M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) A rather interesting position in law has emerged in this case as will be set out presently. The accused at the relevant time was working as Village Accountant of Veeradevanapura Group Panchayat in Nanjungud Taluk and it is alleged that on 28-3-1985 he demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 450/- in consideration for change of khata. This was a case in which the accused is alleged to have demanded Rs. 500/- for doing the job from PW-2 Sundaramma. According to the complainant, she was doing coolie work and she told the accused that she is so poor that it is impossible for her to produce that amount of money and the accused flatly refused to relent. Thereafter, her brother is supposed to have met the accused again and paid him Rs. 50/- with a promise that he would bring the remaining amount on 28-3-1985. A complaint was lodged with the anti-corruption police and a trap was laid, the currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and, the amount was finally tendered to the accused after he demanded it. Not only were the currency notes recovered from his possession but the prosecution further alleges that the limewater with which his hands were tested turned pink as a sign of his having come in contact with the powder. On completion of the investigation, the accused was charged with having committed an offence under S. 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was put up for trial. The learned trial Judge found the accused guilty, convicted him and sentenced him to R. I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default. S. I. for three months. The present appeal is directed against that conviction. ( 2 ) THIS appeal has had a relatively long innings before the High Court because, the appellant's learned Counsel raised a preliminary objection, which though seemingly technical, has very far reaching consequences. What was pointed out to the High Court was that this being a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, that it could only be heard by a Special Judge, duly notified and appointed by the State Government. The then Special Judge presiding over the Court in Mysore had been elevated to the High Court and consequently, the case was heard and decided by his successor Judge P. T. Patil. The then Special Judge presiding over the Court in Mysore had been elevated to the High Court and consequently, the case was heard and decided by his successor Judge P. T. Patil. The objection raised was that the judicial officer presiding over the special Court had not been duly notified and appointed as a Special Judge as on the date of the decision. This Court called for the relevant notification from the Sessions Court at Mysore but the same was not forthcoming and neither could the Law Department of the State Government produce the notification. The record will indicate that this Court gave the Government more than adequate time on several dates of hearing to produce either the notification or the copy of the Gazette but that neither was forthcoming. Thereafter, this Court passed an order which was communicated to the State Government that if the notification copy was not produced before the next date of hearing, that the High Court would proceed on the footing that there was no such notification in existence and would pass consequential orders. The Government was unable to produce any such notification and consequently, this Court passed an order that the plea raised by the defence to the effect that the learned Special Judge who presided over the Special Court was not duly notified and appointed as a Special Judge and that the court would then consider the consequences of such a situation. ( 3 ) I have heard the appellant's learned counsel and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor both as regards this aspect of the case as also on merits. It was necessary to examine all aspects of the record before deciding on the correct course of action in such a situation. In the light of the position that emerges viz. , that the learned trial judge was not duly notified as a Special Judge as on the date of the decision, the decision of the trial Court gets immediately vitiated. This is not a curable procedural irregularity but, something that is very basic and something that goes to the root of the matter because the bottom line is that the case has been decided by a Court which had no jurisdiction to hear and decide such a proceeding. Under the circumstances, there is no option left to this Court other than to quash and set aside the conviction and sentence. Under the circumstances, there is no option left to this Court other than to quash and set aside the conviction and sentence. The difficult question is as to whether or not in such a situation, a re-trial should be ordered. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that corruption charges are serious charges and that this is a case in which the Court has held on the last occasion that there is sufficient reliable evidence on record to establish the charge and to convict and sentence the accused. His submission is that even assuming a procedural error has taken place, that the advantage of this cannot go to the accused and that consequently, the only corrective action permissible is for the High Court to direct a fresh trial. He submits that the records of the case are available, that this is an essential case which hinges on several documents and that as far as the oral evidence is concerned, that the same can be recorded afresh but that it would be a wrong precedent to allow the accused to get the undue advantage of a technical objection such as the present one. This submission does appear to be prima facie valid but, like all cases, there is also another entirely different angle which this Court will have to take cognizance of Mr. Devaraj, learned Senior Counsel who represents the accused submitted that just as the learned Addl. S. P. P. submits that the accused should not get any advantage because of what has happened, that it is equally valid for him to advance the plea that the accused should not be made to suffer for no fault of his. His submission is that the legal position that has now emerged is not something that has been caused or created by the accused and if the Court were to order a re-trial in the year 2002 in respect of an incident that is seventeen years old, that it would be unduly harsh and traumatic for the accused and that on the ground of delay alone, this Court should refrain from ordering a re-trial. The learned counsel in the course of his submissions advanced the plea that the Courts have been circumspect with regard to whether, even in criminal cases at a very late stage, a proceeding should be reopened and the accused person be subjected to the torture of a fresh trial and that the trend of judicial decisions has been against such a procedure. He draws my attention to one of the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1955 SC 792 : (1955 Cri LJ 1644) wherein the Court observed that while it is incumbent on the Court to see that the guilty do not escape, it is even more necessary to see that persons accused of crime are not indefinitely harassed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scales of justice must be kept on an even balance whether for the accused or against him, whether in favour of the State or not; and one broad rule must apply in all cases. That was a case in which the Supreme Court declined to order a re-trial. ( 5 ) ELABORATING on the above argument, the appellant's learned counsel submitted that the accused was holding a very small position of a village accountant and the allegation against him is that he had demanded and received an aggregate of Rs. 500/- by way of illegal gratification. He submits that even if one were to take into account the principle of drawing a nexus between the offence established and the gravity of the punishment awarded, that if one were to look back to the period of time since the commission of the alleged offence, it will be seen that the trial dragged on up to 15-7-1994 when the accused was convicted. In other words, the accused was in suspended animation for as long as nine years and the learned counsel submits that the Courts are aware of the fall out of trap cases, of what happens to the accused socially, vis-a-vis his job, vis-a-vis his family economically and generally. The accused was dismissed from service pursuant to the conviction and had to live with the consequences of that order. The accused was dismissed from service pursuant to the conviction and had to live with the consequences of that order. Again, it is pointed out that for a variety of reasons, the present appeal has taken eight years for disposal before the High Court and this period again is traumatic as far as the appellant is concerned. In many of the cases, while considering the adequacy of punishment, the Courts are required to take cognizance of the length of the trial and all other attendant circumstances and what the learned counsel essentially submits is that even if one were to notionally visualise a situation wherein the accused has been held guilty that he has still been punished to an extent of much more than the two years R. I. visualised by the Court. All these submissions have been put forward and a strong plea has been made before this Court that this is not a case in which a retrial should be ordered. ( 6 ) I shall consider the position both factually and legally because, there are many aspects which a Court is required to weigh in a delicate situation such as the present one. While examining the position in law under the Arts. 20/21 of the Constitution wherein in recent years, the Courts have quashed many of the prosecutions on the ground of the right of an accused to a speedy trial, many of the practical aspects have fallen for consideration. It is true that the learned Addl. S. P. P. submitted that if the earlier trial is vitiated on technical or procedural grounds that the State is perfectly willing and able to conduct a trial afresh. To my mind, such a procedure is contra-indicated. I have already held while deciding several of the cases wherein the plea of right to a speedy trial was taken up, that a Court is required to consider the feasibility and practicality of conducting trials at belated points of time. First of all, where a trial is conducted years after the incident, it is not always possible to get all the records because some of them are perhaps misplaced or even destroyed. In this case the position may be otherwise since the trial has already taken place. First of all, where a trial is conducted years after the incident, it is not always possible to get all the records because some of them are perhaps misplaced or even destroyed. In this case the position may be otherwise since the trial has already taken place. The more important aspect is that in criminal cases, the greater part of the evidence consists of oral evidence and where trials are held years after the incident, human memory being what it is, the quality of the evidence necessarily suffers and sometimes, is absolutely useless. Added to this, the second difficulty of being able to trace the witnesses whose whereabouts are sometimes not available and if a long time has elapsed several of them may have retired from service or may have even died. This invariably happens in delayed trials. When it comes to the Investigating Officers, it becomes often times difficult to conduct the trial effectively and conclusively without them. For all these reasons, the Courts have invariably held that where a sufficiently long time lag has taken place and the accused is not a contributory to this, that a retrial should not be ordered. ( 7 ) COMING to the facts of the present case, I do find that there will be many practical difficulties in the matter of conducting a fresh trial, the main ones being that the key witnesses would possibly not be available and even if they are available, the quality of the evidence that will emerge at this point of time would be extremely poor. It is true that the learned Addl. S. P. P. submitted that the corruption charges are serious charges and that the accused should not be allowed to get away. The Courts have time and again asked the Government the simple question as to why is it that only the poorest of the poor and only the very small fish are the ones who are hauled up before the Courts on corruption charges, sentenced and sent to jail whereas those who are ruining and devastating the economy without any sense of impunity are neither arrested nor convicted. ( 8 ) THE real question is whether it is still incumbent in the present case to make an effort to try the present accused once again, the purpose being that he should be punished for the alleged offence. ( 8 ) THE real question is whether it is still incumbent in the present case to make an effort to try the present accused once again, the purpose being that he should be punished for the alleged offence. If one were to look at the anatomy or the complexion of the offence and the maximum punishment that the accused could have been awarded, it will have to be held that the pendency of the litigation for the last seventeen years is more than adequate punishment for the accused even assuming the charges were held to be proved. This is one of the strongest reasons why, though I do not discard or dispute the submission canvassed by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor that this Court considers it inappropriate, improper to order a re-trial. ( 9 ) THAT brings me to the last question which to my mind is relevant. Insofar as the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor did point out to the Court that if the conviction were to be quashed and set aside and no re-trial were to be ordered, that the accused could apply to the concerned authorities for reinstatement with full consequential benefits. His submission was that the authorities would possibly in that event, be left with no option except to concede the demand and an incongruous situation would arise whereby the accused would be back in his job without having undergone the sentence for the alleged offence but, more importantly that the State would be saddled with having to bear the huge financial burden for the interim period, the end result of which would be that the accused would be richly rewarded for something for which he ought to have been sent to jail. Though that aspect of the case may not be strictly relevant in the present appeal which is only a criminal appeal, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor is right when he brings out this consequential circumstance because, the Court cannot shut its eyes to the effects of the order. Though that aspect of the case may not be strictly relevant in the present appeal which is only a criminal appeal, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor is right when he brings out this consequential circumstance because, the Court cannot shut its eyes to the effects of the order. ( 10 ) I have carefully evaluated this submission in the light of what the learned counsel who represents the accused points out whereby he has submitted that when the Court has taken cognizance of the interim period of seventeen years, the Court has taken note of how much the accused has suffered during this period and if the Court is satisfied that this is adequate and that no re-trial is justified, that it is unnecessary to issue any consequential directions with regard to his service. I am unable to uphold this argument in its entirety because, to my mind even as far as such consequential situations are concerned, it is within the jurisdiction of this Court to issue fair and appropriate directions. To my mind, it would equally fair to the accused and to the State if a direction were to be issued that in the event of the accused applying for re-instatement in service and that demand being conceded, that he would not be entitled to the backwages for the interim period or in other words, for the arrears of salary for the interim period which under normal circumstances, he might have been entitled to claim. This however, will not preclude him from being entitled to the continuity of service and other consequential benefits which would accrue to him in relation to his terminal benefits. Also, it is necessary to provide that whereas the accused may be liable to forfeit any financial benefits, that the other consequential benefits such as the deemed promotions etc. , which he might have been entitled to during the interim period shall not be denied to him if he is otherwise entitled to them. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons set out above, the appeal succeeds. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial Court are quashed and set aside. His bail bond is cancelled. As far as the operative order passed by the trial Court is concerned, there is a direction that the amount of Rs. 450/- recovered from the accused is forfeited to the Government. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial Court are quashed and set aside. His bail bond is cancelled. As far as the operative order passed by the trial Court is concerned, there is a direction that the amount of Rs. 450/- recovered from the accused is forfeited to the Government. The record indicates that this is the amount which P. W. 2 had produced and consequently, that amount is liable to be returned to P. W. 2. ( 12 ) BEFORE parting with this judgment, it is very necessary for this Court to lay down certain guidelines as far as the investigating authorities are concerned in this class of corruption cases. The failure rate in corruption cases in the State of Karnataka hovers around 79% and the All India average is 81%. One of the very obvious reasons for this is because very apparent tampering takes place at the investigating level and the Courts often ask themselves the question as to whether this country will ever be able to put the brakes on corruption if even in corruption cases corrupt practices are used to sabotage the investigation and ensure an acquittal. Secondly, there is absolutely no reason why in simple corruption cases it should take years to complete the investigation and for the accused to be brought to trial unless the very clear intent is to ensure that the case dies a natural death because with the long passage of time the whole proceeding virtually falls to pieces. While the Courts are given to understand that the Governments are serious about controlling corruption, in 59% of the cases the defective sanction order is responsible for the acquittal. This last head is virtually unpardonable because the principles governing valid sanction have been stated and restated by the Courts for the last more than half a century and if a sufficiently senior Government officer produces a defective sanction order, it would be impossible to accept that it has been honestly done. ( 13 ) IN this as in the majority of corruption cases before the Court, it is a single instance of receiving a bribe that has been established through the trap and the defence capitalises on the argument that "a man's life and career cannot be destroyed for an amount of Rs. 500/ -. ( 13 ) IN this as in the majority of corruption cases before the Court, it is a single instance of receiving a bribe that has been established through the trap and the defence capitalises on the argument that "a man's life and career cannot be destroyed for an amount of Rs. 500/ -. " Experience has shown that it is not the novice or the new comer who gets trapped but it is the official who has become so brazen, so hard boiled, so ruthless and so cussed and inhuman that nothing will be done without the usual payment and it is some right thinking person who is so totally disgusted with the situation who goes through the troublesome and personally dangerous procedure of approaching the Anti-Corruption Department and getting the errant official caught. While 94% of the corruption prosecutions emanate from trap cases, the investigating authorities have been consistently overlooking the fact that from the point of view of the law and public interest the background of the accused relating particularly to the following two very important factors needs investigation :-A) as to whether the accused has been habitually committing these illegalities and,b) what are the assets disproportionate to known sources of income that the accused possesses either personally or through various benami and clandestine holdings? this most vital aspect of the investigation has been lacking in every single one of the corruption prosecutions in this country and it is a little difficult for the Court to accept that this is a lapse. The maxim that is current is that you make money through corrupt means and you use that ill-gotten wealth to buy your way out of trouble. In a case where a revenue official is trapped for having demanded a bribe of Rs. 3000/- and where in fact, that official has amassed crores of rupees tampering with land records and aiding real estate rackets running into hundreds of crores, the entire complexion of the case gets altered if proper incisive research is undertaken along these lines and the true facts come before the trial Court. 3000/- and where in fact, that official has amassed crores of rupees tampering with land records and aiding real estate rackets running into hundreds of crores, the entire complexion of the case gets altered if proper incisive research is undertaken along these lines and the true facts come before the trial Court. It is, therefore, necessary that the Lokayukta and the State Government issue immediate directions to all investigating authorities handling corruption cases including the ones where the investigations are pending, to very carefully investigate the past conduct of the accused and more importantly, the assets disproportionate to known source of income that have been accumulated. This direction be given immediate effect to as it is very certain that it will have a chilling effect on all other like-minded persons but will also ensure that the failure rate in these cases comes down to zero. ( 14 ) SIMULTANEOUSLY, as a deterrent, the State Government would be advised to ensure that all its employees irrespective of what rank they belong to are required to file a statement of assets on affidavit which covers the employee and the family and which will include assets both movable and immovable standing in other names, and that such a statement be made compulsory on an annual basis. This rule should be made compulsory for the Government as also to all public institutions such as the public corporations and what is more important is that the statements be scrutinised and verified by the Vigilance Department on a selective basis so that the impression is not created that false statements can be submitted with impunity. This procedure if properly enforced would act as a check on corrupt practices which generate huge amounts of black money which in turn is converted into assets. These returns will be of immense assistance in the investigation of corruption prosecutions. It will, however, be necessary that these declarations be verified and appropriate disciplinary action and prosecutions be ordered in every case where a false declaration has been filed. ( 15 ) A copy of these guidelines be forwarded by the office to the Lokayukta, the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Karnataka, and the Director General of Police so that the directions of this Court can be given effect to without any lapse of time. ( 15 ) A copy of these guidelines be forwarded by the office to the Lokayukta, the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Karnataka, and the Director General of Police so that the directions of this Court can be given effect to without any lapse of time. Corruption has now reached malignant dimensions in public life and the Government authorities owe it to society to provide an effective antidote. Appeals allowed. --- *** --- .