K. K. ADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant was prosecuted for offences under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been convicted to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default thereof to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and no separate sentence has been passed against him for the offence under section 161 I. P. C. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that the appellant was working as Sanitary Inspector in the Health Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh and at the relevant time was posted at Akaltara. As the Sanitary Inspector he had powers to inspect and prosecute the shop keepers for violation of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration- Act. The complainant Kaushal Prasad (P. W. 1) had a Kirana shop in village Nariyara under the jurisdiction of the Police Station Pamgarh. The said village Nariyara for the purposes of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was under the jurisdiction of the appellant. It appears that in the year 1975, Kaushal Prasad (P. W. 1) was prosecuted for running Kirana shop without license as also for exposing to sell adulterated ground-nut Dil. He was acquitted of the charge of selling adulterated ground-nut Dil but was fined Rs. 200/- for running the Kirana shop without license. It is further the case of the prosecution that after conviction of Kaushal Prasad (P. W. 1) for running the Kirana shop without license, he had closed his kirana shop and, thereafter, wanted to re-open the shop in the name of his son Ganesh Prasad (P. W. 11) and, therefore, made an application for license, upon which the appellant demanded Rs. 20/- as license fees as also an illegal gratification of Rs. 300/for getting the license for running of the kirana shop. This was on 10. 5. 1978. Kaushal Prasad (P. W. 1) opened his shop and it appears that on 11. 6. 1978, the appellant went to his shop and demanded an amount of Rs. 20/- as license fees as also an illegal gratification of Rs. 300/for getting the license for running of the kirana shop. This was on 10. 5. 1978. Kaushal Prasad (P. W. 1) opened his shop and it appears that on 11. 6. 1978, the appellant went to his shop and demanded an amount of Rs. 300/- and threatened that if the said amount is not paid, the appellant would again prosecute Kaushal Prasad (P. W. 1) for opening his Kirana shop without requisite license. Kaushal Prasad (P. W. 1) agreed to pay the amount on 12. 6. 1978. It appears that Kaushal Prasad (P. W. 1), thereafter, went to Nemichand (P. W. 3) and told him about the illegal demand made by the appellant. Nemichand (P. W. 3) thereafter, wrote an application Ex. P-3 to the Vigilance Commission and both, Kaushal Prasad (P. W. 1) and Nemichand (P. W. 3) together went to Bilaspur on 12. 6. 1978 and handed over the said application to S. B. Richhariya (P. W. 9) upon which the Vigilance Commission prepared a Panchanama (Ex. P-4 ). It is further the case of the prosecution that a trap party consisting of S. B. Richhariya (P. W. 9), R. K. Bhargava, Deputy Collector (P. W. 4), Ramratansingh, Head Constable (P. W. 5) Brijbihari Mishra, Head Constable (P. W. 7) and K. K. Verma, Deputy Collector (P. W. 8) along with Kaushal Prasad (P. W. 1) and Nemichand (P. W. 3) proceeded in a Jeep to Akaltara. According to the prosecution, Kaushal Prasad (P. W. 1) went inside the house of the appellant while members of the trap party remained outside. It is said that Kaushal Prasad (P. W 1) handed over three hundred rupee notes as per Panchnama Ex. P-4 and made a signal to the trap party by coughing when he handed over the notes to the appellant. The members of the trap party entered the room after hearing the coughing of Kaushal Prasad (P. W. 1) and on search of the appellant, nothing was found on his person. Seizures of the notes were affected from the window still and they were seized vide Ex. P-8. The hands of the appellant were washed in phenolphthalein solution which turned pink. A Panchanama (Ex. P- 13) vide Ex. P-B was prepared after seizure of the notes. After necessary investigation, prosecution of the appellant followed. Seizures of the notes were affected from the window still and they were seized vide Ex. P-8. The hands of the appellant were washed in phenolphthalein solution which turned pink. A Panchanama (Ex. P- 13) vide Ex. P-B was prepared after seizure of the notes. After necessary investigation, prosecution of the appellant followed. ( 3 ) THE defence of the appellant was that since as Sanitary Inspector he had prosecuted Kaushal Prasad (P. W. 1) he was annoyed with and, therefore, had falsely implicated him in this crime. It was further the defence that no money was handed over to him and that the phenolphthalein solution turned pink because he had earlier taken Pargolax which also turns the solution into pink. ( 4 ) ON evaluation of the prosecution evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant as stated above, against which the present appeal has been preferred. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in view of the prosecution launched by him against Kaushal Prasad (P. W. 1 ). It was further argued that the prosecution has failed to examine any independent witness, and the witnesses, who have been examined, were all interested. The further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that money was never handed over to the appellant and lastly, it was submitted that no proper sanction was accorded. However, during the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant laid emphasis on the question of sentence, stating that the appellant has already been dismissed from service and further that the incident is of 12. 6. 1978 and since then there has been a time lapse of nearly 10 years, during which period the appellant has been facing the trial. ( 6 ) SO far as the merit of the case is concerned, it need be only said that the prosecution has completely proved the guilt of the appellant inasmuch as the testimony of Kaushal Prasad (P. W. 1) is fully corroborated by S. B. Richhariya (P. W. 9), R. K. Bhargava, Deputy Collector (P. W. 4), K. K. Verma, Deputy Collector (P. W. 8) and Brijbihari Mishra, Head Constable (P. W. 7) who all have given consistent version and, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the trial Court rightly believed these witnesses in- convicting the appellant. The defence of the appellant has not been proved from the evidence on record. It is true that Ramratan Singh, Head, Constable (P. W. 5) has stated that the currency notes were asked to be picked up from the window grill by the appellant and, therefore, relying on this testimony, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not in possession nor had taken or touched the currency notes from Kaushal Prasad (P. W. 1 ). Ramratan Singh (P. W. 5) has been declared hostile by the prosecution and his evidence is not corroborated by any other evidence on record. The sanction to prosecute the appellant was accorded by the Law Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh and such a sanction has been held to be legal and valid by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Sunder/a/ v. State. 1 In view of the consistent and clinching prosecution evidence on record, this Court finds no reason to interfere in this appeal. ( 7 ) THE question that now arises is regarding the sentence. The incidentt as has been noted hereinabove is of 12. 6. 1978. In Tarsem Lal v. State of Haryana2 the apex Court, while sentencing the appellant therein laid down that the incident is of 1972 while the appeal is being decided in 1987 and, therefore, in the opinion of the apex Court, the sentence of the imprisonment already undergone and sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court will meet the ends of justice. Further, in Sarupchand v. State of Punjab3, while affirming the conviction of the appellant therein under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) or the prevention of Corruption Act as also under section 161, I. P. C. a lapse of six years from the date of incident was found to be sufficient ground to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant and the fine imposed on him. In the present case, the appellant has been throughout on bail during trial as also during the pendency of this appeal. As per statement by the learned counsel for the appellant at bar, the appellant has already been dismissed from service. In the present case, the appellant has been throughout on bail during trial as also during the pendency of this appeal. As per statement by the learned counsel for the appellant at bar, the appellant has already been dismissed from service. He had been facing prosecution for 10 long years and, therefore, to send him to jail after a lapse of 10 years would cause lot of hardship not only to the appellant but also to. his family. Another circumstance, which has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel is that the father of the appellant has been murdered in Punjab. ( 8 ) TAKING into consideration all these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the lapse of time of nearly 10 years from the date of incident and hearing of this appeal, if the appellant is sentenced till rising of the Court and the sentence of fine as imposed by the trial Court, would meet the ends of justice. ( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY, while sustaining the conviction of the appellant under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, his sentence of rigorous imprisonment is converted into rising of the Court and the sentence to pay a fine as imposed by the trial Court. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender to serve out the sentence and to pay the fine, if not already paid, within one month from today. ( 10 ) SUBJECT to aforesaid modification in the sentence, this appeal fails and is .