JUDGMENT : P.N. Deshmukh, J. 1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 30th of January, 2006 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 04 of 2002 by the Special Judge, Akola, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer S.I. for three months and also convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 3(1)(D) punishable under Section 13(2) of the said Act and sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for six months. In brief, case of prosecution can be stated as under- 2. In the year 2001, appellant/accused was posted as Police Constable, City Kotwali Police Station, Akola. Crime No. 214 of 2001 was registered with said Police Station against one Kailash Shirsat for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was investigated by the appellant wherein during the course of investigation it revealed that forged appointment orders were prepared by Kailash Shirsat, accused therein, with the assistance of Bakulesh Awandekar, who is complainant in the present appeal, at his computer Center. In that background, PW 1 Bakulesh was called by the appellant in the Police Station on 28th of October, 2001 for the purpose of investigation and was thereafter repeatedly called till 1st of November, 2001 during which period, through P.H.C. Mangesh Wath, appellant demanded amount of Rs. 50,000/- to hush up the matter against complainant Bakulesh. However, complainant expressed his inability to make the payment. On 14th of November, 2001 two constables again contacted complainant and by bringing him in the Police Station, he was threatened to array him as accused in that crime if he does not satisfy above demand. As complainant was unable to make said payment, the amount was ultimately negotiated to Rs. 10,000/- of which first installment of Rs. 5000/- was agreed to be paid and accepted on the following day i.e. on 15th of November, 2001. However, since complainant could not arrange said amount on that day he agreed to make said payment on 17th of November, 2001 and on the same day attended the office of Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged his report (Exh. 5000/- was agreed to be paid and accepted on the following day i.e. on 15th of November, 2001. However, since complainant could not arrange said amount on that day he agreed to make said payment on 17th of November, 2001 and on the same day attended the office of Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged his report (Exh. 10) which was recorded by PW 4 Y.D. Patil, Dy. S.P., A.C.B., Akola and investigated the same. It is further case of prosecution that the Investigating Officer then arranged for two panch witnesses. Complainant as well as both the panchas were given demonstration of effect of chemical reaction of Phenolphthalein powder and Sodium Carbonate solution from which they learnt that when the powder comes into contact of solution of Sodium Carbonate, solution turns purple. The Phenolphthalein powder was then applied on the currency notes of Rs. 5000/- produced by complainant, consisting of nine notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/- each and five notes in the denomination of Rs. 100/- each and said notes were kept in the right side pant pocket of complainant with instructions to not to pay unless demanded and also was instructed to give signal by pulling right hand sleeve of his shirt. PW 2 Pralhad, who acted as first panch witness was instructed to remain with complainant and to observe the conversation whatsoever may take place between the complainant and appellant, while co-panch was instructed to remain with the raiding team. Pre-trap panchanama of all these facts was drawn and trap came to be laid at City Kotwali Police Station Akola. 3. It is further case of prosecution that as per the instructions given by Investigating Officer, they went to Police Station where appellant enquired about amount when the complainant took out the bribe money from his pant pocket and tendered it to appellant which he accepted by his right hand and kept in the pocket of his T-shirt. Immediately, complainant gave proposed signal, upon which members of raiding team came on the spot and apprehended appellant. The bribe amount of Rs. 5000/- was recovered from the pocket of appellant upon which solution of sodium carbonate was sprinkled when red colour dots were found on the currency notes. Similarly, right hand fingers of the appellant and pocket of his T-shirt were tested under the freshly prepared solution of Sodium Carbonate, independently, when it turned into purple colour. The bribe amount of Rs. 5000/- was recovered from the pocket of appellant upon which solution of sodium carbonate was sprinkled when red colour dots were found on the currency notes. Similarly, right hand fingers of the appellant and pocket of his T-shirt were tested under the freshly prepared solution of Sodium Carbonate, independently, when it turned into purple colour. When right hand fingers of complainant as well as his pant pocket were further tested under the solution of Sodium Carbonate solution turned purple. Accordingly, post-trap panchanama was drawn as per Exh. 19 on the spot. 4. PW 4 Y.D. Patil, Investigating Officer, thereafter seized documents pertaining to crime registered against Kailash Shirsat and during course of investigation entered into correspondence for obtaining sanction to prosecute the appellant and on receipt of same charge-sheet came to be filed in the court of Special Judge at Akola. 5. Charges came to be framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of appellant is of total denial and of false implication. It is the case of appellant that the amount was demanded by one PSI Sonone, of which recovery was to be effected in the crime registered against Kailash Shirsat, as said amount was paid to PW 1 Bakulesh by Kailash Shirsat and that, at the time of incident, said amount was thrusted in the hand of appellant by complainant Bakulesh when P.I. Sonone was not present in the Police Station. 6. The learned Trial Court considering the evidence and documents on record convicted the appellant as aforesaid, hence this appeal. 7. Heard Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 8. To effectively evaluate the submissions advanced by learned Advocates for both the sides, with their assistance, I have scrutinized the evidence on record. 9. PW 1 Bakulesh, complainant, has stated that at the time of incident he was staying at Shivaji Nagar, Akola and was running 'Padmashree Computer Centre' in old city at Akola where he was also doing job work of preparing greetings, invitation cards etc. During that period he came in contact with Kailash Shirsat who was providing him work of type setting. During that period he came in contact with Kailash Shirsat who was providing him work of type setting. On 28/10/2001, in the after-noon, four persons in civil dress arrived at his computer Centre and directed complainant to accompany them to Police Station, City Kotwali, Akola. Complainant accordingly joined them and found that Kailash Shirsat was already present in the Police Station along with one computer which was asked to be opened by the complainant as Kailash had stated to Police that he has got certain orders of employment printed on that computer. Complainant further stated that thereafter on the following day he was again called in the Police Station on which day Police constable Mangesh demanded him bribe of Rs. 50,000/- to hush up the matter. However, complainant expressed his inability to make payment, which was then reduced to Rs. 25000/- by P.C. Mangesh for which again complainant expressed his inability. In spite of that, demand of said amount was repeated till 1st of November, 2001. 10. Complainant Bakulesh further stated that on 2nd November, 2001 P.C. Mangesh along with one other constable had called him in the Police Station, however, he did not go. On 14th of November, 2001 P.C. Mangesh with one constable contacted the complainant in the afternoon and informed that he was called in the Police Station. Accordingly, complainant visited to the Police Station where appellant was present and asked him as to why complainant was not visiting the Police Station. Appellant then directed P.C. Mangesh to persuade him when P.C. Mangesh brought complainant out of Police Station and asked how much amount would be paid by complainant and further said that at least amount of Rs. 10,000/- should be paid which was ultimately negotiated to Rs. 5000/- and was agreed to be paid and accepted on the following day i.e. on 15th of November, 2001 assuring complainant that on making said payment he will be cited as witness in the case registered against Kailash Shirsat, but on his failure, he would be arrayed as co-accused. 11. Complainant further stated that as he could not arrange for Rs. 5000/- on 15th of November, 2001, he visited Police Station and on contacting appellant informed that he would make payment of said amount on 17th of November, 2001 and on that day visited Anti Corruption Bureau office and lodged his report vide Exh. 10. 12. 11. Complainant further stated that as he could not arrange for Rs. 5000/- on 15th of November, 2001, he visited Police Station and on contacting appellant informed that he would make payment of said amount on 17th of November, 2001 and on that day visited Anti Corruption Bureau office and lodged his report vide Exh. 10. 12. Complainant further stated about his introduction to panch PW 2 Pralhad, who has acted as first panch, who got the contents of complaint verified from the him and has further stated about demonstration given to him and panchas in the office of Anti Corruption Bureau, upon which they learnt about the chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with solution of Sodium Carbonate. Complainant further stated about instructions given to him by the officials of Anti Corruption Bureau to not to touch the currency notes to which phenolphthalein powder was applied, till demanded and to keep the same in his pant pocket, and on payment of bribe to give signal by pulling right hand sleeve of his shirt. According to his further evidence, PW 2 was instructed to act as first panch and to remain with him and to observe conversation whatsoever may take place between him and the appellant. 13. On the point of incident, complainant stated that he along with PW 2 Pralhad went to city Kotwali Police Station, however, appellant was not present and therefore he enquired about appellant from 2 - 3 Police Constables, who were present in the Police Station, who informed complainant to wait. Accordingly, complainant waited till arrival of the appellant. After arrival of appellant in the Police Station, he called complainant near one temple situated within the Police Station premises and asked if complainant has brought the amount and demanded the same, upon which the complainant took out the amount by his right hand and paid to appellant. Appellant took the same and kept in the pocket of his T-shirt and enquired as to when further installment of Rs. 5000/- would be paid, upon which complainant stated that whatever paid was sufficient and he will not pay any balance amount and informed appellant not to call him to Police Station to which appellant agreed and informed complainant that he will have to attend the court after one and half year. 5000/- would be paid, upon which complainant stated that whatever paid was sufficient and he will not pay any balance amount and informed appellant not to call him to Police Station to which appellant agreed and informed complainant that he will have to attend the court after one and half year. Thereafter, he along with panch came till the gate of the Police Station and from there gave the proposed signal, upon which members of raiding team arrived and apprehended appellant near the Hanuman temple. 14. Complainant thereafter stated that after some time he was called by the Police when fingers of his right hand and pant pocket were independently tested in the solution of Sodium Carbonate, which turned purple. 15. Before considering the cross-examination of complainant, from his evidence as aforesaid it is material to note that even for the first time when complainant was called in the Police Station it was not the appellant who had at any time visited the Computer Center of Police Station but on 28th of October, 2001, in the after-noon, four persons in civil dress had contacted complainant and directed him to come to City Kotwali Police Station. Accordingly, complainant went to the Police where appellant was present along with Kailash Shirsat. He further stated about Police registering crime against Kailash Shirsat alleging that at the complainant's Computer Center, Kailash had got printed certain orders pertaining to some employments and on this ground detained the complainant and was further called on the alternate day and thereafter was called repeatedly saying that he was involved into commission of crime along with Kailash. From the complainant's evidence it has further come on record that during his visit to Police Station City Kotwali, one P.C. Mangesh asked him to pay Rs. 50,000/- to hush up the matter for which he expressed his inability and thus Police constable Mangesh reduced said demand to Rs. 25000/- for which again complainant expressed his inability to pay, however, he was insisted to make said payment till 1st of November, 2001. 16. According to complainant, again on 14th of November, 2001 Police Constable Mangesh with one more Police Constable contacted him and said that he was called by the appellant, therefore, complainant went to the Police Station when appellant informed complainant as to why he was avoiding to come to Police Station and thereafter asked P.C. Mangesh to persuade him. 17. 16. According to complainant, again on 14th of November, 2001 Police Constable Mangesh with one more Police Constable contacted him and said that he was called by the appellant, therefore, complainant went to the Police Station when appellant informed complainant as to why he was avoiding to come to Police Station and thereafter asked P.C. Mangesh to persuade him. 17. Pausing here and giving considered thought to above evidence, it appears that till this day there is absolutely no demand made by appellant nor appellant on any occasion had visited the Computer Center of complainant. From the above discussed evidence, complainant appears to have contacted appellant firstly on 28th of October, 2001 when appellant informed complainant about registration of crime against Kailash Shirsat, and thereafter, on 14th of November, 2001 on which day appellant appears to have enquired from the complainant as to why he was not visiting Police Station and then asked Police Constable Mangesh to persuade him. In that view of the matter, nothing could be brought on record to establish involvement of appellant with reference to any demand. Though complainant has stated that appellant directed P.C. Mangesh to persuade him, this evidence is not clear as to on what ground appellant wanted pursuation of complainant to be done by P.C. Mangesh. But when this evidence is read in the context with the evidence to the effect that the appellant enquired complainant as to why he was not visiting the Police Station, it can be said that appellant wanted P.C. Mangesh to persuade the complainant to cooperate him in the investigation in the crime registered against Kailash Shirsat and nothing more. 18. From further evidence of complainant it has again come on record that on that day when appellant asked Police Constable Mangesh to persuade the complainant, said Police Constable took complainant in the adjoining room and asked to pay the amount and has also made enquiry with complainant as to what extent he can pay the amount, further saying that complainant should, at least, pay Rs. 10,000/- when complainant agreed to make payment of Rs. 5000/- on the next day. 19. 10,000/- when complainant agreed to make payment of Rs. 5000/- on the next day. 19. In the background of above evidence of complainant, there is absolutely no explanation put forth by prosecution on record as to what prevented the Investigating Agency to not to investigate present crime from this point of view wherein complainant in clear terms had stated that amount of Rs. 50,000/- was demanded by P.C. Manesh who was repeatedly visiting the complainant's Computer Center along with other Police Constables and had, in fact, negotiated said amount from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 25000/- and further to Rs. 10,000/- out of which first installment of Rs. 5000/- was agreed to be paid on the date of incident on 17th of November, 2001. 20. In the background of above discussed evidence and for the reasons as aforesaid when the cross-examination of complainant is perused, in clear terms he has admitted that he has lodged his report against the appellant as well as Police Constable Mangesh, who has demanded bribe to him in the Police Station campus. It is further noted from his cross-examination that Departmental Enquiry was initiated against P.C. Mangesh and Police Constable Babbu @ Yadav wherein complainant Bakulesh was called on 11th of September, 2002. Complainant has admitted that said Departmental Enquiry against these two Police Constables was initiated for their involvement in demand of bribe to him and as they prevented PW 2 Pralhad Naik, who acted as panch No. 1, from accompanying the complainant at the time of incident but to wait at the bus stop. Complainant admitted that on the day of incident on 17th of November, 2001, when he along with PW 2 Pralhad was to proceed to Police Station, Pralhad, panch No. 1, was asked by Police Constable Ayyaz to stop at the gate of Police Station and has further admitted that he has not given any information of this fact to PW 4 Y.D. Patil, Investigating Officer, about detention of Pralhad at the gate of Police Station by Police Constable Ayyaz. 21. In the background of admission, as referred above, from the evidence of complainant Bakulesh, it transpires that complainant was called by Police for enquiry in a case registered against Kailesh Shirsat and to exonerate complainant from this case, Police Constable Mangesh had demanded bribe from complainant for paying it to the appellant. 21. In the background of admission, as referred above, from the evidence of complainant Bakulesh, it transpires that complainant was called by Police for enquiry in a case registered against Kailesh Shirsat and to exonerate complainant from this case, Police Constable Mangesh had demanded bribe from complainant for paying it to the appellant. In view of evidence of this witness also, it is noted that in spite of involvement of Mangesh in the present case, no steps are taken to investigate the present crime against him though from the evidence of complainant Bakulesh it appears that some departmental enquiry was initiated against Police Constable Mangesh and Police constable Ayyaz. In view of said evidence of initiation of Departmental Enquiry for above reason, thus it appears that said enquiry was necessary to be contemplated as Police Constable Ayyaz on the date of incident of trap had detained PW 2 Pralhad Naik at the gate of Police Station. In that view of the matter, the case of prosecution is further doubtful if at the time of incident complainant was accompanied by the independent witness Pralhad. Had PW 2 Pralhad would not have been detained by Police constable Ayyaz, there was no reason to initiate departmental proceedings against him as well as P.C. Mangesh. Fact of said Departmental Enquiry being initiated against these two Police Constables thus established that since they detained PW 2 Pralhad, who accompanied complainant, said proceedings came to be initiated against them. 22. Above evidence, therefore, raises doubt in the case of prosecution that PW 2 Pralhad was accompanying complainant at the time of incident of trap when actual demand and acceptance is alleged to have taken place. 23. In the background of above facts though case of prosecution, as stated aforesaid, is doubtful with reference to presence of PW 2 Pralhad at the time of incident, when evidence of PW 2 Pralhad on this aspect is considered, he has stated that he along with complainant proceeded to City Kotwali Police Station, Akola where they did not find appellant present but the constables, who were present, asked them to wait. While they were waiting, two constables came there out of which one constable telephoned appellant on his mobile hand set, however, he could not contact appellant, who shortly arrived in the Police Station on his motor cycle and was pointed by complainant to be the same person. While they were waiting, two constables came there out of which one constable telephoned appellant on his mobile hand set, however, he could not contact appellant, who shortly arrived in the Police Station on his motor cycle and was pointed by complainant to be the same person. Then appellant along with two constables went inside the Police Station. After some time one constable came out and called complainant in the Police Station. Accordingly, complainant started going inside the Police Station and when PW 2 Pralhd started following complainant, he was asked to wait outside, though he has further stated that he proceeded further. This evidence of Pralhad thus, also creates doubt about his presence with the complainant when the incident took place, which doubt is further substantiated as already stated earlier as according to evidence of complainant Departmental Enquiry was initiated against P.C. Mangesh and P.C. Ayyaz Yadav for detaining PW 2 Pralhad from being accompanied by complainant. In view of above stated evidence, while further evidence of this witness PW 2 Pralhad is perused, he has stated that thereafter appellant went to back side of Hanuman temple to which he along with complainant followed where appellant is stated to have enquired about the amount, upon which complainant took out the bribe amount by his right hand from his pant pocket and paid to appellant. On plain reading of this evidence, there appears no demand on the part of appellant as what has come on record is that on appellant's enquiring about the amount, complainant took out the same from his pocket and paid it to the appellant. 24. In view of above evidence, the case of prosecution does not inspire confidence establishing charge levelled against the appellant as evidence on the material aspects of the case on the point of demand and acceptance is doubtful and even on the count if PW 2 Pralhad was accompanying complainant, since according to his own admission one Police Constable had detained him from entering into Police Station along with complainant and, as from the above discussed evidence, Departmental proceedings were initiated against two constables on this count. 25. Evidence of PW 2 Pralhad further creates doubt in the case of prosecution as according to its case the alleged trap came to be laid on 17th of January, 2001 based on report (Exh. 25. Evidence of PW 2 Pralhad further creates doubt in the case of prosecution as according to its case the alleged trap came to be laid on 17th of January, 2001 based on report (Exh. 10) lodged by complainant on the same day and post trap panchanama (Exh. 14) and post trap panchanama (Exh. 19) are accordingly drawn by PW 4 Y.D. Patil, Investigating Officer. In that view of the matter, PW 2 Pralhad in his cross-examination has admitted that on 19th of November, 2001 he was called in the office of Anti Corruption Bureau where he was present from 10.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. and on that day his signatures were obtained on all the panchanamas and memos including post-trap panchanama (Exh. 19). This admission on the part of this independent witness is fatal to the case of prosecution. Further, with reference to Departmental Enquiry proceedings initiated against P.C. Mangesh and P.C. Ayyaz, PW 2 Pralhad has admitted that after the incident involved in this appeal, on 11th of September, 2002 he was called as witness in the Departmental Enquiry initiated against these constables and has admitted that in this enquiry Police Constable Ayyaz was charged for detaining him at S.T. bus shed. In view of his admission, as stated above, I find much substance when it is suggested to PW 2 Pralhad that he is deposing falsely that he accompanied complainant to Police Station and that in his presence appellant demanded and accepted the amount though this suggestion is denied by him. Moreover, PW 4 Y.D. Patil, I.O., has also admitted that during the course of investigation it revealed to him that Police constable Ayyaz tried to detain PW 2 Pralhad and this fact was informed to him by PW 2 Pralhad. In the background of above evidence, on record, same do not inspire confidence in the case of prosecution. 26. It is further to be noted that even case of prosecution, as reveals from the evidence of PW 2 Pralhad, first panch, PW 4 Patil, Investigating Officer as well as from the contents of Exh. In the background of above evidence, on record, same do not inspire confidence in the case of prosecution. 26. It is further to be noted that even case of prosecution, as reveals from the evidence of PW 2 Pralhad, first panch, PW 4 Patil, Investigating Officer as well as from the contents of Exh. 19, post trap panchanama, on the aspects of testing of bribe amount, allegedly recovered from the T-shirt pocket of appellant, right hand fingers of appellant, his T-shirt pocket as well as testing of right hand fingers of complainant and testing of his right side pant pocket, which according to prosecution tested positive when tested with the solution of sodium Carbonate, do not inspire confidence as according to requisition letter sent to Chemical Analyzer what is sent is solution in which fingers of appellant are tested along with solution wherein T-shirt pocket of appellant is tested and solution in which right hand fingers of complainant as well as his right side pant pocket is tested. Except for this, nothing more is sent for analysis to C.A., particularly bribe money consisting nine notes of Rs. 500/- each in denomination nor five notes of Rs. 100/- each in denomination, though according to the case of prosecution sodium carbonate solution was sprinkled upon these notes upon which red-colour dots had appeared. This material piece of evidence is withheld by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it nor any explanation is put forth on this aspect of the case. 27. Another point which finds material to be considered is about placement of appellant under suspension by PW 3 Deven Bharati, who on the date of incident was posted as District Superintendent of Police at Akola and as such was competent to appoint and to remove appellant from his post of Head Constable. PW 3 Deven Bharti has admitted that he has placed appellant under suspension on the day of trap itself and has expressed his inability to state if the suspension order of appellant was served upon him on the same day by 19.00 hrs. and has further expressed his inability to state if no crime was registered against the appellant till he was placed under suspension. and has further expressed his inability to state if no crime was registered against the appellant till he was placed under suspension. In view of evidence as stated above, when the evidence of Defence witness Purushottam, P.C.B. No. 1266, is perused, it establishes that on 17th of November, 2002 when he was working as Dispatcher in City Kotwali Police Station, on that day he had served suspension order on appellant as directed by P.I. Sonone to him and the same was served at 19.00 hrs., which is on record at Exh. 51. Above evidence goes unchallenged and as such it is established that on the day of trap appellant came to be suspended on the same day from 19.00 hrs., while according to the evidence of PW 4 Patil, I.O., it has come on record that crime against the appellant was registered in the night at 11.00 hrs. It thus appears that appellant was placed under suspension even prior to registration of crime against him for which no explanation is on record and evidence of PW 4 I.O. thus do not inspire confidence when he has stated that order of putting appellant under suspension was served on him after registration of crime which was registered in his presence at City Kotwali Police Station at 11.00 pm. In that view of the matter, there appears much substance when it is suggested to Investigating Officer that for this reason he intentionally avoided to file the copy of suspension order on record since same was served upon appellant having mentioned therein crime Number, at 7.00 p.m. itself though the crime was registered at 11.00 p.m. on that day. 28. Another aspect which needs consideration is with regard to sanction (Exh. 22) accorded by PW 3 Mr. Deven Bharati, particularly with reference to the evidence of complainant when he has admitted that complaint was lodged by him against appellant as well as against P.C. Mangesh and in view of further evidence of complainant and of PW 2 Pralhad that departmental enquiry proceedings were initiated against P.C. Mangesh and P.C. Ayyaz Yadav with reference to demand of amount and on the count that P.C. Ayyaz Yadav had detained PW 2 Pralhad at the bus stop on the date of incident. In the light of their evidence, as stated aforesaid, PW 3 Deven Bharti, D.C.P. has admitted that on his direction Departmental Enquiry was initiated against P.C. Mangesh Wath and P.C. Ayyaz Yadav, after 8 to 10 days of the incident and he has admitted that while considering the grant of sanction Exh. 22, he is unable to state what documents were placed before him for consideration and has further admitted that he has even not called for record in respect of crime registered against Kailash Shirsat. In view of evidence of PW 3 Deven Bharti, even it appears that sanction accorded for prosecution is without application of mind. 29. By now, it is well settle that it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the Sanctioning Authority after it was satisfied that the case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. The Authority based on the facts placed before it has to be satisfied and then has to arrive to its conclusion whether case is made out for grant of sanction or not. In the instant case, it appears that the Sanctioning Authority presuming that appellant must have posed complainant to do his work, accorded sanction and therefore, the case since appears to have been instituted without proper sanction, it must fail as this is a manifest defect in the case of prosecution thereby rendering entire proceedings into void ab initio. It is to be noted that the court has to see whether or not the Sanctioning Authority was aware of the facts constituting the offence and applied its mind for the same. The evidence of PW 3 Deven Bharati, coupled with documents on record do not establish that there was sufficient reason for grant of sanction. In that view of the matter, prosecution case fails on this count also. Having considering above aspects as involved in the present case and for the reasons stated herein above, since evidence of complainant do not have corroboration from the evidence of PW 2 Pralhad, as his presence at the time of spot itself is doubtful and for want of satisfactory explanation on the part of prosecution, for not taking any action against P.C. Mangesh though according to complainant he has also named P.C. Mangesh in his report, the prosecution cannot be said to have established its case beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary, case of prosecution of his false implication is more probable to be relied upon. In that view of the matter, I find this to be the fit case where appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. Hence, the following order. The Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed in Special Case No. 4 of 2002 passed by Special Judge, Akola convicting appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer S.I. for three months and for the offence under Section 13(1)(D)punishable under Section 13(2) of the said Act and sentencing to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer R.I. for six months, is quashed and set aside. Bail bonds of appellant stands cancelled. Fine amount, if any paid by the appellant, be returned to him.