Chopra, J. - (1.) RAVI Datt Appellant has been convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947) by Special Judge, Kapurthala and sentenced to six months' R.I. He appeals against his conviction and sentence .
(2.) RAVI Datt was posted as Sub -Divisional Clerk in S.D and O.s office (E and M) at Kapurthala. On 20 -11 -1952 a money order for Rs. 428/3/ - reached this office in payment of bills for electricity supplied at railway station. Phagwara. The money order came from the Divisional Pay and Accounts Officer, Nor -them Railway, Ferozpur. Ravi Datt, as Sub -Divisional clerk of the payee's office is said to have received the payment and embezzled the same. It is common ground between the parties that this amount was not entered anywhere in the books kept in the State. There is thus no dispute that the money was embezzled and the only question is as to who did it. The Appellant denied to have received the payment and also his signature on the money order receipt.
(3.) COUNSEL for the Appellant has taken certain legal objections to the validity of the trial. He contends that sanction to prosecute the Appellant though tendered in evidence and exhibited, was not duly proved. He means to say that some evidence must have been led to prove that the document bore signature of the authority by which the sanction was accorded. Reliance in this connection is placed on 'Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal v. Moazzem Hossain : AIR 1947 Cal 318 (A). the point has been discussed at length by a Division Bench of this Court, of which I was a member, in - 'State v. Gurdev Singh, AIR 1956 Pepsu 11 (B). There it was held that sanction allowing prosecution is a document that falls under Section 74, Evidence Act and, therefore, it requires no formal proof. Production of its copy or original is a sufficient compliance of the law. The objection is, consequently, overruled.;