The main legal point established is that the appellant's actions constituted misappropriation under Section 13(1)(c) & (d) and Section 409 IPC, and the appellant could be punished under both provisions without violating double jeopardy.

L. NARAYANA SWAMY, J.-These two appeals are filed by the accused being aggrieved of the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Court below in Special (CBI) C.C. No. 2 & 3/2000 on the file of Principal Sessions & Special Judge, Dharwad sentencing the appellant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- & Rs. 15,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for four months for offence under Sections 13(1)(c) & (d) punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 respectively in both the cases.

2. The appellant has challenged the above judgment and sentence of conviction on the following grounds:

(i) The appellant was not incharge of Railway Hospital to discharge the special duty referred in the charge. Hence criminal breach of trust and provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act are not attracted.

(ii) Before investigation of the complaint against the appellant, no sanction as required under the provisions of Railway Board Manual is obtained and what has been produced is only a xerox copy and original sanction letter has not been produced.

(iii) There is no material for having collected prescribed fee beyond the office hours and not depositing the same as the appellant was not incharge officer for all the 24 hours and the concerned doctors and other officials were incharge and dereliction of duty committed by the others could not have been attributed to the appellant. It is the duty of the duty doctors to collect the amount/fees towards treatment of patient and to see that it is deposited in the cash office.

(iv) The charges alleged against the appellant are as vague as they could be which has caused prejudice to the appellant.

(v) Section 409 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(c) are similar in nature and therefore conviction under both the Sections of different enactments is nothing but double jeoparde violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India.

3. On behalf of the respondent, the learned counsel submits to dismiss these appeals as the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was working as a Junior Clerk in the office of the Senior Medical Superintendent, Railway Hospital, Hubli from December, 1997 to November, 1998 and was entrusted with the property as such a public servant, committed criminal breach by dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriating Rs. 18,054/-. In order to prove the said charge, the prosecution has examined 33 witnesses and in all the 24 instances he has collected to the tune of Rs. 18,054.00 and the persons who have paid the amount, were examined and thus the charges are proved. PW-32 & 33 are the police inspectors who are investigating officers and PW-10 & PW-20 are the doctors. The prosecution has also marked documents Ex.P1 to P88(b) and the list of documents exhibited on behalf of the accused are as per Ex.D1 to D3 and the appellant did not chose to examine any witnesses on his behalf.

4. I have heard both. I have gone through the L.C.R.

5. The first ground urged by the appellant is that there was no sanction for the purpose of Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Section 19 contemplates that a person shall not be prosecuted without there being previous sanction from a person who has employed in connection with affairs and is removable from his office. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 should be understood for the purpose of sanction, is the authority who has power to remove an official. In the instant case, the Divisional Manager is the appointing authority for the appellant herein who has issued sanction to prosecute the appellant. In order to find out whether proper sanction has been given to prosecute the appellant, I have examined Ex.P11 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Hubli dated 11.12.2000. This sanction was given to prosecute the appellant for 40 instances in which it is alleged that he has misappropriated