Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. The appellant was tried by Special Judge, Ferozepur under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") on the allegations that on 25-9-1990, he offered Rs. 12,000.00 as illegal gratification to Inspector Harbans Lal, SHO, Police Station Ferozepur Cantt. for showing favour to him by not arresting him in a criminal case. Vide judgment and order dated 15-3-1994, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 . In default of payment of fine, the appellant was sentenced to undergo further RI for two months. 2. On 25-9-1990, the appellant/accused met Inspector Harbans Lal, SHO, Police Station Ferozepur Cantt. in his office at about 4.30 p.m. ASI Narinder Pal Singh and HC Parveen Kumar were present there. The accused wanted Inspector Harbans Lal to have a talk with him in private but the Inspector replied that the persons, who were present in his office at that time, were of his confidence and he was free to talk in their presence. The accused then told the Inspector that he was likely to be arrested in a case registered at Police Station Ferozepur Cantt. vide FIR No. 14 of 1990 and requested him not to arrest him. The accused expressed his intention of offering bribe to the Inspector, who, however, told him that he would not accept any such bribe. In spite of this, the accused placed an envelope on the table lying before the Inspector. The said envelope was found to contain 90 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100.00 each and 60 notes of the denomination of Rs. 50.00 each. In all, it was an amount of Rs. 12,000.00 . Inspector Harbans Lal took the currency notes into possession by preparing a recovery memo Ex. PA, which was attested by ASI Narinder Pal Singh and HC Parveen Kumar. FIR Ex. PD was thereafter, registered in the Police Station at 4.30 p.m. on the same day by Inspector Harbans Lal, who then sent a request to Harbhajan Singh, DSP, City Ferozepur to take up the investigation of the case. The said DSP, along with his Reader, came to the Police Station. The currency notes, as mentioned above, were then taken into possession by DSP Harbhajan Singh by preparing memo Ex. The said DSP, along with his Reader, came to the Police Station. The currency notes, as mentioned above, were then taken into possession by DSP Harbhajan Singh by preparing memo Ex. PB, which was attested by inspector Harbans Lal and HC Gurdeep Singh. In the meantime, Inspector Harbans Lal had arrested, the accused in FIR No. 14 of 1990. The accused was also arrested by DSP Harbhajan Singh in the present case. 3. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was presented against the accused. Copies of documents under Section 207, Cr. P. C. were supplied. On finding a prima facie case charge under Section 12 of the Act was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution examined MHC Parveen Kumar as PW 1, DSP Harbhajan Singh as PW 2 and Inspector Harbans Lal as PW 3. HC Gurdeep Singh was given up as unnecessary, whereas the affidavit Ex. PE of C. Rakesh Kumar was tendered in evidence. The prosecution, thereafter, rested its case. 5. The accused was, thereafter, confronted with the prosecution case when he was examined under Section 313, Cr. P. C. He denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded that he was falsely implicated. In reply to the last question as to whether he had anything to say, the accused submitted as under: I am innocent. Railway employees met Shri Harbhajan Singh, DSP through me as the sons of the railway employees were studying in R. S. D. College. The railway employees paid Rs. 12,000.00 to DSP Harbhajan Singh and the information regarding payment of bribe to the DSP had leaked out. Inspector Harbans Lal was directed by the superior officers to arrest me and force me to make statement against DSP Harbhajan Singh. SP (H) had come to the police station and I was in police custody at that time. I was arrested from my village Arafke on 21-9-1990. My brother had sent a telegram to the Governor of Punjab on 22-9-1990 regarding my arrest. My father met Inspector Harbans Lal on 23-9-1990 and my father was told to bring Rs. 12,000.00 for plantation upon me. I did not give Rs. 12,000.00 to the Inspector. My father had given Rs. 12,000.00 to Inspector Harbans Lal. I was President of the Student Union The case against me is false. 6. My father met Inspector Harbans Lal on 23-9-1990 and my father was told to bring Rs. 12,000.00 for plantation upon me. I did not give Rs. 12,000.00 to the Inspector. My father had given Rs. 12,000.00 to Inspector Harbans Lal. I was President of the Student Union The case against me is false. 6. The accused examined his brother Surinder Singh as DW 1 and his father Gurcharan Singh as DW 2 in support of his defence plea. 7. After going through the evidence led by the parties and hearing their learned Counsel, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above. Hence, the present appeal. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant, while assailing his conviction and sentence submitted that the trial of the present case continued for a period of four years but inspite of the same, no evidence surfaced as to what was the fate of the earlier case, i.e. FIR No. 14 of 1990, in which ,he was sought to | be arrested. In fact, the appellant was not named in the said FIR and he being wanted as an accused therein was only a ploy to falsely implicate him in the present case. It was also submitted that the appellant was taken into custody on 21 -9-1990 and nothing was recovered from his possession. His brother Surinder Singh DW 1 deposed about the said fact and the giving of telegram Ex. DA to the Governor of Punjab. There was, thus, no occasion for the appellant to appear before Inspector Harbans Lal on 25-9-1990 and offer him bribe as alleged. It was also submitted that Inspector Harbans Lal assumed the role of a complainant and, thus, could not investigate the present case. In the alternative, it has been submitted that. the sentence of the appellant be reduced. 9. Learned State Counsel has opposed the pleas of the appellant and has submitted that the appellant though not named in FIR No. 14 of 1990 was, however, wanted as an accused in the same. The trial of the said FIR could not proceed for some reason, The telegram Ex. the sentence of the appellant be reduced. 9. Learned State Counsel has opposed the pleas of the appellant and has submitted that the appellant though not named in FIR No. 14 of 1990 was, however, wanted as an accused in the same. The trial of the said FIR could not proceed for some reason, The telegram Ex. DA said to have been sent by brother of the appellant was only for creating evidence in his favour as the appellant was likely to be arrested in FIR No, 14 of 1990 whereas, the fact was that the appellant was not taken into custody on 21-9-1990 but was arrested on 25-9-1990, It was also submitted that no part of the investigation was conducted by Inspector Harbans Lal but it was DSP Harbhajan Singh PW 2, who was entrusted with the same and he had completed it before presenting the final report against the appellant, It was also contended that the appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. 10. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the entire evidence and perused the documents brought on record by the parties. 11. FIR No. 14 of 1990 was not a closed chapter. Its trial remained pending through out the period when the trial of the present case was going on. The said FIR related to offences under the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act. Though, in the said FIR the appellant was not named as an accused but during the Investigation, the involvement of the appellant surfaced and he was If likely to be arrested for which purpose the approached Inspector Harbans Lal to help him by offering him Rs. 12,000.00 as bribe. 12. There is no sufficient evidence on the file that the appellant was taken into custody from his house on 21-9-1990 The appellant has examined his brother Surinder Singh as DW 1 end his father Gurcharan as DW2 in support of the said plea. Both these witnesses, being closest relatives of the appellant, have reasons to come in the witness-box and state so. The appellant did not produce any respectable person from his village, who could vouch for the said fact. 13. In FIR No. 14 of 1990 though the appellant was not named as an accused, yet his involvement as an accused had come to the notice of the police. The appellant did not produce any respectable person from his village, who could vouch for the said fact. 13. In FIR No. 14 of 1990 though the appellant was not named as an accused, yet his involvement as an accused had come to the notice of the police. For that reason the appellant was arrested by Inspector Harbans Lal on 25-9-1990 after he offered and handed over the envelope containing Rs. 12,000.00 as bribe to him. 14. The role of Inspector Harbans Lal PW 3 in preparing recovery memo Ex. PA regarding the recovery of the currency notes worth Rs. 12,000.00 offered to him as bribe by the appellant, cannot be said to be any investigation having been done by him in the present case. After preparing such a memo and getting the FIR registered, Inspector Harbans Lal clearly mentioned in the said FIR that he was not authorised to investigate the case and, therefore, requested DSP Harbhajan Singh to visit the spot for conducting the investigation, On receipt of the said intimation DSP Harbhajan Singh PW 2 while accompanied by his Reader reached Police Station Ferozepur Cantt, where Inspector Harbans Lal produced before him currency notes of Rs. 12,000.00 , who took them into possession vide memo Ex. PB. The said memo was attested by HC Gurdeep Singh and Inspector Harbans Lal. The appellant was arrested in the case. Rough Site Plan Ex. PC with correct marginal notes was prepared by DSP Harbhajan Singh, who also recorded the statements of the PWs and after completion of the investigation, prepared the challan and presented the same in the Court against the appellant. It is thus, clear that the entire investigation has been done by DSP Harbhajan Singh and not by Inspector Harbans Lal. 15. In view of the above, it is safe 10 con-dude that the appellant offered Rs. 12,000.00 as bribe to Inspector Harbans Lal for showing favour to him In FIR No. 14 of 1990 by not arresting him in the said case. The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 12 of the Act is, thus, upheld. 16. Coming to the question of the sentence, it is to be seen that the appellant was initially arrested on 25-9 1990 and thereafter, released on bail by the trial Court on 13-10-1990. The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 12 of the Act is, thus, upheld. 16. Coming to the question of the sentence, it is to be seen that the appellant was initially arrested on 25-9 1990 and thereafter, released on bail by the trial Court on 13-10-1990. He was again taken into custody on 25-1-1994 as on the date previous to that, he absented from the trial Court without any intimation. He was, thereafter, released on bail on 8-2-1994. In all, the appellant has served a period of one month and four days in jail. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for six months for the offence under Section 12 of the Act. 17. The occurrence in question had taken place on 25-9-1990. The appellant was a young man of 25 years of age on 14-5-1992 when he was charged for the offence alleged against him. By this time, he is almost 40. He had been facing the agony of trial and criminal proceedings for the last more than 16 years. Since 8-2-1994, the appellant has remained on bail. Sending him back to jail would further prolong the agony and harassment of his family members when he has to earn living for himself, his family members and for those dependent on him. 18. In Ramesh Kumar Gupta V/s. State of M.P. where a Police Inspector was alleged to have accepted bribe, the Hon ble Supreme Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment of one year RI to that already undergone by him on the ground that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1979 and all those years the accused had been undergoing the agony of criminal proceedings. Moreover, he had lost his job and had a large family to support. The relevant observation is as follows (Para 8): Now coming to the question of sentence, it is a very old case and the occurrence itself is said to have taken place in the year 1979. All these years the accused has undergone the agony of criminal proceedings. He has lost his job and we are told that he has a large family to support. In similar circumstances, in B. G. Goswami V/s. Delhi Administration , the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone. From the records, it appears that the appellant was in jail for some time. He has lost his job and we are told that he has a large family to support. In similar circumstances, in B. G. Goswami V/s. Delhi Administration , the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone. From the records, it appears that the appellant was in jail for some time. Accordingly, while confirming the conviction we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine with default clause is however, maintained. Subject to the above modification of sentence, the appeal is dismissed. 19. In B.C. Goswami V/s. Delhi Administration , Hon ble Supreme Court held that too lenient as well as too harsh sentences both lose their efficaciousness. While one does not deter, the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal. After upholding the conviction of the accused under Section 5(l)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and noticing that though the said offence prescribed minimum sentence of RI for one year besides the fine, the sentence of imprisonment could be for a lesser period but in that event the Court had to assign special reasons, which must be recorded in writing. Finally after observing that sending the accused back to jail after seven years of the agony and harassment of the proceedings when he was also going to lose his job and had to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him, reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone, but increased the sentence of fine. The said conclusion is as follows (Para 10): As already observed, the appellants conviction under Section 161, I. P. C., was rightly upheld by the High Court and there is no cogent ground made out for our interference with that conviction. The sentence of imprisonment imposed by the High Court for both these offences is one year and this sentence is to run concurrently. The only question which arises is that under Section 5(l)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act the minimum sentence prescribed is rigorous imprisonment for one year and there must also be imposition of fine. The sentence of imprisonment can be for a lesser period but in that event the Court has to assign special reasons which must be recorded in writing. The sentence of imprisonment can be for a lesser period but in that event the Court has to assign special reasons which must be recorded in writing. In considering the special reasons the judicial discretion of the Court is as wide as the demand of the cause of substantial justice. Now the question of sentence is always a difficult question, requiring as it does, proper adjustment and balancing of various considerations which weigh with a judicial mind in determining its appropriate quantum in a given case. The main purpose of the sentence broadly stated is that the accused must realize that he has committed an act which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms an integral part but is also harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as a member of the society. Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence. It is also designed to reform the offender and re-claim him as a law abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining the question. In modern civilized societies, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentences both lose their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal. In the present case, after weighing the considerations already noticed by us and the fact that to send the appellant back to jail now after 7 years of the agony and harassment of these proceedings when he is also going to lose his job and has to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him, we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but increase the sentence of fine from Rs. 200.00 to Rs. 400.00 . Period of imprisonment in case of default will remain the same. 20. In view of the above and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, including circumstances as mentioned above, this Court feels that the sentence of the appellant deserves to be reduced to that already undergone by him. 200.00 to Rs. 400.00 . Period of imprisonment in case of default will remain the same. 20. In view of the above and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, including circumstances as mentioned above, this Court feels that the sentence of the appellant deserves to be reduced to that already undergone by him. At the same time, the fine of Rs. 1,000.00 imposed upon the appellant ought to be increased to Rs. 5,000.00 . 21. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is upheld. However, the sentence of RI for six months imposed upon the appellant is reduced to that already undergone by him. The amount of fine is increased to Rs. 5,000.00 . In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo R. I. for two months. 22. Except for above modification in the quantum of sentence, the present appeal is dismissed.