JUDGMENT : P.N. Deshmukh, J. This appeal takes exceptions to judgment dated 18.08.2008 passed in Special Case No.1 of 2000 by the learned Special Judge, Gr. Bombay, by which both the appellants who are original Accused Nos.1 and 2, came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 r/w Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. They are further convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. During the pendency of appeal, appellant No.1 died on 13.09.2018 and to further prosecute the appeal, his wife and three children by filing Criminal Application No.1751 of 2018 sought permission to prosecute the same, which application was allowed by order dated 29.11.2018. 3. Brief facts of case of prosecution can be stated as under: P.W.2 Abu Mohamed Maniyar, the complainant, at the time of incident was into purchase and sale of scrap, having a shop situated at Kurla (East), Mumbai. Both the appellants were posted as Police Naiks attached to Parksite Police Station. On 16.03.1999 both the appellants went to the shop of complainant along with one Rashid, who was accused in the Criminal Case registered against him for the offence of commission of theft. In the shop of complainant Abdul Rashid informed that he has sold the stolen scrap material to complainant, complainant denied to have purchase any such material upon which appellant No.2 raised his hand thereby applying force upon complainant, as he was denying the fact of purchase since stolen property. At the same time, appellant No.1 Laxman Banger said to complainant to pay Rs.50,000/- to them if he wanted to save himself from the criminal case. The above demand was negotiated and was reduced to Rs.13,000/- and complainant on the same day paid Rs.10,500/- to the appellants and balance amount of Rs.2,500/- was agreed to be paid and accepted on 19.03.1999 at about 2.00 p.m. at hotel Nityanand at Ghatkopar (West), however, as complainant was not interested to pay further amount as bribe, he attended office of Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged report which was recorded by P.W.7 Ramesh Mahale, Investigating Officer. 4. 4. It is the case of prosecution that immediately on receiving complaint two independent panchas were called in the office of Anti Corruption Bureau to act as Panch and upon complaint offence is registered vide Crime No.17 of 1999 vide Exh.21. Complainant than produced 25 currency notes of Rs.100/- each in denomination of which serial numbers were noted in the pre-trap panchnama. Complainant as well as both the panchas were given demonstration of effect of Anthracin powder when it was noted that when it is seen under the raise of ultra-violet lamp, it gives bluish colour shine. The staff from the Anti Corruption Bureau office thereafter applied anthracin powder to the currency notes and kept it in the shirt pocket of complainant with directions to not to touch the same and to pay to appellants on their demand. Complainant was further instructed to give signal by folding his sleeves. While P.W.3 Sachin Chavan was instructed to accompany complainant and to watch the conversation whatsoever may take place between the complainant and appellants. At the same time P.W.6 Ram Valecha, the second panch was instructed to watch the proposed signal to be given by complainant to the raiding party. After giving necessary instructions as above said, pre-trap pachnama is drawn as per Exh.23. 5. Trap came to be laid at Nityananad Hotel where at about 2.00 p.m. appellant No.1 arrived where complainant and P.W.3 Sachin were present and after having introductory talk, all of them entered Shalimar hotel situated nearby and while having tea appellant No.1 demanded amount of Rs.2,500/- which complainant paid and requested not to take action against him to which appellant No.1 agreed. Immediately, on complainant's giving proposed signal, members of the raiding team arrived at the spot and caught hold appellant No.1 and on introducing themselves, recovered bribe money from the left side shirt pocket of appellant No.1. According to the case of prosecution, when shirt pocket of appellant No.1 is checked as well as when his fingers of both hands were checked under the rays of ultra-violet lamp, it gave blueish glow. The currency notes recovered from the pocket of appellant No.1 went tallied with its serial numbers mentioned in pre-trap panchnama, they were found tallying. Said notes also give blue glow when checked under the raise of ultra-violet lamp. The currency notes recovered from the pocket of appellant No.1 went tallied with its serial numbers mentioned in pre-trap panchnama, they were found tallying. Said notes also give blue glow when checked under the raise of ultra-violet lamp. Apart from currency notes some other cash, mobile phone and one document was recovered from the person of appellant which came to be seized. Post-trap panchnama of all these facts came to be drawn at Exh.25. 6. Further investigation was carried out by P.W.7 Ramesh Mahale, Police Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai Unit, who on completing investigation obtained sanction to prosecute accused as accorded by P.W.1 Ravindra Kedari, who was then posted as Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-6, Bombay-400 018 and proved the same at Exh.18. On receipt of sanction, charge sheet came to be filed before the Special Judge, Gr. Bombay. Charge came to be framed against appellants for the offences punishable under Section 7, r/w Section 12 and Section 7(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 which appellants denied and claimed to be tried. Neither of the appellants had examined themselves on oath nor examined any defence witnesses. 7. To prove the charge levelled against appellants, prosecution in all examined seven witnesses and commenced its evidence on examining P.W.1 Ravindra M. Kedari, then Deputy Commissioner of Police, who has proved his sanction Exh.18 on record and communication received by him from Assistant Commissioner of Police, Exh.19. P.W.2 the complainant who has proved printed F.I.R. having signed by him. P.W.3 Sachin Chavan, the first panch who has proved pre-trap panchnama Exh.23 and post-trap panchnama Exh.25. P.W.4 Sunil Kadam, P.S.I., P.W.5 Harishchandra Mapsekar, A.S.I. both police officials attached to Parksite Police Station, on circumstance to establish that on 16.03.1999 and 19.03.1999 both the appellants were attached to Parksite Police Station and were on duty, P.W.6 Ram Valecha, second panch and concluded evidence on examining P.W.7 Ramesh Mahale, Investigating Officer. Learned Special Judge after considering evidence of above witnesses and documents on record, convicted both the appellants as aforesaid, hence, this appeal. 8. Learned Special Judge after considering evidence of above witnesses and documents on record, convicted both the appellants as aforesaid, hence, this appeal. 8. Heard learned Counsel for appellant, learned A.P.P. At the outset, it is submitted by appellants that case of prosecution is full of doubts, since its inception as prosecution has not brought on record complaint which is alleged to be orally narrated by complainant to the Investigating Officer who is alleged to have reduced the same into writing nor has brought on record convincing evidence to establish if the independent witnesses summoned to accompany the complaint and raiding team were at all aware of the complaint of complainant Abu Mohammad as from their evidence nothing has come on record to establish that complainant at any time disclose his complaint to either of them or that said Panch witnesses were given any complaint reduced in writing to verify its contents if recorded as per the complaint. It is, thus, vehemently submitted that in the background of above, evidence on the point of demand and acceptance of appellant No.1 for himself and on behalf of appellant No.2, as put forth by prosecution is full of doubts. Learned Counsel by referring to further evidence of above two witnesses along with evidence of complainant and Investigating Officer, has pointed out various discrepancies in it, making same to be doubtful. Apart from merits by referring to evidence of P.W.1 Ravindra Kedari, the sanctioning authority, it is submitted that case of prosecution fails even on the point of invalid sanction as from the evidence of P.W.1 Ravindra and of Investigating Officer along with the provisions of Bombay Police (Punishments and Appeals) Rules, 1956, P.W.1 Ravindra cannot said to be authority competent to grant sanction to prosecute appellants since he is not authority to remove them from their service. Learned Counsel on this aspect of submission has relied on the case of Nanajappa Vs. Learned Counsel on this aspect of submission has relied on the case of Nanajappa Vs. State of Karnataka, (2015) 14 SCC 186 , wherein preliminary issue raised was that no sanction to prosecute accused was obtained from the competent authority and by considering the relevant provisions of Sections 19(1)(3)(4), 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Hon'ble Apex Court also considered the proper relief and the procedure to be adopted in trial if it is established that sanction from competent authority was not obtained and in the given set of circumstances, considering that long time has lapsed from the date of occurrence observing that there was no possibility of prosecution witnesses being available did not found it necessary for directing fresh trial wherein appellants were involved for accepting bribe of Rs.500/-, further noting that appellant till then has already suffered ignominy of a trial, as well as a jail term no matter for a short while. 9. By relying upon such facts, it is submitted that since from the evidence on record and provisions of Bombay Police (Punishments and Appeals) Rules 1956, sanction on record at Exh.18 is invalid and since the period of almost twenty years has lapsed from the date of offence which is dated 19.03.1999, appeal is prayed to be allowed by setting aside judgment and order passed by the trial Court without issuing any directions for fresh trial. 10. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand while referring to the evidence of complainant submitted that his evidence established involvement of appellants to have demanded and acceptance bribe which evidence is further corroborated by P.W.3 Sachin, P.W.6 Ram Valecha, both independent witnesses along with contents of pre-trap and post-trap panchnamas and evidence P.W.7 Investigating Officer. By referring to the relevant evidence, learned A.P.P. had submitted that there is no substance in appeal and so far as case of appellants on the point of invalid sanction has referred to evidence of P.W.1 Ravindra with sanction order on record Exh.18, along with communication received from the office of Anti Corruption Bureau to P.W.1 on record Exh.19, and submitted that by this letter, P.W.1 Ravindra was authorized to accord sanction to prosecute and as thus contended that this is not a case of invalid sanction. Learned A.P.P., therefore, prayed that appeal be dismissed. 11. Learned A.P.P., therefore, prayed that appeal be dismissed. 11. In the background of submissions advanced by learned Counsel for both sides, though from evidence of complainant, it has come on record that on 16.03.1999, both the appellants arrived in his shop along with one accused in a theft case who involved complainant to have purchased stolen scrap from him and has further stated that appellant No.1 demanded bribe of Rs.50,000/- to complainant to not to take action against him, which amount was negotiated to Rs.13,000/-, out of which complainant had paid Rs.10,500/- on that day itself and balance amount of Rs.2,500/- was agreed to be accepted and paid on 19.03.1999 by appellant No.1 at Nityanand hotel, on which day such amount was demanded and accepted by appellant No.1 from the complainant in the presence of P.W. Sachin and was recovered from the shirt pocket of appellant No.1. His evidence does not inspire confidence nor evidence of P.W.2 Panch and of P.W.6 the second Panch, inspire confidence to act upon the case of prosecution as admittedly no handwritten complaint as reduced into writing by Investigating Officer as stated by complainant to him in the office of Anti Corruption Bureau on 16.03.1999 is on record. On this aspect, evidence of complainant when perused, reveals that as he was not interested to pay the bribe money on 19.03.1999, he went on Anti Corruption Bureau office and met P.W.7 Mahale, Investigating Officer, who took him to his senior officer where his complaint was written by the Investigating Officer as directed by his senior officer. Evidence of complainant as such established Investigating Officer redusing into writing his complaint in the office of Anti Corruption Bureau. Said evidence requires consideration as P.W.2, the complainant has specifically deposed that his complaint was written and had further deposed that what has been seen by him in the office of Anti Corruption Bureau was a typed complaint. It is also come in the evidence that before Investigating Officer recorded his complaint he had taken some notes, after complainant orally made his complaint to him. It is also come in the evidence that before Investigating Officer recorded his complaint he had taken some notes, after complainant orally made his complaint to him. Thus, from the complainant's evidence, it has also come on record that as per his oral narration, Investigating Officer has written his complaint and had also taken notes which were running into 2-3 pages on the basis of which he typed the report which is proved by complainant as Exh.21 on record which is printed F.I.R. Admittedly, no handwritten complaint nor handwritten notes running into 2-3 pages are on record which, therefore, raises doubt in the case of prosecution as printed F.I.R. Exh.21, in the set of circumstances, looses its value as it is subsequent complaint. 12. Fact of handwritten complaint by Investigating Officer is further established when it has come in the evidence of P.W.2 complainant that handwritten as well as typed complaint was prepared by Investigating Officer Mahale and further deposed that he was explained contents of handwritten complaint in Hindi, while the contents of typed report were not read over to him. Writing of handwritten complaint as narrated by complainant is further substantiated when complainant even admits to have supplied to him copy of his complaint of which he has issued acknowledgment, which he claims to have left in the office of Anti Corruption Bureau itself. Entire evidence thus, established beyond reasonable doubt that complaint orally stated by P.W. Abu Mohammad was reduced into writing by Investigating Officer, who had also obtained notes in his handwriting and then typed the printed F.I.R. Admittedly, neither of such handwritten complaint and notes are on record and thus, there is nothing to establish what was the complaint of P.W.2 made orally to complainant which was reduced into writing by him. 13. Above doubt raised by appellants of prosecution failure to bring on record complaint, as orally stated by complainant and reduced into writing by Investigating Officer as independent witness P.W.3 Sachin's evidence is silent on complainants narrating complaint to him in the office of Anti Corruption Bureau nor has stated of his reading any complaint reduced into writing as orally stated by complainant, as his evidence is totally silent on this aspect. He has further admitted to have not even read the contents of F.I.R. in the Anti Corruption Bureau office. He has further admitted to have not even read the contents of F.I.R. in the Anti Corruption Bureau office. In that view of the matter even in the evidence of P.W.6 Ram, second panch, there is nothing which could establish the purpose of these two panch witnesses accompanying complainant as well as members of the raiding team to Nityanand Hotel. 14. In the background of above discussed evidence which raised sufficient doubt in the case of prosecution, though from evidence of complainant and of P.W.3 Sachin, it has come on record that on 19.03.1999, after they reached Nityanand Hotel appellant No.1 arrived and demanded Rs.2,500/- which was accordingly paid to him by complainant, who was thereafter apprehended and bribe notes was recovered from his person, this evidence by itself cannot be sufficient to be relied upon as from above discussed evidence, it is noted that at the time of incident of alleged demand and acceptance, by appellant No.1 in hotel, P.W.3 Sachin, an independent witness, was not aware who was to come in the hotel and to whom complainant was to pay the bribe money. 15. Similarly, on considering evidence of P.W.6 Ram, second panch he admits to have stated that there was no talk by him with the complainant in Anti Corruption Bureau office nor with P.W.3 Sachin. He has also stated even Investigating Officer Mahale did not disclose them whether they were supposed to go where and for whom trap was to be laid and has further stated that after he reached hotel, he along with P.W. Sachin, complainant were told to wait outside and thus were sitting on a bench and has admitted that after completing the pachnama, were called inside to sign the same. According to his evidence, the contents of panchnama were not written as per their instructions but the same were according to the members of the raiding team. Said independent witness has in clear terms stated that he is not aware as to what transpired inside when he along with panch Sachin and complainant were sitting outside. He has also admitted to have signed post-trap pachnama mechanically. 16. Said independent witness has in clear terms stated that he is not aware as to what transpired inside when he along with panch Sachin and complainant were sitting outside. He has also admitted to have signed post-trap pachnama mechanically. 16. It is the case of appellant No.1 that at the time of incident bribe money was thrashed in his pocket, having smeared with anthracin powder which defence requires consideration particularly when it has come in the evidence of P.W.7 Investigating Officer that he has not sealed the recovered currency notes on the spot. In fact in post-trap panchnama, there is no mention of investigating team carrying any sealing material while effective raid. For the grounds as afore-stated, recovery of notes as aforesaid from the person of appellant No.1 as per settled legal position by itself is not sufficient to establish his guilt. 17. Even otherwise, though it is the specific case of prosecution that bribe amount was demanded by appellants to not to take action against complainant who is stated to have received the stolen property i.e. scrap material and some document alleged to be referring to some investigation of alleged theft case is recovered from the person of appellant No.1, said document is not proved by prosecution by examining Sr. Police Inspector of Parksite Police Station who has issued it nor is even referred to any of the witnesses examined at the time of trial, attached to Parksite Police Station, inspite of the fact that said document was referred at Sr. No.6 in notice Exh.11 issued by prosecution under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. to defence and defence not admitting any of the documents listed therein except one at Sr. No.7. In the background of above fact, there is nothing on record to establish involvement of complainant as receive of stolen property, all the more when he admitted that after Anti Corruption Bureau trap, he was not contacted by any Police Officer with reference to his purchasing stolen property. No.7. In the background of above fact, there is nothing on record to establish involvement of complainant as receive of stolen property, all the more when he admitted that after Anti Corruption Bureau trap, he was not contacted by any Police Officer with reference to his purchasing stolen property. In the light of above discussed evidence and as stated in the earlier part of judgment, since evidence of complainant, is silent of narrating his complaint to the independent panchas in the office of Anti Corruption Bureau, nor said fact has been deposed by any of the independent panchas and as there is no reference of any demand of Rs.2,500/- to be paid to accused on the date of incident in the pre-trap panchnama, nor it refers to any earlier demand of Rs.50,000/- which was negotiated to Rs.20,000/- and then to Rs.13,000/- out of which Rs.10,500/- was alleged to be paid of which admittedly no complaint is filed by complainant but what is stated in pre-trap panchnama is the gist of complaint by P.W.7 Investigating Officer, which gist also does not mentioned such fact. In the circumstances, fact remains that except for oral evidence of complainant, P.W. Sachin and Ram, there is no reference of the alleged complaint even in pre-trap panchnama and thus neither of the panchas can said to be aware of the facts of the case when they have accompanied the complaint and raiding team officers at Nityanand hotel. 18. Above discussed evidence thus do not establish applicants involvement in the present crime. The prosecution is, thus, found to have failed to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt. 19. Coming on the point of sanction accorded by P.W.1 Ravindra Kedari vide Exh.18, if is valid or otherwise, his evidence would reveal that at the material time he was posted as Deputy Commissioner of police Zone-6, Bombay while appellants were working in his zone as Police Naiks. He received papers for grant of sanction to prosecute them, which is scrutinized and finding that there is sufficient material to prosecute appellants, accorded the same vide Exh.18, being authority competent to remove appellants from their service both posted as Police Naiks. Thus, it is the case of prosecution that sanction on record is valid, accorded by competent authority. 20. He received papers for grant of sanction to prosecute them, which is scrutinized and finding that there is sufficient material to prosecute appellants, accorded the same vide Exh.18, being authority competent to remove appellants from their service both posted as Police Naiks. Thus, it is the case of prosecution that sanction on record is valid, accorded by competent authority. 20. Perusal of cross-examination of P.W.1, sanctioning authority, when perused reveals that admittedly appointing authority and officer of the higher rank above than appointing authority, can only remove the appointed employees. He has admitted to have not seen any record or papers to get himself satisfied as to who was the appointing authority of the appellants and voluntarily deposed that in the city of Bombay, all such powers are delegated to the Deputy Commissioner of Police had admittedly not placed on record any document establishing delegation of power as such and had admitted that in the offences under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, he was not vested with power to remove the employees. In view of his evidence, he was allowed to be re-examined when he has produced of record one communication received by him marked at Exh.19. Referring to this communication, it is the case of prosecution that P.W.1, the sanctioning authority, is delegated of powers by Commissioner of Police, Gr. Bombay, for grant of sanction. However, perusal of said communication does not appears to be by Commissioner of Police, Gr. Bombay, but bares signature of Assistant Commissioner of Police headquarters addressed to P.W.1 Ravindra Kedari. First two paras of this communication refers to facts of the case and of receipt of case papers for according sanction, which documents by this covering letter are found forwarded to P.W.1 as both the appellants were found working under his control for further necessary action being competent authority. Based on the contents as such, it cannot be said that this letter refers to delegation of power by Commissioner of police who admittedly is appointing authority of appellants to accord sanction to appellants who are further found confirmed in their services, by orders on record Exh.40 collectively. 21. Based on the contents as such, it cannot be said that this letter refers to delegation of power by Commissioner of police who admittedly is appointing authority of appellants to accord sanction to appellants who are further found confirmed in their services, by orders on record Exh.40 collectively. 21. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 1 of The Bombay Police (Punishments and Appeals) Rules, 1956 contemplates that these Rules shall apply to all Police Officers (including the Railway Police Officers) of and below the rank of Inspector in the State of Bombay (hereinafter referred to as, the Police Officers). Rule 2 of said Rules prescribes that - 'No Police Officers to whom these rules apply shall be departmentally punished otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of these rules.' 22. The Rules as such are found applied to appellants who on the date of incident were admittedly posted as Head Constable and thus are below the rank of Inspector in the State of Bombay. Sub-Rule 5 contemplates that - 'The officers specified in column 1 of Schedule I to these Rules shall have power to inflict punishments of the kind specified in column 3 thereof on the officers specified in column 2 thereof, subject to the restrictions laid down in column 4 thereof. 23. Schedule No.1 to above stated Rule 5 contemplates that Commissioner of Police, Bombay, has authority to punish subject to the restrictions to which the officers specified in column 1 is authorized to punish. The officers in column 1 at Sr. No.2 is Commissioner of Police, who is authorized to punish and impose punishment by way of compulsory retirement, removal or dismissal and such punishment shall not be inflicted by any authority lower in rank than that by which the Police Officers were appointed. 24. In view of evidence of P.W.1 as discussed above and it has come on record as admitted by him that he was not appointing authority, of the appellants nor had seen any record and papers to verify the appointing authority of appellants and has admitted that it is only the appointing authority or the officer of higher rank than the appointing authority, can only remove the appointed employees, sanction since has been accorded by Assistant Police Commissioner since has been issued by P.W.1 in his capacity as Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-6, Mumbai, same cannot be acted upon. The case of prosecution fails on this ground also. 25. In the given set of circumstances and in view of authoritative pronouncement in the case of 'State of Karnataka vs. C. Nagrajaswamy, (2005) 8 SCC 370 ' wherein considering the issue of proper sanction if accorded or not it is held that ordinarily, such question should be dealt with at the stage of taking cognizance but, even if a cognizance of the offence is taken erroneously and it comes to the notice of the Court at a later stage a finding to that effect is permissible and even such a plea can be taken for the first time before the Appellate Court. The law in the case of 'State of Karnataka vs. C. Nagrajaswamy' referred supra, is duly relied in the case of 'Nanjappa vs. State of Karnataka' wherein the preliminary issue raised was that sanction from competent authority was not obtained and, therefore, proper procedure for trial Court is to discharge accused rather than deciding case on merits, relegating parties to a stage where authorities can obtain fresh sanction. Hon'ble Apex Court, however, had considered the question of grant of permission and to launch fresh prosecution against the appellants and while considering the same noted that as long time of 17 years had passed, from the date of occurrence, there was no possibility of prosecution witnesses to be available, and thus, there is no compelling reason for directing a fresh trial at such distant point of time in a case of that nature involving a bribe of Rs.500/- for which appellant had already suffered ignominy of trial, conviction and a jail term no matter for a short while. In the case in hand, time of 20 years has lapsed as the incident involved in this case is of 19.03.1999. In that view of the matter and relying upon the aforesaid pronouncement, no purpose could be achieved by directing fresh trial at this point of time. More particularly when prosecution has also failed to establish appellants involvements in this case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, appeal is liable to be allowed as per order below : 26. In that view of the matter and relying upon the aforesaid pronouncement, no purpose could be achieved by directing fresh trial at this point of time. More particularly when prosecution has also failed to establish appellants involvements in this case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, appeal is liable to be allowed as per order below : 26. The judgment and order passed by the learned Special Court in Special Case No.1 of 2000 convicting appellants for the offence punishable under Section 7 r/w. Section 12 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is quashed and set aside. Bail bonds of appellants stand cancelled, sureties discharged.