Mukta Gupta, J;—

1. The Appellant impugnes the judgment dated 26th March, 2003 whereby he has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 27th March, 2003 whereby he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years with fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 7 and 13(2) PC Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months on each count.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that there is total non-application of mind while granting the sanction. Neither the demand nor acceptance has been proved. The prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution version. The recovery is highly doubtful in view of the contradictory statement of the prosecution witnesses. The recovery was made from beneath the sofa. The hand-wash allegedly taken was also doubtful. The audio equipment was not exhibited. Further S.I. Vipin Kumar and PW2 went out to get the copies of the audio recording made and thus material evidence was permitted to go out in unsealed condition. The voice in th