JUDGMENT R.R. Prasad, J. 1. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by common judgment as they arise out of the same judgment and order passed by Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad in R.C. No. 9 1985(D) whereby the appellants were convicted under Sections 120B, 420, 471 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and further to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- so far it relates to offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further two months. The appellants Dwarika Nath Mukherjee and Aditya Singh (in Cr.App.No. 239 of 1999) and Sukumar Banerjee (in Cr. App.No. 287 of 1999) were also convicted under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. All the four appellants along with Narayan Prasad Choubey (since dead) and Sriman Narain Choubey were put on trial to face charges under Sections 120B, 420, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and also Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on the allegation that the appellants while functioning Pay Clerk, Accountant, Manager in Ganhoodih Colliery, BCCL, Dhanbad withdrew a sum of Rs. 45,700/- in conspiracy with each other after forging the LTC claim bills of the 25 piece rated employees and showed to have disbursed the amount to those employees but, in fact, it were never paid to them and thereby the appellants in conspiracy with each other misappropriated the amount. 3. 45,700/- in conspiracy with each other after forging the LTC claim bills of the 25 piece rated employees and showed to have disbursed the amount to those employees but, in fact, it were never paid to them and thereby the appellants in conspiracy with each other misappropriated the amount. 3. The case of the prosecution is that at the relevant point of time employees of B.C.C.L were entitled to get LTC advance every four years and some of the employees 25 in number for one block of the year, i.e, 1983-86 applied for LTC advance and their bills were prepared by the appellants D.N. Mukherjee, Sukumar Banerjee, Aditya Singh and R.N. Choubey, Bill Clerk and checked by R.P. Singh, Accountant and were passed by Manager N.P. Choubey and thereafter the amounts were withdrawn but subsequently, these appellants for the same block of year got LTD bills forged with respect to some 25 piece rated employees and got the money withdrawn and appellants got it shown to have disbursed them either the amount withdrawn on the first occasion or the amount withdrawn on the forged bills and thereby the appellants in conspiracy with each other by fraudulently withdrawing the money misappropriated it. In the circumstances, first information report (Ext15) was lodged and the investigation was taken up by C.B.I. C.B.I in course of investigation, seized several documents including Bill Register (Ext.7 series). Payment Register (Ext.8 series), Bonus Cards (Ext.5 series) and also took LTI of 25 piece rated employees in whose favour money was shown to have withdrawn and the said Left thumb impressions of the employees as well as disputed Left thumb impressions found on the payment register were sent to Hand Writing Expert (P.W.26), who on comparison of the admitted Left thumb impressions with the disputed Left thumb impressions submitted report (Ext. 14). 4. After completion of investigation, CBI submitted charge sheet and accordingly, cognizance of the offences was taken and in due course when the case was committed to the court of sessions, charges were framed against the appellants as well as R.N. Choubey to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of trial, the prosecution in this case has examined as many as 27 witnesses. Of them, T.K. Majaumdar (P.W.12), Asim Chatterjee (P.W.20), Mithilesh Kumar Singh (P.W.19) are formal witnesses. 5. In course of trial, the prosecution in this case has examined as many as 27 witnesses. Of them, T.K. Majaumdar (P.W.12), Asim Chatterjee (P.W.20), Mithilesh Kumar Singh (P.W.19) are formal witnesses. P.W.12 and P.W.20 have simply proved two sanction orders (Exts 6 and 6/1). Asim Kumar (P.W.18) and L.M. Majhi (P.W.25) are also formal witnesses. P.W.2 Satya Narain Jadia, P.W.3 K.C. Pratihar, P.W.21 Samir Kumar Rai and P.W.23 Ashok Kumar Singh are the officers who were posted at the relevant point of time in the Ganhoodih Colliery. They have stated about the procedure relating to the withdrawal of money on account of LTC advance. They have also testified about the duties and responsibilities of the appellants in the matter of withdrawal of LTC. Samir Kumar Rai P.W.21, Senior Personnel Officer has been examined on the point as to who prepared, checked and passed the bills regarding LTC advances and also proved the entries made in the LTC Bill register (Ext 7 series) and Payment Register (Ext. 8 series) showing withdrawal of the amount of the LTC advances twice for the same block of years of 25 piece rated employees and also payment or non-payment to the employees of the first withdrawal or the second withdrawal. Other 16 prosecution witnesses are the said employees whose LTC advances were withdrawn and have been examined as P.Ws. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22 and 24 and they have deposed that they have been paid only once. 6. After prosecution case was closed the appellants were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, to which they denied and they do not seems to have denied specifically that they advances. 7. The trial court having taken into consideration mainly the testimonies of P.Ws. 2 , 3, 21 and the evidences of 16 employees as also P.W.26 (Hand writing expert) as well as documentary evidences such as Bill Register (Ext.7 series), Payment Register (Ext. 7. The trial court having taken into consideration mainly the testimonies of P.Ws. 2 , 3, 21 and the evidences of 16 employees as also P.W.26 (Hand writing expert) as well as documentary evidences such as Bill Register (Ext.7 series), Payment Register (Ext. 8 series) came to conclusion that the appellants in conspiracy with each other withdrew the amount as LTC advances after forging the documents when LTC advances on the application of 25 piece rated employees had earlier been withdrawn for the same block of years and the employees were paid either the amount which were withdrawn earlier or the amount withdrawn subsequently and thereby accused persons in conspiracy with each other misappropriated the amount. Thus it was held that the prosecution has been able to prove the following facts. i. That the first bill of Hakim Mian (P.W.14), Alijan Mian (P.W.1), Bhagelu Harijan (P.W.22), Pokhan Bhuian (P.W.7), Sarju Rawani (P.W.16), Ram Kishun Dusadh and Khandu Bauri were received by D.N. Mukherjee for making payment to them but they were not paid by him and were defalcated. ii. That the amount of first bill of Thakur Harijan and Prema Das and that of the second bill of Ram Murat Rai, Bachan Rai, Ishwar Bhuian and Khandu Baudi were received by Adiaya Singh for making payment to them but they were not paid by him and were defalcated. iii. That the amount of first bill of Maheshwar Rai and Bishun Bhuian were received by S.K. Banerjee for making payment to them but they were not paid by him and were defalcated. iv. That all the bills, referred to above, the amount of which were not paid to the employees concerned, were defalcated and had been prepared and checked respectively by D.N. Mukherjee and R.P. Singh and that most of them had been passed by accused N.P. Choubey who is now no more. 8. Therefore, the trial court while acquitting Sriman Narain Choubey convicting the appellants as aforesaid. 9. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence the appellants, namely, Ram Pyare Singh, Dwarika Nath Mukherjee, Aditya Singh have preferred Cr.App.No. 239 of 1999 and Sukumar Banerjee in Cr. App.No. 287 of 1999. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants mainly confined his submission on the point of sentence. 9. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence the appellants, namely, Ram Pyare Singh, Dwarika Nath Mukherjee, Aditya Singh have preferred Cr.App.No. 239 of 1999 and Sukumar Banerjee in Cr. App.No. 287 of 1999. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants mainly confined his submission on the point of sentence. Learned Counsel submits that almost in identical accusation two employees of the BCCL and one Ram Pyare Singh (appellant No. 1) were convicted in R.C.No. 9 of 1985. The only difference is that R.C. case No. 9 of 1981 was related to time rated employees whereas the present case relates to piece rated employees and that case gave rise to Cr.App.No. 92 of 1998(R) and Cr.App.No. 89 of 1998(R) and this Court while confirming the judgment of conviction reduced the period of sentence to the period already undergone by taking into consideration the provision enshrined in Section 5(1)(d) and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act prescribing reduction of sentence from one year to less than one year on special reason and also the fact that the appellants faced rigor of trial for 13 years and also suffered mental agony for 8 years during the pendency of this appeal and that all had retired from the service and, therefore, these appellants be also sentenced in the same terms as has been done in the case of those appellants. 11. As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the CBI submits that no doubt Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 prescribed-minimum sentence of one year and that can be reduced to less than one year on a special reason but pendency of the case for quite long period cannot be the special reason for reducing sentence below minimum of one year and, therefore, no leniency be shown in awarding sentence to the appellants, who has been found guilty on the corruption charge. In this respect reference of a case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Basudeva Raw 2004 Cr.L.J.620 has been made 12. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record I do find that the trial court after examining the evidence of the witnesses particularly P.W.21 as well as evidences of the 16 employees (P.Ws. In this respect reference of a case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Basudeva Raw 2004 Cr.L.J.620 has been made 12. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record I do find that the trial court after examining the evidence of the witnesses particularly P.W.21 as well as evidences of the 16 employees (P.Ws. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, and 24) and also documentary evidence such as Bill Register (Ext.7 series), Payment Register (Ext.8 series) and also evidence of P.W.26 (Handwriting expert), the trial court rightly came to the conclusion as has been mentioned above and, therefore, I do not find any illegality on the order by which the appellants were convicted for the charges levelled against them. So far question of sentence is concerned it is no doubt that minimum sentence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is one year and that can further be reduced to less than one year if the court does find any special reason for doing so but long pendency of the case in view of the decision rendered in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Basudeva Raw (supra) cannot be said to be a special reason for reducing the sentence less than one year. However, in the instant case I do find that it is not only the protracted trial for 14 years and the pendency of appeal for seven years on which the sentence has been sought to be reduced but on the other circumstances that almost on the identical fact, the sentences of other accused persons including one of the appellants, namely, Ram Pyare Singh were reduced for a period already undergone, sentence has been sought to be reduced and therefore, in my view, this fact that in similar situation sentence of the accused person has been reduced for a period already under gone can itself be a special reason for reducing the sentence less than one year when the appellants have also retired from service. 13. Accordingly, ends of justice would be met if the appellants are sentenced for the period already undergone. Accordingly, they are sentenced and that apart each of the appellants are directed to pay consolidated sum of Rs. 13. Accordingly, ends of justice would be met if the appellants are sentenced for the period already undergone. Accordingly, they are sentenced and that apart each of the appellants are directed to pay consolidated sum of Rs. 5000/- by way of fine for all the charges and in default they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 14. With the aforesaid modification on the point of sentence, these two appeals are dismissed.