The sanction for prosecution under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, must be based on the facts constituting the offense being placed before the sanctioning authority, and the burden of proving this lies with the prosecution.

Untwalia, J.

1. The sole appellant in this appeal has been convicted by the Special Judge of Bhagalpur Under Sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, hereinafter called Act 2 of 1947, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.

2. The appellant was the Karmchari of Halka No. 2 in Pipra Anchal and was in charge of village Dinapatti also. There is a Gram Panchayat in that village named as Dinapatti Gram Panchayat in the sub-division of Supaul, district Saharsa. In June and July 1959, working as a Karmchari in village Dinapatti, he is said to have taken by way of illegal gratification various sums of money from various persons of village Dinapatti, Tola Litiahi, for showing them favour in his duty connected with the mutation of their names or the work of table survey. In or about that time one Ramadhin Khatbe (P.W. 19) had filed an application for mutation of his name in respect of certain land on the 25th July, 1959, in the office of the Circle Officer, who at the relevant time was Sri Bishwanath Sukla (P.W. 30), at Pipra Anchal. The application was sent for enquiry to the appellant. He is said to have demanded a sum of Rs. 30.00 from P. W. 19, who refused to pay any sum to the appellant. It seems that the appellant had submitted a report against P.W. 19 in connection with his application for mutation filed in the circle office.

On the 30th of November, 1959, the Circle Officer (P.W. 30) was camping at Village Bisaha and there on that date an application (Exhibit 8) scribed by Dukhi Panjiar (P. W. 18) was filed making a complaint against the appellant and this application was signed by Ramadhin Khatbe (P. W 19), Sukhdeo Khatbe (P. W. 20), Garbhu Khatbe (P. W. 21), and Bihari Khatbe (P. W. 23) all of Tola Litiahi. In this application the complaint made against the appellant was that he had demanded a sum of Rs. 30.00 from P.W. 19 but he had refused to pay and that the appellant had taken a sum of Rs. 14/- from P.W. 20; a sum of Rs. 36/- against his demand of Rs. 40.00 from P.W. 21; a sum of Rs. 30.00 from P. W. 23 and a sum of Rs. 30.00 from one Bambholi since deceased. The Circle Officer on the filing of this application took down the statements of P.Ws. 19, 20 and 21 which are respectively Exhibits 7/2, 7 and 7/1. He asked Sri Bishwanath Singh (P.W. 14), the then Circle Inspector of Pipra Anchal, who was also present at Village Basaha on the 30th November, 1959, to enquire into the matter.

Shortly thereafter on that very date three more petitions were filed before the Circle Officer and they are Exhibits 8/5, 8/4 and 8/8. The petitioners in Exhibit 8/5 are Saukhi Mandal (P W. 4), Mosst. Dukhani (P.W. 16 tendered) and Bihari Khatbe (P.W. 29). Their complaint was that the appellant had taken from them respectively Rs. 35/-, Rs. 12/- and Rs. 2/- in connection with the mutation of their respective names over certain lands. There was also a mention of the fact that the appellant had accepted a sum of Rs. 3/- from Babujan, since deceased, whose son Bihari Mandal (P.W. 15) is a tendered witness in the case. The two other applications, Exhibits 8/4 and 8/6 were in connection with the table survey matter. In the former the sole petitioner was Govind Paswan (P.W. 24), who complained that the appellant had taken a sum of Rs. 10.00 from him against his demand of Rs. 30.00 for doing the table survey work in respect of his land.

The petitioners in Exhibit 8/6 making a similar grievance were Sukhal Paswan (P.W. 25), Domi Paswan (P.W. 26), Chauthi Paswan (P.W. 27) and Raghuni Paswan (P.W. 28). They stated that they had respectively paid Rs. 6/-, Rs. 10/-, Rs. 5/- and Rs. 7/- to the appellant in connection with their work of table survey. The Circle Officer asked the Circle Inspector to make enquiries in connection with the said three applications also. When the Circle Inspector had proceeded with the matter of enquiry, another application (Exhibit 1) was filed before him on the 2nd December, 19