JUDGMENT:-Dhandapani, the appellant herein, former Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade II, attached to Judicial Second Class Magistrate Court, Tiruvannamalai, was convicted for the offences under Sec. 161, I.P.C. and Sec.5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo R.I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200 in default to undergo R.I for one month. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed by the appellant. 2. The facts leading to the conviction are as follows: "(a) Bethu Naidu (P.W.1) was assaulted by one Govindaraj with a stone, as a result of which he sustained a fracture in the hip. On his complaint, a case was registered against the said Govindaraj by the police. After the investigation, charge sheet was filed against him for the offence under Sec.325, I.P.C. before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai. On receipt of summons in that case, P.W.1 Bethu Naidu, P.W.2, his son and P.W.4 his wife came to the Court at Tiruvannamalai. (b) During that period, Dhandapani, the appellant/accused was working as Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade II. On the date of hearing, the accused demanded Rs.200 as gratification from P.W.1 for conducting the case properly. Since P.W.1 said that he was unable to pay the amount, the accused did not choose to examine the witnesses on that day. The matter was adjourned to various dates. On every date of hearing, the accused reiterated the demand from P.W. 1. At last, on 12.9.1986 the accused asked P.W.1 to come with the money on the next date of hearing, i.e. on 29.9.1986 and warned him that he would see to that the case is spoiled, if the money is not paid on the date of next hearing. P.W.2 also came to the accused on 26.9.1986 and requested to conduct the case without expecting any money. The accused insisted for the money. Therefore, both P.W.1 and P.W.2 decided to give a complaint to Vigilance. (C) On 28.9.1986, both of them went to the Vigilance Office and gave a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Kancheepuram (P.W. 13). The complaint is Ex.P1. The case was registered for the offence under Sec. 161, I.P.C. Then, both P.Ws. 1 and 2 were asked to come on next day morning, i.e. on 29.9.1986 with the money of Rs.200. The complaint is Ex.P1. The case was registered for the offence under Sec. 161, I.P.C. Then, both P.Ws. 1 and 2 were asked to come on next day morning, i.e. on 29.9.1986 with the money of Rs.200. In the meantime, P.W.13 requested the District Collector to send a Deputy Collector to watch the trap proceedings. He also contacted the Superintending Engineer of the Electricity Board to send some responsible officer to act as a trap witness. (d) On 29.9.1986 at about 6.00 A.M., P.Ws.1 and 2 came to the Vigilance Office. As requested by P.W. 13, P.W.3 Natarajan, the Deputy Collector and one Arumughan, Engineer also came there. After verification of the complaint, the demonstration of the phenolphthalein test was conducted. P.W.13 instructed P.W.1 to give the currency notes to the accused only on demand. The mahazar Ex.P5 was prepared, which was signed by all the officials. (e) At 7.45 A.M., all of them went in a van and reached Tiruvannamalai at about 10.20 A.M., P.W.1 and P.W.2 were asked to go to the Court to give the money to the accused on demand. The other officers were standing near the Court to watch the happenings. At that time, the accused came out of the Court hall on seeing P.W.1. He asked him as to whether he brought the money. Then P.W.1 removed the money from his pocket and handed over the same to the accused. He was also requested by P.W.1 to count the notes. Accordingly, he counted and put it in the right side coat pocket. (f) Thereafter, P.W.1 gave the prearranged signal. P.W.13 and others officials came to the accused and introduced their identity. When he was asked as to whether he received money as bribe from P.W.1, he said “yes”. When P.W.13 was about to conduct test inside the Court compound, the accused requested him to have the test outside the Court compound. In pursuance of the said request, the accused was taken to the van which was stationed in the road near the Court compound. The phenolphthalein test was conducted on the fingers of both the hands which proved positive. Then, he was asked to hand over the money. The accused took out the money from his coat pocket and gave it to P.W. 13. On verification with the mahazar, the numbers in the currency notes were found tallied. The phenolphthalein test was conducted on the fingers of both the hands which proved positive. Then, he was asked to hand over the money. The accused took out the money from his coat pocket and gave it to P.W. 13. On verification with the mahazar, the numbers in the currency notes were found tallied. The coat also was subjected to test which proved positive. Then, the said coat also was recovered. (g) Thereafter, the accused was taken to his house where search was conducted. But, no incriminating materials were seized. With regard to the phenolphthalein test, Ex.P6 mahazar was prepared. Then, the Deputy Superintendent of Police conducted further investigation. He obtained sanction from the Government for prosecution against the appellant. With the sanction, he filed the charge sheet against the appellant for the offences under Sec. 161, I.P.C. and Sec. 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. (h) During the course of trial, P.W.1 to P.W.13 were examined, Exs.P1 to P27 were filed and M.Os. 1 to 6 were marked. In behalf of the defence, Ex.D1 was marked. (i) While the accused was questioned under Sec. 313, Cr.P.C, he stated that he did not demand money as bribe, but he received the money from P.W.1, since he was asked to give the money to one Advocate Palani, whom P.W.2 engaged to assist the prosecution case and as such, he had not committed any offence. On behalf of the defence, the said Palani was examined as D.W.1. (j) The trial Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by both the parties, found the accused guilty for the offences referred to above and convicted thereunder. Hence, this appeal.“ 3. Mr.V. Gopinath, the learned senior counsel, while attacking the judgment impugned, would urge the following contentions; ”P.W.2 Gangan, the son of P.W.1 the complainant, admittedly, was working as a constable in the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption in Kancheepuram. When P.W.2 requested the accused/A.P.P. to make arrangements to convert the case registered under Sec. 325, I.P.C. in which his father was the victim, into under Sec. 307, I.P.C. The accused expressed inability and asked P. W.2 to make his own arrangements by engaging an independent lawyer. Since there was a misunderstanding out of this, P.W.1, the father of P.W.2 was set up to give a false complaint against the appellant/accused. Since there was a misunderstanding out of this, P.W.1, the father of P.W.2 was set up to give a false complaint against the appellant/accused. In regard to the demand of Rs.200 there is a contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The evidence relating to the demand of money is quite artificial and doubtful, since the witnesses would admit that they were surrounded by so many persons. Furthermore, the evidence of P.W.8 would show that the witnesses were absent in the earlier hearings. Though the conversation was tape-recorded, the said tap recorder was not produced before the Court. P.W.2 would admit that he married second wife in violation of the Government Servants Conduct (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. It is quite unbelievable to contend that the accused, the Assistant Public Prosecutor demanded the bribe from P.W.2, who is working as a constable. Though the jurisdiction for trap cases lies in Vellore Vigilance Office, P.W.2 chose to give complaint to Kancheepuram Vigilance Office, since he had already worked in Kancheepuram. Thus, P.W.2 used his acquaintance with P.W.13 to put up a false trap case against A.P.P. The explanation given by the accused stating that he received money from P.W.1 only on behalf of Palani, Advocate, who was engaged as a private counsel, has been corroborated by the said Palani, who has been examined as D.W.1. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted." 4. Mr.Srinath, the learned Government Advocate would refute those contentions by referring about the various materials available on record and point out that the demand of money as well as the receipt of money as bribe has been proved, in the light of the belated explanation given by the accused which has not been established. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and also gone through the records. 6. The careful perusal of the deposition and other records and the proper analysis of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties would make it clear that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the explanation given by the accused for the receipt of money cannot be considered to be acceptable. 7. 6. The careful perusal of the deposition and other records and the proper analysis of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties would make it clear that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the explanation given by the accused for the receipt of money cannot be considered to be acceptable. 7. There is no dispute in the fact that on the complaint of Bethu Naidu (P.W.1), P.W.5 Sukumaran, the Sub Inspector of Police, Keezh Pennathur registered the case against one Govindaraj for the offence under Sec 325, I.P.C. and the same was charge sheeted on 2.6.1986 and taken on the file on 16.6.1986 in C.C.No.336 of 1986 in Judicial Second Class Magistrate Court, Tiruvaanamalai. It is not in dispute that the accused, Assistant Public Prosecutor was in charge of this case. The summons had been issued to Bethu Naidu (P.W.1), Rajammal (P.W.4), his wife and one Vajjirammal, the daughter of P.W.1 asking them to come and appear before the Court to give evidence on 16.7.1986. On that day, all these witnesses were present. Since the Magistrate was on leave, the case was adjourned to 18.8.1986. On that day, the accused demanded money of Rs.200 from P.W.1 for conducting the case in a proper manner. P.W.1 expressed his inability. At that time, P.W.2 Gangan was also present. 8. Since the matter was adjourned to 18.8.1986, the fresh summons were issued. On that date also, the witnesses were present. But, the accused/A.P.P. demanded the money from P.W.1. Since the money was not given, A.P.P. said that he would examine the witnesses in the next hearing. Accordingly, it was adjourned to 27.8.1986. Again on 27.8.1986, the witnesses came. The accused asked P.W.1 about the money. Since he did not bring money, the accused said that he would not examine the witnesses unless the money is given. Accordingly, the matter was again adjourned to 12.9.1986. 9. Again on 12.9.1986, all the witnesses were present. On that date, the accused told P.W. 1 that if the money is not given in the next hearing date, then he would see to that the case is spoiled. Ultimately, the matter was adjourned to 29.9.1986. On apprehending that the case would be spoiled by the accused, P.W.1 went to Kancheepuram and told P.W.2. On that date, the accused told P.W. 1 that if the money is not given in the next hearing date, then he would see to that the case is spoiled. Ultimately, the matter was adjourned to 29.9.1986. On apprehending that the case would be spoiled by the accused, P.W.1 went to Kancheepuram and told P.W.2. So, on 26.8.1986 P.W.2 came to Tiruvannamalai Court and requested the accused to conduct the case without demanding any money as the Victim happened to be his father. Even then, the accused insisted for the money. He would further state that unless money is given, he would not conduct the case. Under those circumstances, P.Ws.1 and 2 decided to give a complaint to Vigilance Office, Kancheepuram on 28.9.1986. These details have been spoken to by P.W.1 and P.W.2. 10. P.W.4, the wife of P.W.1, would also speak about their presence in the Court on all the hearings and their returning to their village without being examined. Besides this, P.W.5 Inspector of Police and P.W.7 Grade I Constable of Keezh Pennathur Police Station would state that the witnesses were present in the Court on 16.7.1986,30.7.1986, 18.8.1986,27.8.1986 and 12.9.1986 and finally it was posted on 29.9.1986. Through them, Exs.P.7 to P.13 were marked to show that the summons were served on these witnesses to appear before Court on the hearing dates and witnesses on the respective dates were present, but however, they were not examined. As a matter of fact, P.W.5 would state that the accused told P.W.5 on every occasion that he would examine the witnesses later. 11. In the light of these materials, it can be safely concluded that the accused did not choose to commence the examination of the witnesses, who had come to Court on all the hearings, in view of the fact that his demand of money of Rs.200 was not complied with by P.W.1. 12. About the demand of money on 16.7.1986, 30.7.1986, 18.8.1986, 27.8.1986 and 12.9.1986, P.W. 1 would give the clear details. This is mentioned in the complaint Ex.P1 given by P.W.1. That apart, the evidence of P.W.2 would show that as soon as he was informed by P.W.1 that the accused would spoil the case, if the money is not given, P.W.2 went to Tiruvannamalai and met the accused and requested for conducting the case. 13. This is mentioned in the complaint Ex.P1 given by P.W.1. That apart, the evidence of P.W.2 would show that as soon as he was informed by P.W.1 that the accused would spoil the case, if the money is not given, P.W.2 went to Tiruvannamalai and met the accused and requested for conducting the case. 13. It is carefully stated by P.W.2 that in spite of his request, the accused said that he will not conduct the case unless the bribe is given. According to P.W.2 he met the A.P.P/accused on 16.7.1986 and 26.9.1986 and requested him to conduct the case on behalf of his father and on those dates, demand of money was made. P.W.9, who is writer in the Kancheepuram Police Station, would state that on those dates, P.W.2 did not attend the Police Station as he was on leave. 14. Under these circumstances, the evidence relating to the demand made by the accused that P.Ws.1 and 2 can be accepted as true. Furthermore, these details have been given in Ex.P1 complaint given by P.W.1. 15. In this context, it shall be noticed that there is no necessity for P.Ws. 1 and 2 to speak falsehood against a responsible officer who has to help the prosecution by conducting the criminal case in which P.W.1 was the victim. 16. The grievance for these witnesses is that though they attended the Court for five occasions, all the times they were sent back stating that unless money is given, the accused would not examine them. It is true that the demand was made both to P.W.1 and P.W.2 on 16.7.1986 itself. At that time, they did not choose to give any complaint to the Vigilance Office, since they wanted to convince the A.P.P. by stating that they did not have any money. Therefore, mere failure on the part of P.Ws.1 and 2 to report to the vigilance immediately would not be a ground to reject the case of prosecution. 17. As a matter of fact, even though P.W.2 happens to be a constable in the police station and he was working as a constable in Kancheepuram itself for some time earlier, they wanted to be patient, as they were interested only in conducting the case in a proper manner before the trial Court filed against Govindaraj. 18. 17. As a matter of fact, even though P.W.2 happens to be a constable in the police station and he was working as a constable in Kancheepuram itself for some time earlier, they wanted to be patient, as they were interested only in conducting the case in a proper manner before the trial Court filed against Govindaraj. 18. So, in the light of the above discussion, it has to be held that there are sufficient materials to show that the accused demanded money of Rs.200 as bribe from P.W.1 for conducting his case in a proper manner and further warned that if money is not given, he would not conduct the case and ultimately, the case would be spoiled. 19. Let us come to the aspect of the evidence relating to the receipt of the money as bribe. 20. According to P.W.1 and P.W.2, the complaint was given on 28.9.1986. On 29.9.1986 morning, the phenolphthalein demonstration was conducted and Ex.P5 mahazar was prepared. Thereafter, P.W. 13, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.W.3 Deputy Collector, trap witness, P.Ws.1 and 2 and other officials proceeded in a van and reached Tiruvannamalai at about 10.20 A.M. On that day, the case against Govindaraj was posted for examination of witnesses. On seeing P.W.4, the accused asked her whether her husband P.W.1 has come with money. Within few minutes, P.Ws.1 and 2 came there. The van in which they came along with the police officials and trap witnesses was stopped outside the Court compound. On seeing P.W. 1, the accused came out of the Court hall and demanded the money. Immediately, P.W.1 removed the currency notes from his pocket and handed over to the accused. On receipt of the amount, the accused counted the notes and put it in the right side Coat pocket. 21. Then, P.W. 1 gave the prearranged signal. On getting the signal, P.W.13 D.S.P. along with P.W.3 Deputy Collector and other officials came to the accused and revealed their identity. P.W. 13 questioned the accused whether he received the money of Rs.200 from the complainant. The accused accepted the same and however, requested the D.S.P. to take him out of the Court compound to conduct test without being noticed by others. Accordingly, he was taken outside the Court compound and brought into the van. In the van, Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared. The accused accepted the same and however, requested the D.S.P. to take him out of the Court compound to conduct test without being noticed by others. Accordingly, he was taken outside the Court compound and brought into the van. In the van, Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared. The accused officer was asked to dip his fingers of both the hands. The solution turned pink in colour. Then, as instructed by P.W.13, the accused took but the bunch of currency notes from his right side coat pocket and handed over to P.W. 13. On verification with the mahazar, the numbers in the currency notes were found tallied. Then, the coat pocket also was subjected to test which proved positive. Then, the mahazar Ex.P.6 was prepared. 22. With reference to this, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W. 13 would speak in clear details. According to P.W. 1 and P.W.2, the accused came out of the Court hall on noticing P.W.1 and asked him whether he brought the money. When he handed over the money, the accused received the same and counted the notes which both the fingers and put it in the right side of Coat pocket. According to P.W.3, and P.W.13, they came to the accused after getting the signal and revealed their identity. When P.W.13 asked the accused whether he received the money as bribe from P.W. 1, he agreed that he accepted, but however, he requested to take him outside the Court compound so that the same may not be noticed by the people inside the Court compound. Accordingly, he was taken to the van stationed outside the compound and the test was conducted and the same proved positive and then, the money was recovered from him. 23. Regarding the receipt of money, as indicated above, there is evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and this also to a certain extent is corroborated by P.W.3, who watched the handing over of the amount to the accused. Furthermore,the evidence relating to the receipt as spoken to by P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 also has been corroborated by the fact of recovery of the amount from his coat pocket as pointed out by P.W.13, the D.S.P. which has been recorded in Ex.P6 Mahazar. Moreover, the evidence relating to the receipt of money is not disputed by the accused. 24. Furthermore,the evidence relating to the receipt as spoken to by P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 also has been corroborated by the fact of recovery of the amount from his coat pocket as pointed out by P.W.13, the D.S.P. which has been recorded in Ex.P6 Mahazar. Moreover, the evidence relating to the receipt of money is not disputed by the accused. 24. It is settled law that when it is proved by the prosecution that a gratification which is not a legal remuneration has been received by a public servant, a presumption at once raises under Sec.4(l) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The said Section would provide where in any trial of an offence punishable under Sec. 161, I.P.C., if it is proved that an accused person has accepted any gratification other than the legal remuneration, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that he accepted the same as a gratification or as a motive or reward to do favour in his official duty. 25. Under the above provision, once it is proved that the money was received by the accused or once it is admitted that the money was received by the accused, the burden shifts on the accused to prove that he did not receive as a gratification to do some favour in his official duty. 26. In the light of the said legal situation, it should now be considered as to whether the explanation given by the accused has been proved. It is no doubt true that the accused need not prove his case beyond reasonable doubt, but it can be proved or established through preponderance of probability. 27. Bearing in mind these principles, we shall now consider the explanation given by the accused. 28. According to the accused, he received the money of Rs.200 from P.W.1 in order to hand over the same to one Palani, an Advocate engaged by P.W.2 to assist the prosecution. As indicated above, no explanation was given when the trap was laid on him and Ex.P6 mahazar was prepared. In fact, in Ex.P6, it is stated that he accepted that he received the money of bribe. 29. Though this statement made to D.S.P. by the accused is not admissible, the conduct of the accused in asking the D.S.P. to take him outside the Court compound for further interrogation and for conducting test would be a relevant one. In fact, in Ex.P6, it is stated that he accepted that he received the money of bribe. 29. Though this statement made to D.S.P. by the accused is not admissible, the conduct of the accused in asking the D.S.P. to take him outside the Court compound for further interrogation and for conducting test would be a relevant one. In short, it can be concluded that no explanation was attempted to be made at the time of trap nor any report was sent by him either to the higher police officials or to the Government with regard to the said explanation. 30. On the other hand, the explanation which has been belatedly given to the Court in the form of suggestions and the statement under Sec. 313, Cr.P.C. and through the evidence of D.W.1 is not only improbable but also inconsistent. 31. The accused officer in the statement under Sec. 313, Cr.P.C. has stated that P.W.1 came along with P.W.2 on 29.9.1986 when he was standing in the Court veranda and gave the money requesting to hand over the same to Palani, Advocate and when he received the money, D.S.P. came and arrested him by catching hold of his hands and that when he told him that he received the money only on behalf of Palani, D.S.P. took Palani, who was inside the Court hall, to van. To the last question, he answered that since the accused officer did not agree for the request made by P.W.2 to make it a big case against Govindaraj, P.W.2 challenged mat he would arrange one Palani, Advocate to conduct the case and to punish the said Govindaraj severely. 32. The said Palani was examined as D.W.1. According to him, P.W.2 came on 26.9.1986 and requested him to assist the prosecution along with A.P.P. and he demanded the money of Rs. 300 as fees and P.W.2 asked him to reduce the amount and ultimately, D.W. 1 agreed to reduce the amount as Rs.200. He would further state that P.W.2 requested him to make arrangements to convert the case under Sec.325,I.P.C. into one under Sec.3 07, I.P.C. In cross-examination, D.W.1 would state that he asked the accused to receive the money of Rs.200 on his behalf and the accused officer replied that he would not receive any money on his behalf. He would further state that P.W.2 requested him to make arrangements to convert the case under Sec.325,I.P.C. into one under Sec.3 07, I.P.C. In cross-examination, D.W.1 would state that he asked the accused to receive the money of Rs.200 on his behalf and the accused officer replied that he would not receive any money on his behalf. So, the statement of the accused and the statement of D.W.1, which are quite contrary, do not establish the defence case. 33. As indicated above, the accused stated that he gave the explanation to the D.S.P (P.W. 13) that he received money on behalf of Palani as requested by P.W.1 and therefore, Palani was taken to van. But, D.W. 1 did not support this in his evidence. He would simply state that he requested A.P.P. to receive money on his behalf, but he refused. Thus, the evidence of D.W.1 is quite contrary to the defence case. 34. Furthermore, the statement made during the questioning under Sec. 313, Cr.P.C. projecting the defence theory has not been suggested to P.W.13 D.S.P. Similarly, the defence theory has not been suggested to P.W.3, a responsible officer, who speaks about the receipt of money from P.W.1. 35. In the above fact situation, there is no material to indicate that the defence theory has been established through the preponderance of probability. 36. It is contended by the learned senior counsel that the complaint ought not to have been entertained by the Kancheepuram Vigilance, while the jurisdiction lies in the Vellore Vigilance. 37. This, in my opinion, cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that P.W.13 would specifically state that he obtained permission from the Director of Vigilance, who has got jurisdiction all over Tamil Nadu. Furthermore, it is the specific statement made by P.W.13 that he enquired about the accused officer and after verification, he gave all the details to the Director of Vigilance and only after obtaining the permission from the Director, he commenced the investigation. With regard to the competence of the investigation, when he was questioned, he would state in the re-examination that every Vigilance D.S.P. has got jurisdiction all over Tamil Nadu by virtue of the G.O. Furthermore, he sent a report along with the materials to the Government through the proper channel and ultimately, the Minister concerned gave sanction for prosecution and accordingly, the sanction was accorded by the Government. 38. 38. In the above circumstances, it cannot be contended that P.W.13 D.S.P was not competent enough to conduct investigation. 39. In view of what is stated above, I do not find any merit in the appeal. 40. Before parting with this case, this Court is constrained to highlight the misconduct of the appellant, who was an Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II by having driven the victims and the witnesses of the crime from pillar to post in a bid to get bribe of Rs.200 from them to allow them to be examined as prosecution witnesses. 41. As noted above, Bethu Naidu (P.W.1) was assaulted by one Govindaraj with a stone on his hip which resulted in the fracture. In that case, P.W.1 Bethu Naidu, P.W.4, the wife of P.W.1 and one Vajjirammal, the daughter of P.W.1 came to the Court in order to give evidence against the said Govindaraj on receipt of summons. As per the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4, the witnesses, P.W.5 Sub Inspector of Police and P.W.7 Grade I Constable, these witnesses were present in the Court on 16.7.1986, 30.7.1986, 18.8.1986, 27.8.1986 and 12.9.1986 and finally on 29.9.1996. These witnesses P.W.1, P.W.4 and one Vajjirammal were to speak about the act of the said Govindaraj in throwing a stone on the hip of P.W.1 causing a fracture. For every hearing, they received fresh summons and came took the Court, but the appellant/Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of that case never allowed them to enter into the Court by stating that unless the amount of Rs.200 is given to him as gratification, he would not examine them and he ultimately challenge that he would spoil the entire case. 42. The witnesses, who are the poor villagers, came to the Court on all these days by travelling in the bus incurring expenditure in order to complain to the Court about the fracture caused to P.W.1. But, the act of the appellant/Assistant Public Prosecutor in not allowing them to be examined as prosecution witnesses in that case had caused severe hurt in the hearts of the victim and the witnesses. Therefore, these people, instead of pursuing the action against the said Govindaraj, who caused hurt on the mere body, decided to take action against the appellant/Assistant Public Prosecutor, who inflicted heavy blow on the heart of the victim and the witnesses. Therefore, these people, instead of pursuing the action against the said Govindaraj, who caused hurt on the mere body, decided to take action against the appellant/Assistant Public Prosecutor, who inflicted heavy blow on the heart of the victim and the witnesses. With so much of agony, I may state that this is most unfortunate. 43. The Office of Assistant Public Prosecutor is not merely a public office, but it is an office of considerable significance. The persons appointed as Prosecutors should have not only a high degree of efficiency and knowledge of law of crimes, but also the character and integrity. They must be irreproachable and above suspicion. They must have sense of their duty to the public not there and to the Court, as overriding considerations. 44. As laid down in State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 389, Balwant Singh v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2265 and Marappa Gounder v. Venkatachalam, (1983) L.W. (Crl) 1, the position of the Prosecutor is regarded as a Minister of justice and he should unreservedly dedicate himself to the task assigned to him and discharge the same fairly and fearlessly, with a full sense of responsibility. He should always uphold the dignity of this high office and see that its value is in no circumstances devalued. He is not only an advocate for the State, but he shall be ranked as a Minister of justice to be placed equal to the Judge. 45. If these requisites are lacking, the incumbent to such an office would gravely injure the administration of justice. In short, I am pained to say that the appellant had not only injured the administration of criminal justice by not allowing the witnesses to be examined in the Court but also caused grave injustice to the victims of the crime, who became again victims at the hands of the appellant. 46. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offences under Sec. 161, I.P.C. and Sec. 5(l)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are confirmed. The Trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the custody of the appellant to undergo the remaining period of sentence. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.254 of. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offences under Sec. 161, I.P.C. and Sec. 5(l)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are confirmed. The Trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the custody of the appellant to undergo the remaining period of sentence. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.254 of. 1993 M. Karpagavinayagam, J: After the pronouncement of the judgment, it is requested by the learned counsel for the appellant for reduction of sentence. The trial Court imposed the sentence of one year R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.200 for both the offences under Sec. 161, I.P.C. and Sec.5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2. It is true that as per Sec.5 (1) (d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention Corruption Act, one year sentence can be reduced provided special and appropriate reasons are given. It is contended that the appellant was facing trial from the year 1990 and has been facing the enquiry in the appeal before this Court till now. It is also pointed out that he was removed from the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Though there is a proviso for reduction of sentence in the light of the special reasons, I do not find any special reason to reduce the sentence imposed by the trial Court and as such, no sympathy can be shown to him. So, the request is rejected with heavy heart.