O. P. JAIN, J. The accused appellant has been convicted by the Special Judge, Farrukhabad under Section 161, IPC and Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and has been awarded one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 under the former section and has been further awarded imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 200 under the latter. In default of payment of fine four months R I. has been imposed. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that at the relevant time the accused appellant was posted as Cashier in the District Election Office, Fatehgarh and it was part of his duty to maintain the files relating to daily wage workers and temporary staff. Ram Singh PW 2 and Pati Ram were daily wage clerks in the said office and the accused demanded Rs. 50 from each of them for continuing their services. This demand was made a few days before the date of actual payment. On 30th November, 1979 Ram Singh and Pati Ram filed an application before the Vigilance Officer com plaining of the demand of money by the accused from them. The Superin tendent of Police, who was the Incharge of Vigilance Cell, passed an order directing Sridhar Awasthi, Inspector of Police to lay a trap and to take further necessary action. Sridhar Awasthi met Ram Singh and Pati Ram and when he was satisfied about the truth of the allegations, he fixed 3rd December, 1979 as the date when the complainants were to meet him at Bus Stand, Fatehgarh at 9 a. m. 3. As per the programme, Sridhar Awasthi accompanied by Police Inspector Virendra Singh and some Constables, reached Bus Stand, Fateh garh where Ram Singh and Pati Ram met them. All of them went to the office of District Homeguard Commandant and Munna Lal, Constable was deputed to bring two witnesses. After some time Munna Lal returned with Dharam Narain PW 4 and Radhey Shyam PW 3. In the presence of these two witnesses, Pati Ram and Ram Singh produced one currency note of Rs. 50 each. Numbers of the currency notes, produced by Pati Ram and Ram Singh, were noted and Sridhar Awasthi put his initials on the currency notes which were seared with phenolphthalein powder. In the presence of these two witnesses, Pati Ram and Ram Singh produced one currency note of Rs. 50 each. Numbers of the currency notes, produced by Pati Ram and Ram Singh, were noted and Sridhar Awasthi put his initials on the currency notes which were seared with phenolphthalein powder. In order to test the effectiveness of the powder the hands of Constable Munna Lal were got dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate which turned pink-red. A sample of solution was sealed in a glass bottle and the memo was prepared. It was about 12-15 a. m. when this memo was prepared. 4. After making these preparations the raiding party, the complai nants and two witnesses reached District Election Office which is situate in a part of Collect orate and took position around the office. At about 1. 45 p. m. Ram Singh PW 2 gave a signal and the raiding party entered the office one by one. Accused Banarsi Dass was at this seat. Ram Singh handed over two currency notes of Rs. 50 each to Banarsi Dass saying that the money demanded by him for continuing their services has been brought. Banarsi Dass took the money and wanted some thing more but Ram Singh promised to make some further payment in future. Banarsi Dass kept the money in the back pocket of his pant. As soon as the currency notes were kept by Banarsi Dass in the back pocket of his pant Sridhar Awasthi disclosed his identity and, in the presence of one Satya Prakash Dwivedi, Advocate, recovered the two currency notes from the pocket of the pant which Banarsi Dass was wearing. The number of the currency notes were compared and the initials of Sridhar Awasthi were also found on the notes which were seized and sealed in an envelop. Both the hands of Ram Singh and Banarsi Dass and the back pocket of the pant were subjected to sodium carbonate test separately and every time the solution turned light pink. The solution was sealed in a separate bottle. A sum of Rs. 130 was found in the front pocket of Banarsi Dass. He was wearing a wrist watch and gold ring. These articles were also seized. The solution was sealed in a separate bottle. A sum of Rs. 130 was found in the front pocket of Banarsi Dass. He was wearing a wrist watch and gold ring. These articles were also seized. One Yadunandan Lal Goswami who is the reporter of local daily aaj tried to create some obstructions in the proceedings and on his insistence, the raiding party produced accused-Banarsi Dass before the A. D. M. , Fatehgarh who heard them and said that he cannot interfere in the matter. The raiding party took into its possession a register relating to daily wage staff employed in Lok Sabha By-election, 1979. 5. After completing the necessary formalities a First Information Report was lodged by Sridhar Awasthi and the investigation was done by PW 8, Ram Keerath Singh SHO who recorded the statements of the above persons and prepared a site plan. After getting sanction a charge-sheet against the accused was filed which is Annexure Ka-12. 6. The accused denied the charge and, according to him the currency notes were placed at his table by Ram Singh and Pati Ram which he threw away. The accused has stated that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity with Siya Ram PW 5. 7. During the trial Sridhar Awasthi could not be examined as a wiinefs as he had died. The prosecution, however, examined Vigilance Inspector Virendra Singh PW 1, complainant Ram Singh PW 2, witnesses Radhey Shyam and Dharam Narain PWs 3 and 4. PW 5 Siya Ram has been examined to prove the working of the office. PW 6 Sri Subhash Chandra is the District Magistrate who accorded sanction for prosecution. PW 7 Sukh Ram is the formal witness and the last witness is Ram Keerath Singh, Investigating Officer. 8. It is unnecessary to repeat the statements of prosecution witnesses and it is sufficient to say that all of them have supported the prosecution story. It will be better to come directly to the criticism that has been level led against the prosecution witnesses. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Ram Singh and Pati Ram were employed in the same office in which the accused was working as the Cashier and, therefore, if they had any grievance against the accused they could have made a complaint to a higher officer. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Ram Singh and Pati Ram were employed in the same office in which the accused was working as the Cashier and, therefore, if they had any grievance against the accused they could have made a complaint to a higher officer. Accord ing to the learned counsel, it is not the natural conduct on the part of Ram Singh and Pati Ram to rush to the Vigilance Department against a colleague. The prosecution has also been criticized for its failure to examine Pati Ram as a witness and it is pointed out that he did not wait even for the preparation of the memo and left the place before the formalities were over. It is also argued that it was a Government Office in which several other persons were working but none of them have been produced as a witness and two strangers have been introduced as witnesses. It is also argued that it is highly unnatural that the accused accepted a sum of Rs 100 from Ram Singh in the presence of a number of persons and no reliance should be placed on the prosecution story. It is also argued that there was some bad blood between Siya Ram PW 5 and the accused due to which accused has been implicated in a false case. It was also argued that Banarsi Dass was a mere Cashier who had no power either to remove Ram Singh and Pati Ram from services or to continue their services. Therefore, there was no question of Ram Singh and Pati Ram paying anything to Banarsi Dass. 10 This Court has given due consideration to the above arguments but after careful consideration, none of these criticism is found valid. It is true that accused Banarsi Dass was a mere Cashier and had no power to appoint or dismiss temporary staff but it should be remembered that he was dealing with the papers relating to daily wage staff and temporary staff. A person who has power to appoint or terminate the services if he was dishonest, would have demanded higher amount. The accused had the custody of papers relating to daily wage and temporary staff and he was in a position to expedite the matter or to delay it. A person who has power to appoint or terminate the services if he was dishonest, would have demanded higher amount. The accused had the custody of papers relating to daily wage and temporary staff and he was in a position to expedite the matter or to delay it. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused was not in a position to show any cavour or disfavour to Ram Singh and Pati Ram. It is a common experience that the staff working in the same office is sympathetic to a person who is their colleague and it it for this reason that the police had to take outsiders as witnesses to a trap instead of taking persons from the same office who are more likely to turn hostile. Omission to examine Pati Ram cannot be said to be fatal because he would have repeated the same story whicu has already been given by Ram Singh and Virendra Singh, Radhey Shyam and Dharam Narain Pati Ram was, no doubt, an important witness in this case but it cannot be said that his statement was essential for unfolding the prosecution story The fact that the money was received by the accused in the ful gaze of other persons working in the office cannot be said to be unnatural and the prosecution case cannot be thrown out on this ground alone When the corruption is rampant in an office the acceptance of illegal gratification becomes a routine and the person accepting the money may not take precaution to conceal the acceptance of bribe. 11 Learned counsel for the accused has cited 1993 A Cr R 113- Gaya Pd v State of U P in support of the contention that the allegation of demanding and accepting bribe in the full view of people is doubtful. A perusal of the ruling shows that it was an argument which has been reproduced in para 11 but the judgment is not based on these reason ing Reason for the acquittal of the accused IB given in paras 15i and 16. The reason given is that clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was inserted long after by way of amendment and therefore the accused cannot be convinced for an act which was not an offence under the law in force when the act was committed. The reason given is that clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was inserted long after by way of amendment and therefore the accused cannot be convinced for an act which was not an offence under the law in force when the act was committed. 13 Another authority, relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused is 1980 SCC (Crl) 121 Lal Damodar Rat hi v. _ State of Maharashtra in which it has been held that the complainant is to IM regarded as an accomplice after introduction o; Action 165-A, I1 appears from para 11 of the cited case that the reason for acquittal of the accused was that the marked currency notes were not recovered from the possession of the appellant. In the cited case, the prosecution story was that the money was paid to the second accused to be handed over to the appellant. Such is not the case here. In the present case the money has been demanded by the accused and it was paid to him and has also been recovered from him. The learned counsel has also cited some more cases but it is not necessary to discuss all of them because they are basically the rulings on facts. 14. The learned counsel for the accused has also placed considerable reliance on the evidence of PW 1 Yadunandan Lal Goswami who is corres pondent of Newspaper aaj and it is argued that the presence of this witness on the scene of occurrence is admitted in the FIR itself and, there fore, his version should be believed. Yadunandan Lal Goswami has stated that 3rd December, 1979 was the date on which nominations of Lok Sabha election were to be filed and, therefore, he visited District Election Office at about 1. 30 p. m. According to this witness, Ram Singh (PW 2) placed two currency notes of Rs. 50 each on the lable of Banarsi Dass which he threw away saying "yah note kaise hairf. At the same time two or three persons entered the room and picked up the notes thrown by the accused. He told the Vigilance Inspector that Banarsi Dass has not accepted any bribe. 50 each on the lable of Banarsi Dass which he threw away saying "yah note kaise hairf. At the same time two or three persons entered the room and picked up the notes thrown by the accused. He told the Vigilance Inspector that Banarsi Dass has not accepted any bribe. At his insistence the raiding party took Banarsi Dass before the A. D. M. The witness further says that in the office hand of Banarsi Dass or the hands of Ram Singh were not dipped in the sodium corbonate solu tion nor the pant was washed in the solution nor any memo was prepared. 15. In the First Information Report itself it is mentioned that this witness tried to obstruct the proceedings and, therefore, it appears that the witness has tried to shield the accused. The conduct of this witness is very strange. It was at his insistence that the raiding party took the accused before the A. D. M. but Yadunandan Lal Goswami DW 1 did not accompany with the raiding party. In para 2 of his statement he says that he does not know where Banarsi Dass was first taken though the Inspector was saying that Banarsi Dass was being taken before the A. D. M. It is true that DW 1 Yadunandan Lal Goswami is the reporter of the Newspaper but the prosecution witnesses Dharam Narain PW 4 and Radhey Shyam PW 3 are also in the same, profession. PW 4 Dharam Narain is an editor of the Newspaper known as Lohia Express. It is a fortnightly paper. 16. It was also argued that PW 3 Radhey Shyam is a stock witness of the police and is not worthy of reliance. A perusal of the statement of PW 3 shows that he has, no doubt, admitted having given the evidence in one more case of trap but the mere fact that the witness appeared as a prosecution witness in an earlier case is not sufficient to characterise him as a stock witness. The only difference between the prosecution story and the defence theory is that while according to the prosecution Banarsi Dass accepted the currency notes and kept the same in the back pocket of his pant, according to the defence version, notes were thrown away by the accused. The only difference between the prosecution story and the defence theory is that while according to the prosecution Banarsi Dass accepted the currency notes and kept the same in the back pocket of his pant, according to the defence version, notes were thrown away by the accused. Therefore, the fact that the sodium carbonate solution turned pink when the Pant was dipped in it becomes very important. This fact proves that the currency notes were accepted by the accused and were kept in his pocket. 17. After careful consideration of the whole evidence this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the case to the hilt. So far as the sentence is concerned, imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500 cannot be said to be excessive, but looking to the that a period of about 15 years has elapsed since the commission of the offence ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to six months R. I. 18. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed in part and while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 161, IPC and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the sentence awarded to him is reduced from one year R. I. to six months R. I. The sentence of fine and the imprisonment, in default of payment of fine, is maintained. Appeal allowed. .