JUDGMENT 1. - PW 2 Ram Swaroop Sharma, aged 50 years a Government employee working as Upper Division Clerk in water works department at Sawai-Madhour, got himself admitted as in indoor patient in Government Hospital at Sawaimadhopur on 29.9.78. He was admitted to Medical Surgical Ward as he was suffering from burning nicturition and severe pain in penis. PW 4 Dr. L.N. Sharma along with Dr. PC. Jain, who were then working as Medical Officers in that hospital, treated the patient. Ram Swaroop was discharged, after treatment on 8.10.78. 2. The case of the prosecution is that at the time of his discharge from the hospital he asked for issuing a medical fitness certificate to him so that he might resume his duty. The appellant was working as X-ray Technician in the said hospital at that time. It was his additional duty to prepare the fitness certificate to be issued to the patient on their discharge. Ram Swaroop contacted the appellant on 8.10.73. The appellant asked him to come on the following day. Ram Swaroop again contacted him on the following day, but the appellant again asked him to come on the next day. The patient continued to contact the appellant up to 12.10.78. The further case of the prosecution is that on 12.10.78 the appellant asked him to pay a bribe of Rs. 15 for issuing the required certificate. Ram swaroop who was not ready and willing to pay the aforesaid amount as bribe to the appellant, contacted PW 6 Mohan Singh Arya, the then Dy. S.R in the Anti Corruption Department. Shri Mohan Singh Arya after taking PW 3 Naresh Chandra, Audit Inspector in the Cooperative Department and PW 5 Laxmi Narain an Upper Division Clerk in the said department arranged for a trap of the appellant. The trap was successful. The appellant received Rs. 15/- which were treated which Phenolphthalein, from Ram Swaroop and was caught red- handed. 3. After obtaining the requisite sanction for his prosecution from PW 1 Dr. B.M. Singh, a charge-sheet for offence under Section 5(1) (d) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (Act of 1947) and Section 161 IPC was submitted against him. On trial the learned Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty of the aforesaid offences, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo R.l. for six months and fine of Rs. 200/- for each of the two offences. On trial the learned Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty of the aforesaid offences, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo R.l. for six months and fine of Rs. 200/- for each of the two offences. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentences, as made by the Learned Trial Judge on 19.7.83 in S.B. Cr. Special Case No. 19/79 (State v. Gopal Krishan) , by Way of this appeal. 4. Mr. N.A. Naqvi, the learned counsel for the appellant was fair enough to submit that in the present case it was not disputed that on the aforesaid day, time and place PW 2 Ram Swaroop Sharma had given a sum of Rs. 15/- to the appellant. But the learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid amount was given by Ram swaroop Sharma towards a liability upon him. It was submitted that Ram Swaroop had purchased the medicines on credit basis from DW 2 Nagendra Kasliwal, proprietor of Jain Medical Stores at Sawai Madhopur and that there was some dispute between DW 2 Nagendra Kasliwal and PW 2 .Ram swaroop over the payments of the price of the medicines. DW 1 Dr. Shikhar Chand Jain, on being insisted by the appellant and DW 3 Radhey Shyam, another technician in that Hospital, had paid the sum of Rs. 15/- to DW 2 Nagendra Kasliwal for and on behalf of the PW 2 Ram swaroop. DW 1 Dr. Shikhar Chand Jain had asked the appellant to recover the aforesaid amount of Rs. 15/- from PW 2 Raw Swaroop, at the time of issuing fitness certificate to him. It was thus submitted that the amount of Rs. 15/- was not received by the appellant but was received on account of the amount due to Dr. Shikhar Chand from him. The learned counsel further submitted that the piea taken by the appellant was quite probable and should have been accepted by the learned trial judge in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1981 SC 1186 and by this Court in 1981 RCC 119, 1979 RCC 169, and 1991 RCC 350. Reliance was also placed on more judgment reported in 1974 Cr.L.J. 509. 5. Reliance was also placed on more judgment reported in 1974 Cr.L.J. 509. 5. On the other hand the learned PR pointed-out that the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable shadows of doubt and the plea taken by him in his defence was not only against normal human conduct but also false on the face of it. It was submitted that the learned trial court did not err in rejecting such a false and bogus plea. 6. On going through the evidence should on the record of the trial court, it is gathered that PW 2 Ram Swaroop Sharma, the decoy, PW 3 Naresh Chandra, PW 5 Laxmi Narain and PW 6 Mohan Singh Arya, Dy. S.P had proved the case of the prosecution. The substance of their testimony was that Ram Swaroop Sharma had been treated as an Indoor Patient by PW 4 Dr. Laxmi Narain Sharma and another Medical Officer Dr. PC. Jain. Ram swaroop was admitted on 29.9.78 at 2.45 P.M. and discharged on 8.10.78 vide Exhibit P 10. During the meanwhile medicines were purchased for him from the Medical Stores, situated close to the hospital premises. It is also not in dispute that some of the medicines were also purchased by or on behalf of PW 2 Ram Swaroop from Jain Medical Stores which was being run by DW 2 Nagendra Kasliwal. Again it is not in dispute that P 2 Ram Swaroop was a Government Servant and in order to join his duty he was naturally in need of the certificate of the Doctor certifying his fitness to resume his duty as Government Servant. At the time of his discharge from the hospital on 8.10.78 Ram Swaroop would naturally ask for the issuance of a certificate of fitness from the Doctor who had treated him. His conduct supports his version when he says that he contacted the appellant but the appellant asked him to come on the following day. Ram Swaroop has further stated that he continued to approach the appellant up to 12.10.1978 but the appellant did not prepare his fitness certificate and demand bribe of Rs. 15/- and ultimately he was compelled to contact PW 6 Mohan Singh Arya, Dy. S.P, Anti Corruption Department. Facts and circumstances of the case and the normal conduct and behaviour of the prosecution witnesses thus fully supported the prosecution case. 15/- and ultimately he was compelled to contact PW 6 Mohan Singh Arya, Dy. S.P, Anti Corruption Department. Facts and circumstances of the case and the normal conduct and behaviour of the prosecution witnesses thus fully supported the prosecution case. The testimony of all these witnesses suffers from no infirmity and blemish and has been rightly accepted by the learned trial Judge. 7. Mr. Naqvi further submitted that it was not essential for an accused to prove his innocence in the manner the prosecution has to prove it. There can hardly be any dispute over this legal position. The cases relied upon by Mr. Naqvi lay-down such proposition. It is well settled in Criminal jurisprudence that an accused has not to prove his innocence in the manner as the prosecution has to do. At the criminal trial what may be sufficient for him to prove in support of his plea is probability of the existence of the facts stated by him and such facts creating doubt in the prosecution theory. If the accused succeeds the probable truth in his defence plea and such a defence plea inspires confidence in Court, the prosecution case can not co-exist with such a plea. The accused shall be entitled to the ultimate benefit of doubt which is reasonably created in prosecution case on the acceptance of the defence plea. 8. However, in the instant case the plea advanced by the appellant in his defence was, as found by the learned trial court, totally false and fabricated on the face of it. The appellant was not concerned with the treatment of the patient. He was simply an X-ray technician working in the said hospital. It was his additional duty to prepare the fitness certificate on the instruction of the Doctor treating the patient. At the time of his discharge on 8.10.78 PW 2 Ram Swaroop would naturally ask for issuance of a fitness certificate from the Doctor who had treated him. Undisputedly the Doctor had asked the appellant to prepare and issue a fitness certificate to the appellant. Therefore, the version of Ram Swaroop that the appellant did not prepare the required certificate despite repeated requests and visits by him and demanded bribe from him for issuing the fitness certificate is absolutely correct and the learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the defence plea of the appellant. 9. Therefore, the version of Ram Swaroop that the appellant did not prepare the required certificate despite repeated requests and visits by him and demanded bribe from him for issuing the fitness certificate is absolutely correct and the learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the defence plea of the appellant. 9. As much reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant on the statements of DW 1 Shikhar Chand Jain, DW 2 Nagendra Kasliwal, DW 3 Radhey Shyam and DW 4 Brij Mohan, I have closely gone through the testimony of all these witnesses. Their testimony may be discarded at the very out-set. DW 1 Shikhar Chand Jain who is stated to have paid sum of Rs. 15/- to DW 2 Nagendra Kasliwal, the proprietor of Jain Medical Store, was not a Doctor treating PW 2 Ram Swaroop Sharma. He was not known to Ram Swaroop. If the appellant and DW 3 Radhey Shyam the fellow technician of the appellant had asked DW 1 Dr. Shikhar Chand Jain to pay a sum of Rs. 15/- to DW 2 Nagendra Kasliwal, they themselves could have easily paid that much of amount to DW 2 Nagendra Kasliwal. It does not appeal to my reason that DW 2 Nagendra Kasliwal would sell the medicines to PW 2 Ram Swaroop on credit basis. No such note was given in the cash memo issued by him. That apart, PW 2 Ram Swaroop was suffering from sewer pain in his genitals. He had been admitted in Medical Surgical Ward. It does not appeal to me that Ram Swaroop himself would go to purchase medicines. Since he was admitted in the surgical ward as an indoor patient some other persons from his family and/or friendly circle might have naturally been there to attend upon him and to supply necessities of life, including medicines to him. Again, it does not appeal to my reasons that DW 2 Nagender Kasliwal would oblige Ram Swaroop not only once but twice by giving medicines on credit but then would become so rude that he would pick up a quarrel at a public place and would not share Ram Swaroop till Dr. Shikhar Chand would pay a sum of Rs. 15/- to him. It is really surprising that Dr. Shikhar Chand, who did not know Ram Swaroop and had not treated him would first become. So generous as to give Rs. Shikhar Chand would pay a sum of Rs. 15/- to him. It is really surprising that Dr. Shikhar Chand, who did not know Ram Swaroop and had not treated him would first become. So generous as to give Rs. 15/- on his behalf and then would become so cruel as to direct the appellant not to issue the fitness certificate to him without realising Rs. 15/- from him. The theory advanced by the appellant is thus found to be totally false, fabricated after thought and has no iota of probability in it. It is not in accord with normal human conduct. The learned trial judge has rightly rejected such a false theory and this Court confirms the finding of the learned trial Judge in that behalf. 10. To sum up the prosecution in the present case had succeeded in' proving the guilt of the appellant under Section 5(i) (d) (2) of the Act 1947 and Section 161 IPC beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. The conviction of the appellant on the aforesaid offences is hereby upheld. 11. Now the pertinent question that arises in the facts and circumstances of this case is in regard to the sentence which the appellant get for his act. In this behalf the mitigating circumstances are that the offence was committed in the year 1978 and more than two decades have elapsed to the commission of the offence. The appellant was a young man at that time. He is now a middle aged man possibly with a family to support. He has under- gone the rigours of this litigation for about 20 years. It would not be advisable to send him prison lot at such belated stage. These are the factors which may be taken into consideration for the benefit of the appellant. 12. As against the above factors the Court can not shut its eye on the nature of offence committed, the place where it was committed and the parties involved in it. The offence was committed at a place where ailing people go for sympathy and treatment for their disease. The Medical Officer and the staff working under them are regarded by the patient at that time like gods on earth for them. These worldly and earthly gods are expected to be, at least, human beings to them. The offence was committed at a place where ailing people go for sympathy and treatment for their disease. The Medical Officer and the staff working under them are regarded by the patient at that time like gods on earth for them. These worldly and earthly gods are expected to be, at least, human beings to them. Whereas the Medical Officers, who treated Ram Swaroop for his ailment are seem to be conscious of their duties, DW 1 Dr. Shikhar Chand Jain, DW 2 Nagendra Kasliwal, the Proprietor of Jain Medical Stores at Sawai Madhopur, and DW 3 Radhey Shyam are found in collusion to protect a guilty person by stating such facts on oath as they knew or had reasons to know to be false. I would have directed for their prosecution for perjury but for the reasons that the authorities concerned are also there to take suitable action against them in the interest of ailing section of the public at large. 13. In the case of B.C. Goswami v. Delhi Administration ( AIR 1973 SC 1457 ) the Apex Court observed : "Too lenient as well as too harsh sentences both lose their afficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal. In the present case, after weighing the considerations already noticed by us and the fact that to send the appellant back to Jail now after 7 years of the agony and harassment of these proceedings when he is also going to lose his job and has to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him. We fell that it would meet the ends of justice if we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but increase the sentence of fine from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 400/-. Period of imprisonment in case of default will remain the same." 14. In the totality of circumstances I am of the opinion that the delay caused in finally setting down this criminal cases should not eat up crime of the accused totally and the sentences, now to be imposed upon him should be such as may dissuade him from carrying on his nefarious and greedy activities. Reduction in substantive sentence of imprisonment but substantial increase in fine, may, I think, have a reformative effect on the appellant. 15. Reduction in substantive sentence of imprisonment but substantial increase in fine, may, I think, have a reformative effect on the appellant. 15. In that view of the matter, I would reduce the period of his substantive imprisonment to the period already under gone by him but at the same time would increase the amount of fine from Rs. 400/- to 50,000/- or in case of default of payment of the fine to R.I. for 4 months. The amount of fine shall be paid by him within a period of two months. 16. In case, the amount of fine is not paid within the aforesaid period, the appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. *******