ORDER

K. Venkataswami, J.-Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appeal was allowed with costs by our Order dated 27.3.1996 reserving the reasons to be given later. Now the reasons are given.

3. The short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent is justified in pursuing the prosecution against the appellant under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 not withstanding the fact that on an identical charge the appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceedings in the light of a report submitted by the Central Vigilance Commission and concurred by the Union Public Service Commission.

4. Short facts are as under:

The appellant started his career In a college in the year 1955 and switched over to TISCO in the year 1959 till he was selected and appointed as Inspector in the Income Tax Service in the year 1961. The appellant's wife was also a teacher in the central School at Sokaro steel city. She was allotted on long lease a plot at Bokaro In the year 1980 for a sum of Rs.20,000/- by the Steel Authority of India Limited (for short "Sale"). As per terms and conditions Imposed by SAIL, shops i