JUDGMENT S.M. Dand, J. - This appeal takes exception to the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 161 of the Indian Penal Code and 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2. The prosecution case is that complainant P.W. 1 Murlidhar Melluram Ailiani is a displaced person residing at Ulhasnagar in District Thane. He was working in the office of the Police Commissioner, Bombay. Murlidhar has a somewhat large family, which consists of himself, his wife Gangabai, one son and three daughters. His wife had with some difficulty effected a saving of about Rs. 500/-and with that amount she purchased in the year 1971 a super structure in Ulhasnagar Camp Nos. 2 and 3. The super structure was sold to her by Bhagirath Mansingh, which stood on land belonging to the Government. The sale deed was a registered one. After getting the structure various amenities like electricity and water supply to the premises were applied for. All this was being attended to by Murlidhar under a power of attorney passed in his favour by his wife. In the year 1972 or so a complaint appears to have been made against Murlidhar's wife in relation to the said structure. The Administrator's office issued a notice to Gangabai calling upon her to show cause why the structure being un-authorised, should not be demolished. A reply was given to the said notice but the Assistant Administrator was unrelenting on 4-1-73, he passed an order for the structure's demolition. An appeal was carried to the Administrator against the demolition order. The Administrator dismissed the appeal on 30th April 1973. Thereafter Gangabai preferred a revision application to the Settlement Commissioner. The revision was registered as Revision Petition No. 23 of 1973. Initially the matter came up before the predecessor in office of the appellant whose name was Mr. Rege. The said Mr. Rege refused to stay the demolition and against this order Gangabai had to move the State Government. The State Government granted stay to the demolition on 7-8-1973. Appellant took over as the Settlement Commissioner later. 3. The office of the Settlement Commissioner or the Chief Settlement Commissioner is located on the third floor of Vakil's Chambers, Ballard Estate, Bombay Gangabai's revision came up for hearing on 15-9-1978. The State Government granted stay to the demolition on 7-8-1973. Appellant took over as the Settlement Commissioner later. 3. The office of the Settlement Commissioner or the Chief Settlement Commissioner is located on the third floor of Vakil's Chambers, Ballard Estate, Bombay Gangabai's revision came up for hearing on 15-9-1978. The revision was not beard on that day and then began the usual adjournments. Eventually, on 16-2-1979 the hearing took place. Gangabai's Advocate was not present but Murlidhar argued the matter on her behalf and the revision was adjourned for delivery of judgment to 23-4-79. The judgment was not delivered on 23-4-1979 nor on the next day i.e. 11-5-1979. On 11-5-1979 another date i.e. 25-6-1979 was given. 4. During the pendency of the revision in the office of the appellant, Murlidhar had visited the office several times and had become acquainted with the Head Clerk P.W. Shukla. On two or three occasions Shukla had been asked as to whether judgment was ready or not. Shukla's reply was that the judgment would not be delivered unless Murlidhar paid a bribe of Rs. 1,000/- to the appellant. Murlidhar pointed to his poverty-stricken condition and said that the maximum he could pay was Rs. 300/-. Shukla was not hopeful but promised to do what he could to influence the appellant to reduce the amount expected from Murlidhar. Later on Murlidhar was informed by Shukla that appellant would not budge from the figure quoted by him. After receiving the negative reply of Shukla, Murlidhar went directly to the appellant and met him in his chamber. He made bold to say that he had learnt from Shukla that judgment was ready and yet not being delivered. Appellant did not dispute of the judgment being ready, but said that he would deliver the judgment later on. Upon this, Murlidhar informed appellant of Shukla demanding a sum of Rs. 1,000/- on his i.e. appellant's behalf. Appellant replied that Murlidhar had to comply with the directions given by Shukla whereupon he would deliver judgment. This was confirmation of the conversation Murlidhar had with Shukla. Murlidhar came out of appellant's chamber, contacted Shukla and told him of what had taken place. He said that he would require about 10-15 days to arrange for the money. Shukla mentioned the ensuing leave of appellant and directed Murlidhar to come again only in June and that, after the appellant returned from leave. Murlidhar came out of appellant's chamber, contacted Shukla and told him of what had taken place. He said that he would require about 10-15 days to arrange for the money. Shukla mentioned the ensuing leave of appellant and directed Murlidhar to come again only in June and that, after the appellant returned from leave. 5. Murlidhar went to the office of the appellant on 26-6-1979 to ascertain whether the appellant had come back from leave. Shukla was there and Murlidhar told him that in as much as appellant had returned he would be returning with the money within two or three days. Cursed with poverty and desperate at the pressure brought upon him, Murlidhar approached the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau on 28-6-1979 at about 2.30 p.m. The said Assistant Commissioner of Police, A.C.B. directed Murlidhar to approach P.W. 9 who in June 1979 was a mere Police Inspector attached to the A.C.B. P.W 9 Mr. Wali was approached by Murlidhar and the information conveyed by Murlidhar was reduced to writing which is at Ex. 16. 6. P.W. 9 Mr. Wali sent for panchas viz. P.W. 2 Joshi and Lad. These persons were given a gist of the information received from Murlidhar. As Murlidhar did not have the necessary money to be used in the trapping of the appellant, the Bureau arranged for the said sum. The amount was made over to Murlidhar with instruction that he was to give it only upon a demand being made by Shukla. At that stage it was assumed that Shukla would be present and that the bribe would be paid to the appellant not directly, but through Shukla: The setting of trap and how it was to be sprung and who was to accompany whom, was conveyed to the witnesses concerned and incorporated in the pre-trap panchanama at Ex. 25. The party then started for the office of the appellant. Murlidhar was accompanied by panch Jadhav while the rest of the party stayed a little behind with Wali in charge. 7. Murlidhar and Joshi came to the office of the appellant on 28-6-1979 at about 3.00 p.m. They asked Clerk P.W. Mrs. D'souza about the availability or otherwise of Shukla as also the appellant. Mrs. D'souza replied that Shukla had not come to office at all, whereas appellant would be available only at 4.00 p.m. Thereupon, Murlidhar and Joshi returned. 7. Murlidhar and Joshi came to the office of the appellant on 28-6-1979 at about 3.00 p.m. They asked Clerk P.W. Mrs. D'souza about the availability or otherwise of Shukla as also the appellant. Mrs. D'souza replied that Shukla had not come to office at all, whereas appellant would be available only at 4.00 p.m. Thereupon, Murlidhar and Joshi returned. On the way Wali was intimated of what had taken place. The party therefore came back. At 4.00 p.m. Murlidhar and Joshi came to the appellant's office. Wati, Lad and the other members of the raiding party followed behind. Shukla was not present but the appellant was in his chamber engaged in work with someone else. This required that Murlidhar and Joshi wait for some time. After the expiry of 10-15 minutes Mrs. D'souza was again asked if appellant was there. She replied in the affirmative and Murlidhar and Joshi went into the appellant's chamber. Appellant was seated on a chair in front of a table and on either side of the, table were chairs which were occupied by Murlidhar and Joshi. 8. Murlidhar addressed appellant by name and asked him about the judgment in his case. Appellant rang the bell which brought a Peon. This Peon was told to fetch the case papers and this task of bringing the case papers was attended to by P.W. 5 Madhusudan Parkar. Appellant looked into the papers and gave out that some more material remained to be received from the authorities below. He told Murlidhar to come again on 21-7-1979. The Clerk took away the papers. After Parkar had left, Murlidhar addressing the appellant said "Sir, I have brought for you". The appellant looking at Joshi asked Murlidhar as to who he was. Murlidhar's reply was that Joshi was a relation of his. Appellant asked Joshi what he did, to which the reply was that Joshi was working at Thane. The appellant asked Murlidhar as to how much he had brought to which Murlidhar replied that he had come with Rs. 1,000/-. Appellant said that the amount brought was very little and in fact he could not accept less than Rs. 3,000/-. Murlidhar said that he would pay the balance later but the first installment of Rs. 1,000/-. be accepted. Appellant signified assent and got up indicating by words that they all go out. 1,000/-. Appellant said that the amount brought was very little and in fact he could not accept less than Rs. 3,000/-. Murlidhar said that he would pay the balance later but the first installment of Rs. 1,000/-. be accepted. Appellant signified assent and got up indicating by words that they all go out. Appellant first went to the toilet and thereafter the three of them left the appellant's office. Having come on the road the trio came to the Bazar Gate Street. They marched ahead and went near Raj Hotel. The appellant asked Murlidhar to send his companion to get a bottle containing half-a-pint of Aristocrat whisky. For this purpose Murlidhar gave a sum of Rs. 20/- to Joshi. Joshi had to use his own Rs. 3/-, for the whisky bottle cost Rs. 23/-. The bottle was wrapped in a brown paper and Joshi made it over as received to the appellant. In the meantime the appellant asked Murlidhar to pay for some sweets and snacks which he purchased from a near by shop. The edibles cost Rs. 8.65 Ps. and Murlidhar had given a 10/- rupee currency note to the appellant. Upon returning from the snacks shop, appellant returned the balance Rs. 1.35 Ps. to Murlidhar. By this time Joshi had returned with the bottle wrapped in paper and after the appellant had received this bottle he shoved it into the right hand side pocket of the coat that he had on his person. The sweets and snacks kept in a paper were carried by the appellant in his right hand. The party went ahead and Murlidhar pressed the appellant to receive the bribe money so that he could be free to go home. Appellant had not yet done with Murlidhar. He gave a direction that Murlidhar and Joshi were to follow him. The three of them entered a busy restaurant known as 'Vihar Restaurant'. They occupied a comer seat. In consultation with the appellant Murlidhar placed an order for two glasses of milk and one glass of lassi. The order complied with appellant, Murlidhar and Joshi consumed the drinks. Murlidhar made the payment and the receipt given to him for this purpose is at Ex. 17. The drinks cost Rs. 3.65 p. Though drinks had been consumed and the charges therefore had been paid, appellant showed no signs of getting up. The order complied with appellant, Murlidhar and Joshi consumed the drinks. Murlidhar made the payment and the receipt given to him for this purpose is at Ex. 17. The drinks cost Rs. 3.65 p. Though drinks had been consumed and the charges therefore had been paid, appellant showed no signs of getting up. Murlidhar told appellant that now at least the money be accepted. In response to this the appellant brought out the paper packet containing the whisky bottle and placed the same on the table. Murlidhar was told to insert the wad of currency notes into the paper packet. This done, appellant returned the paper packet to the pocket of his coat from which he had brought it out. Murlidhar gave the pre-arranged signal and this brought Wali and others to the spot. A panchanama of what had and later took place was drawn up. It is at Ex. 26. Statements of various persons were recorded and sanction obtained from the Government to prosecute the appellant. The sanction having been accorded, a charge-sheet was filed in the Court of the Special Judge, Greater Bombay. 9. To the charge of having committed offences punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, appellant pleaded not guilty. He denied that he had ever demanded a bribe from the complainant Murlidhar, whether directly or through Shukla. The complainant had come to him on 28-6-1979 and he had been informed that some papers relevant to the matter had yet to he received. For this reason he was asked to go back and return on 21-7-1979. Intimating Murlidhar appellant believed that the said person had left his chamber. After some time he himself left the place for his home at "Yashodhan'" which is in front of Cricket Club of India. On the way with has own money he had purchased sweets and snacks from a small shop. He had gone to Vihar Restaurant for a glass of milk as was customary for him. Occupying a comer seat in the crowded hotel he felt stuffy and for that reason had taken off his coat which was slung on the back of the bench on which he had taken his seat. Sometime after he had come Murlidhar and Joshi came there. Occupying a comer seat in the crowded hotel he felt stuffy and for that reason had taken off his coat which was slung on the back of the bench on which he had taken his seat. Sometime after he had come Murlidhar and Joshi came there. Asking for permission to sit by his side which appellant could not refuse, Murlidhar and Joshi sat down on the same bench as that occupied by him. Having finished Ibis glass of milk appellant got up and washed his hands at the tap. It was while he was attending to this chore that Murlidhar and Joshi had planted the brown paper packet containing a bottle of whisky and currency notes of the face value of Rs 1,000/-. This was because Murlidhar was desperate to somehow obtain a favourable order in proceedings initiated against Gangabai. Assuming that he would not decide in favour of Gangabai, Murlidhar had resorted to concocting a false accusation against him. 10. In support of its case the prosecution examined Murlidhar, Joshi, Parkar, Shukla, Mrs. D'souza and Wali etc. Their evidence over the appellant was questioned to enable him to explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against him. At that time the appellant came out with the version summarised above. The learned Special Judge was not taken in by the protestations of innocence. Recounting the many circumstances that went against the defence version, the learned Judge found appellant guilty of the offences ascribed to him. On the matter of sentence the Special Judge took into consideration the advanced age of the appellant, his having retired from service, being under suspension since 1979 and the very great punishment imposed upon him by the fact of conviction itself. He imposed on appellant the sentence of S.I. for a year and fine of Rs. 200/- on each count. Non-payment of fine was to entail additional R.I. for 15 days per count. The substantive sentences were to run concurrently. 11. The conviction and sentence are assailed in appeal. I have been taken through the evidence of witnesses as also some of the more important documents. Mr. Mistry for the appellant submits that the prosecution version is on the face of it unbelievable. Appellant was the Chief Settlement Commissioner and it is not possible to believe that he would go about with litigants openly. I have been taken through the evidence of witnesses as also some of the more important documents. Mr. Mistry for the appellant submits that the prosecution version is on the face of it unbelievable. Appellant was the Chief Settlement Commissioner and it is not possible to believe that he would go about with litigants openly. This apart, he would not frequent a restaurant in the company of a litigant and relation of that litigant, much less, call upon the litigant to insert the bribe money inside the brown paper packet for everyone to see. But this argument ignores the sworn testimony adduced by the prosecution. The undisputable position is that Gangabai had preferred a revision which was pending before the appellant. The revision was instituted in the year 1978 and for quite some time it did not come up for hearing. Even after it had been heard, the judgment was not delivered. Shukla, as is to be expected repudiates the part attributed to him, by Murlidhar. His position being what it is he was not expected to support Murlidhar's version of having acted as a tout for the appellant. But there is other evidence which lends a ring of truthfulness to the essential features of the case against the appellant. 12. The draft judgment was kept in readiness by the appellant and it was in the case papers. It was argued that as long as the judgment was not signed it could be changed at any time and the delay in the delivery of the judgment was not to extract a price from Murlidhar, but merely to have the benefit of the full record before the Assistant Administrator and the Administrator so that a proper judgment could be given while disposing off the revision preferred by Gangabai. The fact that there existed material which had not been received by his office was known to the appellant on 23-4-1979 and yet the draft judgment was not removed from the record. If it was felt necessary to send for the material lying with the Assistant Administrator and the Administrator the draft could have been removed as there was no knowing whether it would be of any assistance in resolving the dispute after the missing material had been received. But the draft continued to be on the record. If it was felt necessary to send for the material lying with the Assistant Administrator and the Administrator the draft could have been removed as there was no knowing whether it would be of any assistance in resolving the dispute after the missing material had been received. But the draft continued to be on the record. This lends indirect support to the story given oat by Murlidhar that in the second fortnight of April 1979 it had become clear to him that if judgment which was to be in his favour, it would be delivered only after the demanded bribe of Rs. 1,000/- had been paid. The deferring of the delivery of the judgment was thus a means to pressurise Murlidhar. 13. Learned Counsel points out that the pretrap panchanama makes no reference to the payment of bribe directly to the appellant. This is not to be wondered at for at that stage the expectation was that the bribe would have to be paid through Shukla. This does not mean that the version of Murlidhar about appellant having confirmed the demand of a bribe in the second fortnight of April 1979 is an invention. Significantly, the First Information Report at Ex. 16 makes a detailed reference to the talk the complainant had with Shukla, Shukla's telling Murlidhar that unless bribe was paid he should not expect a judgment to be delivered, Murlidhar confronting appellant with the version given out by Shukla, appellant confirming the correctness thereof and his eventually agreeing to pay the bribe. This would therefore show that what took place on 28-6-1979 i.e. demand and payment of the bribe to the appellant directly instead of through Shukla is not an after-thought. Shukla was on leave on 28-6-1979 and that is why it became necessary for Murlidhar to confront the appellant directly. Some exception is taken to the absence of supplemental directions in the pretrap panchanama. Wali was informed of the unavailability of Shukla and the need to confront the appellant directly by Murlidhar. But witness explains that there was hardly much time to insert fresh directions and in any case his superiors then did not think that necessary. Word of mouth instructions were given and the only vital change was in relation to the passing of money upon a demand being made by the appellant instead of by Shukla. But witness explains that there was hardly much time to insert fresh directions and in any case his superiors then did not think that necessary. Word of mouth instructions were given and the only vital change was in relation to the passing of money upon a demand being made by the appellant instead of by Shukla. The omission to get this included by way of supplement to the pre-trap panchanama is not of much consequence. It is true that the post-trap panchanama also makes no reference to the changed instructions. But the post-trap panchanama is more in the nature of seizure-memo than a panchanama properly speaking. 14. The argument that appellant could not have acted as brazenly as alleged by Murlidhar and Joshi is unacceptable because it is at variance with the credible testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. That apart to what extent a public servant determined on getting a bribe will go can never be the subject of inflexible standards. It all depends upon the individual and in the instant case the appellant has shown himself to be free of scruples. Not only did he extract his pound of flesh in the shape of Rs. 1,000/- as consideration for the favourable judgment, but what is more reprehensible, made Murlidhar pay for his bottle of whisky, snacks as also the evening's glass of milk. That the bottle of whisky and wad of currency notes were planted in the coat of the appellant, unknown to him, is again unbelievable. There was no reason for the appellant to accede to the demand that Murlidhar and Joshi take a seat next to him. However crowded the restaurant may have been it was not for the appellant to make sitting accommodation available to the visitors to the hotel. Murlidhar and Joshi had no reason to follow him to the hotel unless it be that he had forced them to come with him to the said place. This apart the basic question is as to why the complainant should try to get appellant falsely implicated? Gangabai had suffered reverses at the hands of the Assistant Administrator and Administrator. Appellant had done nothing to indicate that he would go against Gangabai. This apart the basic question is as to why the complainant should try to get appellant falsely implicated? Gangabai had suffered reverses at the hands of the Assistant Administrator and Administrator. Appellant had done nothing to indicate that he would go against Gangabai. In fact the draft of the judgment which was accessible to all the Clerks working in the office, if not Murlidhar, gave an indication that he would be deciding in favour of Gangabai. All that the appellant could do was to avoid delivery of a formal judgment. This delay may have been agonising but to obtain a favourable judgment from the appellant was the aim of Gangabai and Murlidhar. For this purpose Murlidhar had to do all that he could to be in the good books of the appellant. Therefore he had no reason to rake up a false accusation against him. As again this the frequent adjournments and delay in finalising and signing the judgment explains the desperate position in which Murlidhar was placed. He knew that only stem measures could put an end to his uncertainly. It was this placed compelled him to go to the A.C.B. on the evening of 28-6-1979. Therefore the probabilities also militate against the defence version and probabilise the prosecution version. The learned Special Judge has enumerated near about 10 circumstances which lend an air of naturalness to the prosecution version. I see no reason to take a view different than that which has commended itself to him. The falsity of the defence has been ably exposed by the learned Special Judge. The attendant circumstances have also been summarised in para 42 of the judgment. Para 44A is a summation of circumstances which unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. Agreeing with the learned Special Judge I hold that appellant did commit the offences for which he has been convicted. 15. Mr. Mistry prays for a substantial reduction in the sentence pointing out that the appellant is a totally broken man. He is near about 67 years of age and is incapable of doing any work. All that is left to him is to live out the last few years of his natural life. Having regard to the confirmation of the conviction he will not get any pensionary or retirement benefits. The confirmation of the conviction will further blot all his chances to get employment of any sort. All that is left to him is to live out the last few years of his natural life. Having regard to the confirmation of the conviction he will not get any pensionary or retirement benefits. The confirmation of the conviction will further blot all his chances to get employment of any sort. I agree that sending appellant to serve out the substantive sentence will serve little purpose but to make a point that the guilty have to be punished. Having regard to the long interval that has passed and the circumstances which led the learned Special Judge to award a lenient sentence, I think: justice will have been done by reducing the imprisonment on the two counts to R.I. for a day and leaving the fine and also the in default imprisonment, intact. Hence the order. ORDER Appeal partly allowed. The conviction recorded against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 161 of the Indian Penal Code and 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is hereby confirmed. The sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge is varied to R.I. for a single day on each court and a fine of Rs. 200/- per count. In case the fine is not paid the appellant shall undergo additional S.I. for 15 days per default. The substantive sentences to run concurrently. Fine imposed on the appellant has been paid. Bail bonds furnished by and on behalf of the appellant to stand cancelled after the substantive sentence has been undergone. He shall surrender to serve out the sentence in the Court of Special Judge at Bombay within 10 days from today. Appeal partly allowed