A. K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30-1-1999 passed by Special judge, Gwalior convicting the appellant under Section 161 IPC as well as under section 5 (l) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') and sentencing him to suffer R. I. of one year under Section 161 ipc and fine of Rs. 200/ -. He is further convicted under Section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Act for one year RI and fine Rs. 200/-, in default of fine, he has been further directed to suffer RI of two months. ( 2 ) IN brief the case of prosecution is that complainant Kailash Singh bhadoria was serving in the office of Life insurance of the State of Madhya pradesh. He was transferred from Gwalior to Jabalpur in the year 1983. But, his family members were residing in Gwalior in rented house. On 13-12-1986 complainant, came to Gwalior from Jabalpur and in between 17-12-1986 to 22-12-1986 he was on duty at Gwalior. On 19-12-1986, appellant came to his work place of the complainant along with Police Force and brought him to Police Station Morar where he was told that a case under sections 506, 382 and 341 IPC has been registered against him and in case he pays some illegal gratification, he may help to get him bailed out. The complainant agreed and submitted anticipatory bail application on the assurance of the appellant. Thereafter on 24-12-1986, appellant met the complainant at thatipur Chouraha and made a demand of Rs. 100/- from him. Since, he was not having that much of amount with him, he requested appellant that the amount would be paid in the evening at Thatipur chouraha. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, complainant on the same day i. e. 24-12-1986 submitted an application to the Special Police establishment of Lokayukt that the appellant who is serving on the post of Head constable is making an illegal demand of Rs. 100/- from him and he did not want to give this amount to him. On submitting of the said application, the lokayukta Inspector Shri S. P. Saxena (who later on died) and Dy. S. P. Shri b. M. Bhatia arranged the trap. 100/- from him and he did not want to give this amount to him. On submitting of the said application, the lokayukta Inspector Shri S. P. Saxena (who later on died) and Dy. S. P. Shri b. M. Bhatia arranged the trap. Necessary requirement before the trap was also completed and as per the plan the complainant gave two currency notes of Rs. 50/- each to the appellant which he kept in the pocket of his shirt. The trap party caught him red handed and washed his hands. The water became pink coloured. The pocket of the shirt which he was wearing was also washed and it also became pink coloured. Necessary panchanama was prepared and a charge sheet was submitted before the Special court. ( 4 ) THE learned Special Judge framed charges under Section 161 IPC as well as under Section 5 (l) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Act. Needless to emphasise the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence. His defence is of maladroit implication. ( 5 ) IN order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and placed Ex. P-l to P-17 the documents on record. Though the defence if of false implication but the appellant did not choose to examine any witness in his defence. ( 6 ) THE trial Court on close scrutiny of the evidence came to hold that the charges are duly proved as a result of which convicted the appellant and sentenced him which I have already mentioned hereinabove. Hence this appeal has been preferred by the accused assailing the judgment of conviction. ( 7 ) SHRI S. A. M. Naqvi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the evidence of complainant Kailash Singh Bhadoria (PW-3) is not worth reliable. According to him, there are material contradictions and omissions in his testimony. It has also been putforth by learned counsel that the prosecution examined PW-1, mohanlal Daga and PW-2, Lal Khan in order to prove the Panchanama (Ex. P-1) and the testimony of these two witnesses is not worth reliable. According to learned counsel, Mohanlal Daga has stated that currency note of Rs. 100/-was given by the complainant while other witness says that two currency notes of Rs. 50 each were given by the complainant and therefore there is material contradictions in the statement of the witnesses. P-1) and the testimony of these two witnesses is not worth reliable. According to learned counsel, Mohanlal Daga has stated that currency note of Rs. 100/-was given by the complainant while other witness says that two currency notes of Rs. 50 each were given by the complainant and therefore there is material contradictions in the statement of the witnesses. By inviting my attention to para 5 of the statement of pw-4, B. D. Saxena, it has been argued by learned counsel that this witness at the relevant point of time was serving on the post of Dy. Commissioner in the land Record Department and he has specifically stated that he cannot identify the appellant and therefore the story putforth by the prosecution cannot be relied. Learned counsel has also put emphasis on Section 6 of the Act, and has submitted that there is no valid sanction and therefore no prosecution could be launched. In that regard he has invited my attention to the statement of PW-9, Hari Shanker Mishra who is assistant Grade III and has submitted that the sanction letter (Ex. P-16)was not typed before him and therefore, it cannot be said that sanction has been duly proved. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on Abdul Khalil v. The State of m. P. 1; Yashwant Nanubhai Pingle v. State of Maharashtra (CB)2; Kanhaiyalal v. State of Rajasthan3; Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh*; Subash parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat; Smt. Meena Balwant Hemke v. State of maharashtra; Reshamlal v. The State; vijayan v. State of Kerala: Satishv. State of Maharashtra? and Ganga Kumar srivastava v. The State of Bihar. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that now the age of appellant is near about 62 years and therefore if this court comes to the conclusion that the offence is made out, leniency may be adopted in awarding the sentence. ( 8 ) ON other hand Sri Bhadoria, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against the appellant. If there are certain minor contradictions or omissions which have arrived in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, it would not dilute the case of the prosecution. By inviting my attention to Ex. ( 8 ) ON other hand Sri Bhadoria, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against the appellant. If there are certain minor contradictions or omissions which have arrived in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, it would not dilute the case of the prosecution. By inviting my attention to Ex. P-16 it has been submitted that valid sanction was made indicating the application of mind and therefore the trial court did not commit any error in passing the impugned judgment. In support of his contention, learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of State of u. P. v. Zakaullah. By inviting my attention to Section 5 of the Act, it has been contended by learned Public Prosecutor that minimum sentence has been awarded by the trial court which cannot be further reduced. ( 9 ) AFTER having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. ( 10 ) THE star witnesses of the prosecution are PW-1, Mohanlal Daga, Lal khan (PW-2) and the complainant Kailash singh Bhadoria (PW-3 ). PW-4 D. B. Saxena is the Gazetted Officer and at the relevant point of time he was serving on the post of Dy. Commissioner and was presiding the trap party. PW-5 Ajit Kumar Jain is a formal witness. PW-6, B. M. Bhatia was serving on the post of Dy. S. P. at the relevant point of time and he was an officer under whom the trap was arranged. PW-7 Radheshyam Tiwari is the Police Inspector under whom the appellant was serving on the post of Head Constable. PW-8, Shanker Rao is a formal witness and PW-9, Hari Shanker Mishra, Assistant grade III has been examined in order to prove the sanction. ( 11 ) IT be seen that the incident took place on 24-12-1986 and after near about 8 years first prosecution witness PW-1, mohan Lal Daga was examined. Thus if he has stated that the currency note coated by Phenolphthalein powder was of rs. 100/-, it would not make much difference for the simple reason that on account of a long gap of 8 years, since the human memory is fade he might have forgotten that whether Rs. 100/- note was coated by the powder or two currency notes of Rs. 100/-, it would not make much difference for the simple reason that on account of a long gap of 8 years, since the human memory is fade he might have forgotten that whether Rs. 100/- note was coated by the powder or two currency notes of Rs. 50/- each were coated. Though this witness was turned hostile but he has stated that Panchanama was prepared which bear his signature and a trap was also arranged. According to him, some Constable was to be trapped. Another witness PW-2, Lal Khan though he has been turned hostile but he has specifically stated that two notes of Rs. 50/- each were given which were coated by the powder and these notes were kept by the complainant when the accused was being searched. Though this witness was turned hostile but this has come in his evidence that two currency notes of Rs. 50/- each were coated by the powder. ( 12 ) EVEN if the statement of above said two witnesses are ignored the question is that why the evidence of complainant Kailash Singh should be disbelieved. On going through Ex. P-7 which is the complaint of complainant Kailash Singh, it has been specifically stated in it that in order to facilitate him for obtaining the anticipatory bail an illegal demand of Rs. 100/- has been made by the appellant who is serving on the post of Head Constable. In the complaint (Ex. P-7) he has specifically stated that appellant agreed to obtain Rs. 100/- and the place has also been fixed. According to the statement of complainant Kailash Singh (PW-3) the town Inspector of Morar Police Station called him and when he appeared before him in the Police Station he was told that appellant is investigating the case and he is having the case diary. According to complainant, appellant told him that if he would pay illegal gratification of Rs. 100/- he may facilitate him to obtain anticipatory bail. Since he does not want to give the money, as a result of which he submitted the complaint (Ex. P-7) in the Lokayukt office. Thereafter the trap was arranged. According to the plan, he gave two currency notes of Rs. 50/-each which were coated by the powder and these notes were kept by the appellant in the pocket of his shirt. P-7) in the Lokayukt office. Thereafter the trap was arranged. According to the plan, he gave two currency notes of Rs. 50/-each which were coated by the powder and these notes were kept by the appellant in the pocket of his shirt. There is no substance in the submission of learned counsel that there was no occasion for the appellant to make any demand because the charge sheet of the case which was registered against the complainant was already submitted in the office of Dy. S. P. for prosecuting the complainant. According to the evidence of complainant, illegal demand of Rs. 100/-was made by the appellant in order to facilitate them to obtain the anticipatory bail and therefore even if the charge sheet was handed over in the office of Dy. S. P. for its scrutiny, it would not make any difference. On going through the evidence of the complainant it is found to be worth reliable. Even if some minor contradictions have arrived in his testimony in regard to the place from where PW-1 and PW-2 were brought it will not make much difference. Suggestion which was put to him that appellant did not obtain any money from him and he forcibly kept the currency notes in the pocket of appellant, was denied. It is to be seen that as per complaint (Ex. P-7), it was agreed between the complainant and appellant that they will meet at Thatipur Chouraha in the evening and at the same place the appellant was found. ( 13 ) IT has come in the evidence of the complainant that he submitted application for anticipatory bail but it was not allowed on 22-12-1986 because the appellant did not produce the case diary thus the case of prosecution is strengthened that in order to facilitate the complainant for obtaining anticipatory bail a demand was made and since it was not fulfilled up to 22-12-1986 the case diary was not produced by the appellant in the court at the time of hearing of bail application. It has come in the evidence of the complainant that after the money was kept by the appellant in the pocket of his shirt the trap party arrived and when it was asked by the Dy. It has come in the evidence of the complainant that after the money was kept by the appellant in the pocket of his shirt the trap party arrived and when it was asked by the Dy. Commissioner where the money has been kept, appellant stated that it has been kept in the pocket of his shirt and from the shirt two currency notes of Rs. 50/- each were recovered. Thus, I am of the view that by placing reliance on the evidence of complainant Kailash Sing (PW-3) the trial court did not commit any error in convicting the appellant. ( 14 ) PW-4, B. D. Saxena at the relevant point of time was serving on the post of Dy. Commissioner and he was instructed to remain present with the trap party. He has also corroborated the statement of the complainant. Merely because in para 5 he has stated that he cannot identify the appellant would in itself is not ground to dilute his clear, cogent and trustworthy evidence. It is to be seen that before the date of incident the appellant was not known to this witness and on 24-12-1986 the trap was arranged and executed and this witness was examined on 17-2-1998 i. e. after twelve years and therefore it is possible that one may not identify a person who was seen only once and that too 12 years ago. ( 15 ) THE statement of PW-6, B. M. Bhatia who was serving on the post of dy. S. P. and who was the member of the trap party is also very material. He has also corroborated the statements of complainant (PW-3) and B. D. Saxena (PW-4 ). ( 16 ) THERE is no merit in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that without application of mind the sanction was accorded. In that regard I have perused the sanction order 5-9-1988 (Ex. P-16 ). On going through it, it is gathered that the case diary was called by the sanctioning authority and after going through the case diary in detail and considering the entire case, it was found that the sanction is required to be given. On going through Ex. P-16, it is revealed that the sanctioning authority considered the statement of each witness which was recorded during the investigation. Signature on the sanction order of the sanctioning authority has been proved by PW-9, Hari Shanker Mishra. On going through Ex. P-16, it is revealed that the sanctioning authority considered the statement of each witness which was recorded during the investigation. Signature on the sanction order of the sanctioning authority has been proved by PW-9, Hari Shanker Mishra. There is no substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that since the sanction order (Ex. P-16) was not typed before PW-9, it has no sanctity in the eye of law. I have already held hereinabove that the sanctioning authority after due consideration of the entire case applied its mind and passed the sanction order to prosecute the appellant. Thus, it cannot be said that in mechanical manner the sanction was accorded. ( 17 ) IN the case of Abdul Khalil (supra) the sanction letter was devoid of material put up before the sanctioning authority to reach a decision and in that situation it was held by the Single Bench of this Court that the sanction under section 6 was not proper. But, in the present case, there is thorough application of mind in the sanction order and before according sanction the entire case diary was perused by the sanctioning authority and considered the evidence which was recorded by the investigating agency. The sanction order indicates the relevant portion of the statement of the witnesses recorded during the investigation. The decision of Abdul Khalil (supra)is based on the decision of Supreme court in the case of Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed (supra) and in this case also the sanction was not proper since there was no application of mind. The decision of bombay High Court in the case of yashwant Nanubhai Pingle (supra) is also not applicable because in that case evidence was not forwarded by the investigating agency to the sanctioning authority. But in the present case the case diary was sent and it was examined by the sanctioning authority before according the sanction. Thus, these cases which are placed reliance by learned counsel for the appellant have no bearing in the present facts and circumstances. ( 18 ) IN the case of Kanhaiyalal (supra) the Rajasthan High Court has held that since no work of complainant was pending with the accused and, therefore, demand of money by the accused cannot be said to be proved. ( 18 ) IN the case of Kanhaiyalal (supra) the Rajasthan High Court has held that since no work of complainant was pending with the accused and, therefore, demand of money by the accused cannot be said to be proved. But in the present case, since there was a case registered against the complainant and the appellant insisted him to give money so that he may facilitate him to allow his anticipatory bail, therefore the case of kanhaiyalal (supra) is not applicable. In the case of Satish (supra) the thrusting of currency note by the complainant to the accused was not ruled out. But in the present case there is no such evidence. The complainant has specifically stated that he did not forcibly kept the currency notes in the pocket of the appellant. Moreover, as I have already held herein-above that if the story is not true then why the appellant met complainant at thatipur Chouraha on the date of incident at the time fixed. This fact also finds place in the complaint (Ex. P-7) which complainant submitted in the Lokayukt office. Since the appellant met the complainant at the same place, it has strengthened the case of prosecution. On this ground the case of Satish (supra) of the Bombay High Court is not applicable. In the case of Subash Parbat Sovanae (supra)the Apex Court held that mere acceptance of money would not be sufficient for convicting the accused there must be evidence on record that accused obtained any amount by corrupt or illegal means. In the present case, there is overwhelming evidence that in order to facilitate the complainant to obtain the anticipatory bail, since, the case diary was with the appellant as he investigated the case of the accused, therefore there is evidence to the effect that appellant obtained the amount by corrupt and illegal means. In the case of Smt. Meena Balwant Hemke (supra) the Supreme Court has held that mere recovery of the currency notes lying on the pad on the table, by itself cannot be held to be proper or sufficient proof of the acceptance of the bribe by the accused. Such recovery also lend credence to the case of the accused that it fell on the table in the process of the accused pushing it away with her hands when admitted to be thrusted into her hands by the complainant. Such recovery also lend credence to the case of the accused that it fell on the table in the process of the accused pushing it away with her hands when admitted to be thrusted into her hands by the complainant. But, in the present case, there is no such situation. The currency notes were recovered from the pocket of the appellant and I have already held that they were not thrusted by the complainant in his pocket. In the case of resham Lal (supra), there was no satisfactory evidence that appellant made demand of bribe from complainant. But, in the present case there is clear, cogent and trustworthy 'evidence of the complainant in that regard and therefore this case is not applicable. The decision of vijayan (supra) of Kerala High Court is not applicable for the reason that in that case it was not proved that accused received or obtained the gratification as a motive or reward. But, the situation in the present case is otherwise. Similarly, the decision of Ganga Kumar Shrivastava (supra) the decision of the Apex Court is not applicable because in the case of ganga Kumar Shrivastava (supra), the evidence was not found to be reliable. However, in the present case, the evidence of the complainant is fully reliable. ( 19 ) IN the case of Zakaullah (supra) relied by learned Public Prosecutor, the Supreme Court has held that complainant's evidence corroborated by evidence of trap officer cannot be rejected merely because he was aggrieved against the bribe taker. In this decision the Apex court has gone up to the extent that in a bribe case evidence of trap officer can be relied even without corroboration. The decision of Zakaullah (supra) is fully applicable in the present case. ( 20 ) THERE is no substance in the submission of learned counsel for appellant that this Court should adopt leniency in passing the sentence. Under section 5 (2) the minimum sentence of one year has been provided which may be reduced for assigning special reasons. Merely by efflux of time the age of appellant has become older would in itself is no ground to reduce the sentence. In the case of State of U. P. v. V. Vasudeva Rao, the Supreme Court has held that merely on account of long pendency of the matter is no ground to reduce the sentence. Merely by efflux of time the age of appellant has become older would in itself is no ground to reduce the sentence. In the case of State of U. P. v. V. Vasudeva Rao, the Supreme Court has held that merely on account of long pendency of the matter is no ground to reduce the sentence. In the case of V. Vasudeva Rao (supra) the matter was pending for last 14 years but the Supreme Court declined to reduce the minimum sentence. Looking to the age of V. Vasudeva Rao, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence from two years r. I. to the minimum of one year. Thus, the minimum sentence which has already been awarded by the trial Court cannot be reduced. ( 21 ) FOR the reasons stated herein-above, this appeal is found to be bereft of any substance and the same is hereby dismissed. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender to serve out the remaining part of his sentence. Appeal dismissed. .