JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated, February 17, 1982, of the Special Judge, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellant under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(1) (d), read with section 5 (2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 250/- or in default, further simple imprisonment for four weeks under each count. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The appellant, Mahendra Nath Nagiya, was employed as an overseer with the Municipal Council Jaipur at the material time. One of his duties as such overseer was to prevent unauthorised erection of buildings in the Raja Park locality of the town. On November 15, 1972, at about 11 A.M. the appellant contacted Chunilal (PW. 5) and told him that he had seen the construction in progress of a shop, at the roadside boundary wall of Chunilal's house in Raja Park and demanded illegal gratification if Chunilal wanted the unauthorised construction to be hushed up. Chunilal asked him to come later. The appellant again went to him about 3 P. M. when he gave him a ten-rupee note. The appellant returned the note to Chunilal telling him that he would not accept any amount less than Rs. 75/-. After some entreaties and requests, the appellant agreed to accept Rs. 50/- which Chunilal promised to pay on the following day. 3. On November 25, 1972, afternoon, the appellant, along with a chaprasi again visited Chunilal's shop, apparently to realise the amount of illegal gratification which Chunilal had promised to pay. The chaprasi told Chunilal that the appellant wanted the payment of the amount. Chunilal put them off on the promise that be would definitely pay the amount after 5 P.M. that very day. The appellant and his chaprasi went away. Chunilal who did not want to pay the bribe sought the help of a journalist friend, namely Kishanlal who advised that the matter be reported to the anti-corruption department of the police for laying a trap for the arrest of the appellant. Both Chunilal and Kishanlal went to the office of the anti-corruption/department of the police and reported the matter orally as well as in writing (Ex. P/1) to Shri Tejwani, Additional Superintendent of Police in the said department. Chunilal gave currency notes worth Rs. Both Chunilal and Kishanlal went to the office of the anti-corruption/department of the police and reported the matter orally as well as in writing (Ex. P/1) to Shri Tejwani, Additional Superintendent of Police in the said department. Chunilal gave currency notes worth Rs. 50/- to Tejwani who initialled them and treated them with phenolphtthalien powder. Tejwani returned the notes to Chunilal with instructions to give them to the appellant at his shop while Tejwani and party would be watching it incognito from nearby. They all went to the shop of Chunilal before 5 P. M. and waited there till 8.30 P. M. but the appellant did not turn up there that evening. The trap party visited Chunilal's shop on November 17, morning and again in the afternoon, but without any success. They came for the third time around 5 P.M. and waited in the vicinity of the shop for about an hour. They were about to leave from there when the appellant showed up around 6 P.M. The appellant entered the shop of Chunilal and took his seat on a stool lying there. Before making the payment, Chunilal wanted to make sure that Tejvani and party were around. Chunilals son, Ashok Kumar (PW. 4), signalled the arrival of the police party to his father and the latter himself saw Tejwani coming at some distance. Chunilal then gave the powdered notes to the appellant, getting an assurance from him that the municipal council would not take any action against the unauthorised construction. After pocketing the tainted notes, the appellant was about to go away on his bicycle when Tejwani surprised him and caught hold of him from behind. After introducing himself, Tejwani asked the appellant to give him the amount of Rs. 50/- which he had accepted as bribe from Chunilal. The appellant took out the notes from his pocket and gave them to Tejwani. At first, the appellant became nervous and begged Tejwani to pardon him , on little later, he came out with the explanation that Chunilal had given the amount of Rs. 50/- by way of insurance premium and that he had it as such. The recovered notes tallied with the notes which bad been earlier initialled by Tejwani and treated with powder. The hands of the appellant were tested for the presence of phenolphthalein powder. The hand-wash turned light pink. 4. 50/- by way of insurance premium and that he had it as such. The recovered notes tallied with the notes which bad been earlier initialled by Tejwani and treated with powder. The hands of the appellant were tested for the presence of phenolphthalein powder. The hand-wash turned light pink. 4. On further investigation Tejwani discovered that the wife of the appellant, namely, Smt. Hardevi was an agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. He also discovered that by November 17, 1972, the appellant had not made any entry in any municipal record regarding the unauthorised construction made by Chunilal. In due course, the appellant was forwarded to the Special Judge for trial according to law. 5. During the trial, the prosecution examined among others, Hanuman Prashad, Girdhari Singh, Ashok Kumar, Chunilal, Partap Singh, Puran Chand, Sadhuram, Kishanlal and Tejwani as witnesses in support of its case. By and large, these witnesses supported the prosecution case as narrated above. 6. In his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant denied the allegations made against him and protested his innocence. He admitted that he had visited the site of Chunilal at the time when the unauthorised construction was in progress. He however denied that he had demanded any illegal gratification from Chunilal for ignoring the unauthorised construction. He admitted that he had returned from the site without taking any action against Chunilal, but added in that context that he had refrained from action because Chunilal had told him that he would be able to produce before him the requisite sanction of the building plan as accorded by the authority concerned. He admitted having received a sum of Rs. 50/- from Chunilal at the latters shop on November 17, 1972, at about 6 P. M , but pleaded that the payment had been received by him towards insurance prem ium. According to him, he was called by Chunilal while he was passing infront of his shop. Chunilal requested him to take the money on the plea that if he did not take it immediately, he might spend it and might not therefore be in a position to pay it later. The appellant added in this context that Chunilal bad already settled with the appellants wife to take out an insurance on his life. 7. Chunilal requested him to take the money on the plea that if he did not take it immediately, he might spend it and might not therefore be in a position to pay it later. The appellant added in this context that Chunilal bad already settled with the appellants wife to take out an insurance on his life. 7. In defence, the appellant examined Vimal Chand Vohra, Abdul Hakim, Madanlal, Bhajan Singh, Anandilal, Harbanslal and Kunwar Bhan, as his witnesses. DWs. Vimal Chand Vohra and Bhajan Singh are two agents working for the L.I.C. They deposed that, though normally an insured person pays the first instalment of premium only after filling in and signing the prescribed form, but it may also happen that he may pay the first instalment in anticipation of his filling in and signing the said form later. They were examined as witnesses on behalf of the appellant in an attempt to show that there was nothing unusual in Chunilal paying the premium without filling in and signing the prescribed form. 8. D.W. Kanwar Bhan is the father of the appellant. He deposed that Chunilal had visited the appellants house on November 16, 1972, at about 9 A.M. and that he too had been present there at that time by coincidence. He stated that Chunilal had enquired if the wife of the appellant was at home and that on his telling to Chunilal that she was taking bath Chunilal mentioned to him that he wanted to take out insurance policy on his life and consult the appellants wife about it. It may incidentally be mentioned here that the wife of the appellant was admittedly working at that time as an agent of the L.I.C. Kanwar Bhan who was himself such an agent, would have us believe that he engaged Chunilal in some conversation about the merits and demerits of different tables for life insurance and that in the meantime Smt. Hardevi, the wife of the appellant, came and joined them. Kanwar Bhan further stated that on his advising Hardevi to get the requisite form filled in and signed by Chunilal who had agreed to take out a policy of the value of Rs. 5,000/- carrying a quarterly premium of Rs. Kanwar Bhan further stated that on his advising Hardevi to get the requisite form filled in and signed by Chunilal who had agreed to take out a policy of the value of Rs. 5,000/- carrying a quarterly premium of Rs. 49.61, the latter left appellant's house telling them that he would sign the form later after procuring the documentary proof regarding his age and that moreover, he had no money on him at that time to pay the premium. Next day, i. e., on November 17 the appellant was according to Kanwar Bhan, falsely implicated in this case. 9. D.W. Harbanslal, an Office Superintendent of the L.I.C. and a long time friend of the appellant's father, deposed that on November 17, 1972, evening he had met by chance, the appellant in the gali, carrying some vegetables with him and that on his request the appellant agreed to accompany him from there for a stroll in the University area. He stated that while they were passing that side. Chunilal had called the appellant inside his shop and that he too had gone inside with him. According to him, Chunilal took quite some time in persuading the appellant to accept Rs. 50/- from him by way of payment of first instalment of premium in anticipation of Chunilal filling in and signing the prescribed form later. He would have us believe that the police party served there at that time and recovered the money from the appellant in spite of his protestation that the payment represented the insurance premium. 10. DW Anandi Lal, a colleague of the appellant in the service of the municipal council at the material time deposed that after the arrest of the appellant in this case he had taken over charge from him, visited the site of unauthorised construction of shop of Chunilal and prosecuted him. He added in this context that the munshi of the appellant had given him a parcha which led him to inspect the site. He had however to admit in cross-examination that he did not care to preserve that parcha. He had also to admit that the appellant did not make any entry in the relevant register of unauthorised construction on November 15, 1972. 11. He had however to admit in cross-examination that he did not care to preserve that parcha. He had also to admit that the appellant did not make any entry in the relevant register of unauthorised construction on November 15, 1972. 11. DW Midanlal deposed that he happened to go to Chunilal's shop for buying cigarettes on November 17, 1972, evening and that he had heard the conversation between Chunilal and the appellant as a result of which the latter agreed to accept Rs. 50/- from Chunilal by way of premium on Chunilals assurance that he would sign the form later. 12. It will thus be seen that there is ample evidence on the record to prove and in fact the appellant himself admitted this fact that the appellant accepted a sum of Rs. 50/- from Chunilal at the latters shop on November 17, 1972 at about 6 P.M. and that this amount did not represent any "legal remuneration" due from Dhunilal to the appellant. That being so, a presumption arises under section 5 (1)(b) r/w 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 that the appellant accepted the payment of this amount from Chunilal for a motive or reward such as mentioned in Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code. In an attempt to rebut this presumption, the appellant offered an explanation that he had accepted this amount by way of insurance premium and produced some evidence in support of his version. 13. The trial court preferred to rely on the evidence produced by the prosecution and held on its basis that the appellant had accepted payment of Rs. 50/- from Chunilal as illegal gratification for ignoring the unauthorised construction of a shop made by Chunilal. 14. After hearing both sides at considerable length and examining the evidence on record quite carefully. I am of opinion that the evidence leaves no manner of doubt that the appellant had accepted this amount from Chunilal by way of illegal gratification as reward for ignoring the unauthorised construction made by Chunilal. It is common ground between the parties that as a public servant-it was the duty of the appellant to prevent unauthorised erection of buildings in the Raja Park Colony of Jaipur and that he had seen unauthorised construction by Chunilal in progress on November 15, 1972. Puran Chand (PW. It is common ground between the parties that as a public servant-it was the duty of the appellant to prevent unauthorised erection of buildings in the Raja Park Colony of Jaipur and that he had seen unauthorised construction by Chunilal in progress on November 15, 1972. Puran Chand (PW. 7) who was working with the appellant as an assistant in this locality admitted that the relevant register (Ex. P. 11) for making entries of unauthorised construction detected by them, did not contain any entry regarding the detection of the unauthorised construction of Chunilal on November 15, 1972. The witness clearly betrayed Impartiality for the appellant when he tried to offer a wholly unconvincing explanations for this omission. He would have us believe that since special safai campaign wan going on in the town in those days the appellant and he himself remained pre-occupied with the safai work with the result that they could not make the entry in the-said register on November 15, 16 or 17, 1972. 15. The appellant's case is that he had noted the fact of this unauthorised construction on a piece of paper (parcha) and given the same to Anandilal (DW. 5) after he had been arrested in this case. As already stated, Anandilal admitted in cross-examination that the relevant register did not contain any entry of this unauthorised construction detected by the appellant on November 15, 1972, and that the so-called parcha given to him by the appellants munshi was not preserved by him. This clearly shows that no parcha etc. was ever prepared by the appellant on November 15, and therefore none could have been passed on to Anandilal when he took over charge for the appellant after the latters arrest. Had the appellant prepared any such parcha on November 15, he would have made the requisite entry in the register Ex. A. 11, either that very day or on November 16 or 17. It may therefore be safely concluded that the appellant had detected this unauthorised construction on November 15, 1972, and taken no action against it till his arrest on November 17, evening. This corroborates the evidence of PWs. Chunilal and Ashok Kumar to be discussed presently that the appellant bad visited the shop of Chunilal on November 15, 1972 and demanded illegal gratification from him for hushing up the unauthorised construction made by Chunilal. 16. Chunilal (PW. This corroborates the evidence of PWs. Chunilal and Ashok Kumar to be discussed presently that the appellant bad visited the shop of Chunilal on November 15, 1972 and demanded illegal gratification from him for hushing up the unauthorised construction made by Chunilal. 16. Chunilal (PW. 5) deposed that the appellant met him on November 15, 1972, and demanded bribe for ignoring his unauthorised construction telling him that he had started the construction without obtaining sanction of the plan of the building from the municipal council, Jaipur, as required by law. He stated that at the request the appellant went away and came again later in the afternoon when he gave a ten-rupee note which was spurned by the appellant who told him that he would not accept any amount less than Rs. 75/-. According to Chunilal, the appellant eventually agreed on his entreaty to accept Rs. 50/-. Chunilal promised to pay the amount on the following day. 17. Ashok Kumar (PW. 4), son of Chunilal, fully supported his father's version regarding the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant on November 15, 1972 as mentioned above. 18. Sedhumal (PW 8). a chaprasi in the office of an Additional District Magistrate, who used to work at the residence of the magistrate deposed that he had known Chunilal for quite some time before the occurrence as he quite often purchased provisions from his shop. He stated that he happened to be present at Chunilals shop on November 15, 1972, at about 3 P.M. when the appellant came there and asked Chunilal to stop construction of his shop. Now, this witness had to be declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution as he resiled from his statement under section 16 Cr.P.C. in some material particulars. Even than, he supported the prosecution case that the appellant had visited Chunilal's shop on November 15, twice, once in the forenoon at about 11 A.M. and again in the afternoon at about 3 P. M. He also confirmed that in the afternoon Chunilal tried to pay some amount (according to him, Rs. 20/-) to the appellant who did not accept the same. He however denied that the appellant had demanded Rs. 75/- as bribe and that he eventually agreed to accept Rs. 50/-. 19. Both Chunilal and Ashok Kumar testified to the third visit of the appellant to Chunilal's shop on November 16. 20/-) to the appellant who did not accept the same. He however denied that the appellant had demanded Rs. 75/- as bribe and that he eventually agreed to accept Rs. 50/-. 19. Both Chunilal and Ashok Kumar testified to the third visit of the appellant to Chunilal's shop on November 16. They deposed that on November 16, he came accompanied by his chaprasi and demanded payment of the agreed amount. Sedhu Ram also mentioned that in one of the visits of the appellant he was accompanied by his chaprasi. He however created confusion, may be deliberately or due to some mix-up about the events and dates, by further stating that the said visit was made on November 15 and that Chunilal had tried to pay Rs. 20/- to the appellant that very day. 20. Now, the oral evidence discussed above, corroborated by the absence of any entry by the appellant in the relevant register, Ex. A. 11, regarding the unauthorised construction noticed by him on November 15, proves beyond any doubt that the appellant who had seen the unauthorised construction in progress on November 15, refrained from making any entry about it in the relevant register and taking any legal action against Chunilal till November 17, when he was arrested in this case, because Chunilal had promised to pay Rs. 50/- as illegal gratification to him for his not taking any action against him. 21. The defence version that the appellant accepted payment of Rs. 50/- from Chunilal on November 17, evening towards insurance premium is highly improbable and the evidence produced in support of it is wholly unreliable. It is highly improbable for a variety of reasons. For one thing Chunilal had not filled in or signed any insurance form till the time of this payment. Under the circumstances, he would not have ordinarily paid this amount without finally setting the terms with the agent concerned and signing the requisite papers for the purpose. For another thing, the appellant would not have accepted this amount, except as bribe, from a person who was making unauthorised construction of a shop and who had earlier tried to give him a much smaller amount by way of bribe. 22. For another thing, the appellant would not have accepted this amount, except as bribe, from a person who was making unauthorised construction of a shop and who had earlier tried to give him a much smaller amount by way of bribe. 22. The appellant has produced some evidence in an attempt to prove that Chunilal had already met his wife, Smt. Hardevi, who is an insurance agent, on November 16 morning and settled the terms of the policy with her with the help of her father-in-law Kanwar Bhan (DW. 7). It is significant to note that Hardevi was not examined as a witness on behalf of the appellant. Had the story regarding Chunilal's so-called oral contract of insurance with the L.I.C. through the agency of Hardevi been true, the appellant would have surely called Hardevi as a witness. Instead, what the appellant did was to call his father, Kanwar Bhan, as a witness to prove the alleged oral contract of insurance. Kanwar Bhan's evidence does not carry any conviction at all. He was obviously at pains to prop up a false story in an attempt to help his son. It is significant to note that, throughout the lengthy cross-examination to which Chunilal was subjected on behalf of the appellant, he was not questioned at all regarding his alleged visit to the appellants house on November 16, morning to settle the terms of the so-called insurance policy with the appellants wife, Smt. Hardevi. The omission in that behalf unmistakably points to it conclusion that the story regarding Chunilal's visit to the appellant's house on November 16 and the alleged finalisation of the contract of insurance is an after thought and a fabrication. 23. The appellant examined DWs. Madan Lal and Harbanslal in an attempt to prove that even at the time of accepting Rs. 50/- from Chunilal at the latters shop on November 17, the appellant had made it clear in his conversation with Chunilal that he was accepting the payment towards premium of the life insurance policy, the terms whereof had already been settled by Chunilal, according to his own representation with the appellants wife. Like the learned trial Judge, I am also lot prepared to believe these to witnesses. They were not present at the shop of Chunilal at the time when the money was paid by him to the appellant. Like the learned trial Judge, I am also lot prepared to believe these to witnesses. They were not present at the shop of Chunilal at the time when the money was paid by him to the appellant. It is noteworthy that learned defence counsel in his lengthy cross-examination of various witnesses for the prosecution, including PW Chunilal, did not even remotely suggest to any of them the presence of these witnesses at the shop of Chunilal at the crucial time of payment of the bribe money. They are clearly put-up witnesses whose evidence must be rejected as totally false. 24. For all these reasons, I hold, in agreement with the learned trial court that the accused received a sum of Rs. 50/- from Chunilal at the latters shop on November 17, 1972, evening, as illegal gratification as reward for his refraining from taking any legal action against Chunilal for unauthorised construction made by the latter. I would accordingly affirm the order of conviction passed by the learned trial court against the appellant under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(1) (b) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 25. This brings me to the question of sentence. As already stated, the learned trial Judge has sentenced the appellant to simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 250/- or in default, further simple imprisonment for four weeks, under each count. Sub-section (2) of Section 5, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, under which the appellant has been convicted lays down that the offender shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. The provision appended to this sub-section lays down that court may, for any special reasons recorded in writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year. No special reason is shown as to why the appellant should be awarded a sentence less than the minimum prescribed by law. The provision appended to this sub-section lays down that court may, for any special reasons recorded in writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year. No special reason is shown as to why the appellant should be awarded a sentence less than the minimum prescribed by law. It was held in Meet Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1980 Supreme Court, 1141 , that the words "special reasons" occurring in sub-section 1 of section 5 clearly contemplate that the reasons in order to be special "must be special to the accused in the case or special to the facts and circumstance of the case in which the sentence is being awarded". Their Lordships pointed out in this content that where the only two persons were that the appellant had lost his job and he was a married man with children, as was also argued in the present case, such reasons could not be described as special reasons, for they would be common to ninetynine percent of cases tried under the Prevention of Corruption Act and if they can be styled as special reasons for awarding less than the minimum sentence, the proviso would render the sub-section wholly nugatory. 26. The order of sentence also, therefore, does not call for any interference. 27. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant who is on bail shall be arrested and committed to prison for serving out the sentence. A copy of this order shall be sent to the trial court for immediate compliance.Appeal dismissed. *******