Judgment :- A.S. Pachhapure, J. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as `the Act') on a trial held by the Special Judge at Shimoga. 2. Sans unnecessary details the prosecution version unfolded during the trial is as under: P.W. 1-Shekarappa, is a retired employee of VISL Factory, Bhadravathi. He obtained voluntary retirement on 30th September, 1992. After his retirement, the Tahsildar, Bhadravathi has granted Site No. 148, measuring 30' x 60' under Ashraya Scheme in Sy. Nos. 11 and 14 in Hunasekatte Village in the name of his wife, vide order dated 18-2-1993. In the year 1994 he constructed a house in the said site and was residing in the said house along with his family. In the year 1995, the electricity connection was given. Thereafter, in the year 1996 he received the notice from the Assistant Engineer in the name of his wife calling upon her to produce the map to show that his house is situated within the gramtana (village layout) of Hunasekatte and if it is within the limits concession regarding the electric pole charges, would be given. Accordingly, on 15-2-1996, the complainant went to the office of the Tahsildar and requested to issue the layout sketch pertaining to Site No. 148 and submitted an application in this regard. The copy has been produced at Ex. P. 1. He went to the office of the Tahsildar on 8 to 10 occasions and met the accused, the case worker who by putting forth lame excuses was postponing the issue of the copy. Ultimately on 22-5-1996 at about 12.30 p.m. he went to the office and approached the accused and again requested for the copy. The accused told the complainant that he is a person to get the work done without payment and asked him to pay Rs. 150/-, so that he would do the work. The complainant agreed for the same, but had no mind to pay unlawful remuneration. In the circumstances, the complainant approached P.W. 8, the Police Inspector, Lokayuktha on 23-5-1996 at about 11.45 a.m. and submitted the written complaint, Ex. P. 4 and it came to be registered by P.W. 8 in Crime No. 4 of 1996. He sent the complaint, Ex. P. 4 and the FIR, Ex. In the circumstances, the complainant approached P.W. 8, the Police Inspector, Lokayuktha on 23-5-1996 at about 11.45 a.m. and submitted the written complaint, Ex. P. 4 and it came to be registered by P.W. 8 in Crime No. 4 of 1996. He sent the complaint, Ex. P. 4 and the FIR, Ex. P. 13 in a sealed cover to the Special Court. P.W. 8 madea request to the officer of the Regional Transport Authority and the KGID to send an official from their office and P.W. 2 arrived from the office of the Regional Transport Authority and P.W. 4 from the KGID Office at 12.40 p.m. and he introduced them to the complainant. He also informed the facts as stated by P.W. 1 and secured three notes of Rs. 50/-denomination from the complainant and prepared the mahazar mentioning the number of notes and its denominations and as per his instructions the staff smeared the phenolphthalein powder and after preparation of sodium carbonate liquid kept it in a sealed bottle and instructed P.W. 4, Suresh to touch the notes which were smeared with the phenolphthalein powder and kept them on the table. The fingers of P.W. 4 were washed in the liquid and it turned into pink colour. He retained the said liquid in a bottle, Ex. No. 2 and after completing the formalities sealed the articles (M.Os. 1 and 2) by use of a seal. He instructed the accused about the consequences of handling the phenolphthalein smeared notes and washing the fingers in the liquid. The notes were given to the complainant who kept them in his pocket and was asked to give the same to the accused on demand. He also instructed the complainant to come out of the office after giving the money on demand and to give a signal by wiping his face. He also gave instruction to P.W. 2, the shadow witness to observe the conversation. Thereafter all the persons including the staff and others washed their hands. The mahazar, Ex. P. 5 was held with regard to these proceedings and after explaining the contents of the mahazar, P.W 1 and Selviraj signed the said mahazar. On the same day, at 2.45 p.m. P.W. 8 along with the two witnesses, the complainant and the staff went to the office at 3.15 p.m. They stopped the jeep in Hanumanthanagar extension and P.Ws. P. 5 was held with regard to these proceedings and after explaining the contents of the mahazar, P.W 1 and Selviraj signed the said mahazar. On the same day, at 2.45 p.m. P.W. 8 along with the two witnesses, the complainant and the staff went to the office at 3.15 p.m. They stopped the jeep in Hanumanthanagar extension and P.Ws. 1 and 2 were sent to the office of the accused. P.Ws. 4 and 8 and the staff were standing near the office and at about 3.35 p.m. when they came in front of the office, the complainant came out and gave the signal as instructed and immediately P.Ws. 8 and 4 approached him and after questioning P.W. 1, he told that the accused demanded the amount of Rs. 150/-and he paid the same. They went to the accused wherein P.W. 8 disclosed his identity and introduced the witnesses and informed about the registration of the crime against the accused, who admitted the acquaintance of the complainant and thereafter, asked the accused to produce the notes given by the complainant and the accused in turn took out the amount of Rs. 150/-and produced the same from his shirt pocket. P.W. 2 stated about the demand and also as to what happened at the time when the accused received the money. He prepared the sodium carbonate liquid in two bottles, as per Articles 3 and 4 and the left hand fingers of the accused were washed in the liquid in Article 3 and it did not turn into pink colour. The right hand fingers were washed in the liquid contained in bottle under Article 4. It converted into pink colour. The liquid of the hand wash was kept in the bottle at Articles 3 to 5. He seized them and pasted the labels. The notes produced were the same which were given by the complainant and he mentioned the said notes in the mahazar and kept the said notes in a cover (M.O. 6) and M.O. 7 are the notes. The accused gave his shirt as instructed and his left side pocket of the shirt was washed in the sodium carbonate liquid which also turned into pink colour. He sealed the same and marked as Article 7 (M.O. 8). The shirt of the accused was also seized and numbered as Article 8 (M.O. 9). The accused gave his shirt as instructed and his left side pocket of the shirt was washed in the sodium carbonate liquid which also turned into pink colour. He sealed the same and marked as Article 7 (M.O. 8). The shirt of the accused was also seized and numbered as Article 8 (M.O. 9). On interrogation, the accused stated that he told the complainant that the surveyor is on the leave and that he has come to the office today and asked the complainant to come after two days and that the complainant stated that some amount may be paid to the surveyor for tea, he refused to receive the same and the complainant kept the money on the table and went away. P.W. 8 recorded his statement. P.Ws. 1 and 2 told that the statement made by the accused is false. P.W. 8-secured the file pertaining to the application of the complainant and found the application of the complainant, the copy of which has been produced at Ex. P. 1. He obtained the Xerox copy and got it certified by P.W. 5. He seized Exs. P. 10 and P. 11, the registers which were certified by P.W. 5 and arrested the accused and released on bail. After following the other procedures, he prepared mahazar, Ex. P. 8 and gave the seal to P.W. 2 asking him to produce it before the Court. He seized M.Os. to 9 under the said mahazar. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and a letter to the office and obtained the Xerox copy of the property extract of the site of P.W. 1 at Ex. P. 7. He sent the seized articles to the forensic experts through the Constable and secured the service particulars of the accused as per Ex. P. 16. He also seized the notice received by the wife of the complainant at Ex. P. 2 and also other documents pertaining to the supply of electricity, Ex. P. 3 and the letter of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Ex. P. 17. He received the FSL Report, Ex. P. 18 and secured the sketch of the scene of occurrence, Ex. P. 20 from the PWD authorities. On completion of the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet against the accused. During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 9 and in their evidence got marked the documents, Exs. P. 17. He received the FSL Report, Ex. P. 18 and secured the sketch of the scene of occurrence, Ex. P. 20 from the PWD authorities. On completion of the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet against the accused. During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 9 and in their evidence got marked the documents, Exs. P. 1 to P. 23 and M.Os. 1 to 9. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. He has taken the defence of total denial and has not lead any defence evidence. The Trial Court on appreciation of the material on record, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and ordered the accused/appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to nay fine of Rs. 1,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act and simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence, the accused has approached this Court in appeal. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent. 4. Thepoint that arise for my consideration is: Whether the judgment and order of conviction and the sentence passed by the Trial Court against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act is illegal and perverse? 5. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is inconsistent version in the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5. There is no demand of bribe or unlawful remuneration by the accused and that the accused was not competent person to grant the copy required. Therefore, he submits that the conviction is illegal and perverse. He also brought to the notice of this Court that P.W. 1 in his evidence states that at the time of the alleged incident of receiving the bribe P.W. 1 states that there were no other persons in the office, whereas, the version of P.Ws. 2, 5 and 8 is inconsistent. Therefore, he submits that on the basis of such evidence, the conviction cannot be based. 2, 5 and 8 is inconsistent. Therefore, he submits that on the basis of such evidence, the conviction cannot be based. Furthermore, he argued that P.W. 4 in his evidence states having held the hands of the accused after the alleged receipt of the bribe amount and therefore, he contends that the washing of the finger of the accused in the sodium carbonate liquid has lost its sanctity and therefore, he would submit that the evidence lead by the prosecution is unreliable and inconsistent. He has also relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court on this aspect, which will be referred to hereafter. On these grounds, he has sought for setting aside the conviction by allowing the appeal. .6. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the discrepancies stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant are minor and it is due to the lapse of time in between the incident and the trial and such discrepancies have no effect over the case of the prosecution. He submits that the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 8 is consistent and cogent. The application of P.W. 1 was pending on the date and that there is ample material to show that there was a demand of bribe by the accused and that the Trial Court has taken a right decision in convicting the appellant. 7. I have perused the evidence lead by the prosecution and also the documents admitted in evidence. So far as the layout sketch of the village, it is in the complaint, Ex. P. 1 and the evidence of P.W. 1 that the sketch was required for the purpose of seeking concession of the pole charges. This fact is evident from the notice given by the Assistant Executive Engineer and the second application filed by the complainant for the copy of the layout sketch. Ex. P. 1 is the copy of the application filed by the complainant and it was obtained after completion of the proceedings of trap. P.W. 8 in his evidence states about the original at Ex. P. 1 being in the file in the custody of the accused and this version has been supported by P.W. 5, the Shirestedar of the office of Tahsildar. P.W. 8 in his evidence states about the original at Ex. P. 1 being in the file in the custody of the accused and this version has been supported by P.W. 5, the Shirestedar of the office of Tahsildar. She states in her evidence that the accused was in-charge of the sites granted under Ashraya Scheme and she admits that P.W. 1 had submitted the application for grant of layout sketch. Ex. P. 1 and Ex. P. 1(a) is the certified copy of the Ex. P. 1. She also states that the accused was the person to get the original layout sketch from the records and then to put up the application for approval. On the date of the trap, she states that the application was with the accused and till the trap, copy of layout sketch was not given. So, this fact, as stated by P.W. 5 strengthens the version of the prosecution with regard to the need of the copy of layout sketch by P.W. 1 to seek exemption of electric pole charges. 8. It is in the evidence of P.W. 1 that he approached the accused on many occasions to get the copy of the layout sketch and ultimately on the last occasion when he approached, the accused stated that he is such a customer who pay nothing and unless Rs. 150/-is paid, he will not give the copy of the sketch. It is in this context that he approached P.W. 8 with the complaint and the witnesses-P.Ws. 2 and 4 were secured by P.W. 8 and the entrustment mahazar, Ex. P. 5 was drawn. P.W. 1 gave 3 notes of Rs. 50/- denominations and they were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and a practical test regarding conversion of the colour was made by using the sodium carbonate liquid and thereafter the hands of all those who were connected with the entrustment mahazar were washed and they left to Bhadravathi with the complainant, the witnesses, P.W. 8 and the staff. So, to this extent, there is no inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws 1, 2, 4 and 8 and the discrepancies that has been brought on record is only with regard to the facts pertaining to the demand by the accused. 9. P.W. 1 states in his evidence that when he went to the accused with P.W. 2-the accused asked for the money and he paid Rs. 9. P.W. 1 states in his evidence that when he went to the accused with P.W. 2-the accused asked for the money and he paid Rs. 150/-, the notes given to him after the entrustment mahazar and that the accused received the said money from his right hand and at the first instance kept on the register and after counting kept them in his left pocket of the shirt. After receiving the money when P.W. 1 requested for the layout sketch, the accused asked him to come after four days to receive the copy. P.W. 1 came outside and gave the signal to P.W. 8 and others. 10. So far as the demand is concerned, P.W. 2 does not say about the demand made by the accused. But, he states that the complainant himself told the accused that as per the demand, he has brought the money of Rs. 150/- and placed the notes on the table and the accused took the money from his hands and kept it in the shirt pocket. He also states that the accused did not talk anything at that time. So far as the demand is concerned, P.W. 2 has not supported the version of the prosecution, he was treated hostile and he admits in the cross-examination about the demand of Rs. 150/- by the accused and in turn the complainant gave the amount of Rs. 1501-from his pocket and accused having received the money from his right hand and then kept it on the table for a while and then put it into his pocket. Though, in his chief examination P.W. 2 does not support the version of the prosecution, the fact that he admits having made a statement about the demand, it cannot be said that the discrepancy brought on record is material. The fact that though, the trap took place in the year 1996, the evidence of the witnesses was recorded in the year 2003, i.e., after about 7 years and it is thus possible that a person would forget some facts which he witnessed in detail at the time of the occurrence. It is said that there is no case without contradictions or discrepancies and the Court has to look into as to whether the discrepancy is material or otherwise. It is said that there is no case without contradictions or discrepancies and the Court has to look into as to whether the discrepancy is material or otherwise. The scrutiny of the evidence of P.W. 1 and the shadow witness, P.W. 2 in my opinion is consistent so far as the payment of Rs. 150/- by P.W. 1. and the demand by the accused and I do not find any reason to discard the version of the prosecution. 11. The evidence of P.W. 8, the Investigating Officer reveals that at the time of the trap mahazar before the notes were taken from the pocket of the accused, the right hand fingers were washed in the sodium carbonate liquid, which turned into pink colour. Whereas the wash of left hand fingers in the liquid did not change the colour to pink. Now, as could be seen from the evidence of P.W. 1, it is consistent with the evidence of P.W. 8, but there is discrepancy in the evidence of P.W. 2. He has not stated in detail about the wash of both the hands of the accused and later the accused was asked to produce the notes and in the circumstances, may it be that P.W. 2 has not stated in detail but, the discrepancy shown is most minor and does not affect the case of the prosecution. 12. Though the Counsel contended that the Lokayuktha official would go to any extent to have a successful trap but, the fact that P.W. 1 needed the layout sketch of his village and that few months earlier the application came to be filed for copy of the layout sketch and that sketch was not prepared even on the date when the trap was done and in the circumstances, the fact that P.W. 1 had approached the Lokayuktha officials with the grievance of the demand of money by the accused strengthens the version of the prosecution and it cannot be said that the officials of Lokayuktha had any reason to unnecessarily implicate the accused and the cross-examination of the material witnesses does not reveal any such enmity suggested by the defence to implicate the accused in this trap by the complainant or by Lokayuktha officials. 13. Apart from the consistent version of P.Ws. 13. Apart from the consistent version of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 8, P.W. 4 is another witness, the Second Division Assistant in the KGID Office who accompanied P.W. 8 and was standing at a distance from the office and after the signal given by P.W. 1 entered the office with P.W. 8 and he states that after the trap the right hand wash of the accused in the sodium carbonate liquid changed the colour of the liquid to pink. Whereas, the left hand wash did not change colour of the liquid. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 have attested the trap mahazar, Ex. P. 8 and are also the attesting witnesses to Ex. P. 5, the entrustment mahazar and though, P.W. 4 has turned hostile to some extent, so far as the hand wash and the wash of the pocket changed the colour of the liquid supports the version of the prosecution. 14. The learned Counsel invited the attention of this Court to other discrepancies and it is in the evidence of P.W. 4 and other witnesses as well that after the signal was given by P.W. 1, P.Ws. 4 and 8 entered the office and that the staff of the Lokayuktha Office held the hands of the accused. Thereby, it is his contention that P.W. 8 and other officials of the Lokayuktha who had smeared the phenolphthalein powder on the notes and also on the hands of the accused after the trap and the possibility of the phenolphthalein powder having been smeared to the hands of the accused cannot be overruled. This contention is not supported by anything on record, as it is in the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 8 that before they left to the office of Lokayuktha Police after the entrustment mahazar, Ex. P. 5, the hands of all the persons concerned were washed and thereafter they had left the office to the office of the Tahsildar at Bhadravathi. In the circumstances, mere fact that the hands of the accused were held by the officials of the Lokayuktha Police is not such a circumstance to favour the accused. Furthermore, it is nowhere stated by P.W. 4 or any other witnesses as to which portion of the hand of the accused was held by Lokayuktha Police. In the circumstances, mere fact that the hands of the accused were held by the officials of the Lokayuktha Police is not such a circumstance to favour the accused. Furthermore, it is nowhere stated by P.W. 4 or any other witnesses as to which portion of the hand of the accused was held by Lokayuktha Police. So far as the officials are concerned, nowhere P.W. 4 or any witnesses stated that the Lokayuktha Police held the fingers of the accused and even if they had stated so, the fact that the hands of all the persons concerned were washed before they left to Bhadravathi leaves no room for suspicion. The admission of P.W. 4 and other witnesses of holding the hands of the accused by Lokayuktha Police is not such a serious discrepancy and therefore, is of no help to the accused. Finally, the learned Counsel contended that P.W. 1in his evidence states that in the room in which the accused was sitting at the time of the trap, there were no other persons than the accused. Whereas, P.Ws. 2 and 5 state that there were three persons in the said room. P.W. 8, the Investigating Officer states that it was only the accused alone, who was in the room at the time of the trap. Bringing to the notice of this Court this discrepancy, it is contended by the learned Counsel that this is a material discrepancy and creates a serious doubt with regard to the alleged trap made by P.W. 8 at the instance of P.W. 1. As stated by him earlier, it is necessary to note that the evidence of these witnesses was recorded after 7 years of the trap and such discrepancies are natural, as a man forgets the facts due to lapse of time. Whether two other persons other than the accused were present at the time of the trap or not is of no importance and does not go to the extent of diluting the evidence of the prosecution. 15. Whether two other persons other than the accused were present at the time of the trap or not is of no importance and does not go to the extent of diluting the evidence of the prosecution. 15. The learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Panalal Damodar Rathi vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 1191 : 1979 Cri L..J. 936 (SC) (1979) 4 SCC 526 , wherein the Apex Court held that in the absence of corroboration of the evidence of the complainant regarding the demand for money by the police, his evidence alone cannot be accepted. The Hon'ble Apex Court has considered this aspect in paras 9 and 10 of the judgment and held that it is unsafe to base the conviction on the sole testimony of the panch witness as P.W. 3. In the said case there was no mention about the appellant asking the complainant whether he had brought the money asked for. So also, he relied upon the decision in G.V. Nanjundiah v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1987 SC 2402 : 1987 Supp. SCC 266: 1987 (3) Crimes 217 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held in the circumstances, where the allegation was that the accused received the money with his left hand and transferred it to his right hand and thereafter put it into the pocket of the bush shirt, it was held that it is an unusual circumstance, particularly, when stated by an unreliable witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court suspected the evidence of the witnesses and granted an order of acquittal. Placing reliance on these decisions, the Counsel contended that the evidence of the complainant has not been supported and there is no mention of demand by the accused in the evidence of P.W. 2 and therefore, he contends that the evidence creates doubt about the trap laid by the Lokayuktha Police. Now it is relevant to note that though, P.W. 2 in the chief examination did not say anything as regards the demand made by the accused, it is mentioned in the complaint that the accused had demanded an amount of Rs. 150/- for getting the work done and the complainant approached P.W. 8 with the complaint, Ex. P. 1 which reveals the demand of the accused. 150/- for getting the work done and the complainant approached P.W. 8 with the complaint, Ex. P. 1 which reveals the demand of the accused. The contents of the complaint reveal demand by the accused and if on the earlier day a demand was made and on the next day when the amount is given to the accused and he receives the same, it amounts to acceptance of the amount paid in pursuance of the demand made earlier. It is in reality an implied demand and acceptance, otherwise there was no reason for the accused to receive the money. If the conduct of the accused is looked into in the context of the contents of the complaint, Ex. P. 1, the evidence of P.W. 1 and the fact that the complainant had gone on many occasions to the office of the accused with a request for the copy of the layout sketch and at the fag end, the accused agreed to give the sketch only after the payment of Rs. 150/-, the conduct of the accused itself proves the implied demand and in addition to this so far as P.W. 2, the shadow witness, though in the chief examination he did not tell about the demand made by the accused, in the cross-examination after treating him hostile admits to have made a statement about the demand and the complainant having paid the amount of Rs. 150/- after the demand. So, in view of the fact that P.W. 2 also supports the version of P.W. 1 and that the evidence of the witnesses was recorded after 7 years of trap, it may be that P.W. 2 initially had forgotten about the details of the happenings at that time and was recollected when his statement was brought to his notice. Hence, I am of the opinion that the evidence of P.W. 2 supports the version of P.W. 1 and it cannot be said that there is no corroboration of the evidence of P.W. 2. The facts in the decisions referred to supra differ a lot from the facts on hand and therefore, the principle laid down by the Apex Court do not squarely apply to these facts. 16. The learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. The facts in the decisions referred to supra differ a lot from the facts on hand and therefore, the principle laid down by the Apex Court do not squarely apply to these facts. 16. The learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Zakaullah AIR 1998 SC 1474 : 1998 Cri.L.J. 863 (SC): (1998) 1 SCC 557 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 456 herein it is held that so far as testimony of the bribe given is concerned, it cannot be rejected merely because he is aggrieved by the conduct of the accused and it is also said that his evidence requires scrutiny with great care. So also, the Apex Court has held that mere acquaintance of the witnesses with the Police Officers would not make a witness non-independent. It further observed that every citizen is presumed to be independent until proved to be dependent on police for any purpose whatsoever. So, in the context of the principles laid down in this decision, it cannot be said that P.Ws. 2 and 4 had any interest and merely because that they were working in some office itself is not a sufficient circumstance to discard their evidence. Furthermore, the learned Counsel also relied upon the decision in (2008)3 SCC (Cri.) 855, wherein the accused during his cross-examination under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. has given the version for the first time during the examination stating that the bribe money was forced into his hands and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that such a stand is not acceptable in view of other evidence against him. So also, the Hon'ble Apex Court taking into consideration the presumption under Section 20 of the Act held that the infirmities found are unrealistic and the complainant's evidence clearly supported the prosecution story and the conviction by the Trial Court was upheld. The perusal of the facts in the decision and the facts on hand would reveal that the version of the accused before P.W. 8 is altogether different from the version of the accused during his statement under Section 313 of the Cr. The perusal of the facts in the decision and the facts on hand would reveal that the version of the accused before P.W. 8 is altogether different from the version of the accused during his statement under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. The accused stated before P.W. 8 that the complainant paid the money for the expenses of the surveyor and that he forcibly kept the money on the table and left the place and that after the complainant went away, he kept the money in his pocket. Now as could be seen from his statement under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C., except denying the prosecution version and the incriminating evidence, the accused has not stated anything before the Court. In that view of the matter, except the minor discrepancies stated above, I do not find any such material discrepancy or contradiction in the evidence lead by the prosecution. 17. P.W. 3 is an official working in the office of the Tahsildar, who speaks about the register, Ex. P. 10 and also Ex. P. 1, the application filed by the complainant for copy of the layout sketch. P.W. 6 is the PSI, who carried the First Information Report to the Special Court and P.W. 7 is the Police Constable who assisted the investigation. P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer and P.W. 9 is the District Magistrate (Deputy Commissioner) who issued Ex. P. 23, the sanction for the prosecution on the basis of the report, Ex. P. 22. Though, the copy of the charge-sheet and the statements are not referred to in Ex. P. 22, it is relevant to note that all the facts pertaining to the trap are contained in the report, Ex. P. 22 and on the basis of the said facts contained P.W. 9 has issued the sanction. He has stated that he has been satisfied that there is prima facie material to prosecute the accused. In the circumstances, I do not find any regularity even in the sanction granted by P.W. 9 to prosecute the accused. 18. Both the law and dharma have been developed with the roots of ethics, moral values and humanity. Though, the Courts feel satisfied that the criminal is punished in the cases like this, wherein the paltry amount of Rs. 150/-was received and that the accused has to undergo the sentence. 18. Both the law and dharma have been developed with the roots of ethics, moral values and humanity. Though, the Courts feel satisfied that the criminal is punished in the cases like this, wherein the paltry amount of Rs. 150/-was received and that the accused has to undergo the sentence. If we consider the material life as the sea or ocean, the trap laid is just like catching a fish in the sea, wherein the whales live comfortably by swallowing many more fishes and are not brought under the clutches of law or it can be said that the existing law is not sufficient to bring the whales in the web. Hence, the Government has to bestow its attention towards the whales and amend the law. So that, whales are also brought within the clutches of law and save the people from the harassment and create an atmosphere of secured feeling. But, the fact that there is no such law at present cannot be a concession in this case, where from the evidence the crime under the existing law is proved. 19. The scrutiny of the evidence lead by the prosecution though contains minor discrepancies, so far as the demand, the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 8 is consistent, cogent and trustworthy. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses. In the circumstances, the Trial Court has taken into consideration all the material placed on record and on appreciation of the same has come to a right conclusion. So far as the sentence is concerned, the Trial Court has awarded the minimum sentence provided in law. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with even the sentence ordered by the Trial Court. The appellant has not made out any such grounds to warrant the interference. Hence, I answer the point in negative and proceed to pass the following: Order The appeal is dismissed. The conviction of the appellant for the charge under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is confirmed. The Court below is directed to secure the presence of the accused to undergo the sentence.