1. A conviction is not vitiated merely because the sanction was granted by an Administrator appointed under delegated powers rather than by the State Government in person, provided there is no evidence of illegality in the appointment and no material showing lack of delegation. The failure to produce evidence of delegation during the trial precludes accepting the challenge at the appellate stage under Section 391 Cr.P.C., as there is no likelihood of failure of justice.
2. Where the sanction order itself details the facts constituting the offence and the application of mind, the prosecution is not required to lead additional evidence (like a note-sheet) to prove the authority duly considered the materials. The order itself suffices.
3. Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for an offence committed during the currency of the 1947 Act does not violate Article 20(1) of the Constitution. The acts of accepting illegal gratification were offences under the earlier law. Unless the accused demonstrates specific prejudice (e.g., a sentence exceeding the maximum under the old law), the trial court's framing of charges under the new Act is not liable to be set aside.
4. The evidence of a complainant/giver of a bribe, even if an accomplice, need not pass the same rigorous tests as an approver if there is no coercion. Here, the complainant approached voluntarily despite tax arrears.
5. The story of demand is convincingly proven by the complainant's coherent testimony supported by an independent panch witness. The motive of the complainant (tax arrears) does not, by itself, disbelieve the story of demand, especially when corroborated by independent witnesses regarding the handing over of money and the recovery of the same.
6. The defence that money was accepted as a partial payment of tax arrears is improbable given the quantum of arrears and the fact that the money was recovered separately from each appellant, proving it was illegal gratification.
Result: Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence upheld.
