him as a public servant amounted to Rs. 32,493/- for the period 1996-1998 while he was working as a Junior Clerk at the office of the Senior Medical Superintendent. 6. This sanction was given to prosecute the appellant for 40 instances in which it is alleged that he has misappropriated money which was entrusted to him as a public servant amounted to Rs. 32,493/- for the period 1996-1998 while he was working as a Junior Clerk at the office of the Senior Medical Superintendent. 6. In order to dispute and rebut the authority of Divisional Railway Manager in issuing the sanction order, Ex.P11, the appellant should have placed reliance on the provision in order to controvert the same. Under these circumstances, the sanctioned authority is said to be the Appointing Authority of the appellant who has got power to remove him also and rightly he has given the sanction. The competency of the person who has issued sanction order should have been challenged at an early date, if it is otherwise. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon judgment in Janeshwar Das Aggarwal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1646 to contend that there should be some material to show the actual entrustment without which conviction is unsustainable. In the instant case, over a period of time, the appellant has collected such fees and misappropriated the amount not in one instance but in number of instances. Therefore, the facts of the said case are quite different to the facts of the present case. 8. The next submission of the appellant counsel is that charge is as vague as it could be. The said ground is not available to the appellant. There are three charges framed of which the first charge is for misappropriation of Rs. 18,054/- and by doing so, he has committed an offence under Section 409 IPC. In order to qualify the allegations of misappropriation for the purpose of Section 409 IPC, it is stated in the charge that while he was working as a Junior Clerk in the office of Senior Railway Medical Superintendent for the period from December 1997 to November, 1998, he was entrusted with the public property that is, public money and as such he has committed criminal breach of trust by dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriating the said amount of which he had dominion. This allegation and imputation which clearly attracts Section 409 of IPC. This allegation and imputation which clearly attracts Section 409 of IPC. In order to rebut the same, the learned counsel submitted that this job was not entrusted to him since he was a Junior Clerk and not a cashier or a person supposed to be entrusted under the job chart of the Railway Medical Manual. The appellant may not be a person belongs to Medical Services of Railway Department, however, it is undisputed, he was an employee of Railway Department and he was functioning as such for the period 1997 to 1998. If it was his case that he could not have been entrusted to do so, he should have challenged the same in an appropriate forum. But he has not done so and he has not rebutted the same since it is for the appointing authority to post him to work as such in its establishment. Under these circumstances, the appellant was working as an Officer for the said period who had dominion to collect and getting the public property namely the money and the same has been dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated by him. Under these circumstances, rightly he was charged for the said offence and tried and found guilty. 9. The further charge is for misappropriation of the said amount in 24 instances and the misappropriation of amount attracts Section 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act and is liable for punishment under Section 13(2) of the said Act. Whether the appellant could be tried for the said offence in 24 instances has been examined with reference to provisions of Section 13(1)(c). Section 13(1)(c) contemplates that a public servant commits an offence of criminal misconduct if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or in his control as a public servant. The charge framed is for the period between 1997 and 1998 while he was working in the offence of the Railway Hospital, he collected about Rs. 18,054.00 in 24 instances and misappropriated the same. Hence the said charge is rightly framed under the said provision as Section 13(1)(d) contemplates while he is indulged in corrupt or illegal means by abusing his position while holding the office as a public servant and commits misappropriation. Hence, I do not find any vagueness in the charge. 10. 18,054.00 in 24 instances and misappropriated the same. Hence the said charge is rightly framed under the said provision as Section 13(1)(d) contemplates while he is indulged in corrupt or illegal means by abusing his position while holding the office as a public servant and commits misappropriation. Hence, I do not find any vagueness in the charge. 10. Further the prosecution has examined some prosecution witnesses whose names have been alleged in 24 instances. The trial Court with reference to the order referred all the 24 instances and evidence has been examined in order to answer the points formulated. In respect of each instance at Para-17 for the instance No. 1, where it is found that PW-1 has deposed that he got admitted his sister on 28.12.1997 and discharged on 13.1.1998 and at that point of time Rs. 500/- was paid. One week thereafter, again he paid Rs. 300/- and totally he has paid Rs. 800/- but he was issued receipt for Rs. 500/- only. Ex.P1 is the case sheet pertaining to his sister. Like this the trial Court has examined each one individual instance and documents marked in support of the evidence also has been examined. I thoroughly examined the evidence of all the individual instances and exhibits marked in support of the evidence and I find that the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused. 11. The submission of the appellant's counsel is that the offence under Section 409 I PC and Section 13(1) (c) are one and the same and a person cannot be punished more than once which contravenes Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India. It is a constitutional mandate that no person can be condemned for the same offence more than once. Section 409 I PC contemplates that it is punishable if the public servant who has dishonestly, fraudulently misappropriated the public fund. The same in case of Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. When the offences are one and the same under these two provisions, the question would be, whether the appellant could be punished for the said offence under the two provisions. Here for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. When the offences are one and the same under these two provisions, the question would be, whether the appellant could be punished for the said offence under the two provisions. Here for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default SI for one month and for offence under Section 13(1)(c) sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default SI for six months for offence under Section 13(1)(c) and (d). Since the offence is one and the same attracting Section 409 IPC and Section 13(1)(c) of the PC Act, there cannot be two punishment. 12. In Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal vs. S.K. Roy, reported in (1974) 3 SCR 348 where it was contended that two things are to be established one is, entrustment and secondly, how the property is dealt dishonestly and contrary to terms of obligation created, and when there is no entrustment, obligation to act in a particular manner, would not arise at all. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has held that though money is not paid in the hands of the Superintendent but only he signed the receipts, by reason of his official capacity, he should have correctly shown it in the account books. 13. Accordingly, order of the trial Court stands modified. For both the offences under Section 409 IPC and Section 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the appellant has to undergo RI for 3 years and pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default to undergo SI for six months. With this modification, the judgment and order of the trial Court is confirmed. Appeals are accordingly, disposed of.