JUDGMENT : 1. These two criminal appeals arise out of judgment and order of conviction, passed by learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge at Amravati, dated 28.6.2000 in Special Case (ACB) No.2/1993. Therefore, these two appeals are taken up for hearing simultaneously and they are decided by this common judgment. 2. By the impugned judgment, both appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the said Act”) and are directed to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.300 by each of them and, in default of payment of fine amount, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 1 month. The appellants are also further convicted for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of “the said Act” and on that count sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/by each of them and, in default of payment of fine amount, simple imprisonment for 1 month. 3. Criminal Appeal No.206/2000 is filed by accused No.2 Kashinath Vikramji Thorat and Criminal Appeal No.213/2000 is filed by accused No.1 Raju s/o Laxmanrao Bahekar. In the present judgment, they will be referred to by their original position. 4. Accused No.1 Raju s/o Laxmanrao Bahekar, is represented by learned counsel Shri Anoop J. Gilda and accused No.2 Kashinath Vikramji Thorat is represented by learned counsel Shri Charuhas B. Dharmadhikari. Both these appeals are opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Amit Madiwale for the State. They took me through the record and proceedings of the record of Special Case (ACB) No.2/1993. 5. On 2.4.1992, PW5 Panjab Arjun Bhagat, was discharging his duties as Police Inspector in the Anti-Corruption Bureau at Amravati. On the said day, at about 13:00 hours, PW1 Pramod Thosar, came to the Bureau. He lodged an oral report in respect of demand of bribe. Therefore, PW5 Panjab Bhagat, reduced the same in writing (Exhibit 29). 6. PW1 complainant Pramod Thosar, is resident of Wathoda Shukhleshwar, District Amravati. He purchased agricultural land from one Anant Madhao Wathodkar at Udapur. He purchased 8 acres of land by getting 2 sale-deeds executed in his favour, each for 4 acres. Therefore, PW5 Panjab Bhagat, reduced the same in writing (Exhibit 29). 6. PW1 complainant Pramod Thosar, is resident of Wathoda Shukhleshwar, District Amravati. He purchased agricultural land from one Anant Madhao Wathodkar at Udapur. He purchased 8 acres of land by getting 2 sale-deeds executed in his favour, each for 4 acres. Out of this 8 acres of land, his name is mutated as the landowner in respect of 4 acres of land and remaining 4 acres of land stands in his name as “Vaivatdar”. Out of the said 8 acres of land, already he executed sale-deeds in favour of 3 persons including one Madhukar Bonde, a teacher. 7. The complaint further recites that from the remaining land with him, he was intending to execute sale-deed in favour of said teacher Madhukar Bonde and in that behalf an agreement of sale was also executed and in pursuance to the said, he received earnest of Rs.10,000/-. As per the earnest note, a date for execution of sale-deed was decided as 30.4.1992. Therefore, said teacher Madhukar Bonde demanded that the complainant shall execute the sale-deed as per the earnest note. However, it was revealed to the complainant that till the complainant's name is not mutated, as landowner in the revenue records, he was not ready to get the sale-deed executed in his favour. Therefore, the complainant met accused No.1 'Patwari' Raju s/o Laxmanrao Bahekar and pleaded with him that his name be mutated in the revenue records. It is stated in the complaint that accused No.1 Raju Bahekar instigated Madhukar Bonde that till the name of the complainant is mutated in the revenue records, he should not get the sale-deed executed in his favour. It is also stated in the complaint that for mutating his name in the revenue records, accused No.1 Raju Bahekar demanded Rs.400/. It is also stated that out of said Rs.400/-, some amount will have to be given to Naib Tahsildar and he disclosed a name of Naib Tahsildar as Shri Thorat (accused No.2). It is also stated in the complaint that said Naib Tahsildar Shri Thorat shall remain present at Tahsil Office at Bhatkuli for meeting and if Rs.400/is agreed to be given, he will bring entire record at Amravati and, thereafter, the mutation will be done. As per the complaint, this demand was made at the office of 'Patwari' at Sonarkheda on 1.4.1992. As per the complaint, this demand was made at the office of 'Patwari' at Sonarkheda on 1.4.1992. On 2.4.1992, since the complainant was not ready to give the bribe amount, he approached to the Anti-Corruption Bureau. 8. On getting the complaint, PW5 Police Inspector Panjab Bhagat, issued a requisition (Exhibit 44) to the Sales Tax Office requesting the said Office to depute two employees to act as panchas. Accordingly, Sadashiv Govindrao Uike (PW-3) and Arun Pandurangji Thakare (PW-4) were directed to attend the Office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau. 9. On 3.4.1992, at 7:00 a.m., PW3 Sadashiv Uike and PW4 Arun Thakare attended the Office of the Bureau that time PW1 complainant Pramod Thosar was also present. They were introduced to the complainant. The written complaint of Pramod Thosar was handed over to the said two employees of the Sale Tax Department. They read the complaint and put their signatures in acknowledgement of reading the same. Thereafter, PW1 Pramod Thosar produced Rs.400/- consisting of 4 notes of Rs.100/- denomination. A Head Constable Manoharrao Tandev from the Bureau, thereafter, staged demonstration of characteristics of 'Anthracene Powder.' The said Constable then applied the 'Anthracene Powder' on the currency notes. The Investigating Officer, thereafter, in presence of pancha witnesses, drawn pre-trap panchanama (Exhibit 34). 10. PW3 Sadashiv Uike was directed by PW5 Panjab Bhagat that he shall remain with complainant throughout. It was directed that he shall act as shadow witness. It was also asked to PW3 Uike that he should hear conversations between the complainant and the accused persons. It was also directed to the complainant by the Investigating Officer that till the amount is demanded, 'Anthracene Powder' applied notes shall not be handed over to the accused persons. 11. After giving all instructions, the raiding party left the Bureau Office by a Government Jeep and came near Circuit House. The vehicle was parked in the premises of the Circuit House. PW1 complainant Pramod Thosar and PW3 shadow witness Sadashiv Uike were directed to proceed towards the Tahsil Office. Accordingly, they went inside the Office and the members of the raiding party were standing outside the building. At about 14:30 hours, the complainant gave a prearranged signal. On getting such signal, PW5 Panjab Bhagat along with PW4 pancha No.2 Arun Thakare and other members went near a Tea-Stall from where the signal was given. Accordingly, they went inside the Office and the members of the raiding party were standing outside the building. At about 14:30 hours, the complainant gave a prearranged signal. On getting such signal, PW5 Panjab Bhagat along with PW4 pancha No.2 Arun Thakare and other members went near a Tea-Stall from where the signal was given. The Investigating Officer was informed by the complainant by pointing out to accused No.1 that he has accepted the amount. PW5 Panjab Bhagat, thereafter, disclosed his identity. Then, the Ultra Violet Lamp was taken out and both palms of accused No.1 and his clothes were examined in the light of the Ultra Violet Lamp. Those were found to be glittering bluish. All the proceedings were reduced into writing by drawing panchanama (Exhibit 46), posttrap panchanama. 12. PW5 Investigating Officer Panjab Bhagat, thereafter, lodged a complaint with Frazerpura Police Station by lodging his complaint (Exhibit 47) on the basis of which an offence under the relevant Sections of “the said Act” was registered vide C.R.No.29/1992. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 13. Learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge at Amravati famed charge against both the accused persons. Both abjured their guilt and claimed that they be tried. 14. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined in all 5 witnesses and principally relied on panchanama No.1, pretrap panchanama and panchanama No.2, post-trap panchanama. Learned Judge of the Court below, after appreciating the evidences and various proved documents, found that the appellants have committed the offence and accordingly they were convicted and sentenced, as observed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 15. Though the criminal appeals are argued by two different Advocates, both learned counsel for the appellants to the appeals submitted the following: (i) the demand made by accused No.1 Raju Bahekar is not at all proved and the prosecution case is having inherent contradiction in respect of the demand on the day of the trap and, therefore, they submitted that the appeals are required to be allowed; (ii) Exhibit 32 sanction order, is an outcome of non-application of mind on the part of PW2 sanctioning authority Shivajirao Elji Patil and, therefore, they submitted that there is no valid sanction against the appellants and on this count also the appeals are required to be allowed. 16. 16. Learned counsel for both the appellants relying upon the following decisions in the cases of Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) thr. his legal representative ..vs.. State of Punjab, reported at (2017) 8 SCC 136 ; State of Karnataka ..vs.. Ameerjan, reported at (2007) 11 SCC 273 ; Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan ..vs.. State of Gujarat, reported at (1997) 7 SCC 622 ; Jivendhar s/o Govindrao Katke ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2015 OnLine Bom 8488, and Vikram Jija Gite ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2015 OnLine Bom 8497, submitted that the respective appeals be allowed. 17. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Amit Madiwale for the State submitted that learned Judge of the Court below, in his judgment and order impugned in the present appeals, has considered the evidences of the prosecution case correctly warranting no interference from this Court and prays for dismissal of the appeals. 18. Admittedly, in the present case, accused No.2 Kashinath Thorat, was not found in possession of the tented notes. The tainted notes were recovered from accused No.1 Raju Bahekar. 19. Merely because the tainted notes are found in possession of the accused persons, that by itself is not sufficient to record a finding of guilt for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) punishable under Section 13(2) “the said Act.” Principally, the prosecution is required to prove the demand and illegal gratification in establishing the charge under Sections 7 and 13 of “the said Act”, is the settled law in view of the numerous decisions of the Honourable Apex Court and of this Court. Presumption under Section 20 of the “the said Act” is rebutal one and burden on the accused is not so strict as it is on the prosecution. The defence of the accused has to be examined on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. 20. Presumption under Section 20 of the “the said Act” is rebutal one and burden on the accused is not so strict as it is on the prosecution. The defence of the accused has to be examined on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. 20. In the present case, as it could be seen from the line of the cross-examination and from statement made by accused No.1 Raju Bahekar when he was examined by learned Judge of the Court below under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is his case that on the day of the trap, PW1 complainant Pramod Thosar, was in arrears of land revenue and when it was noticed by him that excess amount is given to him, he was returning the said amount, in that process complainant thrusted the said amount in his pocket. 21. As per the prosecution case, on two occasions, there was demand to PW1 complainant Pramod Thosar. As it is reflected in Exhibit 29, the first demand was made by accused No.1 on 1.4.1992. Admittedly, at this time, accused No.2 was not present. As per the complaint itself, this demand was made by accused No.1 at his Office at Sonarkheda. 22. As per the complaint, the bribe was demanded for mutating name of the complainant in the relevant revenue records. The complainant was required to get his name mutated in the revenue records since there was an agreement of sale in between him and one Madhukar Bonde, a teacher. As per the complaint, the last date for execution of the sale-deed in favour of Madhukar Bonde was agreed as 30.4.1992 and, therefore, though said Madhukar Bonde insisted for execution of the sale-deed, he was reluctant to get it executed in the absence of name of the complainant mutated in the revenue records. 23. From the reading of the complaint itself, it is clear that at the time of demand on 1.4.1992, Madhukar Bonde, was present. Thus, in his presence the demand was made by accused No.1. It would be useful to reproduce hereinbelow the relevant portion, as is appearing in the complaint: “HINDI” 24. Though complaint is never a substantive piece of evidence, it can always be used for corroborating or for contradicting the maker. 25. Thus, in his presence the demand was made by accused No.1. It would be useful to reproduce hereinbelow the relevant portion, as is appearing in the complaint: “HINDI” 24. Though complaint is never a substantive piece of evidence, it can always be used for corroborating or for contradicting the maker. 25. Even from the witness-box in the Examination-in-Chief itself the complainant, in respect of demand made on 1.4.1992, has stated the following on oath: “Accused No.1 said to me that if at all my name has to be mutated then I have to pay Rs.400/-. I requested the accused No.1 to reduce the amount but he said to me that out of Rs.400/some amount is required to pay to Naib Tahsildar and as such he quoted the amount of Rs.400/and he would not reduce it. In the meantime, Madhukar Bonde said to me that I should keep quiet and he would see that the amount of Rs.400/- be reduced. Thereafter I agreed to pay Rs.400/- and myself and Madhukar Bonde left village Sonarkhed.” 26. Thus, from the aforesaid, there cannot be any doubt in anyone's mind that the first demand on 1.4.1992 was made by accused No.1 to complainant Pramod Thosar in presence of Madhukar Bonde. 27. In the present case, the presence of Madhukar Bonde, at the Office of Sonarkheda, is firmly established. Not only that, from the evidence of PW1 complainant Pramod Thosar and from the recitals of complaint Exhibit 29, it is Madhukar Bonde who prevailed upon the complainant to leave the Office of accused No.1 with an understanding that he will see that the amount of bribe is reduced from Rs.400/-. 28. The second demand was made on the day of the trap i.e. on 3.4.1992. Evidences of PW1 Pramod Thosar, so also PW3 Sadashiv Uike, establish the presence of Madhukar Bonde, even on this date not only at Tahsil place but also at Tea-Stall where, according to the prosecution, accused No.1 accepted the bribe amount. 29. As per the evidence of PW1 Pramod Thosar, on the day of the trap, he and PW3 Sadashiv Uike, were waiting for accused No.1 in 'Veranda' since he was not noticed. PW1 Pramod Thosar further states in his evidence, as under: “As soon as the accused No.1entered into varandah, I offered Namaskar to him. 29. As per the evidence of PW1 Pramod Thosar, on the day of the trap, he and PW3 Sadashiv Uike, were waiting for accused No.1 in 'Veranda' since he was not noticed. PW1 Pramod Thosar further states in his evidence, as under: “As soon as the accused No.1entered into varandah, I offered Namaskar to him. Accused no.1 did not accept my Namaskar and asked me whether Bhausaheb Bonde has come to the office. Nick name of Madhukar Bonde is Bhausaheb. I replied in the negative and thereupon the accused No.1 asked me to sit in the verandah and he went to the meeting hall. Thereafter myself and Uike occupied the seats on the bench in verandah. After some times Mr Bonde arrived in the office. Immediately I disclosed to Mr. Uike about Mr. Madhukar Bonde.” 30. The presence of Madhukar Bonde in the Office, as stated by complainant Pramod Thosar, is also corroborated by PW3 Sadashiv Uike. The relevant portion from his Examination-in-Chief is reproduced here-in-below: “At that time, myself and Mr. Thosar remained in verandah. After sometime i.e. about 1:00 p.m. one Bhausaheb Bonde arrived in the verandah and Mr. Thosar told me that the person who had then come to verandah, was Bhausaheb Bonde.” 31. As per the evidences of these two prosecution witnesses, though after some time Madhukar Bonde was present there, he proceeded for answering nature's call. According to these two prosecution witnesses, the demand was made to complainant Pramod Thosar and, thereafter, the complainant asked both the accused persons to accompany to Tea-Stall situated outside the Tahsil Office premises. Thereafter, 5 persons proceeded towards the Tea-Stall. In that behalf, following is the version of complainant: “We all 5, i.e. myself, Uike, Madhukar Bonde, accused No.1 and his associate, who was unknown to us, occupied the seats on two benches at tea stall. Accused No.1 had occupied the seat on one bench and other persons on other bench and they were facing to each other. I placed the order for five cups of tea. Accused no.1 told me that unknown person was the Naib Tahsildar Mr. Thorat. But subsequently the unknown person was found to be circle inspector. The accused no.2 before the court is the same who was then with accused No.1.” 32. I placed the order for five cups of tea. Accused no.1 told me that unknown person was the Naib Tahsildar Mr. Thorat. But subsequently the unknown person was found to be circle inspector. The accused no.2 before the court is the same who was then with accused No.1.” 32. The presence of Madhukar Bonde at the Tea-Stall is also corroborated by PW3 Sadashiv Uike and he states as under: “We five means, myself, Mr. Pramod Thosar, Bhausaheb Bonde, accused no.1 and Mr. Thorat.” 33. Thus, it is the specific case of the prosecution that at Tea-Stall when the accused persons were in company of PW1 Pramod Thosar, and PW3 Sadashiv Uike, apart from them Madhukar Bonde was also present. Importantly, the amount of bribe changed hands at the Tea-Stall only. 34. Thus, money smeared with the 'Anthracene Powder' changed hands in the presence of Madhukar Bonde if the case of the prosecution is to be evaluated in the light of the available aforesaid evidences. 35. Madhuklar @ Bhausaheb Bonde is very important witness to the prosecution. He is the person who entered into the agreement of sale with complainant. He is requiring the name of the complainant be mutated in the relevant revenue records so as to enable him to get the sale-deed executed in his favour. He is the person who is present in the Office of accused No.1 at village Somarkheda. Not only that, he prevailed over complainant Pramod Thosar that he will see that the amount of bribe will be reduced. He is the person whose presence is asked by accused No.1 when he noticed complainant Pramod Thosar and PW3 shadow pancha Sadashiv Uike in 'Verandah' and on getting the negative reply, accused No.1 proceeded inside the meeting hall. Thereafter, Madhukar Bonde arrived on the scene. Not only that, he along with accused persons and complainant Pramod Thosar and PW3 shadow pancha Sadashiv Uike proceeded towards the Tea-Stall where the bribe is accepted by accused No.1. 36. Perusal of charge-sheet shows that this Madhukar Bonde, a teacher, was shown at serial No.4 as witness. In spite of this, Shri Bonde who could have thrown light on the vital aspect of the demand both on 1.4.1992 and on 3.4.1992, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, is not examined by the prosecution. 36. Perusal of charge-sheet shows that this Madhukar Bonde, a teacher, was shown at serial No.4 as witness. In spite of this, Shri Bonde who could have thrown light on the vital aspect of the demand both on 1.4.1992 and on 3.4.1992, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, is not examined by the prosecution. Even learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Amit Madiwale for the State could not offer any explanation as to why this important witness is withheld from the Court. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor could not point out anything on record by which it could be said that even before putting Madhukar Bonde in the witness-box, it was realized by the prosecution that he may turn hostile. 37. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has withheld an important piece of evidence in the nature of Madhukar Bonde from the Court who otherwise could have thrown decisive light on the aspect of the demand. 38. In my view, therefore, adverse inference is required to be drawn against the prosecution in respect of the first demand allegedly made by accused No.1 at his Office at village Sonarkheda from complainant Pramod Thosar. Resultantly, I record my finding that the prosecution has utterly and miserably failed to prove that on 1.4.1992 accused No.1 demanded Rs.400/- from complainant Pramod Thosar for getting his name mutated in the relevant revenue records. 39. According to the prosecution, through PW1 complainant Pramod Thosar, at the time of taking tea, the following has happened: “When we were taking tea unknown person by name Thorat (accused no.2) said to me that the amount of Rs.200/- which was to be paid to him should be given to the accused No.1. Immediately thereafter the accused No.1 forwarded his left hand and asked me to give the amount of Rs.400/-” 40. Though this particular aspect is found to be corroborated by PW3 pancha witness Sadashiv Uike, in my view, merely because such is the statement, the Court should not readily accept the same, in view of not adducing evidence of Madhukar Bonde an independent person who was present at that time. 41. It appears to me from the evidence of this pancha witness that he was highly interested witness for success of the case of the Anti-Corruption Bureau. 41. It appears to me from the evidence of this pancha witness that he was highly interested witness for success of the case of the Anti-Corruption Bureau. In his cross-examination, he has stated, as under: “In connection with this case I was required to come to court for about 3 to 4 times. Outside the court hall the constable working in A.C.B. Office had handed over me my statement and panchanama for reading. The said constable had asked me to digest or recite the fact mentioned in my statement and panchanama so that I can depose in the court as regards the incident. During my visits to court, I cam to know if I do not depose about the incident in terms of my statement then I may come in trouble as far as my services is concerned. Till this day, I have unblemished service record. I do not wish that I should lose my job. As I do not want to lose my service I have given evidence and constrained (emphasis is supplied) to give evidence in terms of my statement.” 42. In view of the aforesaid, it is crystal clear that the evidence of this prosecution witness cannot be termed as impartial one. In that behalf, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Suresh s/o Purushottam Ashtankar ..vs.. The State of Maharashtra and anr, reported at 2015 ALL MR (cri) 4243, applies to this case with its full force. 43. Further, it is the specific defence of accused No.1 that on the day when the trap was led, on the said day PW1 complainant Pramod Thosar was in arrears of the land revenue. From the cross-examination of PW3 shadow pancha Sadashiv Uike, it is clear that he has heard only that conversation which was in relation to the demand allegedly made by accused persons. However, he flatly denied that heard the conversation in respect of the arrears of land revenue. 44. Exhibit 49 is a document coming on record from the custody of the prosecution itself. The said document is an extract of the details of arrears of land revenue and perusal of the said shows that PW1 complainant Pramod Thosar was in arrears of the land revenue. 45. Therefore, when the defence of accused No.1 was about to get probabalized, this prosecution witness pleads ignorance of the conversation in that behalf. 46. The said document is an extract of the details of arrears of land revenue and perusal of the said shows that PW1 complainant Pramod Thosar was in arrears of the land revenue. 45. Therefore, when the defence of accused No.1 was about to get probabalized, this prosecution witness pleads ignorance of the conversation in that behalf. 46. Further, had Madhukar Bonde was examined in this case, he would have also best person who could have stated about independent version of the conversation that took place in between complainant Pramod Thosar and accused persons. 47. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held that the prosecution has established its case in respect of the demand on 3.4.1992 beyond reasonable doubt. When element of doubt is crept in, it is cardinal principle of law criminal jurisprudence that benefit has to be extended in favour of the accused persons. 48. Further, the prosecution has not proved its case as to when the role of accused No.2 will start. Admittedly, taking entry of the right of ownership was not the job of accused No.2 but it was of accused No.1. 49. It is nowhere's case even remotely by any evidence that there was an agreement in between accused Nos.1 and 2 that accused No.2 will only certify the entry after obtaining the amount and for that he has authorized accused No.1 to make the demand on his behalf. 50. Thus, on the day of the trap, when name of complainant Pramod Thosar was not taken in revenue records, it cannot be said that on the said day something was pending before accused No.2 and to discharge his official duty in that behalf he has sought bribe. 51. The other question submitted before this Court is about the sanction. The sanction order is at Exhibit 32. The said is dated 3.4.1993. It is duly proved by Shri Shivajirao Patil, retired Additional Commissioner, who at the relevant time was working as Collector and was appointing authority of both the accused. 52. The Honourable Apex Court, in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan ..vs.. State of Gujarat cited supra, in paragraph Nos.17 and 18 has ruled as under: “Para No.17 : Sanction lifts the bar for prosecution. The grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to Government Servants against frivolous prosecutions. State of Gujarat cited supra, in paragraph Nos.17 and 18 has ruled as under: “Para No.17 : Sanction lifts the bar for prosecution. The grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to Government Servants against frivolous prosecutions. (See: Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A.P.). Sanction is a weapon to ensure discouragement of frivolous and vexatious prosecutions and is a safeguard for the innocent but not a shield for the guilty. Para No.18 : The validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority and the fact that all the relevant facts, material and evidence have been considered by the sanctioning authority. Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. This fact can also be established by extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant files before the Court to show that all relevant facts were considered by the sanctioning authority.” 53. So also, the Honourable Apex Court, in the case of State of Karnataka ..vs.. Ameerjan cited supra, in paragraphs No.10 has ruled as under: “Ordinarily, before passing an order of sanction, the entire records containing the materials collected against the accused should be placed before the sanctioning authority. In the event, the order of sanction does not indicate application of mind (sic to) as the materials placed before the said authority before the order of sanction was passed, the same may be produced before the court to show that such materials had in fact been produced.” 54. As per the evidence of Investigating Officer, he gave a letter to the Office of the Tahsildar on 3.12.1992. In pursuance to the said, the Tahsildar at Bhatkuli, vide communication dated 4.12.1992, has supplied information about the arrears of the land revenue. The extract of the said is placed on record at Exhibit 49. 55. Thus, on 4.12.1992 itself, it was known to the Investigating officer that there exits arrears of land revenue in respect of the land owned by complainant Pramod Thosar. 56. The extract of the said is placed on record at Exhibit 49. 55. Thus, on 4.12.1992 itself, it was known to the Investigating officer that there exits arrears of land revenue in respect of the land owned by complainant Pramod Thosar. 56. PW2 Additional Commissioner Shri Shivajirao Patil, in his evidence, has stated as under: “At the time of according the sanction to prosecute the accused no.1 and 2, I am not supposed to know whether accused no.1 was to collect land revenue from the complainant. I am not supposed to consider the fact whether the land revenue was outstanding against the complainant nor did I come across any document suggesting the fact that land revenue was outstanding against the complainant.” 57. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the sanctioning authority is pleading ignorance that accused No.1 was to collect the land revenue from complainant Pramod Thosar. Not only that, he has stated in very clear words that he did not come across any document suggesting the fact that the land revenue was outstanding against the complainant. 58. In view of Exhibits 48 and 49, it is crystal clear that PW5 Investigating Officer, has suppressed these two documents from the sanctioning authority and those two documents were not forwarded by him to the sanctioning authority. Had these two documents were before the sanctioning authority, the sanctioning authority could have taken some other decision after having gone through the aforesaid two documents. 59. Therefore, in my view, Exhibit 32 sanction order is not a legal and valid sanction. Consequently, this Court passes the following order: ORDER (a) The criminal appeals are allowed. (b) Judgment and order of conviction, passed by learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge at Amravati, dated 28.6.2000 in Special Case (ACB) No.2/1993 is hereby quashed and set aside. (c) Appellants Kashinath Vikramji Thorat and Raju s/o Laxmanrao Bahekar, are acquitted of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (d) The Bail Bonds of the appellants stand cancelled.