Judgment P.N.Yadav, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.2.1990 passed in Special Case No. 34 of 1983 by Shri N. C. Lala, Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna whereby and whereunder be found and held the appellant guilty and convicted him under Section 161 of the Indian Penai Code (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) as well as under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under first count and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under the second count, both the sentences having been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The appellant, a public servant was posted as Amin at Athar Consolidation Office. The complainant Prahlad Rai (P.W.2) was a resident of village Kukurbhukka which also fell within the jurisdiction of Athar Consolidation Office. The appellant was the Amin in respect of the complainants village as well. In course of Consolidation Proceedings wrong and incorrect Chak was carved out for the complainant (P.W.2). The complainant (P.W.2) and his father Ramkar Rai (PW 13) approached the appellant for making necessary amendment and correction in his Chak. The appellant demanded illegal gratification of a sum of Rs. 500/- which was ultimately reduced to Rs. 250/- for making correction. 3. The complainant did not intend to make payment of illegal gratification to the appellant and being aggrieved by his demand he on 14.4.1983 submitted a report in the nature of complaint (Ext. 2) to the D.I.G., Vigilance, Patna. Thereafter such P.W.11 Parshuram Pandey, Inspector, Vigilance, was deputed to make verification in regard to the allegation levelled by P.W.2 against the appellant. On 15.4.1983 P.W.11 along with P.W.2 went to Consolidation Office at Athar. The appellant in presence of P.W.11 asked P.W.2 to make payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 250/- and it was settled that P.W.2 would go to the appellant and pay the aforesaid amount to him on the next Monday or Tuesday. P.W.11 thereafter submitted his verification report (Ext.6) on 18.4.1983. On the basis of Ext.2 and Ext. 6 the formal F.I.R. (Ext. 250/- and it was settled that P.W.2 would go to the appellant and pay the aforesaid amount to him on the next Monday or Tuesday. P.W.11 thereafter submitted his verification report (Ext.6) on 18.4.1983. On the basis of Ext.2 and Ext. 6 the formal F.I.R. (Ext. 10) was drawn up and Vigilance P.S.case No. 6 of 1983 giving rise to the instant case was registered. 4. After submission of verification report a raiding party headed by P.W.3, Bihari Lal, D.S.P., Vigilance consisting of P.W.5 Indradeo Prasad, Sub- Inspector of Vigilance, P.W.6 Harendra Kumar Singh, A.S.I., Vigilance, P.W.7 Mundrika Choudhary, S. I., Vigilance, P.W.8 Prabhu Dayal, A.S.I., Vigilance P.W.9 Dharmnath Prasad, Magistrate and others was constituted to lay a trap to apprehend the appellant red-handed while accepting the bribe. P.W.11 asked P.W.2 to see him at I.B. of Irrigation Department at Arrah on 18.4.1983. The raiding party proceeded from Patna to Arrah and it reached the aforesaid I.B. on 19.4.1983 in the evening at late hours. The members of the raiding party halted there in the night. In the next morning, i.e., on 20.4.1983 P.W.2 produced cash worth Rs. 250/- recomprising two G.C.notes of the nomination of Rs. 100/- each and one G.C.note of the nomination of Rs. 50/- before the D.S.P. (P.W.2) who prepared memorandum (Ext.3) with the numbers of the notes recorded thereon. The G.C.notes referred to above were returned to the complainant (P.W.2) with a direction to him to give the same to the appellant only on demand. P.W.11 was instructed to remain with P.W.2 and see the transaction of giving and taking of money and to give signal by rubbing his head when the appellant accepted the bribe money. 5. Subsequently, the raiding party along with P.W.2 and P.W.11 left the I.B. for Ather. P.W.2 and P.W.11 got down from the vehicles at a distance from Ather and they were asked to go on foot. Both P.W.2 and P.W.11 proceeded on foot for Athar Consolidation office. P.W.11 stayed at a tea stall while P.W.2 went inside the office of the appellant. P.W.2 called and took the appellant to the tea stall of one Bhikhari Sao (P.W.15) where P.W.11 was sitting. The members of the raiding party had taken their position a little away from the tea stall. The appellant demanded of the complainant (P.W.2) the money whereafter P.W.2 handed over the G.C.notes worth Rs. P.W.2 called and took the appellant to the tea stall of one Bhikhari Sao (P.W.15) where P.W.11 was sitting. The members of the raiding party had taken their position a little away from the tea stall. The appellant demanded of the complainant (P.W.2) the money whereafter P.W.2 handed over the G.C.notes worth Rs. 250/- referred to above. P.W.11 flashed the pre-arranged signal. Soon the members of the raiding party including the D.S.P. (P.W.3) and the Magistrate (P.W.9) arrived there and the appellant was caught hold of red-handed and in course of search of his person in presence of two independent witnesses, i.e., P.W.1 Raj Kishore Singh, a teacher and P.W.15, Bhikhari Sao, tea stall keeper and others the aforesaid G. C. notes worth Rs. 250/- were recovered and seized from the left pocket of the appellants shirt. On comparison the numbers of the G.C.notes recovered and seized from possession of appellant tallied with the numbers of the G.C.notes mentioned in the memorandum (Ext.3). Search list (Ext.4) was prepared and a copy thereof was served on the appellant and he was arrested and later on produced in the court. 6. P.W.14, Rameshwar Nath Mishra, Inspector, Vigilance took up investigation and towards the fag end investigation was handed over to P.W.4, Vijendra Kumar whereafter completion of investigation and obtaining sanction for prosecution of the appellant from competent authority submitted the chargesheet against the appellant and finally the trial commenced. 7. The appellant entered into defence and he examined three witnesses, to wit, D.W.1 Bachchu Narayan Lal, who was a formal witness to prove charge report (Ext.A) of one Shailesh Chandra Kumar, an Amin, D.W.2, Narhari Prasad and D.W.3 Basudeo Singh who were employees working in the Consolidation Office, Ather. D.W.2 and D.W.3 were examined to make out a defence that it was Shailesh Chandra Kumar who was Amin of the complainants village and the appellant was not the Amin of that village. 8. From the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the evidence of the defence witnesses and the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the defence seemed to be that of total denial and false implication. 9. Quite a good number of witnesses were examined by the prosecution to bring home the charge levelled against the appellant. 8. From the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the evidence of the defence witnesses and the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the defence seemed to be that of total denial and false implication. 9. Quite a good number of witnesses were examined by the prosecution to bring home the charge levelled against the appellant. The learned Special Judge after taking the facts, circumstances and evidence brought on records into account found and held the appellant guilty and he convicted and sentenced him as stated above vide the impugned judgment and order. 10. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him the appellant preferred the instant appeal. 11. In order to bring the appellant under the purview of Section 161 of the Code and u/s. 5(2) of the Act the prosecution is required to prove that the appellant was at the relevant point of time a public servant. In the instant case the appellant was at the time of incident Amin who must be said to be a public servant. The evidence of the complainant (P.W.2), Parshuram Pandey (P.W.11), Ramkar Rai (P.W.13), Raj Kishore Singh (P.W.1) and Bhikhari Sao (P.W.13) abundantly established that the appellant was Amin posted at Ather Consolidation Office and as such he was public servant. It is also to be stated that for prosecution of a public servant sanction is required to be accorded by a competent authority for his prosecution. In the present case sanction for prosecution of the appellant was already accorded by the competent authority. The sanction order is Ext.7. There was no obstacle or impediment in prosecution of the appellant. 12. The complainant (P.W.2) supported the prosecution case in its entirety. He gave details as to how he approached the appellant who was Amin of his village for making necessary correction in his chak whereupon he demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 250/- and as he (P.W.2) was not ready and willing to pay illegal gratification to the appellant he submitted complaint to the D.I.G. Vigilance, Patna and P.W.11 verified the allegation levelled against the appellant by him and after submission of verification report the raiding party was organised. He stated that P.W.11 asked him to present himself at Arrah I.B. referred to above on 19.4.1983 and in the next morning on 20.4.1983 P.W.2 produced the G.C.Notes worth Rs. He stated that P.W.11 asked him to present himself at Arrah I.B. referred to above on 19.4.1983 and in the next morning on 20.4.1983 P.W.2 produced the G.C.Notes worth Rs. 250/- before the D.S.P. (P.W.3) who prepared the memorandum of the notes and returned the same to him with direction to him to hand over the aforesaid G.C.notes to the appellant only after he demanded bribe money. He added thereafter the raiding party proceeded and swung into action and he and P.W.11 went to Ather ahead of the members of the trap party and he went inside the Consolidation Office while P.W.11 stayed at the said tea-stall and he called and brought the appellant to the tea-stall and on demand he handed over the aforesaid G.C.notes to the appellant and just then on getting signal of P.W.11 the members of the raiding party reached there and they caught hold of the appellant red-handed and on search of his person the said G.C.notes worth Rs. 250/- were recovered and seized from pocket of his shirt in presence of independent witnesses and search-cum-seizure list was prepared and appellant was arrested. P.W.11 Parshuram Pandey corroborated P.W.2 by stating that he verified the allegation levelled by P.W.2 against the appellant and in bis presence the appellant demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 250/- from P.W.2 and thereafter he submitted his verification report. P.W.11 testified to preparation of memorandum of G.C.notes and faying trap on the appellant by stating that he along with P.W.2 on 20.4.1983 went to Consolidation Office and he stayed at tea-stall while P.W.2 went inside the office, brought the appellant with him at tea-stall and paid the money to him on demand and soon thereafter he (P.W.11) gave pre-arranged signal attracting the members of the raiding party and the members of the raiding party caught hold of the appellant and on search of his person the aforesaid G.C.notes worth Rs. 250/- were recovered and seized from the pocket of his shirt and search and seizure list was prepared in presence of independent witnesses. 13. Identical was the evidence of P.W.3 Bihari Lal, D.S.P., PW.9 Dharmnath Prasad, Magistrate, P.W.5, Indradeo Prasad and P.W.6 Harendra Kumar Singh who corroborated P.W.2 and P.W.11 in all material particulars. P.W.1 Raj Kishore Singh and P.W.15 Bhikhari Sao were independent witnesses who testified to search and seizure of the aforesaid G.C.notes worth Rs. 13. Identical was the evidence of P.W.3 Bihari Lal, D.S.P., PW.9 Dharmnath Prasad, Magistrate, P.W.5, Indradeo Prasad and P.W.6 Harendra Kumar Singh who corroborated P.W.2 and P.W.11 in all material particulars. P.W.1 Raj Kishore Singh and P.W.15 Bhikhari Sao were independent witnesses who testified to search and seizure of the aforesaid G.C.notes worth Rs. 250/- from possession of the appellant. P.W.1 and P.W.15 put their signatures (Exts. 1 & 1/2) on the search and seizure list in respect of currency notes referred to above. From the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses it would also transpire that a copy of the search-cum-seizure list was handed over to the appellant who put his signature (Ext.4/1) in token of receipt thereof. P.W.4 and P.W.14 were the investigating officers. Their evidence is not required to be discussed at length. 14. From the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.11, P.W.3, P.W.9, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.1, P.W.15 and P.W.13 it would be crystal clear that the appellant being a public servant demanded illegal gratification of a sum of Rs. 250/- from the complainant (P.W.2) as consideration for making correction in his Chak and he did accept the aforesaid sum of Rs. 250/- from him and he was caught hold of red-handed while accepting the bribe and the aforesaid amount of money was recovered and seized from his possession. 15. The contention that as no phenophthalane powder was applied to the G.C.notes referred to above the whole exercise in faying trap, catching hold of the appellant with bribe money and recovery of G.C.notes from his possession was rendered doubtful in devoid of merit and force and the same must be rejected. Non-application of powder could not in the least render the case doubtful. 16. The defence set-up by the appellant that the G.C.notes referred to above were forcibly thrust into his pocket and moreover he was not Amin of the village of the complainant and as a matter of fact Shailesh Chandra Kumar was Amin of his village and as such he had no occasion to demand and accept illegal gratification from the complainant seems to be far from probable. Incidentally it may be stated that D.W.2 and D.W.3 who were officials of Consolidation Office, Ather came forward to depose falsely to help the appellant. They did not stand the test of cross-examination and their evidence must be discarded outright. Incidentally it may be stated that D.W.2 and D.W.3 who were officials of Consolidation Office, Ather came forward to depose falsely to help the appellant. They did not stand the test of cross-examination and their evidence must be discarded outright. There is no substance in the contention that Chak is finally carved out by Consolidation Officer and if any correction is subsequently required to be made in the Chak it is also to be done by Consolidation Officer and not by the Amin and hence the appellant being Amin was not expected to make amendment or correction in the complainants Chak and in that view of the matter neither the complainant was required to approach appellant nor appellant was expected to demand and accept illegal gratification. The contention is non-meritous and the same must be rejected. The fact was that the appellant demanded illegal gratification and he was caught hold of red-handed with the bribe money. It was immaterial whether he himself was to make necessary correction in the complainants Chak or he was to get it done by some one else including the Consolidation Officer. 17. In view of what has been stated and observed in the preceding paragraphs it is to be held that the prosecution brought on the charges levelled against the appellant beyond the reasonable doubt. The learned Special Judge rightly found and held the appellant guilty and convicted him u/s. 161 of the Code as well as u/s. 5(2) read with S.5(1)(d)of the Act. 18. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year u/s. 161 of the Code and to undergo R.I. for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months u/s. 5(2) of the Act. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the incident took place in 1983 and since then the appellant had been running to courts and he had also served jail term for quite some days and thus he had obviously already been put to tremendous hardships and harassment and as such it was desirable that the appellant be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. 19. 19. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view of the fact that the appellant had been running to courts for over seventeen years and he served jail terms for some days and he already suffered a lot or mental agony it is deemed, just, proper and expedient in the interest of justice that he be sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him and also to pay some fine. 20. The appellant is, accordingly, directed to be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3,500 (three thousand five hundred) and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The aforesaid sentence shall perhaps meet the ends of justice. 21. In the result the appeal fails and the same is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.