JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal by the accused Ram Lal is directed against the judgment of learned Special Judge for ACD cases Rajasthan Jaipur dated 29th October, 1975 convicting him under Section 161 IPC and sentenced him to six months Simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month and conviction under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentencing him to one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further imprisonment for three months. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the accused Ram Lal while working as reader in the court of Additional Munsif and Magistrate First Class No. 2, Jaipur City, demanded Rs. 5/- from Jagdish PW 5 who was a defendant in an ejectment case for giving an adjournment in the case. According to Jagdish PW 5 he used to give Rs. 2/- earlier to the accused for giving dates but on 22nd May, 1973, the accused made a demand of Rs. 5/- in future. Jagdish did not want to pay Rs. 5/- as such he went in the A.C.D. on 25th May, 1973 and submitted a report Ex. P 4 in this regard. Jagdish gave five currency notes of Re. 1/- each whose particulars were noted down and after putting phenolphthalein powder the same were returned to Jagdish with the instructions that the said notes may be given to the accused on demand and a signal may also be given after the notes having been received by the accused. As these proceedings were taken in the A. C. D. in the presence of motbirs Roop Narain PW 6 and Kanhaiya Lal PW 7. Jagdish then came in the court and found the accused seated by the side of the Presiding Officer. At that time arguments were going on in his case. The accused rose from his seat and came near the seat whose window was opening in the verandah. Jagdish then gave Rs. 5/- to the accused, who after taking the notes put the same in the pocket of Bush shirt. Jagdish then gave a signal and on this the Additional Superintendent of Police, Incharge A.C.D. Shri Khem Chand Tejwani PW 10 entered the Court. Jagdish then gave Rs. 5/- to the accused, who after taking the notes put the same in the pocket of Bush shirt. Jagdish then gave a signal and on this the Additional Superintendent of Police, Incharge A.C.D. Shri Khem Chand Tejwani PW 10 entered the Court. By that time the accused had returned back on the seat lying by the side of the Presiding Officer. PW 10 Shri Tejwani disclosed his identity to the Presiding Officer Shri Mahesh Singh PW 8 and recovered the notes from the pocket of the accused. PW 10 Tejwani then summoned fresh water in a glass and mixed Sodium Carbonate and thereafter got the fingers of the accused dipped in the said water and the colour of the water turned into pink. The said water was put in a bottle Article 6 and was sealed. The bushshirt of the accused was also seized and the pocket of the bush-shirt was also washed by mixing Sodium Carbonate powder and this water also turned pink. The wash of the bush-shirt was also sealed in bottles Articles 7 and 8 and the bush-shirt is Article 9. The articles 6 and 8 were sent for chemical examination and according to the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. P 9 the same were found positive. PW 10 Shri Tejwani after obtaining the sanction for prosecution and usual investigation filed a challan against the accused. A charge under Section 161 IPC and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for accepting the sum of Rs. 5/- a gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive etc. for doing or forbearing to do an official act, namely, for adjourning the case to a date of the convenience of Jagdish Prasad, as Public servant from Jagdish son of Ratan Lal, was framed against the accused. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined 10 witnesses. The accused in his explanation though admitted the recovery of Rs. 5/- from his pocket, but his explanation was that the said notes were put by somebody in his pocket without his knowledge and he neither made a demand nor accepted the said notes from Jagdish. The prosecution in support of its case examined 10 witnesses. The accused in his explanation though admitted the recovery of Rs. 5/- from his pocket, but his explanation was that the said notes were put by somebody in his pocket without his knowledge and he neither made a demand nor accepted the said notes from Jagdish. The accused also examined DW 1 Radhey Shyam and DW 2 Babu Sahai in his defence, DW 1 Radhey Shyam has stated that one eye of the accused was defective and he had seen Jagdish putting something in the pocket of the accused silently. The accused was working at that time by bending his head. Jagdish then took a turn and the witness also went away after having some talk with the accused. He had gone to the accused to ask as to how much process fee he was to pay in a case of injunction. After about 10 or 12 minutes he heard that Ram Lal (accused) had been caught. In cross-examination ha stated that he knew Jagdish from before. At that time he had no doubt that Jagdish had put anything in the pocket of Ram Lal. He did not inform the accused that Jagdish had put anything in his pocket. He further stated that even after the accused had been caught, he did not go and meet the accused. He did not inform even the raiding party that Jagdish had tried to put anything in the pocket of the accused. 3. DW 2 Babu Sahai has only proved Ex. D 4, the attendance register of May, 1973 and Ex. D5 the daily case list register of the court. 4. The learned Special Judge placed reliance on the statements of the decoy Jagdish PW 5, corroborated by the statement of Rajendra Kumar Advocate PW4 Roop Narain PW 6, Kanhaiya Lal PW 7, Mahesh Singh, Munsif Magistrate PW 8 and Shri Tejwani PW 10 and did not believe the explanation given by the accused and convicted and sentenced the accused in the manner indicated above. 5. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the accused appellant, contended that the sanction given in the case is not valid as the same was not placed before the full court, I see no force in this contention. Mr. Sooraj Narain Deedwania, PW 1 the then Registrar of the High Court has proved sanction Ex. P1. 5. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the accused appellant, contended that the sanction given in the case is not valid as the same was not placed before the full court, I see no force in this contention. Mr. Sooraj Narain Deedwania, PW 1 the then Registrar of the High Court has proved sanction Ex. P1. This sanction was issued on the orders of the Administrative Judge. PW 1 Shri Sooraj Narain Deedwania P.W. 1 has further stated that Honble Justice Singhal who was Administrative Judge at that time, had given the sanction after thoroughly going into the record. He has further stated that the Honble the Chief Justice had given the powers to the administrative judge to give such sanction. Learned counsel for the accused appellant has not shown anything in the cross-examination of PW. 1 or any rule or law to show that sanction of full court was necessary in giving the sanction. Thus, I find no force in this objection raised by the learned counsel. 6. It was next contended that as regards a demand made by the accused-appellant there is no corroboration of the evidence of Jagdish PW 5. It is submitted that though PW 9 Chagan Lal has been produced to prove the fact of demand made in his presence, but the decoy Jagdish PW 5 states that nobody was present at the time of demand. Learned Special Judge himself in this regard has not placed any reliance on the statement of P.W. 9 Chagan Lal and has placed reliance only on the statement of PW 5 Jagdish. In my view, even if the statement of PW 9 Chagan Lal is discarded, the statement of PW 5 Jagdish is still there and as such it has to be seen whether any reliance can be placed on the statement of PW 5 Jagdish. I have carefully gone through the statement of PW 5 Jagdish. He has stated that Sooraj Mal had filed a suit against him for conviction of a godown which was pending in the court of Munsif Magistrate No. 2. 22nd May, 1973 was the date fixed in the case. Ram Lal accused was the reader in that Court. On 22nd the accused told him that now Rs. 2/- only will not do and he would take Rs. 5/- for changing dates. The accused used to take Rs. 22nd May, 1973 was the date fixed in the case. Ram Lal accused was the reader in that Court. On 22nd the accused told him that now Rs. 2/- only will not do and he would take Rs. 5/- for changing dates. The accused used to take Rs. 2/-for giving dates and on 22nd May, 1973 also he had taken Rs. 2/- However, he told the accused to give Rs. 5/- on the next date. He used to give Rs. 2/- but he did not want to give Rs. 5/-. He, therefore, went to the A.C.D. in the morning on 25th May, 1973. He submitted Ex. P4 in the office of the A.C.D. which bears his signatures at A to B. In the cross-examination in this regard, he stated that this case was transferred from another court to Court No. 2. The reader of the first Court was not taking any money from him. He used to tell the accused to give a long date. The accused after taking the money also used to give long dates and twice he had given such long dates. He had given money even before this date of 22nd May, 1973. He did not remember whether he had told the accused on 22nd May, 1973 as to why he was giving a short date. When he told the accused on 22nd May, 1973 as to why a short date was given then the accused told that he would charge Rs. 5/- for giving a long date. This talk had taken place in a varandah. When this talk for demanding Rs. 5/- took place there was nobody else, then him and the accused. I do not see any reason to disbelieve this statement of PW 5 Jagdish that a demand had been made by the accused to charge Rs. 5/- in as much as the statement of PW 5 Jagdish is corroborated by Ex. P4 and the statement of PW. 6 Roop Narain, PW. 7 Kanhaiya Lal, PW 8 Shri Mahesh Singh, Munsif Magistrate and PW 10 Shri Tejwani. It is but natural that the demand of bribe is generally not made in the presence of any other person and I dont think that the learned Special Judge has committed any error in placing reliance on the statement of PW 5 Jagdish alone in the matter of making demand of bribe by the accused. 7. It is but natural that the demand of bribe is generally not made in the presence of any other person and I dont think that the learned Special Judge has committed any error in placing reliance on the statement of PW 5 Jagdish alone in the matter of making demand of bribe by the accused. 7. Mr. Garg then contended that the accused was one eyed man as he was having a Phoola in one of his eyes and the possibility of putting the notes in the pocket of such a person without his knowledge cannot be overruled. It is also argued that it is not necessary for the accused to give an explanation to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. But it should be accepted if such explanation is even possible or can be proved by preponderance of probabilities. Learned counsel also pointed out certain contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. In my opinion it is proved from the statement of PW 5 Jagdish that a demand was made by the accused of Rs. 5/- from him and he gave the same to the accused on 25th May, 1973 and the amount was kept by the accused himself in his pocket. Mr. Garg only pointed out one circumstance to disbelieve the statement of PW 5 Jagdish that PW 4 Rajendra Kumar Advocate had stated in cross-examination that on 25th May, 1973, when Jagdish was going out of the court then he was saying that hit application has not been dismissed and now somebody else will sit on this seal. From the aforesaid statement of PW 4 Rajendra Kumar, it is contended that Jagdish had become inimical to the accused and wanted to remove him. In my view in the aforesaid statement of Rajendra Kumar it has not been stated clearly as to for whom Jagdish was saying that somebody else will sit on this seat. Question of dismissing the application by the accused does not arise at all. It is not clear as to for which application he was making a reference in his statement and in any cast it did not lag in the power of a reader of the court to dismissed any application as it was the function of the Presiding Officer himself. It is not clear as to for which application he was making a reference in his statement and in any cast it did not lag in the power of a reader of the court to dismissed any application as it was the function of the Presiding Officer himself. Though PW 5 Jagdish was examined after PW 4 Rajendra Kumar but no question was put to PW 5 in cross-examination that he ever told that he would see that somebody else would sit place of the accused on the seat. No other circumstances question has been put in the cross-examination of PW 5 Jagdish so as to show that he had any enmity or axe to grind against the accused. It is not in dispute that the notes have been recovered from the pocket of the accused while sitting in the court. The accused had left his seat where he used to work as reader and had gone on another seat and there cannot be any manner of doubt that he had gone there to accept the bribe money from Jagdish. There is evidence of PW 4 Rajendra Kumar, Advocate and PW 10 Shri Tejwani that when the notes were recovered from the pocket of the accused then he did not give the explanation that somebody else had implanted the notes in his pocket. Even the memo of arrest and recovery of the notes made on the spot make a mention that the accused told that he had taken the notes from Jagdish but he did not know as to for what purpose the same were given. I am not prepared to believe for a moment that even if the accused may be having a defect in one eye he could not have known that somebody had put 5 notes of Re. 1/- each in his pocket while working in the Court. No reliance can be placed on the statement of PW 1 Radhey Shyam, who was working as a clerk with Ram Kalyan Advocate, he must be interested with the accused as being a clerk of an advocate, in having a regular dealing with the accused. That apart he has admitted in cross examination that he himself had no suspicion that Jagdish had put anything in the pocket of the accused and he did not tell about it to the accused Ram Lal. That apart he has admitted in cross examination that he himself had no suspicion that Jagdish had put anything in the pocket of the accused and he did not tell about it to the accused Ram Lal. He has further admitted that even after knowing that the accused had been caught neither he went to the accused to tell this fact nor he told about this to the raiding party. No reliance as such can be placed on the statement of DW 1 Radhey Shyam to accept the explanation of the accused that Jagdish had surreptitiously put these notes in the pocket of the accused. Learned Special Judge has also placed reliance on the statement of the decoy PW 5 Jagdish and other prosecution witnesses viz., PW 4 Rajendra Kumar, PW 6 Roop Narain, PW 7 Kanhaiya La), PW 8 Mahesh Singh and PW 10 Shri Tejwani. Thus, confirm the finding of the learned Special Judge as regards the conviction of the accused appellant under Section 161 IPC and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 8. As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the accused has already retired from service about 7 years back and he has to support his family and the matter involves a bribe of petty sum of Rs. 5/- and as such a lenient view should be taken in awarding the sentence. During the course of arguments before the learned Special Judge himself it was submitted that the accused had been retired from service and was an old man of 56 years of age with kids still young enough to be nourished and educated by him. Thus, it is apparent that in 1975, the accused had attained the age of 56 years and now more than six years have also elapsed and the matter relates to a bribe of a petty sum of Rs. 5/-and the accused has suffered the agony of trial. I consider that no useful purpose would be served in sending the accused to jail. In my view ends of justice would meet if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused appellant is set aside and instead the fine may be increased. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. I consider that no useful purpose would be served in sending the accused to jail. In my view ends of justice would meet if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused appellant is set aside and instead the fine may be increased. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused appellant both under Section 161 IPC and 5 (1) (d) read with 6 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act are set aside. The accused appellant is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 600/- under section 161 IPC and also to a fine of Rs. 600/- under Section 5(1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months each in default of payment of fine on both the counts. Two months time is allowed to deposit the fine in the trial Court. In case the amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to serve out the sentences awarded to the accused in default of payment of fine.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******