JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted and the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant may kindly be set aside and he may be acquitted”

2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment, dated 28.05.1990, passed by the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption Cases), Udaipur in Original Case No. 11/85 titled State Vs. Chhagan Lal whereby Chaggan Lal was convicted for the offences under Section 5 (1) (d) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 I.P.C., and awarded him a sentence of 1 year R.I. along with Rs. 1000/-in default of payment of which he was to further undergo 1 month S.I. for each of the offences.

3. Brief facts of the case as laid before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellants are that an F.I.R., at Ex. P/6, was lodged by the complainant P.W.4 Shankerlal, to P.W.9 S.P. Khadgawat, A.S.P., A.C.D. Udaipur on 12.03.1985 stating therein that while Chaggan Lal was engaged as a handling and transportation agent cum contractor with the Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation Centre, Udaipur, he had submitted bills on 01.03.1985 worth Rs. 30,000/-before Chaggan Lal who was delaying the verification process and despatch of the said bills, and was demanding a sum of Rs. 2000/-as illegal gratification for the said purpose. Subsequently, a trap was laid on 12.03.1985 at about 03:00 p.m. while the appellant was in his office with his Managing Director, P.W. 14-Tara Prakash Joshi. And that, a recovery of Rs. 2000/-was made from Chaggan Lal which is alleged to have been paid outside the office by the complainant, P.W. 4.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that it has been the plea of the late Chaggan Lal from the very beginning that he advanced various amounts towards loans to the complainant of Rs. 10,000/-from time to time, and that the Rs. 2000/-so recovered from him was made by the complainant towards a repayment of the same. And that, the same was not disclosed by the complainant when he was interrogated under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but subsequently , the same was admitted by him.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that P.W.14 was a signatory to the recovery memo, being the head of the department in which Chaggan Lal was working in, accorded the sanction for the prosecution of the appellant, vide Ex.P/20.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that as per Ex.P/21 covering letter, was placed before P.W. 14, for the purpose of acquiring prosecution sanction, but that neither was the investigation file, the statement of the complainant, at Ex.D/4 nor the documents of statements of Shri Raj Kumar, Shri Rajendra Prasad and Shri Pratap Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C., at Ex.P/7, Ex.P.9 and Ex.P/11 were not produced before him. And that, therefore, the authority which granted the prosecution sanction make an application of mind, and therefore, is infirm.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that Chaggan Lal, when apprehended, had offered the explanation for acceptance of the amount of Rs. 2000/-on the spot, being towards repayment of the loan advanced by him to the complainant.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the learned Court below has gravely erred in holding that there was a delay in the dispatch of bills, and that nine of the ten bills had been duly verified and were ready for dispatch, and that the tenth bill in fact lacked verification and therefore could not be dispatched. And that, the forwarding letter was also ready and signed, and enclosed in the envelope as well. Moreover there were intervening holidays on 03.03.1985, 06.03.1985 to 10.03.1985, further delaying the same.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submits that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order of conviction after looking into t