ORDER : K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 2. The appellant was a Patwari. He had been found guilty under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. According to the prosecution, on September 30, 1975, PW 7 applied for mutation of his name in respect of two Khasra numbers. PW 9, the Revenue Inspector passed orders for mutation on January 27, 1978 in the name of the complainant (PW 7). Then, PW 7 approached the appellant for mutation but he demanded Rs 100 as bribe. PW 7, the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe. He went to Rewa and contacted Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) and gave a report. Then a trap was arranged for trapping the appellant. After completion of necessary tests panchnama was drawn. PW 7 was asked to hand over the notes and the trap party, along with PW 1 the Sub-Divisional Officer, entered the room of the appellant and questioned him and the Head Constable held his hands and the tainted money was placed under file and when the complainant was asked to dip his hands in the water, the water turned pink. Necessary panchnama was drawn and after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid. The accused denied the offence and stated that PW 7 was inimical towards him and he did not take the money from PW 7 and did not know how the money happened to be under the pad. So far as the test of his hands being dipped in the water, his explanation is that he is a Patwari and the fingers were tainted with inks and that might possibly be the reason of the water turned into colour. The trial court accepted the evidence of PWs 7 and 8 and also PW 1 and convicted him. The High Court agreed with the findings of the trial court. 3. The trial court accepted the evidence of PWs 7 and 8 and also PW 1 and convicted him. The High Court agreed with the findings of the trial court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that PW 1 has admitted that the appellant, in fact, told PW 1 and members of the trap party that he had red ink on his fingers and he also shook his hands with the complainant and that could be the reason for the water turning pink. Learned counsel also points out that the evidence of PW 1 shows that trap was sought to be recorded in the panchnama, but that has not been done. 4. In the trap case of this kind, the explanation of the accused also becomes relevant and having examined this explanation, we do not think that the same can be accepted. As a matter of fact, in a statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, he has not come out with details. At any rate, the evidence of PW 7 and PW 8 cannot be brushed aside. In our view, the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused. 5. Now, coming to the sentence, the appellant was only a Patwari and he is aged 64 years and the occurrence is said to have taken place in 1978 much prior to the new Act came into force and under the old Act for special reasons the sentence can be of less than one year. The appellant has also lost his job. He has a family to support. The appellant has already been in jail for nearly 2½ months and for these reasons, we confirm the conviction but reduce the sentence to 2½ months. 6. With modification of sentence, the appeal is dismissed.