JUDGMENT : This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court-cum -Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam in Special Case No.61 of 2014, dated 14/03/2018. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief :- The first accused was working as Inspector, second accused as Head Constable and third accused as Sub Inspector of Police in the Ayyampettai Police Station during 2003. On 01/03/2003, the de-facto complainant gave a complaint against his sister Mallika with regard to civil dispute between them. It was received by the police officials, for which, receipt was given in CSR No.81 of 2003. That was enquired by the police officials. Again, on 31/05/2003 the de-facto complainant gave another complaint, which was also received and CSR No.198 of 2003 was issued. On 06/07/2003 at about 09.30 am, when the accused person enquired the complaint, they demanded illegal gratification of Rs.3,000/-, of which Rs.2,000/- for the first and second accused and Rs.1,000/- for the third accused. Subsequently reiterated the demand on 18/07/2003, 21/07/2003 and 23/07/2023 at the Ayyampettai Police Station for settling the civil dispute prevailing between the complainant and his sister Mallika. Not willing to bribe, the de-facto complaint lodged a complaint with the respondent. Based upon the complaint, trap was laid. Case in Crime No.14 of 2003 was registered for the offence section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused was arrested in the trap. After completing the formalities of the investigation, final report was filed. It was taken on file by the Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur @ Kumbakonam in Special Case No.8 of 2004 for the offences under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused was arrested in the trap. After completing the formalities of the investigation, final report was filed. It was taken on file by the Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur @ Kumbakonam in Special Case No.8 of 2004 for the offences under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. After completing 207 Cr.P.C proceedings, framed the following charges against the accused persons:- (i)The accused persons were working as Police Officials in the Ayyampettai Police Station during 2003; On 01/03/2003 the de-facto complainant gave a complaint against his Sister Mallika with regarding civil dispute between them; That was enquired by the police officials; Again on 31/05/2003, the de-facto complainant gave another complaint, which was also received and enquired by them; On 06/07/2003 at about 09.30 am, when the accused person enquired the complaint, they demanded illegal gratification of Rs.3,000/- and subsequently reiterated the demand on 18/07/2003, 21/07/2003 and 23/07/2023 in the Ayyampettai Police Station for settling a civil dispute prevailing between the complainant and his sister Mallika and thereby, the accused committed an office under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and (ii)In the course of same transaction, the accused persons by using their official position as public servant, obtained Rs.3,000/- as pecuniary advantage for themselves from the complainant and thereby the accused committed an offence under section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. To that charges, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the case was transferred to Special Court, Trichy and taken on file as Special Case No.48 of 2012. During trial process, as per the direction of this court, it was transferred to Special Court-cum-CJM Court, Thanjavur @ Kumbakonam and taken on file in Special Case No.61 of 2014 4. During the trial process, on the side of the prosecution, 27 witnesses have been examined and 51 documents marked. Apart from that, MO1 to MO4 marked. On the side of the accused, no oral evidence was adduced, but two documents marked. 5. PW2 is living in the Middle Street, Agraharam, Papanasam Taluk. He has narrated the events, which are not connected with the present issue regarding his first wife's conduct, his re-marriage and etc., facts. Apart from that, MO1 to MO4 marked. On the side of the accused, no oral evidence was adduced, but two documents marked. 5. PW2 is living in the Middle Street, Agraharam, Papanasam Taluk. He has narrated the events, which are not connected with the present issue regarding his first wife's conduct, his re-marriage and etc., facts. According to him, his sister by name Mallika came to his house, on 28/02/2003 at about 07.00 pm and demanded 5 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.20,000/-, abused him in filthy language. To take action against Mallika, he lodged a complaint, on 01/03/2003 with the Ayyampattai Police Station. That complaint was received by the Head Constable Renganathan. He issued CSR No.81 of 2003 under Ex.P3. At about 03.00 pm, he was called to the police station by a Writer. At that time, Mallika and her husband Dharamaraj were present. He told the police officials, Mallika and Dharmaraj that when his first wife Latha left the house, took away the jewels, money, etc. She made entry regarding the money borrowed by Mallika in her own diary. So, he expressed his inability to pay any money. The police officials pressurised him to sell the house and give the money. He was criminally intimidated. Under force and threat, he wrote undertaking letter that he will return Rs.20,000/- and 5 sovereigns of gold jewels. That occurred on 01/09/2003. At that time, Writer Venislaus demanded Rs.200/-. After that, he visited the police station several times. He made complaint to the police and higher authorities about the threat and forcible obtaining of undertaking letter. On 31/05/2003 at 06.30 pm, he went to the police station again. At that time, SI- Kathirvel was transferred and in his place a new officer came. A3 enquired him. He narrated the entire events. He asked PW2 to withdraw the complaint against the Head Constable and promised him to return the undertaking letter. 6. So, he withdrew the complaint sent by him against the Head Constable. At that time, again he received a fresh complaint, over which CSR No.198 of 2003 was issued under Ex.P5. Again trouble started by his first wife Latha, his sister Mallika and her husband. So, he decided to sell the house property. Again under compulsion and force, undertaking letter was received from him settling Rs.1,50,000/- to the first wife by selling the house. Again trouble started by his first wife Latha, his sister Mallika and her husband. So, he decided to sell the house property. Again under compulsion and force, undertaking letter was received from him settling Rs.1,50,000/- to the first wife by selling the house. In pursuance of the above said, he gave Rs.50,000/-. That amount was given to his wife Latha by A1. The balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- will be paid to Dharmaraj. When he returned from the police station, the accused Selvaraj demanded Rs.3,000/- for himself and Inspector, apart from Rs.2,000/- to SI-Kathirvel. He stated him that he has no money. 7. On 18/07/2003, he was called to the police station. At that time, SI-Kathirvel was present in the police station. Again. they demanded Rs.2,000/- for the Inspector and Selvaraj. On 23/07/2003, they took Rs.100/- from his pocket. On 24/07/2003, he was asked to come to the police station on the next day by selling the property and settling the money to Dharmaraj. At that time, the accused demanded Rs.2,000/- for Inspector and Rs.1,000/- for SI. So, he lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption under Ex.P9. 8. The further event is spoken by PW26 the Inspector of Police. He received the complaint and registered a case in Crime No.14 of 2003 under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He submitted the original records to the court and copies to the higher authorities. He made request to the Government Departments to depute two officials to assist him in the trap proceedings. As per the request made by him, one Ravi and Thalapathi appeared before him. PW2 was introduced to the witnesses. PW2 handed over Rs. 3,000/-. He prepared the mahazar mentioning the currency note numbers consisting one Rs.500/- note and 25 Rs.100/- notes. He requested the Head Constable Richard Selvakumar to prepare the Sodium Carbonate solution. Later, phenolphthalein powder was applied to the currency notes. One of the official witnesses was instructed to count the same and they counted. Another Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared, wherein one of the official witnesses dipped his hands. It turned pink. The entire events were recorded in the form of mahazar, signed by all the witnesses. He instructed PW2 to give the money to the accused if any demand is made. Later they started to the office of the accused and hiding in a nearby area. It turned pink. The entire events were recorded in the form of mahazar, signed by all the witnesses. He instructed PW2 to give the money to the accused if any demand is made. Later they started to the office of the accused and hiding in a nearby area. PW2 and the official witnesses went inside the police station. 9. The further event is spoken by PW2 . They went inside the police station. At that time, SI-Sivakumar was going out and asked him to contact Writer Selvaraj and give money to Selvaraj, including his money so that he can collect later. He gave Rs.1,000/- to the Writer Selvaraj. At that time, he demanded Rs.2,000/- for them. He contacted through phone and later, he told that Inspector asked him to receive the money. He received Rs.2,000/- in one hand and Rs.1,000/- in another hand. He counted the money and put the same in the drawer. After paying the money to Selvaraj, they came out of the police station and gave signal as instructed by PW26. 10. PW2 narrated the event to PW26 and identified the accused. Sodium Carbonate Solution was prepared, in which Writer Selvaraj was directed to dip his hands in a separate container. It was collected, labeled and sealed. He enquired about the bribe amount. He handed over the same from his drawer. The currency note serial numbers were compared with that of the currency notes mentioned in the mahazar. It was found tallied. The money was recovered under a mahazar, in which the accused and the witnesses signed. He made enquiry with the Inspector Jothiram, SI- Kathirvel and Writer Selvaraj. For the entire events, he prepared a mahazar, in which all the witnesses signed. He prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch showing the place of occurrence. He handed the file to the DSP for further investigation. 11. PW27 was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police in Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Thanjavur during the relevant time. He took up further investigation; recorded the statement of the witnesses, made search in the house of the Inspector Jothiram and Writer Selvaraj and SI Kumaravel. But nothing was recovered from the house, and prepared the mahazar for the search and submitted the articles for chemical analysis through court. He took up further investigation; recorded the statement of the witnesses, made search in the house of the Inspector Jothiram and Writer Selvaraj and SI Kumaravel. But nothing was recovered from the house, and prepared the mahazar for the search and submitted the articles for chemical analysis through court. After receiving the chemical analysis report and other records, statement of the witnesses, obtained sanction order against the accused, he recorded the statement of the competent authority and filed final report, on 13/03/2004. 12. PW3 is the official witness, who accompanied PW2 during the entire events. 13. PW4 is the son of PW2. He has spoken about PW2 and their mother and the police enquiry etc., facts corroborating PW2. 14. PW5 is the daughter of PW2. She also corroborating PW4 in material materials. 15. PW6 is the purchaser of the house from PW2 and spoken about the enquiry conducted by the police in the police station and settlement of money by PW2 to Dharmaraj and Latha. 16. PW7 has spoken about the liability of PW2 to his brother-in-law and the enquiry made in the police station regarding that issue. 17. PW8 is the Document Writer by profession; spoken about the document written in the police station. 18. PW9 is the brother-in-law of PW2; has spoken about his brother's problems. 19. PW10 is the brother of PW2. He has spoken about the issue 20. PW12 and PW13 enquired the complaint given by PW2 against his sister Mallika. 21. PW14, PW15 and PW18 are not the material witnesses. 22. PW16 spoken about the enquiry conducted regarding the issue between Mallika and PW2. 23. PW17 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. 24. PW19 was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police during the relevant time. He has spoken about the complaint given by PW2 and enquiry and etc., facts. 25 .PW23 has spoken about the pledge made with Kumbakonam Town Benefit Fund standing in the name of Latha the wife of the de-facto complainant. 26. PW24 is the Scientific Officer attached to FSL, Chennai. She examined the material objects submitted by the Trap Laying Officer. 27.After completing the prosecution witnesses, the accused were put on 313 Cr.P.C question. They denied the allegation. On their side, as mentioned above no witness was examined, but two documents were marked. 26. PW24 is the Scientific Officer attached to FSL, Chennai. She examined the material objects submitted by the Trap Laying Officer. 27.After completing the prosecution witnesses, the accused were put on 313 Cr.P.C question. They denied the allegation. On their side, as mentioned above no witness was examined, but two documents were marked. 28.After considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, the second accused convicted and sentenced as detailed below:- S.No. Charge for conviction Punishment Fine/in default 01. Section 7 of PC Act r/w section 34 of IPC Two years RI Fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months SI. 02. Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act r/w section 34 of IPC Two years RI Fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months SI. 29 .A1 namely V.R.Jothiram and A3 namely Kathirvel died during trial, the charges against them abated. 30.Against the judgment of conviction and sentence, this criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant/A2. 31.Heard both sides. 32.Before we enter into the facts, the manner in which the appellant/A2 involved in the civil dispute must be addressed. 33.At the outset, this court must express its displeasure the way in which the accused entered into the civil issue, making compromise against the repeated guidelines issued by this Court as well as the DGP. In clear violation of the guidelines and Circular issued, the involvement of the police officials in the civil issue has not stopped. We will see, how they themselves engaged into that issue. 34.PW2 was married to Latha. That was the first marriage. Later, Latha developed intimacy with one Kumar. Deserting the child and PW2, Latha eloped with Kumar, for which complaint was given by PW2, on 08/07/1999. During their joint living, PW2 purchased a property in the name of Latha, out of his own funds. The house was constructed in that property. 35.Mallika, who is the own sister of PW2 was examined as PW10, helped PW2 by giving some jewels. After Latha left the matrimonial home, PW10 demanded the jewels and other things back. 36.In this regard, we will go to the evidence of PW10. She would say that 5 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.30,000/- was borrowed by PW2 and Latha. She demanded back the money and jewels. Over that issue, PW2 gave a complaint before the Ayyampettai Police Station against her. A Lady Sub Inspector enquired the complaint. 36.In this regard, we will go to the evidence of PW10. She would say that 5 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.30,000/- was borrowed by PW2 and Latha. She demanded back the money and jewels. Over that issue, PW2 gave a complaint before the Ayyampettai Police Station against her. A Lady Sub Inspector enquired the complaint. At the time of enquiry, PW2 admitted that he received 5 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.30,000/-. PW2 requested 6 months time for repayment. Within time, PW2 did not return the money and jewels. So, she again went to the police station and made a complaint regarding non-payment. At that time, PW2 came to the police station along with the second wife and promised them to settle the issue after selling the property. Latha was brought to the police station for resolving the issue. During the course of enquiry, the matter was compromised between them. Latha was paid Rs.50,000/- by PW2. She demanded Rs.40,000/- towards discharge. That amount was later paid by PW2 through his purchaser. 37.Now we will go to the evidence of PW2 on the backgrounds facts. On 28/02/2003 at about 07.00 pm, PW10 Mallika picked up quarrel, demanded return of jewels and repayment of loan amount. On 01/03/2003, he lodged a complaint against Mallika. The complaint was received by the Head Constable Renganatham. He is not the accused in this case. Later, enquiry was undertaken by one Lady SI. Since he was threatened and coerced, he wrote an undertaking letter that he will return the money and jewels before, 09/01/2003. At that time, the Writer who is not the accused herein demanded Rs.200/- for him and received the same. After that, he went to the police station several times. In the meantime, SI Sivakumar was transferred. Against, SI Sivakumar and others, he sent complaint to the higher authorities under Ex.P4. 38.On 31/05/2003, he was called to the police station. A3-Kathirvel came to the police station. At that time, Sivakumar was transferred. A3 asked him to withdraw the complaint against the Lady SI and Kathirvel. On that account, he gave a withdrawal latter. 39.But another complaint was obtained from him. He went to the police station several times. But there was no development. Later, one Soundar involved in that matter and told him that for settling the issue, the accused demands Rs.5,000/-. A3 asked him to withdraw the complaint against the Lady SI and Kathirvel. On that account, he gave a withdrawal latter. 39.But another complaint was obtained from him. He went to the police station several times. But there was no development. Later, one Soundar involved in that matter and told him that for settling the issue, the accused demands Rs.5,000/-. These are the facts spoken by PW2 corroborating the evidence of PW10 regarding the settlement of issue between them before the police station. 40.This shows that in a simple civil matter, the accused got themselves engaged, which prima facie illegal. This is the first point, which is available against the accused. We need not discuss much about the issue between PW2, his first wife Latha, his Sister Mallika (PW10) and Brother-in-law Dharmaraj (PW9). 41.Suffice to say that on the basis of the complaint and counter complaint given by PW2 and PW10, enquiry was conducted by the accused, over which they have no power, jurisdiction or authority. 42.Now we will go to the main issue of initial demand. Sub Inspector Sivakumar was transferred on the date of the initial demand. Ignoring that event, now we will go to the allegation against the present accused. 43.It is the evidence of PW2 that on 26/06/2003 at about 11.00 am, A3 came to the police station and asked him to give money. At that time, A2-Selvaraj was also present. PW9-Dharmaraj and one Muthuraj came to the police station. Their treatment was not good. So, PW2 told A2 and A3 to advise PW10 to approach the civil court. But about 09.30 pm, one Soundar came to his house and asked him to compromise and settle the issue and demanded Rs.5,000/-. He promised to pay the amount on the next day I.e., on 27/03/2003. On that day, at about 11.00 am, he went to the police station, at that time A2 alone was present. A2 told him that the entire issue is resolved and he must give Rs.3,000/- for himself and Inspector and Rs.2,000/- to A3. They directed him to come to the police station, on 07/07/2003. From this, the first and second demand alleged to have been made by A2 through one Soundar and second time by A2 himself directly. 44.Regarding the first demand alleged to have been made A1 through Soundar, except the evidence of PW2, no other corroborating evidence is available. They directed him to come to the police station, on 07/07/2003. From this, the first and second demand alleged to have been made by A2 through one Soundar and second time by A2 himself directly. 44.Regarding the first demand alleged to have been made A1 through Soundar, except the evidence of PW2, no other corroborating evidence is available. That Soundar is neither the accused, nor witness. He was left out completely and the reason for the same is not explained by the prosecution. 45.Regarding the second demand by A2, again except the evidence of PW2, no other corroborating evidence is available. So, the evidentiary value of PW2 must be assessed in the light of the subsequent events. 46.Now we will go further. What went further is a matter of grave concern. According to PW2, on 07/07/2003 again enquiry was conducted. At that time, his brother also came to the police station. He was ill-treated by A1. A1 prevailed upon PW2 to settle the issue, otherwise he has to face the consequences. That was done in the presence of his son and daughter. 47.Now we will go to the evidence of his son and daughter. 48.PW4 is the son of PW2. But he has not witnessed the enquiry conducted by the accused. PW5 is the daughter of PW2. She has witnessed the entire occurrence and corroborating PW2 regarding the enquiry conducted by the accused. According to her, after making compromise, A2 Selvaraj enquired about Rs.5,000/- to be paid to them. But she has stated the date as 08/07/2007. Probably PW5 has given date. We can ignore this portion of evidence. So, from the evidence of PW5, it stands established that the accused conducted enquiry over the issue. 49.PW6 is the purchaser of the property belonged to PW2. He also corroborated PW2 and PW5 regarding the enquiry conducted by the accused. 50.PW7 has spoken about the enquiry undertaken by the accused regarding the issue. 51.PW9-Dharmaraj, the Brother-in-law of PW2 also corroborated the prosecution regarding the enquiry undertaken by the accused. 52.By the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution clearly established the fact that on the particular date, all the accused undertook the enquiry. But, as mentioned above, regarding the initial demand made, except the evidence of PW2. no other corroborative evidence is available. 53.Now we will go to the trap event. 54.On 24/07/2003, the complaint was lodged. 52.By the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution clearly established the fact that on the particular date, all the accused undertook the enquiry. But, as mentioned above, regarding the initial demand made, except the evidence of PW2. no other corroborative evidence is available. 53.Now we will go to the trap event. 54.On 24/07/2003, the complaint was lodged. The Trap Laying Officer, in pursuance of which, made pre-trap arrangements, which was corroborated the evidence of shadow witness namely PW3 Ravi. 55.Regarding the pre-trap arrangements, no argument was advanced on the side of the accused. That portion of the event, need not be doubted. So, from the evidence of the Trap Laying Officer and PW3, it stands established that pre-trap arrangements were made as per the procedure. 56.Now we will go to the further events. 57.PW2 would say that in pursuance of the above said, he has gone to the police station along with shadow witness PW3. At that time, SI-Kathirvel was returning from the office and asked them to contact A2. PW2 told A3 regarding the money to be paid to him. In-turn A3 told PW2 to give his money also to A2. They entered into the office of the accused, at that time, his children, his Brother-in- law Dharmaraj (PW9) and the purchaser PW6-Nagarajan, his first wife Latha were present. He enquired about Inspector Jothiram namely A1. He told that he will come some-time after later. He told A2 that A3 told him to give the money to him. He asked whether he brought Rs.2,000/- to be paid to them. A2 contacted Inspector through phone and told that Inspector asked to receive the money. He gave money to A2. A2 received the same, counted and put it in the left hand drawer. After that, he made signal as per the instructions given by the Trap Laying Officer. His evidence is corroborated by, PW3, the shadow witness. 58.Keeping the evidence of PW2 and PW3 away for sometime, now we will go to the evidence of PW5 regarding the demand and acceptance on the date of the trap. 59.PW5 corroborated the evidence of PW2 about the demand, acceptance of money by A2. On his behalf, A3 was present. 60.The prosecution further relies upon the evidence of PW6 who is the purchaser. He also supported the prosecution case regarding the trap event. 59.PW5 corroborated the evidence of PW2 about the demand, acceptance of money by A2. On his behalf, A3 was present. 60.The prosecution further relies upon the evidence of PW6 who is the purchaser. He also supported the prosecution case regarding the trap event. But he has not spoken about the demand and acceptance of the bribe by A2 from PW2. He was treated as hostile by the prosecution. 61.PW7 has supported PW2 regarding the demand and acceptance of money by A2. 62.PW9 did not speak about the demand and acceptance of money by A2 on the date of trap. 63.PW10 also did not speak about the demand and acceptance of tainted money. But from the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW5 and PW7, it stands established that on the date of the trap also, A2 demanded and accepted the bribe amount. 64.Now we will go to the recovery aspect. 65.PW3 would say that after the acceptance of money and entry of the Trap Laying Officer, a team of the Vigilance police went inside the office of A2, A2 handed over Rs.3,000/- available on the top of the Telephone Directory. 66.Now we will go to the evidence of the Trap Laying Officer. He would say that they made enquiry with A2 regarding the tainted money. He handed over the money available on the top of the Telephone directory. 67.Now regarding the recovery aspect, the defence taken by the accused is that when A2 was making a phone call to the Inspector, without his knowledge, PW2 placed the money in the drawer of A2. So, regarding the recovery, that was the defence taken. PW2 was cross examined to the effect that he entertained grudge against the accused, since they supported his sister Mallika (PW10) during the course of enquiry. To wreck vengeance towards that when A2 was speaking to the Inspector through phone, he placed the money in the drawer of A2. That was denied by him. 68.No doubt that there is contradiction in the prosecution case regarding where the money was kept by A2. But PW2 and PW3 says that the money was accepted by A2. But at the time of recovery, it was handed over from the top of the Telephone Directory. But, as mentioned above, A2 admitted that the money was recovered from him. 68.No doubt that there is contradiction in the prosecution case regarding where the money was kept by A2. But PW2 and PW3 says that the money was accepted by A2. But at the time of recovery, it was handed over from the top of the Telephone Directory. But, as mentioned above, A2 admitted that the money was recovered from him. Though it was the contention that it was placed without his knowledge in his drawer, this simple contradiction need not be given much importance. 69.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A2 would submit that the Trap Laying Officer has not signed in the mahazar. So, the recovery itself is doubtful. Simply because the Trap Laying Officer has not signed in the mahazar, the recovery cannot be doubted in the light of the overwhelming evidence. 70.The contention that several persons were present during the course of the enquiry and so absolutely, there is no occasion or possibility for demanding the money or bribe amount from PW2 is also cannot be accepted, because of the overwhelming evidence on the side of the prosecution as mentioned above. 71.None of the arguments advanced by the appellant regarding the demand, acceptance and recovery are worth considering. So, the arguments advanced on that score by the appellant are rejected. 72.Finally, regarding the sanction, it was submitted by the appellant that PW1 is not the competent person to grant sanction to prosecute the accused. 73.Now we will go to the evidence of PW1. He was working as DIG during the relevant time in Thanjavur. According to him, he was the Appointing Authority for SI, Inspector and got power to remove them from the office. Regarding the Head Constable, the Superintendent of the Police of the concerned District has got power. But however, he is the overall controlling authority. So, he got every power to issue sanction against all the accused. 74.It is contended by the appellant that A2 is only a Writer. Only Superintendent of Police is the competent authority to remove him from the post. PW1-DIG has no power. But this is also not acceptable for the simple reason that DIG is having overall control over and above the District Superintendent of Police. So, the power of the higher police official to issue sanction order, even though a person below the rank of SI, that power cannot be called in question by the accused. PW1-DIG has no power. But this is also not acceptable for the simple reason that DIG is having overall control over and above the District Superintendent of Police. So, the power of the higher police official to issue sanction order, even though a person below the rank of SI, that power cannot be called in question by the accused. So, the sanction accorded by PW1 is completely legal and cannot be found fault. So, this ground is also rejected. 75.So, considering over-all factual circumstances and the evidence on record on the side of the prosecution, the evidence of PW2 regarding the initial demand made by the accused also stands established and nothing has been brought on record to discard his evidence. 76.Finally, as mentioned above, the accused themselves involved in an occasion or enquiry, which they are not competent, having entertained the complaint, conducted enquiry and demanded money for having settled the civil issue. This is beyond their authority, power and jurisdiction. 77.So, I find no ground is made out by the appellant to interfere into the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court. Regarding the sentence also, considering the manner of involvement, the sentence imposed upon the appellant stands confirmed. 78.In the result, this criminal appeal stands dismissed, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.