J.C. SHAH, J.

(1) THE applicant Healy was an employee of the North-Eastern Railway and was posted in March, 1959, as a Platform Inspector at Gorakhpur Railway Station. The appellant told Ghammoo a sweeper working under him that unless he was paid a bribe of Rs. 15.00 Ghammoo would be marked absent. Ghammoo at first demurred but later agreed to pay the amount demanded and to give a bottle of liquor, and thereafter made a report to the R. S. 0. Special Police Establishment at Gorakhpur about the demand made by the appellant. Arrangements were made to set a trap. On 27/03/1959, Ghammoo went to the office of the appellant and paid Rs. 15.00 in currency notes which had been duly marked by the Special Police Establishment Officers and half a bottle of liquor. The appellant after receiving the currency notes assured Ghammoo that he "would not be harassed any more". Thereafter the police officers and the witnesses who were watching the appellant rushed into his office and recovered the currency notes and the bottle of liquor from him.

(2) THE appellant was prosecuted for offences under Section 161, 1. P. Code and Section 5(l)(d), read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, after obtaining the sanction of the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent. It was discovered during the course of the trial that the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent was not competent to sanction the prosecution of the appellant. The Special Judge, at the request of the public prosecutor, by order, dated 27/05/1960, quashed the proceedings. Thereafter a fresh sanction was obtained from the Chief Commercial Superintendent, North-Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur and the pro- ceeding was again started against the appellant on a charge for offences under Section 161, 1. P. Code and Section 5(l)(d), read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years on each count, but the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The order was confirmed in appeal by the High court of Allahabad. The appellant has appealed to this court with special leave.

(3) THE evidence of Ghammoo and J. K. Mehta and V. P. Chaturvedi officers of the Special Police Establishment and two panchas Krishna Lal and Gandhi Singh was accepted by the Special Judge and by the High court. The Special Judge held that the appellant had under a threat compelled Ghammoo to give him Rs. 15.00 and half a bottle of liquor. The marked currency notes were found on the person of the appellant when the police officers rushed into his office immediately after he received the currency notes from Ghammoo. The story of the appellant that Ghammoo had been instru- mental in filing a false prosecution due to enmity was discarded. His story that the currency notes and the bottle of liquor were brought by Ghammoo voluntarily and had been placed on his table without any demand by him was also rejected. There is therefore clear evidence to establish the case for the prosecution that the appellant received a bribe from Ghammoo as a motive for forbearing to show in the exercise of his official functions disfavour against Ghammoo.

(4) COUNSEL for the appellant, however, raised three contentions in support of the appeal.

(1) The trial by the Special Judge was without jurisdiction because the appellant had been previously tried and had been acquitted in respect of the same offence. In support of this contention counsel contended that the sanction given by the Deputy Chief Commerciat Superintendent for prosecuting the appellant under the Prevention of Corruption Act was a valid sanction, and the order passed by the Special Judge on 27/05/1960, quashing the proceeding at the request of the public prosecutor amounted in law to an order of acquittal and the appellant could not again be tried for the same offence. By virtue of Section 6(c) of the Prevention of C