R.P.SETHI, J. (1) LEAVE granted. (2) THE appellant was charge-sheeted for the offences under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act, 1947") and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court acquitted him. But when the State filed an appeal in challenge of the order of acquittal the High Court of Madhya Pradesh set aside the order of acquittal and convicted him under both counts. Regarding Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 500 and regarding Section 5(2) of the PC Act, 1947 he was sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs 500. He has filed this appeal by special leave. (3) WHEN the special leave petition was heard we noticed that the High Court has not passed the sentence in accordance with law since Section 5(2) of the PC Act, 1947 prescribes that the sentence shall not be less than imprisonment for one year, though the proviso empowers the court to impose a sentence of imprisonment less than one year "for any special reason recorded in writing". The only reason shown is that the appellant has already retired from service. For imposing a flee of sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court we issued notice to the appellant to show cause why the sentence shall not be enhanced to imprisonment for at least the minimum period prescribed under law, if the conviction is liable to be upheld. (4) AS he filed this appeal challenging the conviction we heard learned a counsel for the appellant relating to the sustainability of the conviction. (5) THE gist of the case against him is that as Patwari he was required to issue certified copies of certain revenue records to Public Witness 1 for which he made a demand of Rs 500 as bribe. Public Witness 1 informed the Anti-Corruption Squad and arranged a trap. The amount of Rs 500 was paid to Patwari and the Anti- Corruption Squad caught the appellant red-handed. (6) THE appellant did not dispute that Public Witness 1 handed over the amount of Rs 500 on the date alleged. He put forward a defence that the said amount was paid to him on behalf of DW 5, one Ram Singh, from whom amounts were due towards land revenue. (6) THE appellant did not dispute that Public Witness 1 handed over the amount of Rs 500 on the date alleged. He put forward a defence that the said amount was paid to him on behalf of DW 5, one Ram Singh, from whom amounts were due towards land revenue. So, the prosecution was practically relieved of the task to establish that the amount was paid by Public Witness 1. The High Court found that the explanation offered by the appellant was an afterthought and that there is no reliable evidence in support thereof. (7) LEARNED counsel made an attempt to show that the appellant offered the said explanation even at the time when he was caught by the police. He failed to show any such conduct on the part of the appellant. On the contrary, the evidence shows that the appellant made an apology to the police for . having received the bribe amount. The appellant examined Ram Singh as DW 5. The High Court has rightly disbelieved his testimony. Anyone can come forward to help the accused to say that I sent that amount to (sic through) the complainant. We are of the view that the High Court has rightly repelled the defence regarding payment of Rs 500. The burden is on the public servant to show that the amount received by him was not illegal gratification and when he failed to discharge his burden the prosecution must be treated as having succeeded in proving that the appellant has committed the offence under Section 5(2) of the PC Act, 1947. (8) THE only ground on which the minimum sentence can be reduced from imprisonment for a period of one year is "special reason". That the appellant had reached his superannuation is no "special reason" at all, for, any public of servant will reach superannuation. Such a stand adopted by the High Court would mean that any public servant on the eve of his retirement can commit this offence with impunity if his retirement is on the anvil. Yet another consequence would be that if any public servant succeeds in protracting the criminal proceedings to the stage of superannuation he can also claim the benefit of "special reasons", if the High Courts reasoning is to be accepted, We find the High Courts approach not only erroneous but pernicious, and therefore, impermissible in law. Yet another consequence would be that if any public servant succeeds in protracting the criminal proceedings to the stage of superannuation he can also claim the benefit of "special reasons", if the High Courts reasoning is to be accepted, We find the High Courts approach not only erroneous but pernicious, and therefore, impermissible in law. Such a ground cannot by any stretch of imagination be treated as "special reason". No other reason has been stated by the High Court and no other reason had been adverted to by the appellant in his plea. Therefore, we consider it imperative to alter the sentence to his detriment by enhancing it to imprisonment for a period of one year. (9) THIS appeal is disposed of accordingly. The Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) is directed to take necessary steps to put the appellant in jail for undergoing the sentence.