Insufficient corroborative evidence and invalid prosecution sanction rendered conviction unsustainable.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 8-9-80 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti - Corruption, Jammu whereby the appellant herein has been convicted for the commission of offence falling under S.5(2) read with S.5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 2006 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and payment of fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine he has to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two months. The judgment and order has been challenged on the following grounds : -
(i) The sanction for the prosecution of appellant is bad in the eye of law as it has been accorded in a mechanical manner.
(ii) That there was no occasion to demand the amount of alleged recovered money from the complainant and the evidence of such demand is wanting in this case. There is also no evidence about the acceptance of the alleged recovered amount.
(iii) Regarding the alleged recovery of tainted money the evidence is of contradictory nature which cannot be believed.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant in July 1976 was posted as Patwari in Patwar Halqa Magowali Teh. RS Pora. The complainant Shri Dhanna Ram was stated to be residing with his aunt Mst. Toti Devi who during her lifetime had made a will in his favour. That the complainant Dhanna Ram had been cultivating the land since the year 1965 and appellant demanded Rs. 500/- from him as bribe in case he had to remain in possession thereof. The demand was made after the death of said Mst. Toti Devi. The bribe amount settled between the parties was Rs. 200/-. The complainant is stated to have made application (EXPDW - 1/1) in the Anti - Corruption Organisation and on the basis of this information, a raid was conducted and a sum of Rs. 200/- which was tainted with P. Powder was recovered along with other amount which was lying in his pocket. After this recovery, the investigation was conducted and final report was submitted. The learned Judge vide his order dated March 31, 1977 discharged the accused on the plea that sanction for prosecution was accorded by Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Jammu who was not competent to do so. Thereafter, the prosecution obtained fresh sanction (EXPDW - 1/1) from the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. After the conclusion of the investigation, the final report was submitted and the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.

3. It has been pleaded by the counsel for the appellant that sanction for prosecution was accorded in a mechanical manner without making any subjective satisfaction because in both the sanctions the words "I am satisfied" are missing. The 2nd sanction EXPDW - 1/1 is a carbon copy of the previous sanction and that also shows that Deputy Commissioner had not applied his mind. He has only erased words "Additional Deputy Commissioner" from the pro forma of sanction EXPDW - 1/1. The sanction is not an idle formality but a sacrosanct ritual which has to be performed after application of mind and the deliberation. The prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that sanction was accorded in accordance with law but appellant has examined Mohd. Abas DW who was working as Patwari in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Jammu who has stated that sanction was accorded without receiving a letter from any authority. Thus, the order of sanction is illegal and no conviction can be based thereon. In support of this contention he has cited the case of Periyasamy v. Inspector , 1994 CriLJ 753, Gian Chand v. State , 1989 KLJ 175.

4. There was no occasion