JUDGMENT DHARNIDHAR JHA, J. The solitary appellant was tried by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. South Bihar, Patna in Special Case No.04 of 1992 arising out of R.C. Case No.46(A)1991 after being charged with committing offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘P.C. Act’). 2. P.W.6 Lalit Mohan Das was an unemployed graduate. He applied for a loan so as to start a poultry farm. The application (Ext-4/C) was filed before the District Industries Centre, Patna and as appears from the evidence of P.W.10 K.D. Singh, General Manager, District Industries Centre, Patna as also from the evidence of P.W.3 Surya Shekhar Prasad, Manager of the said centre, the application was processed and after interviewing the applicant, P.W.6 Lalit Mohan Das, the project report (Ext-5) was prepared by the District Industries Centre, Patna and was duly forwarded to the Central Bank of India, Yarpur Branch, Patna for favour of considering the project and sanctioning an amount of Rs.15000/- as loan to P.W.6 so that he could self-employ himself. 3. It is not disputed that the application for loan containing copies of matriculation certificate, the certificate regarding P.W.6 having been trained in rearing chicken as also his caste certificate was received by the Yarpur Branch of the Central Bank of India which was headed by the present appellant. On receipt of the application (Ext-1), letter dated 04.11.1991 was issued by the present appellant to P.W.6 Lalit Mohan Das informing him that his application had been received from the District Industries Centre, Patna and that P.W.6 should contact the present appellant for the purposes of processing the same or for other purposes. 4. What appears from the complaint, i.e., Ext-7 filed by Lalit Mohan Das (P.W.6) before the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Patna on 12.12.1991 is that after having been called by Ext-1 to appear before the appellant, he was lastly told that for getting payment of Rs.10,000/- as the first instalment, he had to pay an amount of Rs.500/- as bribe and for the remaining part of first instalment of Rs.15000/-, i.e., Rs.5000/-, the complainant P.W.6 would have to cough up an amount of Rs.1,000/-. It was complained by P.W.6 that he was very clearly told by the present appellant that if he had failed in making payment of the bribe amount of Rs.1500/-, his name was to be deleted from the list of targeted-people and further, if he was desirous of getting the loan, then he should come with the matriculation certificate as also the training certificate in rearing chickens as also his caste certificate. 5. As may appear from the evidence of P.W.13 Daya Ram Singh Yadav, the complaint of P.W. 6 was endorsed to him for verification and as may appear from the evidences both of P.Ws.6 and 13, the contents of the application was verified and the verification report was submitted by P.W.13 to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Patna. The verification report has been marked Ext-15 and it is indicated that as soon as this appellant saw the complainant Lalit Mohan Das in his Chamber, he asked him as to whether he had brought the amount, upon which the complainant stated that he was busy in arranging for the amount and further requested for reducing the amount. 6. It appears that a trap team was formed which consisted of P.W.8 Jaishankar Mishra, P.W.12 Ramchandra Chaudhary as also P.W.13 Daya Ram Singh Yadav, all inspectors of the Central Bureau of Investigation and as may appear from the evidence of P.W.5 Atul Kumar Verma and P.W.7 Kailash Prasad Singh, the two independent persons, they were also associated with the trap team by being called to the office of the C.B.I. and for being requested to assist them as witnesses to the trap proceeding. P.W.5 Atul Kumar Verma and P.W.7 Kailash Prasad Singh would say that they were called to the office of the C.B.I. where they found P.W.6 Lalit Mohan Das, the complainant, already sitting and after being explained the purpose of being called to the office of the C.B.I., the complainant Lalit Mohan Das (P.W.6) produced five currency notes each of Rs.100/- denomination, the details of which were noted down in the pre-trap memorandum (Ext-6/4) which was signed by all of them and they came to the office of the Central Bank of India where the bribe money was demanded by the appellant and the same was paid by handing over to him the five currency notes which were already smeared with phenolphthalein powder. A specific signal was already decided and as soon as the bribe money was paid the signal was given, upon which all the witnesses came into the Chamber of the appellant where he was arrested and on search the amount was recovered from his pant-pocket. A solution of the sodium carbonate was prepared in a glass tumbler and the hand of the appellant was dipped into it which turned the solution of sodium carbonate pink. The seizure list was prepared and the post trap memorandum (Ext-6/A) was prepared. The witnesses have stated that they all signed the pre-trap memorandum and the post trap memorandum. 7. The case was investigated into and after finding materials sufficient, the appellant was sent up for trail. 8. The defence of the appellant was that he had been wrongly framed in the case and in support of his defence, the appellant had examined a witness also. 9. The prosecution charge was supported by 13 witnesses examined by the prosecution during the trial. P.W.1 P.G. Das had given evidence on dispatch of exhibit-1 the letter by the appellant to the complainant (P.W.6) whereas P.W.2 Ram Achal Tripathi had accorded sanction as required under Section 19 of the P.C. Act. P.W.3 Surya Shekhar Prasad was the Manager, District Industries Centre, Patna and he has processed the application and had prepared the project report (Ext-5). P.W.10 K.D. Singh was the General Manager of the District Industries Centre and he had forwarded the application after completing the formalities to the Bank of the present appellant for favour of sanction of amount of Rs.15,000/-. P.W.4 Laxman Prasad Verma was another officer in the District Industries Centre, Patna and he deposed that P.W.6 the complainant had filed an application seeking grant of loan so as to self employing himself by establishing a poultry farm and that application was processed and it was containing all relevant records, like, the matriculation certificates, the required training certificate and the caste certificate. Besides, P.W.4 also stated that he had prepared the project report (Ext-5). I have already noted that P.W.5 Atul Kumar Verma and P.W.7 Kailash Prasad Singh were two independent officials, P.W.5 was Excise Superintendent in Central Excise Department, Patna while P.W.7 Kailash Prasad Singh was the Assistant Manager, F.C.I, Patna and they had been invited to be associated with the trap proceedings. I have already noted that P.W.5 Atul Kumar Verma and P.W.7 Kailash Prasad Singh were two independent officials, P.W.5 was Excise Superintendent in Central Excise Department, Patna while P.W.7 Kailash Prasad Singh was the Assistant Manager, F.C.I, Patna and they had been invited to be associated with the trap proceedings. Both of them have elaborately described the details of the trap proceedings including one during which the money was accepted by the appellant as bribe and the same was recovered from his possession. P.W.6 (Lalit Mohan Das) was the complainant who had applied for grant of loan and I have already noted that P.Ws.8, 12 and 13 were Inspectors of Central Bureau of Investigation. P.W.11 (Sant Kumar Mukhopadhyay) was the Assistant Director of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata and he had analyzed the pink solution which was forwarded to the Laboratory for analysis and stated that the same contained traces of sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein. 10. I was taken through the evidence by the learned Amicus Curiae as also the learned Standing Counsel for Central Bureau of Investigation. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, i.e., Sri Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh, firstly, attempted to impress upon me that the sanction which was granted by P.W.2 (R.A. Tripathi) was not valid inasmuch as he was not the person who was competent to remove the appellant from service. The other argument was that the evidence being very consistent, there may not be any scope so as to interfering with the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, but the court must consider that the occurrence had taken place in February, 1991 in respect of which the judgment was delivered in the year 2000 and now the appeal was being disposed of by the present judgment after 13 years in 2014. Sri Sanidh was, as such, submitting that considering that the appellant is of ripe age, the Court should show some leniency in reducing the sentence already awarded to him. 11. After having heard both the parties, what appears is that the appellant is now interested only in reduction of sentence of imprisonment which was awarded to him, besides he has challenged the judgment as of no jurisdiction on account of an invalid sanction order passed by P.W.2. 12. 11. After having heard both the parties, what appears is that the appellant is now interested only in reduction of sentence of imprisonment which was awarded to him, besides he has challenged the judgment as of no jurisdiction on account of an invalid sanction order passed by P.W.2. 12. In order to appreciating the submission advanced by Sri Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh, the learned Amicus Curiae, one has only to refer to Section 19 of the P.C. Act. It is true that a public servant who is either removed by the Central Government or the State Government could be prosecuted only when the sanction order has been passed either by the Central Government or the State Government, but what further appears from reading of the provision especially, Sub-section (2) of section 19 P.C. Act is that the authority who had granted sanction may not be the competent authority either to appoint the public servant or to remove him from his service, but if he is competent on account of being vested with the powers of granting sanction by any organization other than the Central Government or the State Government, then in that case the issue of the person being the appointing authority looses its importance. If the authority was posted in the office of any organization, like, the Central Bank of India which was merely a body corporate under the Central Government was the competent authority to grant sanction order, then in that case it may not be acceptable to the court that the sanction order was not valid. While I was perusing the evidence of P.W.2 ((R.A. Tripathi) I found that not even a suggestion was given to him that he was not the competent authority as per Section 19(2) of the P.C. Act to grant sanction for prosecuting the appellant. The record shows that P.W.2 was the competent authority empowered to grant sanction and as appears from Ext-2, the sanction order, he had applied his mind to the facts of the case fully after perusing each and every material made available to him and had passed the order thereafter. The order appears passed after full application of mind and does not suffer from any illegality. In that view, the order for sanctioning the prosecution of the appellant appears valid. 13. The order appears passed after full application of mind and does not suffer from any illegality. In that view, the order for sanctioning the prosecution of the appellant appears valid. 13. It stands concluded from the evidence of P.W.3 (Surya Shekhar Prasad), Manager, District Industries Centre, Patna, P.W.4 (Laxman Prasad Verma) another officer of the same industries centre as also P.W.10 K.D. Singh, General Manager, District Industries Centre that P.W.6 (Lalit Mohan Das) had applied for getting loan for establishing a poultry farm on account of being an unemployed youth. He had filed his application (Ext-4) and that was carrying with it, the copies of all certificates, like, the matriculation certificate, the caste certificate as also the certificate showing that he was fully trained in rearing chicken. The project report was prepared by P.W.4 (Laxman Prasad Verma) who was the Manager (Credit), District Industries Centre, Patna and after interviewing P.W.6, as may appear from the evidence of P.W.10 K.D. Singh, the proposal was approved and the case of P.W.6 for being sanctioned Rs.15000/- was forwarded to the Central Bank of India, Yarpur Branch, Patna. The receipt of the application was acknowledged by the appellant by issuing Ext-1, letter dated 04.11.1991 and it appears that in spite of all the annexures being attached to the application of P.W.6, the appellant was raising an invalid objection when he was requiring P.W. 6 to produce those documents again before him so as to dilly-dallying with the proposal for sanction of loan as appears from the evidence of P.W.6 He was asking him to pay a bribe of Rs.1500/- in two installments on the ground that his matriculation certificate and the certificate showing that P.W.6 was trained in rearing chicken as also his caste certificate were not attached and annexed to the application. On a bare perusal of the application form what appears is that Ext-3, the matriculation certificate of P.W.6 was already attached and annexed to the application form. Not only that his caste certificate as also his residential certificate were duly annexed to the petition as appears from Exts-10/A and 10/B. In spite of these annexures, the appellant was requiring the complainant (P.W.6) to produce the document. Not only that his caste certificate as also his residential certificate were duly annexed to the petition as appears from Exts-10/A and 10/B. In spite of these annexures, the appellant was requiring the complainant (P.W.6) to produce the document. Those documents were already lying in custody of the appellant which appears from the fact that after the trap proceeding was over and the bribe money had been recovered from the possession of the appellant, search of the Chamber of his office was made in presence of the witnesses as may appear from the evidence of P.W.9 Deo Kumar Pandey one of the witnesses to the search proceeding. The application form along with all its annexures was recovered from the drawer of the present appellant and those were duly seized by preparing the seizure list (Ext4/C). Thus, the circumstance of withholding the documents and still asking for production of the documents by the appellant itself indicates the mens rea of the appellant as regards his attempt in demanding and receiving the bribe. 14. The evidence of trap witnesses, like, Atul Kumar Verma (P.W.5), Excise Superintendent, Central Excise, Patna and P.W.7 (Kailash Prasad Singh), Assistant Manager, F.C.I. vividly point out that they had gone with the trap party, i.e., P.Ws.8, 12 and 13 to the Central Bank of India after making pre-trap memorandum in his presence by noting down the details of the five currency notes each of Rs.100/- denomination and as soon as the bribe money had been received by the appellant on being demanded by him, a signal was given by P.W.13 (Daya Ram Singh Yadav) upon which they went into the Chamber of the appellant where the search of his person was made and the money was recovered. The hand of the appellant was dipped into the solution of sodium carbonate and the solution turned pink showing that the currency notes were already smeared with phenolphthalein powder. The bribe was demanded and the same was paid and similarly was recovered appears established duly from the evidence of these witnesses, like, P.Ws.5, 7, 12 and 13. Independent persons who were holding responsible offices, like, P.Ws.5 and 7 were persons who did not have any axe to grind against the appellant and they were probably acting under the spirit of serving the society by associating themselves with the trap proceeding. Independent persons who were holding responsible offices, like, P.Ws.5 and 7 were persons who did not have any axe to grind against the appellant and they were probably acting under the spirit of serving the society by associating themselves with the trap proceeding. The evidence of these witnesses clearly indicated that the appellant had indeed demanded and receiving bribe for discharging the function of the public servant which was enjoined upon him by the rules of business transaction of the Bank he was heading as its Branch Manager. 15. Now, on the evidence which I had a glance of, I am of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant for offences under Section 7 and 13(2) of P.C. Act could not be said to be unjustified and perverse. 16. The learned Amicus Curiae has pleaded for leniency from this Court as regards the substantive sentence awarded to this appellant. The appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment of three years on each of the two counts as also to pay a fine of Rs.2500/- on each of the counts and in case of having defaulted in making payment of fine, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months on each of the two counts. I want to point out that corruption appears as one trend of the society which has assumed almost monstrous proportions and there may not be any establishment either of the Government or of any corporate body which could be free from the vice of corruption. Corruption is known to retard the development as also to humiliate the person who makes round of offices for getting his work done by the officer of the State or its corporation. Here in the present case, an unemployed youth was being pestered for paying an amount of Rs.1500/- in two installments so as to getting released an amount of Rs.15000/- in two installments. In spite of all the documents having been annexed to the application which was found fit by the District Industries Centre, Patna, the appellant was sitting tight over the application and had invented the illegal ploy that the complainant (P.W.6) had not annexed with his petition his matriculation certification, the certificate of having been trained in rearing chickens and also his caste certificates. The Court had already revert to the evidence of P.W.9 ((Deo Kumar Pandey) as also to that of witnesses, like, P.Ws.3, 5 and 10 who had found all required documents annexed to the application of P.W. 6 and had forwarded the application to the Central Bank of India for favour of granting the loan of Rs.15000/-. Unemployment is a curse and a youth who had not been successful in getting employment under the State, was being humiliated by being asked to cough up another amount of Rs.1500/- so as to getting the two installments of his loan amount. The act of the appellant, who was the Branch Manager of the Central Bank of India, Yarpur Branch, Patna was so disturbing and humiliating as regards an unemployed youth that the sentences which was inflicted upon him does not appear excessive. 17. In the result, the appeal appears devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond is hereby cancelled. Let him surrender in the court below to serve out the remaining part of the sentence passed against him. 18. Sri Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh has assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae and the Court desires that he be paid one fee of hearing by the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee and for that purpose let a copy of the first and last pages of this judgment be made over to Sri Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh, an Advocate of this Court appearing in this matter as Amicus Curiae. Appeal dismissed.