The corroboration of witness testimony and the validity of prosecution sanction are crucial in proving a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

M.M.Aggarwal, J.

1. Appellant Niranjan Singh was convicted by Special Judge, Patiala, vide order dated 15.12.1993 for offence under Section 5(2) of of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was sentenced to undergo RI for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months.

2. The facts of the case are that Niranjan Singh was posted as Peon in the Court of Shri M.L. Singal, (now retired Honble Judge of this Court) then Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. On 22.6.1987 Kapur Singh resident of village Dugal had made complaint before Shri M.L. Singal that an appeal titled as Sital Singh and others v. Gurbhal Singh was pending in his Court and Niranjan Singh accused-appellant who was a peon had called him 15 days prior to the decision in the appeal. He had demanded Rs. 15,000/- for getting a favourable decision in the appeal. At that time, he was accompanied by one Dalip Singh son of Bakhtaur Singh of his village. That amount of Rs. 15,000/- was paid to accused Niranjan Singh. However, the appeal was decided on 22.1.1987 against him. Then he had approached Niranjan Singh for return of the amount, which was not returned. Dalip Singh also submitted another complaint on similar facts. Shri M.L. Singal had recorded the statements of Kapur Singh and Dalip Singh on 26.6.1987 and had sent the papers to District & Sessions Judge, Patiala, for necessary action. On a D.O. Letter written by Shri S.K. Jain, District & Sessions Judge, Patiala, to Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, case was registered against Niranjan Singh. Niranjan Singh was arrested and after investigation was challaned. Niranjan Singh faced trial for offence under Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The case was found to be proved. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal had been filed.

3. On behalf of the appellant, it was argued that Niranjan Singh was not caught while accepting the bribe money. It was argued that case was registered on 14.7.1987 although from the application of Kapur Singh dated 22.6.1987, it would appear that the case in which the bribe is stated to have been paid was decided by the Judge on 22.1.1987 and 15 days prior to that decision, the money had passed. It was argued that as such, there was delay of 4-5 months in reporting the matter to the Judge concerned and six months in loding the FIR. It was pointed out that Dalip Singh did not appear in the witness box during trial and there is sole testimony of Kapur Singh PW-7 who would be just an accomplice. Since according to him he had paid Rs. 15,000/- as bribe for getting the work done, no reliance can be placed on the statement of such person who allegedly paid money for getting the work done and after waiting for 5-6 months, then made the complaint. It was also argued that sanction for the prosecution accorded by District & Sessions Judge, Patiala is defective since in para No. 3 it was mentioned that out of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- had been recovered during investigation although there had been no recovery at all and at one stage Kapur Singh says that accused had returned Rs. 5,000/- whereas he had prayed for return of whole of the amount. It was argued that this conviction is based on probabilities. Counsel for the appellant has relied on Ayyasami v. State of T.N., 1992(1) RCR(Crl.) 413 (SC) : AIR 1992 S.C. 644, Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, 1987(2) RCR(Crl.) 11 and Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 S.C. 707.

4. Niranjan Singh accused appellant was an employee in the Judicial Courts at Patiala working in the Court of Shri M.L. Singal, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. According to Shri Kapur Singh, complainant (PW-7), his sons namely Seetal Sigh, Gandhar Singh, Sajjan Singh and Mewa Singh were having litigation with Gurbhal Singh. The case has been decided by the Civil Court against his sons and then appeal was filed by his sons which was fixed f