A. Hariprasad, J.

1. Multiple important legal questions arise in this appeal. Conviction and sentence imposed by the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur on the appellant under Sections 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, "the Act") and also under Sections 409, 465, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "I.P.C.") are assailed in this appeal. Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that the accused while working as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) at Town Employment Exchange, Pala on 23.10.1990 and 15.01.1991 misappropriated Rs. 1,440/- and Rs. 2,640/- (a total sum of Rs. 4,080/-) by committing criminal breach of trust, using forged documents and by falsifying accounts. The accused thereby committed criminal misconduct by fraudulent and dishonest misappropriation of money.

2. Heard Shri Binoy Thomas, learned counsel for the accused/appellant and Shri K.K. Rajeev, learned Public Prosecutor. I have carefully gone through the detailed notes of arguments submitted by both sides.

3. Apart from the factual questions, touching upon the sustainability of conviction and sentence, the learned counsel for the appellant urged following legal questions for consideration:

I. Whether the entire prosecution is barred by limitation?

II. Whether the prosecution is bad for not obtaining proper sanction under Section 19 of the Act?

III. Whether the prosecution should fail for want of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.?

IV. Whether, due to inordinate delay in the investigation and rigmarole of the trial, the appellant's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to get a fair trial is violated?

4. Since each one of the questions of law raised in this case is important and capable of creating an impact on the decision of the case, I shall examine the legal questions before dealing with the factual issues. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned legal questions will have to be further subdivided appropriately for appreciating the issues involved. Point No. 1 - Limitation.

5. For appreciating this point, the following dates are relevant. It is the allegation that the appellant committed misappropriation of money and falsification of records on 23.10.1990 and 15.01.1991. It is come out in evidence that PW 1 reported about commission of the offence to PW 26, Sub Inspector of Police, on 12.08.1991. There is no dispute that all the offences allegedly committed by the appellant were cognizable in nature. Ext. P65 is the first information report (FIR) registered in connection with the crime. It is dated 22.04.1994. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is unexplained delay of three years elapsed from the date of alleged commission of offence to the date of registration of crime. The appellant further contended that despite the statutory mandate in Section 173(1) Cr.P.C. that every investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. shall be completed without unnecessary delay, the final report in this case was submitted by the investigating officer only on 18.12.1998, i.e., after an inordinate delay of seven years and eleven months since the date of commission of offence. Further, it was filed after expiry of seven years and four months from the date of registration of Ext. P65 FIR. Still further, there is a delay of four years and seven months in submitting the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. if counted from the date of Ext. P65 FIR. Ext. P64 is the order of sanction given by PW 20 under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act. It is also come out in evidence that PW 20 got the request for sanction only on 06.04.1998 from the Director of Vigilance and it was granted on 13.07.1998. Even if we exclude the time for obtaining sanction for prosecution as required under Section 470(3) Cr.P.C. (three months and seven days in this case), the appellant contends that there is inexcusable and unexplained delay of more than seven years in