( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of the judgment dated 14-9-1999 in C. C. No. 3 of 1994 on the file of learned Additional Special judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-V-Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad, and hence they are disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) ACCUSED No. 1 (A-1) is the appellant in criminal Appeal No. 1629 of 1999. He was convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988) (for short the Act ) and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of rs. 1,000-00 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months; and he is also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the charge under section 13 (1) (d) (I) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act sentencing him to pay a fine of rs. 1,000-00/- in default suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months and that both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

( 3 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 1618 of 1999 was filed by the accused No. 2 aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded under section 12 of the Act in C. C. No. 3 of 1994. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000-00 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

( 4 ) A-1 was working as Mandal Revenue officer, Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar district, while A-2 was working as Head assistant in the office of the Mandal revenue Officer, Makthal Mandal. It is the case of the prosecution that the both the accused are the public servants within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Act, that accused No. 1 committed offences under sections 7, 11 and 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) (I) and (ii) of the Act, while accused No. 2 committed the offence under section 12 of the Act. It is stated that One eshwari Lingappa (P. W. 1) filed representation before the MRO (A-1) for restoration of possession of certain agricultural lands claiming to be protected tenant. A-1 was understood to have initiated enquiry and demanded bribe of Rs. 3,000-00 for passing favourable orders. P. W. 1 reported the matter to the ACB, who laid trap on 29-7-1993. On the said date, at about 6-00 p. m. , accused No. 1 came to the office and when P. W. 1 met him, accused No. 1 directed that the amount to be handed over to accused No. 2. Thereafter, A-1 obtained the money from A-2. At that point of time, the trap took place. The tainted currency notes were seized and the hands of A-1 and a-2, including right hand pant pocket of A-1 were subjected to sodium carbonate solution test, which proved positive. Therefore, charge-sheet was laid by the inspector of Police, ACB, Hyderabad Range, hyderabad, alleging that the accused have committed the offences referred to above.

( 5 ) THE prosecution examined four witnesses-P. Ws. 1 to 4 and got marked exs. P-1 to P-12; and the defence examined one witness as D. W. 1 and got marked ex. D-1. M. Os. 1 to 9 were got marked for the prosecution.

( 6 ) LEARNED trial Court, after considering the evidence, recorded the finding that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No. 1, beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, inflicted punishment as stated supra. Learned Judge recorded the finding that accused No. 2 also committed the offence and accordingly he was also imposed with the punishment as stated above.

( 7 ) THE judgment was pronounced by the trial Court on 14-9-1999, against which, the present appeals have been preferred by the appellants-accused.

( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused No. 1 Mr. N. Sreedhar reddy, apart from submitting the arguments on the merits of the case has urged a formidable ground to the effect that the sanction order-Ex. P-11 as required under Section 19 of the Act was not legally proved and, therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to take cogn