JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant Somayya Venkatraman Nayak has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Special Judge for Rajasthan Jaipur City, dated December 15, 1972 convicting him for the offence under section 161 I.P.C. and section 5 (1 )(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The sentence on each of the counts was one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The facts alleged by the prosecution were these. That the appellant was working as TCM/PCT, Auto Exchange, Gangapur City during the year 1970. He demanded some illegal gratification from Ram Singh as a reward for continuing his services. Ram Singh then made a complaint to S. P. E. Jaipur on 21-9-1970. A trap was arranged. On 25-9-1970 at railway station, Gangapur City, Ram Singh paid a sum of Rs. 70/- to the appellant and the same was recovered by the police on the spot The prosecution case is based on the testimony of Bhartendu P.W. 1, Ram Singh P. W. 2, Nandlal P.W. 3, Janeshilal P.W. 8 and Prabhulal P.W. 10. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge the conviction of the appellant but strenuously urged that it was a fit case where 10 years after the incident the appellant should not be sent to jail. The emphasis now is more on the criminal than the crime. During these 10 years nothing has been heard against the appellant. By way of punishment he has lost his service which was of a considerable number of years. At the time of the offence the appellant was about 37 years of age and had to re-establish in his life. The loss of future pension and gratuity by itself is sufficient punishment in such cases. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the contention and drew my attention to the fact that under section 5(1 )(d) the minimum punishment to be awarded is imprisonment for one year which can only be to a lesser term for special reasons for the award of lesser sentence in this case are as under : 1. The occurrence was committed almost a decade ago. 2. The occurrence was committed almost a decade ago. 2. The appellant has lost his service and had to go for alternative means of livelihood. This itself is very hard on a middle aged man of 37 years and 3. The appellant has lost the benefits which would have accrued to him by way of pension and gratuity if he had continued to remain in service for the full term. It was thus observed in Vishnu Dutta Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1979 CAR 233 (SC) Page 233). "For the foregoing, we are unable to interfere with the judgment and order of the High Court so far as the conviction of the appellant is concerned. However taking into account the fact that the appellant is likely to lost his service and has already undergone imprisonment for a period of 61/2 months, we think that the sentence already undergone by him together with the fine as reduced by the High Court, will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we reduce the appellants substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him". 5. I, therefore, partly accept the appeal and reduce the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant under section 161 I. P. C. and section 5(1) (d) read with section 5(2) to the term already undergone by him.Appeal partly allowed. *******