The prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the P.C Act must be proved by the person who granted it, and the evidence of the complainant should be accepted only with independent corroboration.

The appellant herein was Sub Engineer in the Electrical Major Section, Kanjikode in January-February 2000. On the allegation that he received an amount of Rs.500/- from one Thankavelu as a reward for giving electricity connection for agricultural purposes to the property of his mother Sethu Ammal, on 8.2.2000, the appellant faced prosecution before the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode in C.C 23 of 2001. On the complaint of the said Thankavelu on 8.2.2000, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Burea (VACB), Palakkad registered crime against the appellant and arranged a trap. The amount of Rs.500/- brought by the complainant as reward, as demanded by the accused, was received by the Dy.S.P as per mahazar, and after demonstrating the required phenolphthalein test, the complainant and the trap witness were instructed to approach the accused and make payment, if he demanded money further. Accordingly, the complainant proceeded to the office of the accused along with one Kandamuthan, and made payment of the tainted money on demand, it is alleged. On getting signal from the complainant, the vigilance team led by the Dy.S.P reached there, recovered the tainted money and arrested the accused on the spot. After investigation, the vigilance submitted final report before the trial court.

2. The accused appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the P.C Act'). The prosecution examined twelve witnesses in the trial court and marked Exts.P1 to P31 including the prosecution sanction granted under Section 19 of the P.C Act.

3. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused submitted that he had not received anything as illegal gratification, and that the amount of Rs.500/- was in fact received by him as the cost required for the additional post for giving electricity connection on the request of the complainant. It is submitted that such an additional post was not included in the estimate already prepared, and when such a demand was made, the necessity of such an additional post was told to the complainant. The contractor demanded an amount of Rs.1000/- for installing such an additional post, but on request, he reduced the claim to Rs.500/- and the said amount was received by the Sub Engineer for payment to the Contractor. In defence, the accused examined two witnesses. The learned trial Judge did not accept the evidence given by the defence witnesses. Believing the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay and fine of Rs.1000/- each under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the P.C Act, by judgment dated 31.1.2007. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused has come up in appeal.

4. When this appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case of the complainant is really doubtful, that there is no consistency between the complainant and the material witness regarding payment of money, and that the amount of Rs.500/- received as the cost for installing an additional electric post was misused by the complainant for arranging a trap, only because the request for domestic connection was first declined by the Sub Engineer. The learned counsel also submitted that the prosecution sanction stands not proved in this case, and so the accused is entitled for acquittal on the said legal ground also. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Investigating Officer has proved the prosecution sanction to the satisfaction of the court, and that the evidence given by the complainant and the other witnesses is really blemishless.

5. The appellant seeks acquittal more on legal ground, than on factual ground. On