JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.—The instant appeal was preferred by appellant, Jagdish Saran Goyal, against judgment and order dated 30.3.1982 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, in Special Case No. 17 of 1980 whereby he was convicted under Section 161, I.P.C. and 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500. In default of payment of fine, further imprisonment of three months. 2. Heard Sri J.P. Pandey, counsel for appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. It is submited that fine of Rs. 500/- has already been deposited by appellant. Allegation is that appellant, who was posted as junior meter tester in the year 1979 at Agra, extracted a sum of Rs. 230/- from complainant Ganga Prasad PW-1, as illegal gratification. 4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 17.8.1979, officials of Vigilance Cell of Electricity Department raided the flour mill of complainant PW-1 and disconnected his electric connection. Thereafter, complainant applied for reconnection. On 29.8.1979, the accused along with DW-1 Hari Shanker Sharma, Junior Engineer, had visited the flour mill of complainant and the accused in presence of complainant broke seal of the meter and on being objected by complainant, the accused asked complainant that officials of electricity department did so, if he wants to set it right, he should see him at his residence in the same evening at Tundla. Accordingly, complainant went to Tundla on the same evening at about 4:00 p.m. and the accused met him at Tundla crossing. It was settled that complainant will pay Rs. 330/- as bribe to the accused for restoring the seal of meter and at the insistence of complainant, the said amount was agreed to be paid in two instalments. 5. On 30.8.1979, the complainant arranged Rs. 230/- and made a complaint to the District Magistrate, Agra, at his residence and gave a written complaint, Ex.Ka-1. The District Magistrate passed an order, Ex.Ka-2, asking the Vigilance Inspector, Sri Bhanwar Pal Singh, PW-3 to take necessary action. Thereafter, in the same evening at about 4:15 p.m. the complainant, along with one Vijay Gopal Saraswat, met the said Vigilance Inspector in his office and handed over to him two currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- each Exs. 1 and 2 and three currency notes of denomination Rs. 10/-. Exs. 3 to 5. Thereafter, in the same evening at about 4:15 p.m. the complainant, along with one Vijay Gopal Saraswat, met the said Vigilance Inspector in his office and handed over to him two currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- each Exs. 1 and 2 and three currency notes of denomination Rs. 10/-. Exs. 3 to 5. The said notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder by Vigilance Inspector, who washed his hands in the solution of sodium corbonate which turned pink and the said solution was sealed in phial, Ex.6. The number of the said currency notes were noted down in Fard, Ex.Ka-3, written and signed by Vigilance Inspector as well as by complainant and Vijay Gopal Saraswat. The said currency notes were given by the Vigilance Inspector to complainant with instructions that he would give them to the accused on 31.8.1979 at 9:00 or 9:30 a.m. at Tundla Crossing. 6. On 31.8.1979, at about 9:30 a. m. the complainant gave Rs. 230/- to the accused in front of betel shop of one Nank Chand where his son Ramji Lal was sitting and the accused counted them. While he was holding the said currency notes, Exs. 1 to 5, in his left hand, Vigilance Inspector PW-3 accompanied by Constable Collector Babu, reached there and caught hold of the left wrist of the accused, whereupon the accused threw notes on the ground. The said notes were collected by Vigilance Inspector PW-3, who prepared recovery memo, Ex. Ka-4. Thereafter, hands of accused and complainant were dipped in separate solutions of sodium corbonate and both solutions turned pink and they were sealed in phials, Exs. 7 and 8 respectively. Thereafter, the Inspector took the accused and the sealed property to police station Tundla where he lodged F.I.R., Ex. Ka-5, on the same day at 12:15 O’clock. 7. The above sealed phials, containing solution of sodium corbonate, were sent to Chemical Examiner, who submitted his report, Ex.Ka-8. Permission, Ex.Ka-10, for prosecution of the accused was obtained and after the completion of investigation, charge sheet, Ex.Ka-11 was submitted against the accused. 8. The prosecution examined Ganga Prasad, complainant as PW-1, Murari Lal PW-2 who is witness of recovery, Sri Bhanwar Pal Singh, Vigilance Inspector PW-3, Sri Radhey Shyam Investigating Officer PW-4. 9. Permission, Ex.Ka-10, for prosecution of the accused was obtained and after the completion of investigation, charge sheet, Ex.Ka-11 was submitted against the accused. 8. The prosecution examined Ganga Prasad, complainant as PW-1, Murari Lal PW-2 who is witness of recovery, Sri Bhanwar Pal Singh, Vigilance Inspector PW-3, Sri Radhey Shyam Investigating Officer PW-4. 9. One Hari Shanker Sharma, DW-1 who is said to be present with the accused at the time of inspection of flour mill, was examined on behalf of defence. 10. First submission is that there is no evidence to support the fact that he had accepted bribe as money was recovered from the ground under his feet, therefore, it cannot be said that he had accepted the said money. He has been roped in falsely. 11. Second submission is that appellant was implicated on account of enmity. Besides, he was already dismissed from his services at a very young age on account of the alleged incident. He suffered the entire life. Conviction is liable to be set at naught. Sufficient punishment has been awarded to him merely for a small amount of Rs. 230/- which was in fact not even accepted by him. 12. Last submission is that sentence of two years is too excessive and is liable to be reduced. Minimum sentence under Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is one year. 13. Appellant’s counsel has tried to draw my attention to Proviso 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which is quoted below : “Provided that the Court may, for any special reasons recorded in writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year” 14. Learned A.G.A. has disputed each and every arguments advanced on behalf of appellant. He has tried to emphasize that witnesses of recovery have clearly stated that when money was handed over to him, it was thrown on the ground, which was collected from ground. This alone cannot be sufficient to come to a conclusion that money was not recovered from him. Besides, his hands were washed in sodium corbonate solution, which turned pink in colour. This is sufficient evidence to establish that he held and accepted money. 15. This alone cannot be sufficient to come to a conclusion that money was not recovered from him. Besides, his hands were washed in sodium corbonate solution, which turned pink in colour. This is sufficient evidence to establish that he held and accepted money. 15. Submission of appellant’s counsel not to send the accused to jail, appears to be justified on the face of it for the reason because appellant was in jail for almost 23 days before filing of the instant appeal. Matter relates to the year 1979. Almost thirty years have gone by and he has amply been punished as he was removed from his job. I do not think appropriate to award one year imprisonment to the appellant and uphold the conviction. Appellant is now quite old and he has already paid the price for his wrong deeds. However, fine of Rs. 1,000/- will meet the ends of justice. Sentence of two years is reduced to the period already undergone by appellant. Reasons for reducing period of imprisonment are already recorded above. In place of imprisonment of one year, fine of Rs. 1,000/- is imposed on the appellant. The appeal is partly allowed. The amount of penalty is payable within three months from today. In the event of default, he shall be further imprisoned for a period of two months. ————