The judgment establishes that a valid sanction for prosecution is necessary under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the plea of false implication and alibi must be supported by evidence.

1. hile working as Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (B & R), Trichur, the appellant got involved in an offence punishable under S.161 of the Indian Penal Code and S.5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption, Act read with S.5 (1) (d) thereof. He was charge-sheeted by the Vigilance Police and tried before the Special Judge, Trichur in C. C. No. 38 of 1986. The case ended in conviction for both the offences. Under each count, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentences were permitted to be suffered concurrently. For the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, he was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. He is challenging the convictions and sentences.

2. Pw. 5 is the owner of "Dwaraka" theatre at Kodakara. pws.1 and 7 are his sons. pw.1 is also the Manager of the theatre. Term of the licence for the theatre by the Panchayat was due to expire on 25-6-1983. As early as 22-5-1983, pw. 5 submitted Ext. P4 renewal application. Renewal of licence could be had only if fitness certificate for the building is issued by the appellant. Appellant had to do so on the basis of the report from the Assistant Executive Engineer (Dw 1) subordinate to him. Report of dw.1 was personally taken by pw.1 to the appellant on 22-6-1983. He wanted the licence to be got renewed on or before 25-6-1983. Appellant did not oblige. pw.1 returned and sent pw. 7 on 25-671983. He met the appellant without success twice at 3 and 5 PM. He returned and reported to pw. 1. 26-6-1983 was Sunday. pw.1 met the appellant at 12,30 PM on 27-6-1983 at his office. He was told that this sort of meeting will not help and there is a "mamool". When asked what it is, appellant explained that it is a customary payment of Rs. 200/-. pw.1 went out agreeing to come back with the amount.

3. After an initial hesitation, be decided to inform the Vigilance Police. Information was given to pw H at 3 PM. A case was registered. After observing the usual formalities, a trap was arranged. pw 2 Sasidharan Nair and one Kumaradas, two Gazetted Officers, were arranged as witnesses for the trap. pw 3 was the police constable arranged to go along with pw.1 and wait outside. At about 4.15 PM, pw 1 went inside appellant's office room. He was there. pw.1 informed his readiness. As directed by the appellant, he put the two notes of hundred rupee denomination inside the draw of the table. He was asked to wait outside. Appellant called the Peon to bring the file. pw.1 came out and gave the arranged signal. pw. 3 relayed the same. pw. H and party suddenly came. Appellant was asked by pw. 11 to take out the notes received from pw. 11 after revealing his identity. He denied having received amount. Acquaintance with pw.1 was even denied. As directed by pw. 11, the draw was opened and the two notes taken out by pw. 2. That was also after observing the usual formalities and tests. The notes were found the same as those produced by pw.1 and given back to him after smearing with pnenolphthalein powder. This is the prosecution version of the incident spoken to by pws.1, 2, 3, 8 and 11. pw. 11 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who arranged and conducted the trap, and pw. 8 is the Circle Inspector, who assisted him.

4. Defence is this. On 25-6-1983 itself, appellant accepted the notes of the Junior Superintendent and Senior Superintendent and ordered certificate to be issued. Therefore there was no occasion or need to demand or receive bribe. pw.1 did not meet him at 12.30 or 4.15 PM on 27-6-83. There was no demand or payment. At 12.30 he was in a conference in the Collectorate. He returned to office only after 1 PM. Even then be did not enter the office room. He waited in the car in the car porch and went away for inspection after discussion with subordinates. He returned only at 4 PM. Then also be was outside the office room engaged in official business with subordinates. When be came ba