JUDGMENT

S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.:— This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Orissa made in Criminal Appeal No. 136/76 dismissing the appeal but modifying the sentence. The appellant took his trial under Sections 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under Sections 467 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that he had dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3851.60, which amount was in his control in the capacity of a public servant, i.e. Cashier-cum-Accountant in the office of the District Veterinary Officer at Bolangir and that he had wilfully and with the intent to defraud altered and even mutilated the cash book (Ext. 4) and also had forged the said cash book with the intent to defraud the Government to the extent of the aforesaid amount.

2. The Trial Court accepting the case of the prosecution convicted the appellant under all the charges and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,900 / - in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each of the convictions under Sections 467 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code respectively in addition to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to suffer imprisonment for a period of two months under Section 467, I. P. C.

3. On appeal, the High Court while confirming the judgment of the Trial Court in its entirety, reduced the fine amount from Rs.3,900/- to Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the conviction under Section 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(c). In other respects, the sentences awarded for the convictions under the other two charges were confirmed. Hence this appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant took us through the judgment of both the Trial Court as well as the High Court and contended that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained as it suffers from manifest illegality, in that the High Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in the proper perspective. According to him, the prosecution has not established the charges by examining any one of the employees to prove that the amount had not been disbursed to them. This argument is not tenable because the case of the prosecution is that the amount has never been disbursed to any of the staffs and that the entire amount has been misappropriated. Secondly, it has been contended that the appellant did not receive any cash but he only under the instructions made by PW-5 made the entries in the cash book as well in the bill book and showed the expenditure of the said amount and debited the grand total. PW-5 has denied the statement of the appellant. As rightly pointed out by the High Court, apart from the statement of the appellant there is no other material on record to support the stand of the appellant. The High Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case on this aspect has made the following observation:

"In the circumstances, particularly when PW-5 has denied his involvement in the matter, it is difficult, to accept the appellants contention that although no payment had been received by him he had made the entry as directed by PW-5."

5. We see no reason to depart from the above observation.

6. One other contention raised by the learned counsel on the basis of an admission of PW-7 in the cross-examination is that PW-4 while granting sanction (Ext. 6) had not applied his mind to the entire records and, therefore, the sanction is not a valid one. In support of this contention, reliance was placed by the learned counsel on a decision of this Court in Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1979) 2 SCR 1007 wherein it has been held that "the grant of sanction is not an idle formality but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to Government servants against frivolous prosecution