The appellant herein was Associate Professor of Surgery in the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam in January, 2001. On the allegation that he received an amount of Rs.500/- as illegal gratification at his residence on 31.1.2001 from one Shaji for conducting an operation, the appellant faced prosecution before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur in C.C No.7 of 2002. Crime in this case was registered by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB) on the complaint of Shaji, made on 31.1.2001. The amount of Rs.500/- brought by him was received by the Dy.S.P., phenolphthalein was applied on the currency, and after demonstrating the required phenolphthalein test to Shaji and the other witnesses including the public servants arranged by the Dy.S.P. to witness the trap, Shaji was instructed to hand over the currency to the appellant at his residence. Accordingly, Shaji handed over the phenolphthalein tainted currency, and within no time, the vigilance team led by the Dy.S.P reached there, seized the phenolphthalein tainted currency and arrested the appellant on the spot. After investigation, the vigilance submitted final report in court under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “ P.C. Act”).

2. The appellant/accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the P.C Act and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined eight witnesses in the trial court and also marked Exts.P1 to P9 documents. The prosecution also marked MO1 to MO6 properties including the tainted currency of Rs.500/- seized from the possession of the accused.

3. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and maintained a defence that he had not in fact received anything illegally from the complainant and that the trap in this case is a vicious one. In defence, the accused examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and also marked Exts.D1 to D12 documents.

4. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found that the prosecution case is true, that the accused had accepted an amount of Rs.500/- from PW2, the complainant, as illegal gratification for conducting an operation. Accordingly, the accused was convicted by the trial court under Section 7 of the P.C Act. However, he was found not guilty under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the P.C Act. On conviction under Section 7 of the P.C Act, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- by judgment dated 30.11.2004. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the accused has come up in appeal.

5. When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is entitled for acquittal on factual as well as legal grounds. It was submitted that the complainant himself turned fully hostile to the prosecution during trial, and practically there is nothing to prove the alleged demand and acceptance, except recovery of the tainted currency seized by the Dy.S.P. On the important legal aspect, the learned counsel submitted that the very cognizance in this case is barred and bad under Section 19 of the P.C Act because Ext.P1 sanction granted by the competent authority stands not properly proved according to law.

6. Before going to the legal aspects, let me discuss the evidence on facts and find whether the prosecution case stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. Of the eight witnesses examined in the trial court, PW2 is the complainant Shaji, PW3 is the trap witness arranged by the vigilance to witness the trap and PW7 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police who detected the offence. The case was investigated by PW6 and final report was submitted by PW8. PW1 is the Under Secretary to the Government, examined to prove Ext.P1 sanction granted by the Principal Secretary, Vigilance. PW2, the complainant tu