JUDGMENT P.N. Goel, J. - 1. Ghanshiam Singh appellant, Lekhpal of village Barkala, district Bijnor has been convicted under section 161 IPC and section 5 (1) (b) Prevention of Corruption Act by order dated 27-10-1978 passed by Special Judge (V Additional Sessions Judge) Bijnor. 2. BRIEFLY stated, the case of the prosecution against the appellant was : Shibbu (PW 2), resident of village Barkala had brought under cultivation some Khadar land of river Ganges within tie limits of his village. He moved an application before the Sub Divisional Officer for getting his name recorded on the said land. The Sub-Divisional Officer passed order in his favour. Shibbu contacted the two predecessors of the appellant to get his name recorded in the khatauni but to no result. He gave Rs. 90/- to the appellant in the summer season of the year 1976. He gave a further sum of Rs. 50/- to the appellant in the winter season of the year 1976-77. But the appellant did not take any steps in the matter. On 15-8-1977 the appellant demanded Rs. 150/- more from Shibbu promising to do his work. The appellant agreed to take Rs. 50/- on 16-8-77 and the remaining sum later on. Shibbu then gave an application to the Collector on 16-8-1977. Under the orders of the Collector, Sri Som Dutt Tyagi, Vigilance Inspector, Bijnor laid a trap. A sum of Rs. 50/- was passed to the appellant by Shibbu near the shop of Mateen in the market of Bijnor on 16-8-1977 at 2.45 p. m. Som Dutt Tyagi then apprehended the appellant and took him to police station Kotwali and lodged a written report at 6.10 p. m. The appellant did not admit the allegations of the prosecution. His defence was that Parwana Amaldaramad was not received at the Tehsil from the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, that, therefore, no entry was made in favour of Shibbu in the property register maintained in Tehsil and that he could make entry in Khatauni only after seeing the entry in the property register of the Tehsil. 3. THE prosecution, on facts, examined Som Dutt Tyagi, Shibbu and Shiv Kumar (PWs 1, 2 and 4). On the other side the appellant examined Mahfooz Hasan, Assistant Record Keeper Tehsil Bijnor (DW 1). 4. IN the lower Court an application for bail was moved on behalf of the appellant by Sri Krishna Kumar Bhatnagan, Advocate. 3. THE prosecution, on facts, examined Som Dutt Tyagi, Shibbu and Shiv Kumar (PWs 1, 2 and 4). On the other side the appellant examined Mahfooz Hasan, Assistant Record Keeper Tehsil Bijnor (DW 1). 4. IN the lower Court an application for bail was moved on behalf of the appellant by Sri Krishna Kumar Bhatnagan, Advocate. In this application it was submitted that the applicant had taken the sum of Rs. 50/-. But a different reason for taking the money was given out. The Court examined Krishna Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate (CW 1) to prove the bail application. Sri Bhatnagar stated that the appellant had not given him instructions to move the bail application. Therefore, the contents of the bail application were not binding upon the appellant. The learned Special Judge, on an appraisal of the evidence led by parties, believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and convicted the appellant. 5. LEARNED counsel for the parties have been heard and record examined with their assistance. 6. THE main question in the case is whether the appellant had taken Rs. 50/- as illegal gratification from Shibbu on 16-8-1977 at about 2.45 p. m. in the market as alleged by the prosecution. On this point there is sworn testimony of Shibbu, Som Dutt Tyagi and Shiv Kumar. Shibbu is obviously interested in the matter. Som Dutt Tyagi laid the trap. He is also interested in seeing the success of the trap. Therefore, on the testimony of these 2 witnesses only the case of the prosecution cannot be said to have been proved. But the prosecution has further examined Shiv Kumar, a shop keeper of Bijnor (PW 4). He fully corroborates the testimony of Shibbu and Som Dutt Tyagi on the point involved in the case. Shiv Kumar did not know Shibbu from before. Som Dutt Tyagi had not asked Shibbu to bring persons to be witnesses in the case. When Som Dutt Tyagi along with Shibbu and others was proceeding towards tine house of the appellant and going in the market he found Shiv Kumar and Ashok Kumar at the curve of Sabzi Mandi in the market. He called these persons and then proceeded ahead. It will thus be seen that Shiv Kumar was not interested in Shibbu or Som Dutt Tyagi in any way from before the occurrence. He appears to be a respectable shop keeper of the town. He called these persons and then proceeded ahead. It will thus be seen that Shiv Kumar was not interested in Shibbu or Som Dutt Tyagi in any way from before the occurrence. He appears to be a respectable shop keeper of the town. The appellant's counsel has assailed his testimony on 2 grounds (i) the police had challaned him in a case under Essential Commodities Act, and (ii) his servant Munna was a witness of trap laid against a constable. In view of these two instances the appellant's counsel urged that Shiv Kumar could easily give evidence for the police or at the instance of the Vigilance Inspector. This contention does not carry force. It is not known whether Shiv Kumar was challaned by the police under the Essential Commodities Act before the date of the present occurrence or after the date of the present occurrence. Moreover the nature of the case of the Essential Commodities Act is not known. Shiv Kumar may have been guilty of just a technical offence. Shiv Kumar had two servants on the date of his statement before the Special Judge, namely, Har' and Munna. It appeared that Hari was his old servant and Munna had been kept a little before his statement before the Special Judge. If Munna was a witness for the prosecution in a trap case against a constable it does not mean that Shiv Kumar could also be prevailed upon by a Vigilance Inspector to tell a lie against the appellant. In these circumstances the reliability of Shiv Kumar cannot be doubted. For what has been discussed above there is good evidence of Shiv Kumar which can be relied upon and which goes to corroborate the testimony of Shibbu and Som Dutt Tyagi. 7. THE learned counsel for the appellant referred to the following cases : (1) State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh, AIR 1958 S. C. 500 (2) Ram Prakash Arora v. State of Punjab, AIR, 1973 S. C. 498 (3) Darshan Lal v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1974 S. C. 218 and (4) Raghubir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 S. C. 91. 8. IN the above cases it was held that reliance could not safely be placed on the testimony of the person at whose instance a trap was laid as well as on the testimony of an officer laying trap. 8. IN the above cases it was held that reliance could not safely be placed on the testimony of the person at whose instance a trap was laid as well as on the testimony of an officer laying trap. It was further held that the evidence of the complainant and the officer making recovery should be corroborated by the evidence of an independent and trustworthy witness. There is no dispute to these principles. In the instant case, as discussed above, Shiv Kumar is quite a respectable shop keeper of the town. He was not interested in Shiv Kumar or Som Dutt Tyagi. He is an independent witness on whose testimony reliance can safely be placed. The evidence of Shiv Kumar clearly proves that the appellant did accept a sum of Rs. 50/- in currency notes, which were duly signed before the occurrence, from Shibbu. The testimony of Shibbu coupled with his conduct clearly shows that he gave the said sum by way of illegal gratification. The appellant has given no explanation for taking money from Shibbu. 9. THE appellant's counsel contended that there was solitary evidence of Shibbu that a sum of Rs. 50/- was given as illegal gratification. This is no doubt true. But in the instant case, as indicated above, there is (sic) conduct which goes to corroborate his testimony. Shibbu had absolutely no reason to depose against the appellant and to concoct a false case against him. There was no occasion for Shibbu to have given Rs. 50/- to the appellant except the one alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, in the present case, the testimony of Shibbu alone is sufficient to prove that the sum of Rs. 50/- was given as illegal gratification. 10. THE appellant's counsel next contended that the prosecution had given no evidence to corroborate statement of Shibbu that he had previously given Rs. 90/- and Rs. 50/- to the appellant. In this case it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove to the hilt that the appellant had previously taken Rs. 90/- and Rs. 50/- from Shibbu. 10. THE appellant's counsel next contended that the prosecution had given no evidence to corroborate statement of Shibbu that he had previously given Rs. 90/- and Rs. 50/- to the appellant. In this case it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove to the hilt that the appellant had previously taken Rs. 90/- and Rs. 50/- from Shibbu. The appellant's counsel then [pointed out that according to the statement of Trilok Chandra Tyagi, Vigilance Inspector (PW 5), who investigated into the case, the Sub-Divisional Officer had passed order on 16-3-1977 for recording the name of Shibbu on the land in question and that according to Shibbu he had moved the Sub-Divisional Officer for the purpose in question 5-6 years before August, 1977. No doubt there is variation in respect of the time when application for recording the name of Shibbu on the land was given. Shibbu is a wholly illiterate person. On this ground the variation in time stands explained. The hard fact is that Sub-Divisional Officer dii pass an order for the recording of the name of Shibbu on the land in question. The variation in time does not affect the Instant case of the prosecution. 11. THE appellant's counsel then referred to the statement of Mahfooz Hasan (PW 1). He brought property register maintained in Tehsil. He stated that there was no entry in the register to indicate that the name of Shibbu was recorded on the land in question. He further stated that the Lekhpal makes entry in the Khatauni after seeing entry in the property registers. This position does not help the appellant. Order for mutation or for recording the name of the person on the land is passed by a Sub-Divisional Officer. The order is communicated to the Tehsil. It is the ministerial act of the officials and officers of the Tehsil to make entry in the property register, ami then it is the function of the Lekhpal to make entry in the Khatauni. Property register is a confidential document. Its copy is not issued to the members of the public. In these circumstances once the order has been passed by a Sub-Divisional Officer, the member of the public look to the Lekhpal for recording his name in the Khatauni. In the present case the appellant clearly told Shibbu that out of the sum of Rs. Its copy is not issued to the members of the public. In these circumstances once the order has been passed by a Sub-Divisional Officer, the member of the public look to the Lekhpal for recording his name in the Khatauni. In the present case the appellant clearly told Shibbu that out of the sum of Rs. 150/- he will have to pay to the Qanungo and Peshkar of the Tehsil. He further assured Shibbu that on getting full money from him he will get tie needful done. Entry in the property register is made by Assistant Qanungo. In these circumstances, the fact that there was no entry in the property register in favour of Shibbu, the case of the prosecution is not weakened and the appellant does not get any benefit. 12. LASTLY, the appellant's counsel contended that the recovered notes were not sealed by Som Dutt Tyagi at the spot just after the recovery. This is no doubt correct, but it does not affect the merits of the prosecution case. Som Dutt Tyagi handed over the recovered notes at the police station at the time of lodging the report. Thereafter the recovered notes were sealed at the police station. The appellant's counsel pointed out that sample seal was not given by Som Dutt Tyagi at the police station. This also does not create any infirmity in the prosecution case. As stated above, the main point for consideration in the case is whether a sum of Rs. 150/- was given to the appellant by Shibbu as illegal gratification. On this point, the case of the prosecution has been established by the testimony of the prosecution witnesses discussed above. 13. THE appellant's counsel lastly urged that the sentence of 3 years under section 5 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was severe. The Special Judge has committed an error in convicting the appellant under section 5 (1) (b). He should have convicted the appellant under section 5 (2). Sub-section (2) is the punishing provision. Sub-section (1) defines "misconduct". Besides, the present case does not fall under section 5 (1) (b). Clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (1) relate to habitual offenders. In the present case no such charge was framed against the appellant. The charge relates to a single act of the appellant. Therefore, the present case falls within clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 5. Besides, the present case does not fall under section 5 (1) (b). Clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (1) relate to habitual offenders. In the present case no such charge was framed against the appellant. The charge relates to a single act of the appellant. Therefore, the present case falls within clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 5. THE minimum sentence under sub-section (2) is one years' imprisonment and maximum sentence is 7 years' imprisonment. Proviso to this sub-section says that for any special reasons a Court may impose the sentence of imprisonment of less than one year. 14. THE appellant's counsel pointed out that the appellant was a young man of 25 years at the time of occurrence and that he was out of service. Taking these facts into consideration it will be just if the period of 3 years is reduced to 1 year. No other point was urged by the appellant's counsel. Appeal ' missed. Conviction of the appellant under section 161 IPC and sentence and half years' R. I. thereunder recorded by the Special Judge (V A Sessions Judge), Bijnor are affirmed. Conviction of the appellant under 5 (1) (b) Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 is substituted by con-section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (d) of the said Act. Sentence R. I. is reduced to one and a half years' RI under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Both the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 15. THE appellant is on bail. He will forthwith surrender to serve out the sentence failing which he shall be arrested. Appeal dismissed.