( 1 ) - The appellant has been convicted under section 161, IPC and under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- or rigorous imprisonment for six months in lieu of payment of fine.

( 2 ) SHORT facts of the case are: that the appellant at the material time was posted as an Upper Division Clerk, Grade-I, in the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and was working in the town planning branch vide order dated 4. 7. 81, Ex. P. 12, Issued by the Corporation Commissioner. It was his duty to process and deal with applications for sanction of building maps and plans. On 18. 8. 1981, complainant Ajher Ahmed approached him (the appellant) with three applications for sanction of buildingmaps of (1) Abdul Hamid Hatim, (2) Smt. Premlatabai and (3) Smt. Bhuribai. The accused- appellant demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 5/- for each application, for processing and forwarding the same for sanction of building-map by concerned authority. The complainant Ajher Ahmed Khan and his brother, who is a licenced draughts man, were not willing to give any such bribe to the appellant. He, therefore, taking back the three applications and promising to come with required money by next day evening, made a complaint, Ex. P-2, to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) Indore.

( 3 ) ON the basis of this complaint, a trap was arranged vide Panchnama, Ex. p. 3, and the trap party proceeded to Ujjain Municipal Corporation Office to trap the accused, who was caught red-handed while accepting bribe. The incriminating notes were recovered, trap Panchnama, Ex. P-4, was prepared, appellant was arrested, and on completion of investigation, was prosecuted for the above offence. The trial Court found him guilty and sentenced him, as stated above. Hence, this appeal.

( 4 ) SHRI Jaisingh, learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following points:

1) That complainant Ajher Ahmed (P. W. 2) and Nirmal Kumar (P. W. 3) were declared hostile. Prosecution case, is without supports. 2) Advelse inference should be drawn for non-examination of Khalil Ahmed, who was present throughout trap. 3) Demand for illegal gratification on the part of the accused-appellant was not at all proved. 4) Sanction for prosecution, Ex. P-I, was not valid.

( 5 ) TAKING up the question of sanction, at the very out-set, as it goes to the root of the matter, the contention raised by the learned counsel seeking support from full Bench decision of this court as reported in 1988 M P. L. J. 199, the fact that sanction for prosecution was not accorded by the law department of the State Government, does not in any manner, help the appellant. It is not in dispute that he was posted as a Clerk in the employment of the Corporation and the sanctioning authority. Shri Patvardhan (P. W. 1) at the material time was the Administrator of the Corporation. He has not at all been cross-examined. His competence to accord sanction had not been challenged. Going through the sanction order, Ex. P-i, it is clear that the sanction was accorded on consideration of all the relevant material facts. No infirmity has been pointed out, in the order. The appellant being a municipal servant, and the sanctioning authority being the administrator of the Corporation, was competent to dismiss the appellant from service, as such was also competent to accord sanction for prosecution. Appellants counsel could not point out anything, adversely affecting the competency of P. W.-l to accord sanction for prosecution. In the circumstances, the Judgment relied upon by the appellants counsel does not help him. The sanction is held to be valid. It may also be noted that this point, going through the impugned judgment, does not appear to have been raised before the trial Court, nor does the appeal memo contain any such ground. Still, however, the point as raised was entertained as it goes to the root of the