JUDGMENT Om Prakash Pradhan, J. - This appeal by the convict is directed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 23.11.1982 passed by Shri G. S. N. Tripathi, Special Judge (Addl. Sessions Judge), Bijnore whereby he sentenced the appellant under Section 161 IPC to undergo two years R. I. and further sentenced him under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to undergo four years R. I. But the sentences on both the counts were made to run concurrently. 2. According to the prosecution case, the appellant while posted as supply Inspector at Bijnore on 11.4.1978 at about 11.20. A. M. accepted Rupees seventy five as illegal gratification from one Abdul Qayyum at his shop situate at Bukhara Road, Bijnore by abusing his position as public servant as reward for doing an official act, i. e., giving a factual report in relation to a licence to sell kerosence oil at his shop. 3. The trap was successfully laid b) Sri Som Dutt Tyagi, Inspector (Vigilance) Bijnore and the appellant was caught red handed by Sri Tyagi for having accepted the illegal gratification of Rupees seventy five, A written report was lodged by Sri Tyagi at police station Kotwali, Bijnore, After investigation, chargesheet way submitted against the appellant for HE prosecution. The trial was conducted by Sri G. S. N. Tripathi, the then Ist Addl. Sessions Judge Bijnore as Special Judge. The appellant denied having accepted any illegal gratification as also the recovery of the amount of Rupees seventy five from him. The learned Judge accepted the evidence of complainant Abdul Qayyum, Inspector, Som Dutt Tyagi and Rajendra Prakash, who were examined as witnesses for the prosecution, the defence version of the appellant was disbelieved by the learned Judge, who found the prosecution case proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was accordingly convicted and sentenced on the two counts as already indicated at the outset. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the State counsel and perused the record of the lower court. The conviction of the appellant under Section 161 IPC and under Section 5(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act was not challenged before this court by learned counsel for the appellant and rightly so. The conviction on both the counts is well founded. The conviction of the appellant under Section 161 IPC and under Section 5(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act was not challenged before this court by learned counsel for the appellant and rightly so. The conviction on both the counts is well founded. However, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the sentence passed by the lower court errs on the side of severity, in so much as a paltry sum of Rupees seventy five is said to have been accepted as illegal gratification by the appellant for giving a report on the application of the complainant for obtaining a licence to sell kerosene oil. The learned counsel for the appellant further maintained that the appellant was 'merely a supply Inspector from whom -a factual report had been called for by the District Supply Officer for the purpose of considering the application of the complainant for obtaining the licence to sell kerosene oil at his shop. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that sentence of fine may be substituted in place of imprisonment. The State Counsel did not raise any objection to this request of the learned counsel of the appellant. 5. The occurrence is of April 11, 1978 and the trial started in 1980 culminating in the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant on 25. 11. 1982. The appellant was simply a Supply Inspector whom a factual report on the application moved by the complainant to obtain a licence to sell kerosene oil at his shop was called for by the District Supply Officer. A sum of Rupees seventy five was accepted as illegal gratification by the appellant from the complainant for recording a report on his application which had to be finally considered and disposed of by the District Supply Officer, Having regard to the over all facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that sentence of fine will meet the ends of justice. 6. In the result, the appeal is liable to be dismissed with modification in sentence. 7. The appeal is hereby dismissed with modification in sentence imposed upon the appellant by the lower court. Instead of the sentence of imprisonment imposed under Section 161, IPC sentence of fine of Rupees 500 is imposed on the appellant. 6. In the result, the appeal is liable to be dismissed with modification in sentence. 7. The appeal is hereby dismissed with modification in sentence imposed upon the appellant by the lower court. Instead of the sentence of imprisonment imposed under Section 161, IPC sentence of fine of Rupees 500 is imposed on the appellant. In default of payment of this fine, he will undergo one month R. I. Likewise, instead of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentence of fine of Rupees 1000/- is imposed on the appellant. In default of payment, of this fine, the appellant will undergo two months R. I. 8. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled.