Judgment Anand Prasad Sinha, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Sec.5 (2) read with Sec.5 (1) (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act and also under Sec.161 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. No separate sentence has been awarded for the offence under Sec.161 of the indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that at the relevant point of time in the month of March, 1969, the appellant was working as a Bench Clerk in the court of Second Officer (Magistrate) at Biharshariff. One Vijay Prakash Narayan singh (P. W.9) had two cases under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal procedure-one pending in the Court of Sri R. S. Thakur, Executive Magistrate, and another in the Court of the Second Officer Vijay Prakash Marayan Singh had filed an application, for calling for certain documents, before Sri R. S. Thakur, from the Court of the Second Officer and that prayer had been allowed. He met the appellant and requested him to send the documents which had been called for. The appellant had demanded a bribe of Rs.50/- (which was later on raised to Rs.100/-) for sending the documents. Vijay Prakash Narayan Singh had reported the matter to the Deputy Secretary, (Vigilance) on 22-3-1969 and he had submited a written report (Exhibit 6 ). The Deputy Secretary had directed one Harishanker singh (P. W.5), who happened to be the watcher attached to the department to verify the allegations by overhearing the talks between the appellant and Vijay prakash Narayna Singh. A written order had been passed in this connection. Further, it appears that both Hari Shanker Singh and the appellant had gone to biharsharif. They had reached there at 4.30 p. m. It transpired that the appellant had already left for home, and he was at his house. Both Harishanker Singh and vijay Prakash Narayan Singh had gone to his House. It appears that the demand was repeated in presence of Hari Shanker Singh and thus Hari Shanker Singh had submitted a report (Exhibit 9) to the Deputy Secretary, Anti Corruption, on 23-3-1969. Both Harishanker Singh and vijay Prakash Narayan Singh had gone to his House. It appears that the demand was repeated in presence of Hari Shanker Singh and thus Hari Shanker Singh had submitted a report (Exhibit 9) to the Deputy Secretary, Anti Corruption, on 23-3-1969. The Deputy Secretary had directed Sri P. K. Bannerjee (P. W.3), special Magistrate, to record the statement of Vijay Prakash Narayan Singh and had also asked Sri D. C. Sinha, Deputy Superintendent of Police (P. W.4) attached to the department to arrange a raiding party. Deputy Superintendent of Police organised a raiding party which consisted of P. K. Bannerjee, Special Magistrate, sub-Inspector of Police H. P. Shrivastava, R. C. Lal, Ishwari Prasad, and a few others. The members of the raiding party had been directed to meet D. C. Sinha at 10.30 A. M. On 24-3-1969 at the Biharshariff Dakbunglow. D. C. Sinha and the Special Magistrate had in fact reached there and all the relevant persons met him at the Dakbanglow. D. C. Sinha disclosed them about the purpose of going over there and further it appears that he had verified ten currency notes of 10/- denomination with respect to their numbers which were produced by Vijay prakasb Narayan Singh and thereafter D. C. Sinha (P. W.4) returned back the notes to him with a direction that he would handover the notes to the appellant only when he demanded bribe. P. W.4 had in fact verified the notes produced by Vijay Prakash Narayan Singh which tallied with the notes noted down by the special Magistrate. 3. Thereafter, Harishanker Singh and Vijay Prakash Narayan Singh (P. W.9), alongwith the raiding party, had gone to the Court of the Second Officer. It appears that Hari Shanker Singh (P. W.5) and P. W.9 were moving close together and other were at some distance and some were on the verandah and some were a little away. A direction was given to P. W.5 that when the appellant would take the money, he would give a signal by rubbing his face. It appears that both D. C. Sinha (P. W.4) and the Special Magistrate were also a little away from the verandah of the Court of the Second Officer. A direction was given to P. W.5 that when the appellant would take the money, he would give a signal by rubbing his face. It appears that both D. C. Sinha (P. W.4) and the Special Magistrate were also a little away from the verandah of the Court of the Second Officer. At 11.30 A. M. the watcher Hari Shanker Singh and P. W.9 alongwith Ishwari Prasad and R. C. Lal had entered into the Court room of the Second Officer and after sometime they had come out and it appears that P. W.9 had requested the appellant to take out the case record and send the same to the Court of Sri R. S. Thakur. The appellant asked for Rs.100/- as bribe and only then he would take any step in that connection. Earlier D. C. Sinha had met the Sub-divisional Officer, biharsharif and he had apprised him with all the facts and purpose for his visit and further requested him to come to the place of occurrence and the S. D. O. had promised to do the same after some time. 4. However, the S. D. O. did not turn-up and it appears that after the demand when the appellant was coming out of the Court room and was at the verandah then the money was paid and he had accepted. It was about 12 oclock in the noon. Thereafter, Hari Shankar Singh, as directed, had given the signal. All the members of the raiding party consisting of the Magistrate and D. C. Sinha confronted the appellant and had disclosed to him that he had accepted the money. The appellant did not say anything and then wanted to move away whereupon on the orders of D. C. Sinha, he was apprehended after observing the formalities before the witnesses O. C. Sinha (sic ). Ten notes of ten denomination were recovered from his right pocket. It appears that the notes recovered were exactly the same which were earlier noted down by P. K. Bannerjee and produced by P. W.9. Later on, D. C. Sinha gave information to the Police leading to this case. 5. Ten notes of ten denomination were recovered from his right pocket. It appears that the notes recovered were exactly the same which were earlier noted down by P. K. Bannerjee and produced by P. W.9. Later on, D. C. Sinha gave information to the Police leading to this case. 5. Learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has mainly confined his argeement the appreciation of evidence and he has tried to convince that as a matter of fact the appellant has been made a victim of the circumstances on account of enmity with P. W.9 and there was absolutely no case for acceptance of bribe whatsoever. 6. The prosecution has examined different witnessess on each vital points and after going through their evidence minutely and carefully, I have no hesitating in saying that the main theme of the prosecution that the appellant had in fact accepted Rs.100/-, which appears to be those notes produced by P. W.9 and duly verified by Magistrate P. K. Bannerjee and D. S. P. D. C. Sinha, is well established. 7. Another important fact is also well established that there has been some demand by the appellant and this is supported by the consistent evidence of the prosecution and of Hari Shanker Singh which could not be dispelled or altered by the force of cross-examination. The fact of demand of the bribe is supported by the evidence of P. W.9 and P. W.2 as also by the fact that there was a demand by the appellant and as a matter of fact ten notes of ten denomination each were given to the appellant which were taken by the appellant. Further immediately thereafter a signal was given and all the members of the raiding party arrived and then those notes had been recovered and seized. The story of recovery is also supported by the evidence of P. K. Bannerjee (P. W.3) D. C. Sinha, Deputy superintendent of Police attached with the Anti-Corruption Department was also present who had made the seizure and his evidence to this effect could not be altered at all. The unaltered and firm evidence of Hari Shanker Singh (P. W.5), which has already been referred to above, will also indicate that the entire alligations were found to be correct and the offence attributed to against the appellant was complete. The unaltered and firm evidence of Hari Shanker Singh (P. W.5), which has already been referred to above, will also indicate that the entire alligations were found to be correct and the offence attributed to against the appellant was complete. His evidence is with regard to the fact that there was a demand when he and P. W.9, as stated above, had gone to the house of the appellant and the demand was further made in the Court room and also after demand of the money and acceptance simultaneously thereafter recovery was made and the appellant was found in possession of the money. All these do not give any scope to draw an inference or conclusion that the prosecutions allegations are not acceptable. 8. Braj Nandan Prasad (P. W.6) who was then attached with the Anti-Corruption Department as A. S. I. has consistently stated about the fact of raiding party and the transaction in between the appellant and P. W.9. Thereafter, he has also supported the fact or recovery of the notes which had been earlier inspected by D. C. Sinha, from the possession of the appellant. All other witnesses including Ram Raksha Prasad (P. W.7) A. S. T. attached to the Vigilance department and all connected with the raiding party have consistently supported the fact of the recovery of money. A few discrepancy here and there and also controversy with regard to the fact as to when the application had been filed by p. W.9 and when his statement had been recorded by P. K. Bannerjee have absolutely no much bearing upon the totality of the weight of the evidence in this case. In this view of the matter there is absolutely no occasion for interference with the order of conviction. 9. However, I am inclined to consider the case of the appellant on the question of sentence. As stated above, the occurrence is of the year 1969 and thus the trial consumed 15 years as the judgment in the trial court was pronounced on 19-1-1984. The time consumed in the trial can be said to be exceedingly excessive leading to the state of affairs which can be said to be highly unreasonable and against the dictates of the administration of criminal justice and theory of punishment. The appellant had remained under suspension daring all these years. The time consumed in the trial can be said to be exceedingly excessive leading to the state of affairs which can be said to be highly unreasonable and against the dictates of the administration of criminal justice and theory of punishment. The appellant had remained under suspension daring all these years. From a perusal of the memorandum of appeal, it appears that the appellant has now been down with paralysis and this is another misfortune. 10. From the order sheet it appears that the appellant had been produced in custody on 24-3-1969 and he has been granted bail by order of this Court and that order had reached the Magistrate concerned on 5-4-1969 and release order had been issued on 7-4-1969. Therefore, the appellant has remained in jail for about 14 days. He must have lost all the fruits of his service period and he has been left with a stigma. 11. Before I part with the judgment, I would like to observe certain apparent facts involved in this case, which in my opinion, will also influence the consideration on the question of sentence. The conduct of P. W.9 Vijay prakash Narayan Singh is highly deplorable. When he had filed an application in the Court of Sri R. S. Thakur to call for certain documents from the Court of the Second Officer, there was no occasion for him to personally approach the bench Clerk of the Second Officer. When any such application for calling for some document is made an order is passed and a requisition is sent and the document is sent to another Court on the orders of the Presiding Officer of the Court from which the document had been called. It may be appreciated that the Bench clerk has absolutely no powers either to reject or to allow the sending of the documents. Of course, the Bench Clerk is instrumental in placing the relevant requisition and the file before the Presiding Officer for passing necessary orders for sending the documents. Under the circumstances, when the money had been demanded from Vijay Prakash Narayan Singh for this part of the (sic) he ought to have filed an application before the Magistrate or before the Second Officer bringing to his knowledge about the requistion of the documents and for expediting the matter. Under the circumstances, when the money had been demanded from Vijay Prakash Narayan Singh for this part of the (sic) he ought to have filed an application before the Magistrate or before the Second Officer bringing to his knowledge about the requistion of the documents and for expediting the matter. Such bad litigants like Vijay Prakash Narayan Singh are responsible for encouraging corruption and bad practices by personally approaching the bench Clerks and trying to obtain favours. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Vijay Prakash Narayan Singh cannot be said to be less responsible for helping and aiding in the conduct of the vices of corruption. In the instant case it may appear that the fantastic sum of Rs.100/- became the consideration of bribe. Further, it would appear that P. W.9 had visited the house of the appellant when he had found that the appellant was not in the Court. All this will indicate that P. W.9 was not less guilty and instrumental in the commission of the crime of bribery and I am surprised why he had been left without any prosecution. 12. From the evidence it appears that the demand and acceptance of money is established and, therefore, as indicated above, I am unable to exonerate the appellant from the charge levelled against him but at the same time, I have no hesitation in saying that people like Vijay Prakash Narayan Singh encourage corruption in Courts. It appears from his deposition that he was not having any occupation and, therefore, it can be safely said that such persons who are Court birds should also be punished for encouraging corruption in order to complete the aim and object of the law of Prevention of Corruption Act. 13. It may be appreciated that by now 17 years have passed covering the period of criminal prosecution and thus considering all these facts and circumstances the period already spent in jail by the appellant will meet the ends of justice and thus the period of sentence is reduced to the period already undergone all Courts. However, the sentence of fine remains unaltered. 14. With the above modification in the order of sentence, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.