In a criminal trial, the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is not required to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, but only to raise a reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

B.K. Behera, J. - The Appellant stands convicted u/s 5(2) read with Sections 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) and u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called the Code) for having dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated, while functioning as the Sub-Assistant Registrar (Industries) at Jeypore, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- of the Maithili Hand Pounding Co-operative Society (hereinafter called the Society) in the district of Koraput of which Jaya Singh Majhi (since dead), the father of Had Majhi (P.W. 4), was the President, by dishonestly inducing Jaya Singh Majhi to deliver two slips signed by him and the pass book and the seal of the Society falsely representing that the accounts of the Society had to be set right and having drawn an amount of Rs. 2,000/- on 17-9-1970, misappropriating it and obtaining pecuniary advantage for himself, by abusing his position as a public servant and by corrupt and illegal means. On the basis of a written report (Ext. 4) dated 18-9-1972 of the Impactor of Vigilance stationed at Jeypore, the Officer-in-Charge of the Vigilance Police Station at Berhampur drew up the formal first information report (Ext. 5) and the Inspector of Vigilance (P.W. 7), being authorised, took up the investigation in the course of which he examined the witnesses and seized certain documents. Another Inspector of Vigilance (P.W. 8) took over charge of the investigation of this case, received the sanction order (Ext. 10) for the prosecution of the Appellant and ultimately another officer submitted the charge-sheet against the Appellant.

2. The Appellant had pleaded not guilty to the charge. His case can conveniently be stated from his statement recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

I had been to that Society in September 1970. I found that the Society was in moribund condition. To repay the over due loan in consultation with Jaisingh Majhi I intended to release certain amount which was in deposit in Nawarangpur Co-operative Central Bank, Branch Jeypore. As Jayasingh Majhi was busy in tram plantation wink he authorised me in Bank withdrawal slip to withdraw Rs. 2000/-. On 17-9-1970 I withdrew Rs. 2000/- on the strength of that authority. On 19-9-(sic) Sri Jaisingh Majhi received that amount from me. The Society Seals & Pass Book which I had brought from Sri. Majhi were returned to him on the same day. I instructed Sri Majhi to repay at least Rs. 1000/- to repay the loan and utilise the other Rs. 1000/- as working capital. Majhi subsequently repaid Rs. 880/- to Khadi Board which I sent officially I had not taken any slip from Majhi other than the Bank withdrawal slip.

3. To bring home the charges to the Appellant, the prosecution had examined eight witnesses. In his defence, the Appellant had examined himself as a witness and had testified that he had returned the amount drawn to Jaya Singh Majhi. On a consideration of the evidence, the learned Special Judge accepted the prosecution case in respect of the three charges, rejected the case of the Appellant and while holding him guilty of the three charges, convicted him u/s 5(2) of the Act and u/s 420 of the Code. For his conviction under the first mentioned section, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in detault of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months and for his conviction u/s 420 of the Code, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months with a direction that the sentences would in concurrently.

4. Mr. P.K. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, has submitted that sanction had not duly been accorded for the prosecution of the Appellant. According to him, none of the charges had been established and the case of th