( 1 ) THESE two appeals have been preferred by the original accused 1 and 2 in special case (corruption) No. 1 of 1993 decided by the learned principal sessions judge, kodagu, district madikeri on 7-10-1995.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the accused 1 who was then the chief officer of the town municipal council, madikeri and accused 2 who was then a clerk working under accused 1 were alleged to have demanded and received illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- each from P. W. 1-raghavendra holla for purposes of showing favour to him in relation to an application that had been filed pertaining to a certain property. It is unnecessary for me to embark upon a detailed narration of the prosecution case because it was alleged that the complaint was registered by the madikeri lokayukta police on 2-8-1991 and that pursuant to this complaint a trap was laid. the complainant was asked to handover the ten currency notes of rs. 100/- denomination which had been treated with phenolphthalein powder and to give a signal to the party. On the date of the incident, the complainant handed over the amounts in two envelopes, one to the accused 1 who is alleged to have kept the same on his table and subsequently ransferred it to his trouser pocket and the other to the ac cused 2 who accepted it and put it in his shirt pocket and on receipt of the requisite signal, the raiding party apprehended the two accused. The currency notes were recovered from their possession, limewater was poured on their hands which turned pink and the same was the case with the parts of their clothing where the powder had got smeared. The requisite inventories etc. , were drawn up, the accused were arrested and finally charge sheeted. Being a prosecution under the prevention of corruption Act, the requisite sanction was also obtained from the government for prosecution of the accused. The trial court at the conclusion of the trial found both the accused guilty of the charges and convicted them and sentenced them to suffer r. i. for three years and to pay a fine of rs. 5,000/- on each count. The two appeals have been directed against the convictions and sentences awarded to the two accused by the trial court.

( 3 ) THESE are appeals filed in the year 1995 and it is brought to my notice that the appellant in criminal appeal No. 622 of 1995 has died. normally, the appeal would have to be treated as having abated but, since there is a sentence of fine which the state is entitled to recover, the appellants' learned Advocate has pressed the appeal and the same is accordingly disposed of on merits.

( 4 ) I have heard the appellants' learned advocates as also the learned public prosecutor who appears on behalf of the state of karnataka. The record has been to tally reviewed and, even though the appellants' learned advocates submitted that the findings of the trial court should be set aside insofar as on merits, the charges do not stand proved, i refrain from embarking on any detailed evaluation of that nature because the preliminary objection canvassed on behalf of the appellant with regard to the maintainability of the prosecution will have to be upheld and if that is dpne. The question of examining the merits does not arise at all.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the appellants, as and by way of a preliminary objection, the validity of the sanction order has been challenged. There is no dispute about the fact that sanction order was applied for by the prosecuting authorities and P. W. 8 who was the then under secretary to government in the housing and urban development department has accorded the requisite sanction. The sanction order has been produced by the prosecution and is ex. P. 19. It is an order dated 4-9-1992 issued by the under secretary to government and accords sanction for the prosecution of the two accused for the offences under the prevention of corruption act. There is a very serious challenge with regard to the validity of this order under two heads, the first of them