JUDGMENT : S.B. Shukre, J. 1. Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment, as they arise out of the same judgment and order finding them guilty of the offences relating to bribery committed in the same crime. 2. The appeal Nos. 665/2006 and 667/2006 are preferred by Dr. Govind Narayan Vaidya (original accused No. 1) and Charandas alias Ashok son of Nagorao Dupare (original accused No. 2). These appellants hereinafter shall be referred to as accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 respectively. These appeals challenge the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 7.11.2006 convicting and sentencing the accused Nos. 1 and 2 with term imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each together with default sentence, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the "PC Act"), rendered in Special Case No. 8 of 2002 by Judge, Special Court, Nagpur. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are as under: In June 2000, the accused No. 1 was working as a Superintendent, in Regional Mental Hospital, Nagpur. It has been alleged that the accused No. 1 with the help of accused No. 2, a private person, who was running a cycle stand at Mental Hospital, Nagpur as a contractor, demanded and accepted an amount of Rs. 3,000/- from the complainant, Raju Damodar Ladkar, by way of bribe and pecuniary advantage for doing official work of issuing fitness certificate to one Harish Pujari, brother-in-law of the complainant. It has been alleged that Harish Pujari was working as a Peon in Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur and was removed from service due to his frequent absenteeism and wayward behaviour. The complainant was a worried person and looking for some solution to the difficulty being faced by his brother-in-law after his removal from service. On 20th June, 2000, he had taken his brother in law to the Mental Hospital and upon examination, the brother-in-law was prescribed some medicines. When this fact was discussed by the complainant with his neighbour, his neighbour suggested to him to obtain fitness certificate from the Mental Hospital and he also told that if such a certificate could be procured by him, there was a possibility that his brother-in-law would be reinstated in service by High Court. When this fact was discussed by the complainant with his neighbour, his neighbour suggested to him to obtain fitness certificate from the Mental Hospital and he also told that if such a certificate could be procured by him, there was a possibility that his brother-in-law would be reinstated in service by High Court. Therefore, the complainant visited the Mental Hospital on 23.6.2000 and made an inquiry in that direction. Accused No. 2 Charandas alias Ashok Dupare, a cycle stand contractor, was contacted by the complainant. The cycle contractor (accused No. 2) expressed his willingness to help the complainant and his brother-in-law in the matter. He told the complainant that a fitness certificate could be obtained from the accused No. 1, if he was paid a bribe of Rs. 3,000/-. He also told that unless bribe amount was paid to the accused No. 1, no certificate would be issued. The complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount but he did not say it so to accused No. 2 and instead told him that if some time was given, he would be able to arrange for amount of Rs. 3,000/-. The accused No. 2 gave him time till next Monday. The complainant, on the next day, visited the Anti Corruption Bureau Office and lodged a complaint against this appellant and accused No. 2. A trap for catching the accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 red-handed was arranged to be set up on 26.6.2000 and necessary arrangements were made. However, on 26.6.2000, as no bribe amount was paid to either of the accused and fitness certificate was also not issued, the complainant and the members of the raiding party returned to A.C.B. Office without any success. On 26.6.2000, the complainant had been told by the accused No. 1 and the other accused to approach them a few days later for obtaining the fitness certificate. Therefore, a supplementary complaint was given and the date of laying the trap was rescheduled to 3.7.2000. On 3.7.2000, it has been alleged, amount of Rs. 3,000/- was paid and received by accused No. 2 on behalf of accused No. 1 after the complainant was asked by the accused No. 1 to handover the amount to accused No. 2. This amount was recovered from the possession of accused No. 2. Necessary panchanamas were drawn out. A formal complaint was lodged. 3,000/- was paid and received by accused No. 2 on behalf of accused No. 1 after the complainant was asked by the accused No. 1 to handover the amount to accused No. 2. This amount was recovered from the possession of accused No. 2. Necessary panchanamas were drawn out. A formal complaint was lodged. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against both the accused. On merits of the case, learned Special Judge found the accused No. 1 as well as accused No. 2 as guilty of the offences with which they were charged and convicted and sentenced them for the offences in the manner stated earlier by the judgment and order delivered on 7.11.2006. It is the same judgment and order which have been challenged in these two appeals. 4. I have heard Shri P.M. Gaikwad and Shri R.M. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively and Shri S.D. Sirpurkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Learned counsel for both the accused submit that the evidence of prosecution is sketchy, discrepant and inconsistent creating a doubt about reliability of prosecution case and that even sanction given for prosecution of accused No. 1 is invalid. This is disputed by learned A.P.P. who supports the judgment. 5. In the light of these rival arguments, I have gone through the entire record of the case including the judgment and order and find that there is great substance in the argument of learned counsel for both accused and no merit in the submissions of the learned A.P.P. 6. It is seen from the impugned judgment and order that the learned Special Judge has not taken into consideration at all the validity or otherwise of the sanction given for prosecution of the accused No. 1 by the State Government of Maharashtra. The impugned judgment and order, in fact, do not show that any point regarding validity or otherwise of the sanction accorded by the State Government for prosecution of the accused No. 1 was framed. The impugned judgment and order, in fact, do not show that any point regarding validity or otherwise of the sanction accorded by the State Government for prosecution of the accused No. 1 was framed. Framing of such a point was essential as the sanction order vide Exh.24 did not disclose as to who had actually examined the material placed on record, what kind of material was placed on record and who had in reality applied mind to the material placed on record in order to arrive at subjective satisfaction that there was prima facie case made out for according sanction for prosecution of the accused No. 1. Of course, learned Special Judge did frame a point as to whether or not the appellant was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act. Framing of this point, having regard to the evidence available on record, was really not necessary as the status of the accused No. 1 being a public servant was never in dispute. The accused No. 1 never denied his such status. What was really required was framing of a point regarding validity or otherwise of the sanction accorded for his prosecution for the reason I have already mentioned earlier. But that was not done. Be that as it may. This exercise can be done in this appeal, which is a continuation of the trial proceedings. 7. Upon consideration of the evidence of PW 1 Jayavant Kamble, Under Secretary, Public Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, one can see that while he prepared a draft sanction order, he sent it to the Secretary of Public Health Department for approval and the Secretary on his part sent it to the Law and Judiciary Department for approval of the sanction order. It has appeared in the cross-examination of this witness that although Secretary gave his approval to the draft sanction order prepared by PW-1 Jayavant Kamble, the approval was not written down on the sanction order (Exh.24) and that it was given on the note submitted in that regard to the Secretary. The sanction order vide Exh.24 does not show any approval having been given by the Secretary, Health Department, Mumbai. The note on which his approval is appearing, according to the evidence of PW-1 Jayavant, has not been adduced in evidence. The sanction order vide Exh.24 does not show any approval having been given by the Secretary, Health Department, Mumbai. The note on which his approval is appearing, according to the evidence of PW-1 Jayavant, has not been adduced in evidence. The opinion of the Law and Judiciary Department obtained in that regard by the Secretary is also not placed on record. The sanction order vide Exh.24 discloses that the material was examined by the Government of Maharashtra and the satisfaction for according of sanction was also arrived at by the Government of Maharashtra. The sanction order does not specifically mention name of any officer who had actually undertaken the exercise of examining the material and recording a subjective satisfaction in this regard on behalf of the Government of Maharashtra. So, the entire exercise carried out in this case regarding according of sanction is wrapped in secrecy and it is not known as to who has applied his mind and by what process exactly an opinion was formed that a prima facie case was made out for according of sanction. If the note on which the Secretary has given his approval and also the opinion of the Law and Judiciary Department had been produced in evidence by the prosecution, sufficient light perhaps could have been thrown on the exercise undertaken for according of sanction of prosecution of the appellant by the Government of Maharashtra. After all granting of sanction for prosecution is a serious business and is the result of a process which is, not mechanical, but live, based upon application of human mind to the material facts of the case. But, unfortunately those material documents were not produced in evidence. The result would be that the sanction accorded by the Government of Maharashtra for prosecution of the accused No. 1 in this case would have to be held as invalid and is held so. It would then follow that the entire case of the prosecution against the accused No. 1 is vitiated and there would be no further need for examining the prosecution evidence against accused No. 1 on its own merits. It would then follow that the entire case of the prosecution against the accused No. 1 is vitiated and there would be no further need for examining the prosecution evidence against accused No. 1 on its own merits. But, as prosecution evidence against accused No. 2, in any case, has to be examined on merits, I propose to do so against both the accused especially when the evidence is of such a nature as would make it difficult for one to segregate it for consideration of the case against either of the accused independently. 8. The evidence of the complainant, PW-2 Raju, it is seen, is so discrepant in nature that no reliance could be placed on it. In his complaint vide Exh.28 he has stated that first demand of Rs. 3,000/- as bribe was made by the accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 on 23.6.2000. This was a pretrap demand. PW-2 Raju, in his entire evidence has not said anything about this pretrap demand. In fact, he has not said anything about pre-trap demand even on 24.6.2000, when he says that he had gone to Mental Hospital and met accused No. 2. His evidence would show that he has changed the dates of going to Mental Hospital and the net result thereof is that an impression is created that PW-2 is completely confused as to when did he visit the Mental Hospital and how did the events take place on the dates that he says to be the dates of his multiple visit. According to him, he had gone to Mental Hospital on 24.6.2000. It is however, seen that on that date the amount quoted was in the nature of requirement for fitness certificate and that too of Rs. 2,500/- by accused No. 2. Then, he says that he went to the Mental Hospital on 28.6.2000, but even on this date, he does not say that any amount was demanded as bribe and what he says is that accused No. 2 told him to give the amount brought by him to accused no. 2 for giving it accused No. 1. Then, in his further evidence, he also admits that on that date no demand of bribe amount was made. He is, however, consistent about what happened on 3rd July 2000, when amount of Rs. 2 for giving it accused No. 1. Then, in his further evidence, he also admits that on that date no demand of bribe amount was made. He is, however, consistent about what happened on 3rd July 2000, when amount of Rs. 3,000/- was handed over to accused No. 2 and was recovered from the possession of accused No. 2. But again, it is noticed that he does not say anything about the demand being actually made by the accused No. 1. He only says that after examining his brother-in-law, Harish Pujari, the accused No. 1 gave him medicines for seven days and told him that thereafter he would issue certificate. But, he does not say that at that time, the accused No. 1 asked him to bring amount of Rs. 3,000/- before certificate was issued to him on a later date. He says that it was only when accused No. 2 told the accused No. 1 that he had brought the amount that the accused No. 1 asked him as to how much was it and then told him that it should be given to accused No. 2. This would only show that there was neither any demand being actually made by the accused No. 1 for the bribe amount nor any acceptance thereof for the purpose of doing an official work. This is together with the fact that there is absolutely no evidence brought on record about the pre-trap demand. Thus, the evidence of PW-2 cannot be relied upon unless there is available on record other evidence. 9. The evidence of PW-3, Deochand, a shadow witness does not show that there was any demand of bribe money by the accused No. 1 on 26.6.2000. So far as the event that took place on 3.7.2000 are concerned, his evidence is on the similar lines as the complainant PW 2 Raju Ladkar. But, he also does not say that accused No. 1, on 3.7.2000, demanded bribe amount of Rs. 3,000/- from the complainant and told him that the certificate would be issued only after the bribe amount was paid. He only says that the accused No. 1 told the complainant to give amount to accused No. 2 and that too when the accused No. 2 told the accused No. 1 that the complainant had brought the amount. 3,000/- from the complainant and told him that the certificate would be issued only after the bribe amount was paid. He only says that the accused No. 1 told the complainant to give amount to accused No. 2 and that too when the accused No. 2 told the accused No. 1 that the complainant had brought the amount. This witness has also not said anywhere that the accused No. 1 told the complainant that the certificate would be issued only after the bribe amount was paid. This witness thus does not assist the prosecution in proving demand of bribe by accused No. 1. 10. The evidence thus discussed would show that the most basic ingredient of bribery offence, the demand of bribe by accused No. 1 has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. If there was no demand made by the accused No. 1 and proved in evidence, any acceptance of any amount by accused No. 2, against whom the charge is of intentionally aiding the accused no. 1 in indulging in bribery, would not disclose commission of offence punishable under Section 12 of the PC Act, by accused No. 2, though some other offence could be disclosed. But, for such other offence, no charge has been framed against him. Result would be that the evidence of both material witnesses PW-2 Raju and PW-3 Deochand, does not prove the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) and Section 12 of the PC Act with which the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are respectively charged in this case. 11. All the above referred aspects, which are material, have not been considered by the learned Special Judge. These aspects show that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against both the accused. The accused Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, deserve to be acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) and Section 12 of the PC Act with which they have been charged in this case. 12. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. 13. The Judgment and order dated 7.11.2006 rendered in Special Case No. 8/2002 are hereby quashed and set aside. 14. Appellant-Dr. Govind Narayan Vaidya (accused no. 12. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. 13. The Judgment and order dated 7.11.2006 rendered in Special Case No. 8/2002 are hereby quashed and set aside. 14. Appellant-Dr. Govind Narayan Vaidya (accused no. 1) is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and appellant-Shri Charandas @ Ashok Nagorao Dupare (accused no. 2) is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 15. The fine amount, if deposited in the Court, be refunded to the appellants. 16. Their bail bonds stand discharged. 17. Muddemal property be disposed of in terms of the directions given in the impugned judgment and orders. Appeals allowed.