D. R. Khanna, J. ( 1 ) THESE three appeal arise out of z common judgment dated20-8-1974 of Mr. M. L. Jain, special Judge, Delhi, whereby Musaddi Lai andsada Nand were convicted under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corrup-tion Act and Section 1634 I. P. C. , and Babu Ahmed was convicted undersection 109 Indian Penal Code read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruptionact and Section 165-A I. PC. Each of the first two was sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 200. 00, in default ofpayment of which further rigorous imprisonment for two months xvas to beundergone. Babu Ahmed was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for oneyear under Section 109 Indian Penal Code read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention ofcorruption Act, and like term under Section 165-A I. P. C. , both to run con-currently. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case was that Smt. Bhdho Devi had been in unauthorised occupation of a portion of plot No. 2631-34, Ward No. VIII, Asafali Road, New Delhi, for a number of years, and was running a fire wood stallthere. The plot belongs to the municipal corporation. She was, however,keen to get her possession regularised. Musaddi Lal, appellant who was therent Collector of the Municipal Corporation, used to visit her and told herthat in case she paid Rs. 1000. 00 as bribe to him, the plot could be allottedto her permanently. At that time she was not paying any rent for theplot. ( 3 ) ON 23-1-1973, Musaddi Lal again visited her and threatened thatlinless he was paid the bribe of Rs. 1000. 00, he would harass her and wouldnot allot the plot in her name. She agreed to the same, and it was settledthat he would collect the amount at 5 p. m. on that day. She managed tosecure ten currency notes of Rs. 100. 00 each, and then went to the Anticorruption Branch of the police to report the matter. Her statement Ex. P. W. 1/a was recorded by the Inspector. Two panch witnesses were thencalled, and they were Mrs. Madhuri Saxena, Probation Officer Grade-1, andvishnu Dev Rai, Case Worker, Samaj Kalyan Vibhag, Delhi Administration. The currency notes were then treated with phenol phatheline powder anddemonstration was given by touching right hand fingers of Mr. Her statement Ex. P. W. 1/a was recorded by the Inspector. Two panch witnesses were thencalled, and they were Mrs. Madhuri Saxena, Probation Officer Grade-1, andvishnu Dev Rai, Case Worker, Samaj Kalyan Vibhag, Delhi Administration. The currency notes were then treated with phenol phatheline powder anddemonstration was given by touching right hand fingers of Mr. Roy and thendipping them in a solution of Sodium carbonate which turned its colourlessshade to pink, to show that whosoever touched or came in contact with thetreated currency notes, would get accordingly polluted. Their numbers werealso noted. The raiding party then headed by Gurbux Rai, Inspector, leftthe office of the Anti Corruntion at 5. 35 p. m. in taxies for Asaf Ali Road,and reached there around 6. 00 pm. Budho Devi and the panch witnesseswent ahead to the fire wood stall, while the Inspector with the rest of theparty took position on the roundabout. About 15 minutes later, Budhodevi informed the Inspector that Musaddi Lal and another Corporationemployee had come to her at the stall, and had enquired about the bribemoney and on her affirmation, directed her to come to the stall of Hukma ingali Arya Samaj. She then along with the two panch witnesses was sentby the Inspector to Hukma s stall, and the police party followed. Musaddilal and Sada Nand were sitting on a cot inside Hukma s stall, while Babuahmed was sitting on the steps of stairs near the cot. In the meanwhile,ramji Lal, a neighbour of Budho Devi. had also come there. Budho Devithen told Musaddi Lal that the plot should be allotted in her name, and sheshould not be harassed anymore. Musaddi Lal replied that this would bedone. She then handed the tainted money of Rs. 1000. 00 to him, who receivedthat in his right hand, and passed that or to co-accused Sada Nand, who putthat in his coat pocket. Ramji Lal then told the accused that if they hadreceived Rs 1000. 00 from the poor lady, they should issue a pucca receipt ofallotment of the plot to her. Sada Nand then took out the money from hispocket and passed that on to Babu Ahmed who after taking the same, putthat in his own coat pocket, Musaddi Lal then prepared receipt. Ex. P. 1for Rs. 46. 20 p. and passed that on to Budho Devi. This was signed byboth Musaddi Lal and Sada Nand. Sada Nand then took out the money from hispocket and passed that on to Babu Ahmed who after taking the same, putthat in his own coat pocket, Musaddi Lal then prepared receipt. Ex. P. 1for Rs. 46. 20 p. and passed that on to Budho Devi. This was signed byboth Musaddi Lal and Sada Nand. Vishnu Dev Rai, one of the panchwitnesses, then gave the agreed signal, and the police party rushed there andrecovered the ten currency notes from Babu Ahmed. Their numbers werefound to tally with the numbers which had been noted earlier before the. raiding party started from the office of the Anti Corruption department. The test with the solution of sodium carbonate was then carried out, whichrendered the hands of the three accused pink, the also the cost pockets ofsada Nand and Babu Ahmed. The three accused were then taken into custody. ( 4 ) THIS prosecution version has been proved by the evidence ofbudho Devi as PW. 1 the two panch witnesses as P. Ws. 2 and 3, Ramji Lalas PW7 and Inspector Gurbux Rai as PW. 9. Budho Devi in her crossexamination stated that Ramji Lal belonged to her brotherhood, and shehad known him since childhood. He makes chappals . According to her,she-collects broken pieces of wood at the railway siding, and she had obtaineda contract for six years for this purpose. She had purchased a house inbhogal for Rs. 33,000. 00. It was about a fortnight prior to the Republic Dayof that year, that Musaddi Lal had for the first time demanded bribe fromher. . She was then alone. She denied the suggestion that she had told herneighbour Rattan Lal that she had brought this case at the instance of Ramjilal. Rs. 1,000. 00, she stated, belonged to her. Hukma and his nephew at thattime were sitting at a distance of about 5 yards from the verandah of his shop. They, however, did not come at the spot after the arrival of the police. Thecurrency notes were handed over by her in a folded packet to Musaddi Lalwho passed that on to Sada Nand. Sada Nand threw them on Babu Ahmedwhen the police came there and Babu Ahmed put them in his pocket. ( 5 ) DURING her cross-examination a tape was sought to be played incourt, but the same was found by the court to be not clear and intelligible. Sada Nand threw them on Babu Ahmedwhen the police came there and Babu Ahmed put them in his pocket. ( 5 ) DURING her cross-examination a tape was sought to be played incourt, but the same was found by the court to be not clear and intelligible. Budho Devi denied that it was her voice in the tape. Budho Devi alsodenied the suggestions that she owed Rs. 1500. 00 to Babu Ahmed out of whichshe had already paid Rs. 600. 00 to him, or that she herself gave Rs. 1000. 00at Hukma s stall to Babu Ahmed for counting, or that he told her that hewas deducting Rs. 900. 00 which were due to him and returned one currencynote of Rs. 100. 00 to her which she gave to Musaddi Lal. She also deniedthat Musaddi Lal asked Sada Nand to give the balance of Rs. 54. 00 to her,and that as the change was not available Sada Nand gave that currency noteof Rs. 100. 00 also to Babu Ahmed for giving him change or bringing thesame from the bazar. ( 6 ) PUBLIC Witness 2 Madhuri Saxena denied the suggestion in cross-examination that Musaddi Lal told the Inspector when apprehended, that he hadsome quarrel with Ramji Lal who had got him involved, but added thatfrom the place where she was standing, Babu Ahmed was not visibleto her. ( 7 ) PUBLIC Witness 3 Vishnu Dev Rai had given the signal when the money hadpassed from Budho Devi to the accused. He and Madhuri Saxena bothstated that they did not hear the talk which Musaddi Lal and Sada Nandhad with Budho Devi at the latter s stall when she was purported to havebeen told to come to Hukma s stall. He denied the suggestion that Budhodevi had handed over the currency notes to Babu Ahmed, or she had anytalk with him. According to him, Musaddi Lal did tell something to Sadanand, and he handed over the currency notes to latter, but he did not hearthe same. He could not say if Musaddi Lal had told Sada Nand to give thebalance. He also denied that Sada Nand had uttered the word bhan ,while handing the money to Babu Ahmed. He also denied that Sada Nandhad told Babu Ahmed on the latter s enquiry that the money was being givento him for the purchase of Vespa scooter agreed to be sold to him. He also denied that Sada Nand had uttered the word bhan ,while handing the money to Babu Ahmed. He also denied that Sada Nandhad told Babu Ahmed on the latter s enquiry that the money was being givento him for the purchase of Vespa scooter agreed to be sold to him. ( 8 ) PUBLIC Witness 7 Ramji Lal stated that he on noticing Budho Devi goingwith some strangers at about 7. 00 P. M. to the shop of Hukma, went there. He then narrated the passing of the money, and the rushing in of the police. In cross-examination, he added that he and Budho Devi are both harijans. His statement was not recorded by the police on the same day as accordingto him, he was having abdominal pain. He denied the suggestion that hehad accompanied Budho Devi to the office of Anti Corruption, or that hewas present at the stall of Budho Devi, when two of the accused had comethere. Hukma and his nephew, he added, were not at the former s stall whenthe money passed. It was when the police party had entered the shop thatsada Nand handed over the currency notes to Babu Ahmed. He denied thesuggestion that he was working as a social worker in the area, and had beencollecting money in the names of any officers, or that Musaddi Lal hadassaulted and reprimanded him about a month earlier for collecting money,and that on this ground he had got the accused trapped through the goodoffices of Buhho Devi. ( 9 ) PUBLIC Witness 9 Inspector Gurbux too stated in his cross-examination thathe d id not notice Hukma, the proprietor of the stall, or his nephew at thetime of the incident. They stayed there for about five hours. According tohim, he was not told by Babu Ahmed at the spot that he had received themoney for sale of some scooter to Sada Nand. ( 10 ) PUBLIC Witness 4 Kashmiri Lal Gupta is the Tehsildar of the Municipalcorporation of Delhi, who stated that it was the duty of Musaddi Lal torecover rt/damages/licence fee from the occupants of the municipal properties, and Sada Nand was his Inspector. Seven occupants of plot Nos. 2631-34, Ward No. VIII, had submitted representation to the Primeminister Secretariat that they were in unauthorised occupation of that plot,and that rent should be levied on them. This was in November, 1972. Seven occupants of plot Nos. 2631-34, Ward No. VIII, had submitted representation to the Primeminister Secretariat that they were in unauthorised occupation of that plot,and that rent should be levied on them. This was in November, 1972. Thatrepresentation was marked to Sada Nand accused, on which he submitted areport on 2-1-73 narrating the extent of space with each of the occupants, andthe damages that should be charged from them in pursuance of the Committee s resolution. In cross-examination, he added that the scheme for realisation of damages from unauthorised occupants was sanctioned by thestanding Committee of the Corporation. ( 11 ) PUBLIC Witness 8. B. R. Tamta, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, hadaccorded sanction of the prosecution of Musaddi Lal and Sada Nandaccused. ( 12 ) BOTH Musaddi Lal and Sada Nand accused in their statementsunder Section 342 Cr. P. C. admitted that Budho Devi was in illegal occupyation of a portion of the Municipal Corporation s plot No. 2631-34, Asafali Road,and further that they were public servants. It was denied that ademand of Rs. 1000. 00 was raised by Musaddi Lal for regularisation of thepossession. Both, however, admitted that they had visited the stall ofbudho Devi on that evening, and told her to come to the plot of Hukma. There she did come with two other witnesses. Babu Ahmed was also there,and Ramji Lal too had come. They further admitted that the currencynotes of Rs. 1000. 00 the numbers whereof tallied with the numbers in raidreport were recovered by the police from Babu Ahmed, and that wash restwas carried out which confirmed that they had come in contact with thetreated currency notes. They were then put under arrest. According tothem, months of January and March were recovery months, and on 22-1-73,musaddi Lal had gone to recover damages from Budho Devi as arrears offive-six years were due from her. She. however, wanted to pay only one month s damages, which Musaddi Lal had declined, and told her to arrange "for the entire amount of damages by the next day. Their case, further hasbeen that on the following day, Laxmi narain, Naib Tebsildar (D. W. 1)of the Corporation called Sada Nand accused, and told him about a complaint against Musaddi Lal that he was not furnishing receipt to Budho Devi,and directed that he should receive whatever was offered to him and issue receipt accordingly. Their case, further hasbeen that on the following day, Laxmi narain, Naib Tebsildar (D. W. 1)of the Corporation called Sada Nand accused, and told him about a complaint against Musaddi Lal that he was not furnishing receipt to Budho Devi,and directed that he should receive whatever was offered to him and issue receipt accordingly. They had gone to recover rent from Hukma in respect of hismunicipal site, and met Budho Devi in the way. When enquired if she hadarranged the amount she affirmed. Since they were getting late, they toldher to come to the stall of Hukma, when Hukma and Raghbir were alsopresent. Hukma served them with water, by which time Badho Devi alongwith one lady and a person came there and she handed over a bundle ofnotes in folded form to Babu Ahmed who separated one of the currency notes,and returned that to Budho Devi who in turn handed the same over tomusaddi Lal, and the latter to Sada Nand, saying that he should pay backthe balance to Budho Devi. They further admitted that receipt Ex. P. 1was issued for Rs. 46. 20 p. to Budho Devi. This was signed by both of them. The police party then came and recovered the currency notes. ( 13 ) MUSADDI Lal stated that he was falsely involved by Ramji Lal asearlier he had reprimanded and slapped him for taking bribe in the name ofthe Corporation officials, and that he had been given only one currency notein folded form. Sada Nand stated that he had received one currency notonly for giving the change, and was in no way connected with the transaction. ( 14 ) BABU Ahmed accused admitted the recovery of the tainted money,and that the same had been passed on to him by Sada Nand. He also admitted the wash test. He, however, did not state that one currency note wastaken back by Musaddi Lal, or that Sada Nand asked him to get any change. According to him, he was the neighbour of Hukma and had been called byhim. He had not heard the talk that the two accused had with Budho Devi,as he was then at a distance of about 20 feet. He next added that Sada Nandhad earlier agreed to purchase a scooter from him, and had called him andpassed on ten currency notes of Rs. 100. He had not heard the talk that the two accused had with Budho Devi,as he was then at a distance of about 20 feet. He next added that Sada Nandhad earlier agreed to purchase a scooter from him, and had called him andpassed on ten currency notes of Rs. 100. 00 each to him, saying that the same was the earnest money for the scooter. He bad no knowledge that the samewas bribe money. ( 15 ) FOUR witnesses were examined in defence by Musaddi Lal andsada Mand. D. W. 1 Laxmi Narayan was a Naib Tehsildar of the Municipalcorporation in those days. According to him, Ramji Lal had come alongwith Budho Devi to him in the last weekof January, 1973, and said thatbudho Devi wanted to deposit part damages for unauthorised occupation ofthe plot, but the Rent Collector insisted on having full payment. The witness then instructed Sada Nand, Circle Inspector, that since Musaddi Lalhad accepted part payment in other cases, he should recive that in the case ofbudho Devi also. In cross-examination he added that no written complaintin this regard was submitted by Ramji Lal or Budho Devi. Ramji Lal andbudho Devi had told him that about Rs 3000. 00 were due from Budho Devi. They, however, stated that they wanted to pay Rs. 200. 00 to Rs. 400. 00 whichwas not being accepted by Musaddi Lal. D. W. 2 Mahesh Kumar has hispremises opposite to the stall of Hukma He stated that he was present whenbudho Devi had panch witnesses had come there, and the former handedover the bundle of currency notes to Babu Ahmed. One currency note wasthen given by Babu Ahmed to Budho Devi. The rest he stated, he hadkept with himself towards what was due to him. She then gave that currencynote to Musaddi Lal and asked him to make receipt. Musaddi Lal passed that on to Sada Nand, saying that the balance amount should be returned tobudho Devi, Sada Nand gave that to Babu Ahmed, and asked him to givechange. There was, however, not enough change, and, therefore, Babuahmed Kept the currency note in his pocket. In the meanwhile, the policepartly came there. Musaddi Lal had then told the police party that it wasramji Lal who had falsely involved him in the case. ( 16 ) D. W. 3 Bishamber is the nephew of Budho Devi s husband. There was, however, not enough change, and, therefore, Babuahmed Kept the currency note in his pocket. In the meanwhile, the policepartly came there. Musaddi Lal had then told the police party that it wasramji Lal who had falsely involved him in the case. ( 16 ) D. W. 3 Bishamber is the nephew of Budho Devi s husband. According to him, Musuddi Lal accused had visited the stall of Budho Deviand the latter told him that he should rnish receipt for one month s rent. Musaddi Lal, however, said that she should pay five-six years rent, and thenthe receipt could be prepared. Later, Ramji Lal came and told Budho Devithat he knew some persons in the Corporation, and she should accompanyhim there, and that if the Corporation authorities did not agree to what theydesired, he would falsely involve them as the police was known to him. ( 17 ) D. W. 4 Raj Kumar stated that in December, 1972, he saw Ramjilal and Musaddi Lal fighting with each other near Balmiki Mandir, Musaddilal then told Ramji Lal that he was squeezing money from the people in thename of the Corporation, and was disreputing them. Ramji Lal denied that. Musaddi Lal then mentioned that he had taken Rs. 100. 00 from Cola wala inhis name and gave a slap to Ramji Lal. They were then separated. ( 18 ) WITH this state of the evidence on record, and the defence setup, it is obvious that substantial facts remain undisputed. Thus Smt. Budhodevi being in unauthorised occupation of a portion of municipal plot atasaf Ali Road. New Delhi, her attempts to get the possession regularised,and Musaddi Lal as the municipal rent collector demanding rent/damagesfrom her, stand admitted. Similarly the anti-corruption branch of the policeorganising a raiding party, and associating two panch witnesses, namely,mrs. Mathuri Saxena and Vishnu Dev Roy and Budho Devi taking with herrs. 1000. 00, the numbers of which were noted, and which were also treated with phenol pathelilie powder, and the going by them at the fuel stall ofbudho Devi where Musaddi Lal and Sada Nand also reached shortly thereafter, have not been disputed. It is further admitted that Musaddi Lalasked Budho Devi to come to the stall of Hukma and he and Sada Nandwent there and waited for Budho Devi who reached there along with theraiding party and the panch witnesses. Budho Devi next gave Rs. 1000. It is further admitted that Musaddi Lalasked Budho Devi to come to the stall of Hukma and he and Sada Nandwent there and waited for Budho Devi who reached there along with theraiding party and the panch witnesses. Budho Devi next gave Rs. 1000. 00 tomusaddi Lal who passed them on to Sada Nand, and the latter threw themon to Babu Ahmed when the police party interposed, has been the case ofthe prosecution. It is here that the defence version is different, and inter-seaccused persons is also varying. According to Musaddi Lal and Sada Nand,the currency notes were given by Budho Devi to Babu Ahmed who was saidto be due Rs. 900. 00 out of an advance of Rs. 1500. 00 which he had earliergiven to Budho Devi, and out of which Rs. 600. 00 had already been received by him. The remaining Rs. 100. 00were given by Babu Ahmed to Musaddi Lal who gave that to Sada Nand for giving change as the rent receipt issuedwas for Rs. 46. 20. It was as such that these two accused stated that theirhands and Sada Nand s pocket became red when dipped in the solution ofsodium Carbonate. Babu Ahmed on his part has not owned any such transaction of loan of Rs. 1500. 00 or that Rs. 900. 00 were paid by Budho Devi tohim. His version tallies with that of the prosecution that the entire moneywas first taken by Musaddi Lal from Budho Devi who passed that on to Sadanand. The latter in turn gave that money to him towards part payment ofa scooter which he was said to be purchasing through him. ( 19 ) SO far as Musaddi Lal is concerned his conduct prevades through out the course of events. It has been he who had been meeting Budhodevi earlier, and having talks with her about regularisation of her possessionover the plot. It was he who had demanded Rs. 1000. 00 for that regularisation, and had agreed to visit Budho Devi on the evening of 23-1-1973 atthe latter s stall, obtain money, and issue the regularisation slip. He, infact, came there that evening. Budho Devi had in the meanwhile contactedthe anti-corruption department, and the currency notes of Rs. 1000/ were given the requisite treatment as aforesaid. The mere fact that the raidingparty reached Budho Devi s stall after she agreed time of 5. He, infact, came there that evening. Budho Devi had in the meanwhile contactedthe anti-corruption department, and the currency notes of Rs. 1000/ were given the requisite treatment as aforesaid. The mere fact that the raidingparty reached Budho Devi s stall after she agreed time of 5. 00 p. m. , need notbe given any significance as the going of the raiding party there as well as ofmusaddi Lal, has not been disputed. From there, Musaddi Lal required herto come to the stall of Hukma. They then went there as aforesaid. Afterconsidering the evidence of the panch witnesses and Budho Devi. I have nothing to doubt their testimony, or interfere in any manner with theassessment of the evidence in this regard by the learned trial court. None ofwitnesses is shown to be inimical to this accused or specially interested tofalsely implicate him. Both the panch witnesses are independent and disinterested. Similarly Budho Devi would not have collected Rs. 1,000. 00, gone all the way to the anti corruption department, and got the raiding party organised if Musaddi Lal was inclined to issue the rent receipt on her payingrs. 46. 20 p. only. The fact that steps in the direction of regularisation werein the offing is borne out from the defence evidence as well when it was mentioned that as a result of some representation to the Prime Minister s office, the matter relating to the charging of rent/damages commensurate with thearea in possession of each of the occupiers was under consideration. Musaddilal in the circumstances appears to have sought to exploit the situation, andit was unfortunate that this old women was made the victim who earns herlivelihood by collecting broken pieces of wood from the railway siding. Herevidence as well as of the panch witnesses, is quite clear that it was he whohad received the entire money from Budho Devi, and then passed that onto Sada Nand. The alleged loan by Babu Ahmed to Budho Devi, and thereturn by the latter to him of Rs. 900. 00, has been disowned by Babuahmed, In case any such payment to Babu Ahmed was intended by her,she would not have mixed the two transactions together, and given a consolidated amount to Babu Ahmed, and leaving it to him to give Rs. 100. 00currency note to the other two accused. Musaddi Lal was thus rightly convicted by the learned Special Judge. 100. 00currency note to the other two accused. Musaddi Lal was thus rightly convicted by the learned Special Judge. ( 20 ) ADVERTING to the case of Sada Nand, it is apparent that he cameinto the picture for the first lime on the evening of 23-1-1973 when Musaddilal was to be given Rs. 1000. 00 by Budho Devi. At no stage earlier, it isshown that he had met Budho Devi, or demanded any money from her orassured that her possession over the plot would be regularised. The dealwas thus entirely between Budho Devi and Musaddi Lal. At the same time,it cannot be ignored that Musaddi Lal was working under Sada Nand, and hewas certainly connected with the department which was competent to collectrent/damages from occupants of municipal lands and regularise possessions interms of the policy of the corporation. His therefore, coming along withmusaddi Lal at the lime when the latter was to receive illegal gratificationfrom Budho Devi, seeing the passing of that money, receiving the same frommusaddi Lal, and then also signing the rent receipt which Musaddi Lal issuedin favour of Budho Devi, brings out his complicity to share the taintedmoney. Furthermore by signing on the rent receipt along with Musaddilal, he sought to create an authenticity in the same so far as Budho Devi wasconcerned. He as an officer of Musaddi Lal or even as his colleague, shouldnaturally have objected to the obtaining of Rs. 1000. 00 from Budho Deviwhen the receipt of Rs. 46. 20 only was being issued. His was thus not aninnocent conduct, or just being a by-stander who had per chance happenedto accompany Musaddi Lal at that time. Mr. Mehta, appearing from hisside, has vehemently contended that so far as the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Section 161 Indian Penal Code were concerned, they werecomplete as soon as Musaddi Lal had struck a deal with Budho Devi, andhad obtained Rs. 1000. 00 from her. According to him, what transpired thereafter, and in what manner Musaddi Lal utilised or shared the money withanyone, would not make the other guilty of the same offence, or bring anycommon intention. However, as already observed above, he had specialposition over Musaddi Lal, and it could not be that his sub-ordinate wouldtake bribe in his presence without his connivance, tie would also not lend authenticity to the receipt issued by Musaddi Lal by as well signing the same. However, as already observed above, he had specialposition over Musaddi Lal, and it could not be that his sub-ordinate wouldtake bribe in his presence without his connivance, tie would also not lend authenticity to the receipt issued by Musaddi Lal by as well signing the same. The issue of the receipt was part of the illegal deal struck. His throwing themoney on Babu Ahmed when the police party interposed, further brings outhis guilty mind. I therefore, do not-see how he can escape the conviction asmade by the trial court. ( 21 ) COMING lastly to Babu Ahmed, he was not an employee of thecorporation, nor is shown to be otherwise, in any manner, connected withmusaddi Lal or Sada Nand in their errands of corrupt practices. He wasjust present there. Nothing has been brought on record which can pointout to his prior complicity with the other two accused, or any other designor conspiracy between them. As a laymen he just appeared to have pocketted the money when passed to him by Sada Nand, not knowing the implication thereof. In any case, this plea from his side cannot be said to beimprobable. He has, of course, tried to set up the defence of a scooter dealwith Sada Nand. Whether that was there or not, the circumstances of thecase do not beyond reasonable doubt, establish his complicity. Moreover,his role, if at all was after the commission of the crime, when the money hadpassed between Budho Devi and the accused. In case he was a third personkept by the other- accused there so that the money could hurriedlybe passed on to him in case of detection by the police or other authorities,then his guilt would be more in the nature of attempt tconceal and provide a cover-up to the crime. He has not been charged for the same. Moreover if his role v/as to provide a protection to the other co-accused, then itwould have appeared more natural if they had asked Budho Devi to give themoney straight to him. In that case, they would not have themselves touched the money. In any case, the matter is not free from reasonable doubt. He as such is acquitted. ( 22 ) MRS. In that case, they would not have themselves touched the money. In any case, the matter is not free from reasonable doubt. He as such is acquitted. ( 22 ) MRS. Urmila Kapoor, appearing on behalf of Musaddi Lal, hasraised an objection that the entire trial was vitiated inasmuch as before thecommissioner of the Municipal Corporation sanctioned the prosecution ofthe accused, he had not issued a show-cause notice to the accused. In thismanner, there was stated to be a violation of the principle" or" natural justice. So far as the appliance of the mind by the Commissioner on the factsof the case, his sanction order shows that he was well aware of them. Itcould not, therefore, be said that the sanction was given mechanically orwithout due appliance of mind. The crucial question to be considered iswhether before according the sanction, the accused persons were entitled tobe given hearing. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union ofindia, (1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 664, and National Textile Workers Unionetc. v. P. R. Ramakrishnan and others, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 75 It. hasbeen observed that the rules of natural justice are not exclusively principleof administrative law. They are part of judicial procedure which are imported into the administrative process because of their universality. At thesame time, they can supplement the law, but cannot supplant it. If astatutory provision either specifically or be inevitable implication excludesthe application of the rules or natural justice, then the court cannot ignore themandate of the legislature. Whether or not the application of the principlesof natural justice in a given case has been excluded, wholly or in part, in theexercise of statutory power, depends upon the language and basic scheme ofthe provision conferring the power, the nature of the power, the purpose forwhich it is conferred and the effect of the exercise of that power. In the caseof Swadeshi Cotton Mills (supra), it has further been observed. . . . . . that this rule cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative convenience orcelerity. In the caseof Swadeshi Cotton Mills (supra), it has further been observed. . . . . . that this rule cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative convenience orcelerity. The general principle-as distinguished from an absolute rule of uniform application-seems to be that where a statute does not, in terms, excludethis rule of prior hearing but contemplates a post-decisional hearing amountingto a full review of the original order on merits, then such a statute wouldbe construed as excluding the audi alter ampartem rule at the pre-decisionalstage. Conversely if the statute conferring the power is silent with regard tothe giving of a pre-decisional hearing to the person affected and the administrative decision taken by the authority involves civil consequences of a gravenature, and no full review or appeal on merits against that decision is provided, courts will beextremely reluctant to construe such a statute as excluding the duty of affording even a minimal hearing, shorn of all its formaltrappings and dilatory features at the pre-decisional stage, unless, viewedpragmatically, it would paralyse the administrative process or frustrate theneed for utmost promptitude. In short, this rule of fair play must not bejettisoned save in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessityso demands. The court must make every effort to salvage this cardinalrule to the maximum extent possible, with situational modifications. Butthe core of it must, however, remain, namely, that the person affected musthave reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise. ( 23 ) IN the Swadeshi cotton Mill s case (supra) there was a take overof the management of the whole of the industrial undertaking withoutan hearing being provided to the undertaking. The act of takingover thus of its own acquired finality, and there was no post-decisional hearing contemplated. This circumstance alone distinguishes the presentcase, inasmuch as there has been a proper post-decisional trial in the present case. In the circumstances, it has to be constructed that the audi alteram partem rule was excluded at the pre-decisional stage. No invalidity,therefore, can bs imputed to the grant of sanction by the Commissioner ofthe Municipal Corporation in the present case. ( 24 ) THE convictions of both Musaddi Lal and Sada Nand havingbeen maintained, the next question to be considered is how much shouldbe the quantum of sentences. It has been pointed out from their side. No invalidity,therefore, can bs imputed to the grant of sanction by the Commissioner ofthe Municipal Corporation in the present case. ( 24 ) THE convictions of both Musaddi Lal and Sada Nand havingbeen maintained, the next question to be considered is how much shouldbe the quantum of sentences. It has been pointed out from their side. thatthey have been under suspension from January, 1973, and have now lost theirjobs. They have passed through turm oil ful time. As such it is pleadedthat a lenient view of the matter bs taken. Reference in this regard hasbeen made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B. C. Goswamiv. Delhi Administration, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 1457, wherein the pendency of proceedings for seven years in a conviction based under Section5 (1) (d) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Section 161 Indian Penal Code by invoking the presumption of Section 4 (1) of the Act was considered justification to reduce the sentence to imprisonment already undergone, but thefine was increased from Rs. 200. 00 to Rs. 400. 00. Similarly in Mangat Ramv. The State, 1982 Crl. L. J. 2044, the Delhi High Court after consideringthat the accused had undergone mental agony and harassment for a longperiod of 11 years during which the proceedings had gone on, held that thiscould be special reason for awarding lesser sentence (3 months) than theminimum of one year prescribed for offence under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The convict was further found to be studyingfor Law, and though 42 years of age, it was observed that long sentencewould disrupt his studies and destroy his future career. The Orissa Highcourt in Rasananda Patra v. State, 1982 Cri. L. J. 272 reduced the sentenceto already undergone where 12 years had elapsed after the occurrence. Thiswas also a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. ( 25 ) AFTER considering the totality of the circumstances, and keepingin view that delay in disposal of cases unfortunately has come to stay inour courts because of large pendencies, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment to one year. The fine of Rs. 200. 00 in each case will remain, but imprisonment in default of its payment would be 15 days rigorous imprisonmentonly. The fine of Rs. 200. 00 in each case will remain, but imprisonment in default of its payment would be 15 days rigorous imprisonmentonly. I would have been inclined to reduce still further the sentence of Sadanand as he entered the areana belatedly to share the ill-gotten money andsign on the receipt, but for the fact he was a senior officer of Musaddi Lal,and it was his duty to have checked Musaddi Lal from indulging in unlawful activity. His conduct more seems to reflect the unfortunate trend sometimes noticed of complicity of seniors in the illegal collection of money bythe subordinates and then sharing the booty.