K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur convicting the appellant under S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (referred to as the 'act') and under S. 409, I. P. C. and sentencing him to imprisonment of various terms and fines of different amounts with a further direction that the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are that the appellant was serving as the Revenue Inspector of Tora within Bargarh Sub-division in the months of July and August, 1975. During those months there was a special drive for collection of land revenue and water tax from tenants. The appellant as the Revenue Inspector of the area was in charge of collection thereof. On 26-7-1975 he collected a sum of Rs. 50/- and again on 27-7-1975 he collected a further sum of Rs. 400/- from Ramesh Chandra Sahu (P. W. 5) towards land revenue and water tax. In July 1975 he collected a sum of Rs. 800/- from Gourishankar Sahu (P. W. 8) towards royalty of a Sairat. On 23-8-1975, he collected Rs. 500/- towards land revenue and water tax from Madanmohan Sahu (P. W. 9 ). The appellant also collected a sum of Rs. 300/- in two instalments from one Krushna Chandra Sahu towards land revenue and water tax. Despite receipt of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2050/-, the appellant did not grant receipts to the payers. He did not reflect the receipts in the books of accounts. On the other hand, he misappropriated the entire sum of Rs. 2050/ -. Much later on 15-10-1976 he gave refund of Rs. 750/- through his successor Revenue Inspector, P. K. Sarangi (P. W. 6 ). Complaints were made against the appellant of misappropriation and F. I. R. was lodged by the Officer-in-charge, Vigliance Police Station, Sambalpur on 16-9-76. After close of investigation by the Vigilance organisation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant.

( 3 ) THE learned Special Judge framed charges against the appellant for offences under Ss. 5 (1) (c) and 5 (1) (d) punishable under S. 5 (2) of the Act and under S. 409, I. P. C. The appellant denied the charges.

( 4 ) DURING trial, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses including most of the persons who made payments to the appellant and also produced a large number of documentary evidence. After consideration thereof, the learned Special Judge found the charges established against the appellant and. Therefore, he convicted and sentenced the appellant as referred to above.

( 5 ) MR. P. K. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, strenuously urged that the prosecution evidence is full of discrepancies and improbabilities due to which it is unsafe to rely upon the same. Further, the sanctioning authority did not apply its mind before granting sanction of the prosecution according to law. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is illegal and he is entitled to be acquitted. The learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that the prosecution proved its case against the appellant to the hilt and the sanction order was not detective in law. Therefore, it is a fit case to uphold the conviction and sentence.

( 6 ) IN view of the contentions raised in appeal, the first point for consideration is whether the prosecution has been able to establish that the appellant being a public servant received various amounts in the months of July and August, 1975 towards land revenue and water tax and dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated the same. First of all, I shall take up the question of misappropriation of Rs. 450/- alleged to have been collected from Ramesh Chandra Sahu (P. W. 5) on 26-7-75 and 27-7-75. P. W. 5 made a complaint in writing (Ext. 4) to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bargarh stating therein that he made payment of Rs. 50/- and Rs. 400/- respectively to the appellant in the presence of Ramachandra Satpathy, Additional Tahasildar (P. W. 4) and B. C. Das, Nizarat Officer (P. W. 7