Judgment :- (1.) THE appellant Sambhu Nath Samaddar and another were tried and convicted under Section 7 of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13 (l) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption act read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 in default rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months respectively in a trial held before the Special Court, 24 Parganas, South at Alipore. While the appellant challenged his order of conviction and sentence in the instant appeal the other convict Arun Kumar bhattacharya challenged the same in criminal Appeal No. 110 of 2001. (2.) HEARD, Mr. Ashok Biswas, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Ranjan Roy, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the C.B.I. Mr. Debabrata Roy, the learned advocate along with Mr. Amajit Roy, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State. Perused the materials on record. (3.) THE prosecution case, in a nutshell are as follows: "on December 7, 1995, one Md. Abdul ohab who happened to be the Secretary of southern Health Improvement samity lodged a complaint with the superintendent of Police C.B.I., Kolkata. It was alleged in the said complaint that since 1986 the said Samity was enjoying exemption under Section 80g of the Income Tax Act and in April, 1995 they applied for extension of such benefit. Following such application for extension on November 17, 1995, the appellant and the accused Arun bhattacharya both of income tax department visited the office of the samity at Bangur, at that time both of them disclosed the documents are not sufficient and on that basis no exemption can be recommend. They further insisted for payment of Rs. 25,000 as illegal gratification so that for getting exemption there will be no difficulty as they would manage everything. The complainant was then asked to meet them at their office on December 4, 1995 in the evening. On December 4, 1995 when the complainant met the said accused persons at their office they received their demand to Rs. 25,000 as illegal gratification so that for getting exemption there will be no difficulty as they would manage everything. The complainant was then asked to meet them at their office on December 4, 1995 in the evening. On December 4, 1995 when the complainant met the said accused persons at their office they received their demand to Rs. 20,000 and asked to come with the said money on December 8, 1995. As the complainant did not inclined to concede with their illegal demand on December 7, 1995 he met the Superintendent of police. C.B.I., Kolkata and submitted a written complaint stating entire aforesaid facts. The C.B.I, officials decided to lay a tramp to apprehend the accused and the complainant pw1 was asked to come to C.B.I, office on December 8, 1995 with a cash money of Rs. 20,000. Accordingly, the requisition was sent to two a witnesses viz. PW3 Mr. S. Chandane and PW4 Mr. G.C. Kundu for being present at the time of raid. On December 8, 1995 the complainant came to the office of the C.B.I, with a cash money of Rs. 20,000 as also both the trap witnesses viz. PW3 Mr. S. Chandane and PW 4 Mr. G.C. Kundu when they were introduced to each other. At that time D.S.P. apprised the said trap witnesses and the complainant in details as to how such trap would be led and what would be their respective roles in such trap and a pre-trap memo was prepared. The currency notes which were brought by the complainant were smeared in phenolphthalein powder and everything was noted in the pretrap memo. Thereafter, as per the arrangement the raiding party of the C.B.I., officials along with the complainant and the trap witnesses had been to the income Tax Office at Bamboo Villa at about 4.00 p.m. As decided earlier the complainant with the money went to the accused Arun bhattacharya at his office while the C.B.I., officials with the trap witnesses were waiting at a little distance. At that time, accused Arun Bhattacharya asked the complainant whether the money has been brought or not and as he stated that he has brought the money he was asked to seat there. At that time, accused Arun Bhattacharya asked the complainant whether the money has been brought or not and as he stated that he has brought the money he was asked to seat there. Within 10 to 15 minutes, the other accused Sambhu Nath Samaddar came there when the complainant and the said two accused persons came down to the ground floor while the trap witnesses alongwith the C.B.I., officials also followed them. Reaching ground floor and complainant and the accused persons came to the main road and as they reached near the Ambulance of samity in which the complainant came there, standing in front of Prat Memorial School, followed by the C.B.I. Officials and the trap witnesses, as asked by the accused Arun Bhattacharya the appellant handed over to him the said currency notes of Rs. 20,000 smeared with phenolphthalein powder and in turn the accused Arun Bhattacharya handed over the said currency notes to the accused Sambhu Nath samaddar who after counting the same put it inside his pant pocket. At that, point of time the complainant gave signal to the police party. When the C.B.I., official standing nearby alongwith the trap witnesses arrived there disclosed their identity and apprehended both the accused persons. Thereafter, another pot was brought in which both the accused Arun bhattacharya was asked to wash his hands in soda solution and as he washed his hands with such solution it turned pink. Then the said solution was poured into a bottle and sealed and labelled. Similarly, the accused samaddar also washed his hands in that solution and the solution which turned pink was also kept in a bottle sealed and labelled. The wearing apparels of accused Samaddar was also taken away and same was also washed with the soda solution and as earlier the said solution turned pink and was kept in a bottle. Thereafter, those Government currency notes were seized and a search list (Exhibit 3) was prepared in presence of the witnesses mentioning the entire incident as to how the trap was led and the accused was caught, which was duly signed by the witnesses and the complainant, a. copy thereof was also handed over to the accused persons which they took by putting their signatures. A post trap memorandum was prepared and the accused persons were arrested. "On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against both the accused persons. A post trap memorandum was prepared and the accused persons were arrested. "On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against both the accused persons. Thereafter, both the accused persons arun Bhattacharya and Sambhu Nath samaddar were placed on trial before the learned Special Judge, Alipore. 24-Parganas (South) to answer a charge under Section 7 and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (l) (d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code, and both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. (4.) IN the trial the prosecution examined total 8 witnesses but defence examined none. The PW1 Tapan Chatterjee, issued the sanction for prosecution. The PW 2 Md. Abdul Ohab, who happened to be the Secretary of Southern Health Improvement samity is the complainant of the case. Both the PW 3 Mr. S. Chandane and PW 4 G.C. Kundu are the Senior Bank Officials they were the independent public trap witnesses. PW 5 Biswanath Sarkhel is the police officer attached to the C.B.I., who led the trap. PW6 Bimalendu Das is the Senior Scientific officer attached to the Forensic State laboratory. PW7 Ratan Kumar Sarkar is the investigating Officer of the case and PW 8 dhirendra Nath Biswas is a Senior Police officer attached to the C.B.I., who partly investigated the case. (5.) MR. Ashok Kumar Biswas the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the impugned order of conviction is liable to be quashed on the following grounds: (a) The sanction for prosecution was not proper and valid. While admittedly the same was dictated to one was typed by another. (b) The PW2 Md. Abdul Ohab the complainant is wholly unworthy of credence as was not able to produce even a scrap of paper to show that he was the Secretary of the Southern Health Improvement society or in support of his claim that he was looking after the matters relating exemption certificate under section 80g of the income Tax Act from the income tax authority, No resolution of the society authorizing him to lodge complaint to the C.B.I., was produced. (c) The PW 2 is a highly qualified person and in view of his clear evidence that it was known to him that the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) was the only authority to issue Income Tax exemption Certificate and earlier he obtained such certificate from him, there is no convincing reason for gratifying the accused persons who was not the authority for issuing the necessary certificate in question. (d) The PW2 admittedly is a highly educated person and he having admitted that the Director of income Tax (Exemption) is the only authority to issue the Income tax Exemption Certificate and earlier the witness obtained such certificate from him there cannot be any valid and cogent reason to gratify the appellant and another who were not the appropriate authority. (e) No trap memos were prepared. (f) All the members who participated in the alleged trap were not examined. (g) Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that the accused demanded the money to facilitate issuance of the exemption certificate and although they have no authority to do anything the factum of voluntary receipt of bribe has never been proved. (h) On the self-same day raid was conducted at the residences of the accused persons but nothing incriminating was recovered from there. (i) According to Mr. Biswas the learned Counsel that the bribe amount was neither demand nor was received by the accused persons actually after performing their office duty while the accused persons were going out, they were picked up by the C.B.I., officials from in front of their office and was taken to the C.B.I. Office where the alleged currency notes were thrust in their hands and in wearing apparels. (j) Lastly, Mr. Biswas submitted that the appellant at present who is aged about 64 years has retired from his service and this is an incident of December 19,1995 and even if he is found to be guilty his sentence be reduced. However, Mr. Biswas did not rely on any decisions or rulings of any Court. (6.) MR. Ranjan Roy, the learned Counsel of the C.B.I., strongly refused all the points raise by Mr. Biswas in support of this appeal. According to Mr. Roy the defects in sanction as alleged by the defence is wholly inconsequential and cannot be the ground for challenging the order of conviction when the same is based on sufficient materials. Mr. (6.) MR. Ranjan Roy, the learned Counsel of the C.B.I., strongly refused all the points raise by Mr. Biswas in support of this appeal. According to Mr. Roy the defects in sanction as alleged by the defence is wholly inconsequential and cannot be the ground for challenging the order of conviction when the same is based on sufficient materials. Mr. Roy further submitted during the trial the factum of demand and acceptance of the bribe amount have been sufficiently proved during the trial followed by a written complaint and pre-trap memo, the mere fact the accused persons are not the authority concerned for issuing Exemption Certificate is wholly immaterial. Mr. Roy further submitted that the defence story of planting the bribe money is wholly incredible, concocted and result of an after thought because the same was never raised before the Investigating officer during the preparation of post-trap memo. In support of his submission Mr. Roy relied on following decisions: (i) Shiv Raj Singh v. Delhi administration; (ii) State of West Bengal v. Kailash Chandra pandey; (iii) Trilok Chand Jain v. State of Delhi; (iv) State of maharashtra v. Narsingrao gangaram Pimple; (v) A. Abdul kaffar v. State of Kerala; (vi)Sultan Ahamed v. State of Bihar; (vii) State Represented by Inspector. f Police Pudukottal T.N. v. A. Parthiban. (7.) HEARD, the rival submissions of the parties. Perused the materials on record. (8.) IT is firstly contended by the learned advocate of the appellant that the sanction was bad in law as admittedly the person who typed the said order is not the same person who took the dictation. The Section 19 of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 covers the provision of sanction where it is clearly provided no finding, sentence or order is liable to be reversed or altered by a Court of appeal or revision on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction unless in the opinion of the Court a failure of justice has been occasioned thereby. In the present case, I have carefully gone through the order of sanction Exhibit-1, I have found that the same was fulfilled all the essential requirements of sanction. In the present case, I have carefully gone through the order of sanction Exhibit-1, I have found that the same was fulfilled all the essential requirements of sanction. Mere fact that the order of sanction was not typed by the same person whom it was dictated may at best amounts an irregularity but it is highly preposterous to suggest that thereby the order of granting sanction has been vitiated. In the instant case, the sanctioning authority has been examined during the trial as PW1 and who was testified about the granting of sanction and proved the same as such no question can be raised as to the validity of such order of sanction. Moreover, the defence has not been able to remotely suggest as to how failure of justice has been occasioned in the case due to the alleged irregularity in the said sanction order and as such I am of the opinion the contention of Mr. Biswas is of no force. This is against the materials on record that no trap memo has been prepared as alleged by the defence. On the contrary both the pre-trap and post-trap memos were prepared at the relevant time and being proved during the trial were marked as Exhibit-4 and Exhibit-5. (9.) IT has been vehemently urged by the defence that the complainant PW1, a highly educated person admittedly knew who was the concerned person authorised to grant exemption Certificate and also knew that the accused have no role to play in that regard, thus the question of bribing or gratifying the appellants does not at all arise and the story is completely false. On the other hand, Mr. Roy, the learned Counsel of the C.B.I, submitted that mere fact the accused is not the final authority in issuing the Exemption Certificate could not brush aside the factum of demand and receipt and or acceptance of bribe amount by them. In my opinion, the submission of Mr. Roy reflects the correct position. On the other hand, Mr. Roy, the learned Counsel of the C.B.I, submitted that mere fact the accused is not the final authority in issuing the Exemption Certificate could not brush aside the factum of demand and receipt and or acceptance of bribe amount by them. In my opinion, the submission of Mr. Roy reflects the correct position. The Apex Court in the case of Shiv Raj singh v. Delhi Administration, held as follows: "it is alleged that the illegal gratification was taken by him for doing or procuring an official act, it is not necessary for the Court to consider whether or not the accused public servant was capable of doing or intended to do such act." In the case of State of West Bengal v. Kailash Chandra Pandey, the Apex Court reiterated the same view and held as follows: "it was submitted by learned Counsel for the respondent that the bills of the complainant for the period in question have already been passed and payments made. That may be so, but this is not a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case. In fact, the objections were raised and deductions were made in bills and money was being demanded from Shri Sengupta so that his bills not objected or delayed and no deduction be made in future. The money was paid to the accused for the safe passage of his bills. Therefore, nothing turns on this ground that the bills were passed prior to the tendering of the money to the accused. It was only meant to facilitate smooth release of the money as per the bills. Therefore, it is not a ground to disbelieve the prosecution story that the bills in question were passed prior to the alleged tender of the money to the accused. Lastly, a very vague ground has been given by learned Single Judge that the envelope which contained the currency note had not been produced. Nothing turns on non-production of the envelope. " in the case of Trilok Chand Jain v. State of Delhi (supra) it was held by the Apex court as follows: "it is true that in law the incapacity of government servant to show that favour or render any service with his official duties does not necessarily take the case out of mischief of this penal provisions. " in the case of Trilok Chand Jain v. State of Delhi (supra) it was held by the Apex court as follows: "it is true that in law the incapacity of government servant to show that favour or render any service with his official duties does not necessarily take the case out of mischief of this penal provisions. " (10.) THIS relates to a case of offences under Prevention of Corruption Act for receiving illegal gratification and bribe and as such all that is essential is the proof of factum of demand and receipt of bribe. During the trial not only the PW2 Md. Abdul Ohab the complainant has deposed as regards to the demand and receipt of the bribe amount by the accused persons followed by his com-plaint lodged to the C.B.I, a day before and preparation of pre-trap note mentioning the entire matter but such demand as well as receipt of bribe by the accused as deposed by PW2 has been duly corroborated by two independent respectable public witnesses viz. PW3 Mr. S. Chandane and PW4 Mr. G.C. Kundu, the Senior Bank Officials. I have carefully gone through the depositions of both the PW3 and PW4 more particularly through their elaborate cross-examination. I, however, do not find anything for doubting their reliability. In their cross-examination nothing has been brought out to remotely castes any shadow of doubt on their evidence. There was nothing on record to show that they had any reason to falsely implicate these accused persons in this case. I have also carefully perused the testimony of PW2 the complainant of this case. Similarly in his lengthy cross-examination nothing could have been brought out to suspect his credibility. I am of the opinion the prosecution case as far as demand and receipt of bribe amount by the appellant and another are fully corroborated by the complainant as well as by two independent public witnesses present at the material time and as regards to the same the prosecution case stands proved. I am of the opinion the prosecution case as far as demand and receipt of bribe amount by the appellant and another are fully corroborated by the complainant as well as by two independent public witnesses present at the material time and as regards to the same the prosecution case stands proved. (11.) MOREOVER, according to the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988 when it is proved in a trial for offences under the said Act that an accused has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself; or for any other person, any gratification or any valuable thing from any person it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing as the case may be as a motive or reward as mentioned in Section 7 of the said Act. In the instant case, I have already found that prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts has proved that the accused persons demanded and accepted the bribe amount in question from the PW2 the complainant. As such the prosecution having establish and proved that gratification was demanded and accepted by the appellant, consequently, necessary presumption arises that it was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward to do or forbear from doing any official work by the appellant. Presumption is not absolute and is rebutable and the accused is always entitled to rebut the same by proving contrary. Such proof may be in the shape of defence witness led by the accused or it may consist of circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence itself or has been brought into light as a result of cross-examination. Now the question arises has the defence able to rebut such presumption? In the instant case, defence has not examined any witness to lead evidence to prove contrary and to rebut such presumption. At the same time nothing has been pointed out to this Court nor anything has been noticed from close scrutinization of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in-chief as well as in the cross-examination to negate such presumption. In the instant case, defence has not examined any witness to lead evidence to prove contrary and to rebut such presumption. At the same time nothing has been pointed out to this Court nor anything has been noticed from close scrutinization of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in-chief as well as in the cross-examination to negate such presumption. In any event, explanation given by the accused in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of criminal Procedure and suggestion given to the prosecution witnesses which is denied, is not enough to negate the presumption unless the effect of materials brought on the record in its totality rendered the existence of fact presumed improbable. In this regard the Apex Court in the case of hazari Lal v. State, observed as follows: (33) "this Court in Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Administration) observed that where the recovery of money coupled with other circumstances lead to the conclusion that the respondent received gratification from some person, the Court would certainly draw a presumption under Section 4 (1) of the prevention of Corruption Act. In the instant case, the recovery of 35 notes of the denomination of 100 is fully proved by Badan Singh, pw1 and two other independent witnesses Aditya Chobey, PW6 and Surender Rai Sharma, PW11. “In this connection reliance may also be placed in the case of Madhuukar Bhaskar rao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra and in the case of State of West Bengal v. Kaliash chandra Pandey (supra). In the aforesaid case of the State of West bengal v. Kailash Chandra Pandey (supra), the Supreme Court held that, what is material is the acceptance of money by the accused which is more than apparent from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the money was recovered from the accused and accuseds hand which accepted the currency notes was washed and the hand was turned into pink colour water and likewise the accuseds pant pocket which was washed the water also turned into pink. Therefore, from the claim of circumstances the prosecution story stand fully substantiated. Consequently, acquittal of the accused was unjustified and the Supreme Court set aside the order of acquittal passed by the High court and restored the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. (12.) THE submission of Mr. Therefore, from the claim of circumstances the prosecution story stand fully substantiated. Consequently, acquittal of the accused was unjustified and the Supreme Court set aside the order of acquittal passed by the High court and restored the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. (12.) THE submission of Mr. Biswas that the appellant and another being picked up in front of their office by the C.B.I. personnels they were taken to the C.B.I, office where the bribe money tented with phenolphathalein powder was thrust in their hands and their pocket. It is strange such a plea was never taken before the trial during the long 4 years. No such allegation was made to the investigating officer. In the search list, Exhibit-3 it has been categorically mentioned that during the search no complaint was made. I have carefully gone through the said search list and found that same after preparation was immediately handed over to the accused which they obtained after scribing their respective signatures. If the allegation of the defence is true then they could have easily made the same to the Investigating Officer. It is also not the case of the defence that the same was reported to the Investigating Officer but was not in the search memo. Moreover, on the very next day, they were produced in Court within 24 hours of their arrest but from perusal of the records, I do not find any such plea was taken by them at the earliest opportunity before the Court and thus I am of the clear view that such plea of the defence is not true and is an afterthought. In this connection the decisions of the honble Supreme Court in the case of A. Abdul Kaffar v. State of Kerala (supra) as relied upon by Mr. Roy, the learned counsel of the C.B.I, is quite appropriate. In the said case defence took the plea that it was clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the Sales Tax Department is evolved a scheme for an effective and quick collection of sales tax dues by which the officers were directed to collect sales tax dues even in cash wherefrom so offered and remit the same to the local treasury and it is in this process that PW1 had paid Rs. 10,000 to the appellant. 10,000 to the appellant. It was the further case of the defence that the amount in question was received by the appellant from PW1 towards and advance payment of tax which is established by the receipt given by the appellant to PW1 the counter foil of which was found in the official receipt book recovered later by the investigating agency itself and the appellant being released on bail immediately thereafter on the first available opportunity sent a report to his superior officers in which he mentioned about the received of the money from PW1 as also having giving him a valid receipt therefor. However, the Apex Court held as follows: "in this process if we examine the conduct of the appellant, we notice that when the appellant was arrested at about 5.30 p.m. on 6.4.1989 or 9 p.m. (as the case may be) on the same day, he did not tell the IO that he had received the money as part-payment of tax due from PW1 and had issued a receipt for the same. If really the appellant had on receipt of the money from PW1 given him any, official receipt as now contended by the appellant then he would not have forgotten to tell the IO as to the issuance of an official receipt to PW1 or as to the existence of a receipt book in which a duplicate copy of the receipt was maintained because that would have been a clinching defence for the appellant to prove that the money in question was not received as an illegal gratification. The very fact that he failed to mention this to the IO at the first available opportunity, shows that this defence is not genuine. " in the case of Sultan Ahamed v. State of bihar (supra) a plea was taken by the defence that a five rupees note was given to the accused in exchange of five currency notes of rupee one each to the complainant. However, the Apex Court was of the view such plea was not genuine as the same was not raised at the time of recovery of the currency notes by the police. The remaining other submissions of Mr. However, the Apex Court was of the view such plea was not genuine as the same was not raised at the time of recovery of the currency notes by the police. The remaining other submissions of Mr. Biswas, the learned Advocate that all the trap witnesses have not been examined and no scrap of paper has been produced during the trial by the PW2 to show his authority are very feeble and in no way affects the credibility of the prosecution case. (13.) LASTLY, Mr. Biswas the learned Counsel of the appellant submitted that the conviction of the appellants simultaneously for the offences under Sections 7 and Section 13 (2) read with. Section 13 (l) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not lawful and thus cannot be sustained. In this connection it would be sufficient to rely and refer the decision of the Apex Court in the case of state Represented by Inspector of Police, pudukottal, T.N. v. A. Parthiban (supra). (14.) I am therefore, of the view the prosecution has established the charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and the impugned order of conviction does not desires any interference and stands confirmed. (15.) AS regards to the quantum of sentence it is submitted by Mr. Biswas that this is a matter relates to an occurrence of 1995 and already more than 11 years have been elapsed, the appellant is now aged about 64 years is no longer in service and as such a lenient view be taken as regards to the quantum of sentence. In this connection a very recent decision of the Honble Apex court in the case of State of M.P. v. Sambhu dayal Nagar, would be sufficient to arrive at a just conclusion. In the said case, the apex Court held as follows: (32) "it is difficult to accept the prayer of the respondent that a lenient view be taken in this case. The corruption by public servants has become a gigantic problem. It has spread everywhere. No facet of public activity has been left unaffected by the stink of corruption. It has deep and pervasive impact on the functioning of the entire country. Large scale corruption retards the nation-building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. The corruption by public servants has become a gigantic problem. It has spread everywhere. No facet of public activity has been left unaffected by the stink of corruption. It has deep and pervasive impact on the functioning of the entire country. Large scale corruption retards the nation-building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. As has been aptly observed in Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana corruption is corroding, like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralizing the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post. The reputation of corrupt would gather thick and unchaseable clouds around the conduct of the officer and gain notoriety much faster than the smoke." (16.) IN view of the aforesaid decisions as well as the question of taking lenient view as regards to the quantum of sentence does not at all arise. I am of the opinion in a case of this nature where a public servant is found guilty on the charge of corruption, if any, lenient view is taken a "flea BITE" sentence is imposed shall convey a wrong message to the society. Moreover, the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is punishable with a rigorous imprisonment that may be extended upto 7 years but in the instant case the Trial court imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. Already an undue sympathy has been shown by the Trial court and I am not inclined to interfere with the same. Thus, the sentence as imposed by the Trial Court also stands confirmed but the same shall run concurrently. (17.) IN the result this appeal stands dismissed and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants is upheld. The appellant is directed to surrender immediately to serve out the sentence and his bail stands cancelled. The Trial Court is directed if not the accused surrender within 15 days from the date of passing of this order necessary steps shall be taken against him in this regard. The office is directed to communicate this order to the learned Trial Court at once. The Trial Court is directed if not the accused surrender within 15 days from the date of passing of this order necessary steps shall be taken against him in this regard. The office is directed to communicate this order to the learned Trial Court at once. Urger I Xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible. Appeal dismissed.