B.K.Behera, J. - (1.)The appellant, who as the relevant time, had been functioning as the Officer-in-charge of the Gangpur Police Station assails the judgment and order of conviction passed against him by the learned Special Judge, Bhubaneswar, holding him to be guilty of the charges under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, the Act) for having accepted an amount of Rs. 200/- from Bipra Charan Panda of Balipadar on February 16, 1978, at his residence at Gangpur as gratification other than legal remuneration with a motive to let him off in Gangpur Police Station Case No. 6 of 1978 registered under sections 302 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and for having obtained for himself pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs. 500/- by abusing his position as a public servant. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of four months on each court with a direction that the sentences of imprisonment would run concurrently.
(2.)Appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Ray has contended, on the principles laid down by this Court in B.K. Mutty v. State1 that sanction has not validly been accorded under section 6 of the Act and on facts, no case had been made out. The learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that this case is directly covered by the aforesaid reported decision of this Court and it would not be reasonable to contend that valid sanction had been accorded and on this ground, the trial had been vitiated.
(3.)The facts of the prosecution case and the plea of denial set up by the appellant have been narrated in details in the body of the impugned judgment and need not be re-stated. No findings need be recorded on facts as, for the reasons to follow, I am of the view that sanction had not legally and duly been accorded for which the prosecution of the appellant had been vitiated.