Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and also learned Counsel for the Vigilance Department. 2. The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under each count. He has also been directed pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and for default in payment of fine, he has been directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 3. The prosecution case, as disclosed in the First Information Report is that on 12-1-1977 a trap party was organised on information furnished by Muneshwar Singh, Acting Head Master of Chandranatai L.P. School as a sum of Rs. 25/- was demanded from him as a bribe by the appellant and the raiding party had signed two currency notes of the denomination of 20 and 5 and the same was handed over to Muneshwar Singh. The reaiding party, accordingly, raided the office of the appellant and person of the appellant was searched but nothing was found from his person and a sum of Rs. 25/- was recovered from the drawer of his table and accordingly, the raiding party arrested the appellant and he was remanded to judicial custody. 4. The defence of the appellant is a plea of innocence and false implication. 5. The prosecution in all has examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. 25/- was recovered from the drawer of his table and accordingly, the raiding party arrested the appellant and he was remanded to judicial custody. 4. The defence of the appellant is a plea of innocence and false implication. 5. The prosecution in all has examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. Out of them, (PW-1) Arun Kumar Singh is the Vigilance Inspector; (PW-3) Shashi Shekhar Rajhansh was D.S.P. at the relevant time and (PW-6) Parasnath Singh is the then Special Magistrate, Vigilance and they all were members of the raiding party; (PW-2) Prabhu Dayal is the watcher who had verified the allegations and also accompanied the raiding party, (PW-4) Muneshwar Singh is the Acting Head Master of the School from whom bribe was demanded; (PW-5 Srichand Prasad is a search list witness where as PW-7 Shamin Zaved is a formal witness who has proved the sanction order Ext-8; (PW-8) Lakshmi Narain Singh is one of the members of the raiding party and his evidence has been tendered; (PW-9) Chandrakant Pandey is the C.I.D. Inspector who was incharge of Court Malkhana of Biharsharif and he has proved Ext-9 entry made in the Malkhana register; PW-10 Braj Bihari Prasad is the Investigating Officer of the case and (PW-11) Bhagirath Prasad Sharma is another police of ficer who had submitted charge-sheet in the case. 6. At the outset, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that it is a case of the year 1977 and the appellant has already remained in custody for some time and has faced agony both mentally as well as physically and therefore, it may not be proper to send him to jail after 22 years to serve out the remainder part of the sentence. Learned Counsel further submitted that appellant was fairly oldman and since he has sufficiently been punished, a lenient view may be taken so far as sentence is concerned. 7. On seeing the evidence on record, it appears that the prosecution has proved the charges levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. This is consistent evidence of the raiding party who has been examined as witness in this case that at the time of raid, the person of the appellant was searched and since nothing was found from his person, the drawer of the table occupied by the appellant was also searched and a sum of Rs. This is consistent evidence of the raiding party who has been examined as witness in this case that at the time of raid, the person of the appellant was searched and since nothing was found from his person, the drawer of the table occupied by the appellant was also searched and a sum of Rs. 25/- duly signed by the raiding party was recovered from the drawer. (PW-4) Muneshwar Singh, the complainant of the case has also stated in his evidence that the appellant had demanded a sum of Rs. 25/- for forwarding his application for construction of the part of the school building and the same was recovered by the raiding party from the drawer of the table of the appellant. Seeing the evidence on record, the finding arried at by the learned trial Court is well sustainable in law and is required no interference by this Court. 8. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it appears that the appellant was arrested in the month of January 1977 and he has faced agony for more than 22 years. Considering these aspects of the matter, therefore, ends of justice will be met if the sentence passed against the appellant is reduced to the period already suffered by him. 9. In the result, the convinction of the appellant is maintained. I reduce his substantive term of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant. However, so far as imposition of fine is concerned, I maintain the same. 10. With the aforesaid reduction in the sentence, this appeal is dismissed.