JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 24.1.86 passed by the Special Judge (ACD Cases) Rajasthan Jaipur, who has convicted accused appellant Pradeep Singh for offence under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1 )(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to RI for one year on the first count and one year's RI with a fine of Rs. 50/-and in default of payment, to further undergo one month's RI on the second count, and further directed that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Briefly the relevant facts for disposal of this appeal are that on 27.1.83, appellant Pradeep Singh was working as Forest Guard (Mines Trespass) in the office of the Forest Ranger, Ajmer. He demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 500/-per month from complainant Banshilal (in whose favour a lease of mine's quarry in Madar Hill area was granted on 18.4.78 for five years) alleging that the latter had trespassed on the forest land. Banshilal assured to pay the amount by evening of 27.1.83. He, however, reported the matter to the Additional Superintendent of Police (A.C.D.) Ajmer by submitting a written report Ex.P 2. PW 9 Shiv Prasad Sharma, Additional Superintendent of Police in the presence of two motbirs laid a trap on 27.1.83 and recovered an amount of Rs. 500/- from the appellant. 3. A case was registered against the appellant and after usual investigation and procuring the sanction for prosecution from the competent authority, a challan was filed in the court of the learned Special Judge (ACD cases). The appellant denied his indictment and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. The appellant in his examination recorded plea Under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code admitted that he was a public servant and posted as Forest Guard for Madar Hill area. He, however, categorically denied that he had demanded illegal gratification from Banshilal. He asserted that he has been falsely implicated. He claimed that he had stopped persons including complainant Banshilal, who had illegally trespassed on forest land and were excavating minerals therefrom, that Banshilal is the servant of a mine lessee and that he had registered a case against Kanaram, on whom a penalty of Rs. 500/-was imposed. He asserted that he has been falsely implicated. He claimed that he had stopped persons including complainant Banshilal, who had illegally trespassed on forest land and were excavating minerals therefrom, that Banshilal is the servant of a mine lessee and that he had registered a case against Kanaram, on whom a penalty of Rs. 500/-was imposed. He further claimed that on 27.1.1983 the said Banshilal had come to him for depositing the said penalty, whereupon he had asked him to go to the Forest Officer for depositing the same, that at the time he was sleeping on his bed and that Banshilal forcibly placed Rs. 500/- on the bed touching his palms. In his defence, he examined four witnesses. 4. The learned trial Judge relied on the prosecution evidence and held that the defence plea taken by the appellant was false, concocted and a creature of an after- thought. He, therefore, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner indicated above. Hence this appeal. 5. I have heard Shri S.R. Bajwa, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri G.D. Parwal, learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the record of the trial Court. 6. It has been strenuously canvassed by Shri Bajwa that the prosecution evidence in support of the alleged demand for illegal gratification is highly vague, shaky and unreliable, that the defence version stands probablished, and that the learned trial Judge has not assessed and evaluated the evidence in right perspective. In the alternative, he has submitted that the alleged incident took place on 27.1.1983, that thereafter the appellant was suspended from service and he has been facing trial and pursuing this appeal for last more than 14 years. Thus he has undergone considerable quantum of mental agony. Shri Bajwa has further submitted that the appellant is a heart patient and in such circumstances, the punishment awarded to him be reduced. 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and reiterated the reasonings incorporated therein. According to him, the punishment awarded by the learned trial Court is neither excessive nor shocking to conscience. 8. I have carefully gone through the evidence recorded in this case. PW 2 Banshilal has deposed that 2-3 days prior to the date of trap, the appellant had demanded from him Rs. According to him, the punishment awarded by the learned trial Court is neither excessive nor shocking to conscience. 8. I have carefully gone through the evidence recorded in this case. PW 2 Banshilal has deposed that 2-3 days prior to the date of trap, the appellant had demanded from him Rs. 500/- per month for excavating the quarry alleging that his quarry was situated in the forest area. But, he did not agree to that proposal and informed the Additional Superintendent of Police. He has proved his report Ex.R 2. He deposed that he had gone alongwith the A.C.D. party and motbirs to the forest out post, who remained outside and that he went inside the said out post, where the appellant was sitting on a bed. The appellant asked him as to whether he had brought Rs. 500/-. He replied in the affirmative and handed over those five currency notes of the denomination ot Rs. 100/- each, which were earlier signed by the Addl. S.R and whereon phenolphthalein powder was sprinkled. Appellant counted those currency notes, in his hand. PW 2 Banshilal further deposed that he came out side the out-post and gave the assigned signal, that thereupon the Addl. S.R along with his staff and motbirs came inside the room, the A.C.D. staff caught hold of both the hands of appellant, the Additional S.P showed his identity card to the appellant and asked the latter to which he denied to have taken any amount. PW 2 Banshilal stated that the appellant on seeing the Addl. S.R had thrown away those currency notes. The Addl. S.P sent for a glass of water and mixed soda (sodium carbonate) therein. Thereafter the hands of appellant were washed with the said solution which became pink. The said solution was sealed in bottles. The Addl. S.R thereafter pick up those currency notes thrown by the appellant lying on the floor and checked their numbers, which tallied. The Addl. S.P asked the appellant about those currency notes* The appellant became nervous and admitted his guilt. PW 2 Banshilal proved the memo of trap proceedings Ex.P 5, site plan Ex.P 6, mining lease Ex.P. 7 and R 8 and the plan showing his mining lease area Ex.P 17. He has been cross-examined at length but his testimony has remained unshaken and unshattered. 9. PW 2 Banshilal proved the memo of trap proceedings Ex.P 5, site plan Ex.P 6, mining lease Ex.P. 7 and R 8 and the plan showing his mining lease area Ex.P 17. He has been cross-examined at length but his testimony has remained unshaken and unshattered. 9. PW 3 Raj Narain Bansal and PW 4 Virendra Kumar, Assistant Engineers of the Irrigation Department, Ajmer, who were motbirs of the trap party, PW 6 Mahavir Singh Constable, PW 7 Kishan Singh Police Inspector ACD and PW 9 Shiv Prasad Sharma Addl. S.P have fully corroborated the sworn testimony of Banshilal. All these witnesses have been thoroughly grilled and they have valiantly stood the test of cross examination. Their testimony has remained intact. The appellant could also not give any explanation as to how his hands were found tainted with pink colour when washed by the sodium carbonate solution. As per chemical examiners and Chief Public Analyst's report Ex.R 14, the sealed samples of solution marked A & B which were sent to him, on chemical examination were found to contain sodium carbonate and phenolpthalein. This report also corroborates the prosecution story. 10. In my considered opinion, the learned trial Judge has scanned, scrutinised, and evaluated the evidence recorded in this case in right perspective. The defence evidence produced by the appellant is quite vague, inconsistent and unworthy of credence. The defence plea taken by the appellant appears to be patently false and concocted. The learned trial Judge has, therefore, not committed any illegality in convicting the appellant for offences under sections 161 Indian Penal Code, and 5(1)(d)(2) of the Act of 1947. 11. As regards the quantum of sentence, Shri Bajwa has submitted that there are many mitigating circumstances. The appellant is merely a forest guard. He was suspended from the service in January, 1983 and since then he has been under suspension. He faced trial and was convicted on 24.1.1986. For last more than 14 years, this appeal is pending before this Court. The appellant has three daughters. His wife has been suffering from cancer. The appellant is a heart patient. Shri Bajwa has also submitted various medical certificates regarding the ailment of the appellant, from which it is revealed that the latter has been suffering from W.RM. Syndrome with tendency to recurrent PA. for last so many years. He was also admitted in the JLN Medical College, Ajmer. 12. The appellant is a heart patient. Shri Bajwa has also submitted various medical certificates regarding the ailment of the appellant, from which it is revealed that the latter has been suffering from W.RM. Syndrome with tendency to recurrent PA. for last so many years. He was also admitted in the JLN Medical College, Ajmer. 12. In Sudam Hari Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 1994 (1) Recent Cr. Reporter p. 166 the appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 5(1 )(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The offence was committed in the year 1984. He lost his job and he had a large family to support. The Apex Court reduced his sentence to the period already undergone by him. 13. In Sarup Chand v. State of Punjab, 1987(2) Recent Cr. Reporter p. 161 , the appellant was convicted for offence under section 5(1 )(d) and (2) of the Act and Under section 161, Indian Penal Code for accepting the bribe of Rs. 200/- for supplying a copy of the Jamabandi, and no explanation was given by the accused to why he was given the said amount and why he kept the same in pocket. However, taking into consideration the fact that six years had passed since incident and the accused was first offender, his sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by him. 14. The net result of the above discussion is that this appeal is partly allowed and the conviction of appellant Pradeep Singh for offences Under section 161 Indian Penal Code and 5(1 )(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, is hereby maintained. However, his substantive sentences under both the counts awarded by the trial Judge are reduced from 1 year's RI to one month's RI. However, the fine under the second count is enhanced from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment thereof, he shall further undergo one month's RI. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The appellant, who is on bail should surrender before the Special Judge (A.C.D. cases) Rajasthan, Jaipur on or before 12.5.97, failing which the learned trial Judge shall issue non-bailable warrant for his arrest and after his arrest shall issue warrant of commitment of the appellant to jail to serve out the aforesaid sentences.Appeal partly allowed. *******