Judgment :- (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction in C. C. 73/86 dated 21-9-1998. The allegations against the appellant before the Special Court were, a sum of Rs. 19,473/- collected on 19-11-1982 towards customs duty on three inwards foreign parcels under receipt Nos. 19022, 19023, and 19024 from one Verghese of Southern Electronics, Bangalore, was not accounted by the appellant to the daily account of Sub Post Office when he was working as Sub Post Master of Peenya Small Industries Post Office, Bangalore. (2) The learned trial Judge, on appraisal of the evidence brought on record in the form of PWs-1 to 11 and Exs. P1 to P20, ultimately convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 409, IPC and also for the offence punishable under Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the present appeal is filed. (3) According to the appellant, the Court below has committed gross error in not appreciating the evidence in the right perspective; by drawing wrong inferences, the Court has convicted the appellant which is nothing but miscarriage of justice. The Court ought not to have come to the conclusion that just because the parcel was delivered to the addressee after payment of customs duty, the appellant alone could have misappropriated the said amount. Except the oral evidence of PW3 and PW4, no other evidence in this regard came on record and therefore, the learned Judge was not justified in placing reliance on the evidence of PW3 and PW4 and drawing adverse inference. Similarly, admissions of the appellant in 313 statement ought not to have been relied on by the Court and it explains bias while discharging duty as a Judge. Similarly, confession letters at Exs. P8 to P11 ought not to have been relied on. The trial Court, placing total reliance on these confession letters wherein remittance of certain amounts came to be made by the appellant, was totally wrong, and it failed to take into consideration non-application of mind of the sanctioning authority while according sanction to prosecute the appellant. With these averments, he has sought for setting aside the judgment of conviction. (4) Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the Special Standing Counsel representing the respondent authority are heard. With these averments, he has sought for setting aside the judgment of conviction. (4) Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the Special Standing Counsel representing the respondent authority are heard. (5) According to the learned counsel for the appellant, appellant is now aged 70 years and the alleged offence said to have been committed by him pertains to the year 1982. Therefore, in the absence of convincing and clinching evidence, the judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent authority submits the reasoning of the trial Court cannot be termed as perverse, and there is no situation wherein this Court can interfere with the judgment of conviction. (6) The Court has gone through the judgment of the trial Court and the records. (7) The point that would arise for consideration is : Whether the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court warrants interference? (8) Evidence of the witnesses on record would reveal that at the relevant point of time, one Gangadhar (PW1) was working as Public Relations Officer and Peenya Sub Post Office was within his jurisdiction. Every Thursday he would make a visit to Peeny Sub P. O. and in July 1982 when he visited the said post office, he found one Parthasarathy was searching for credit bills. On information, PW-2-K. Raghunathan was asked to bring the records and on verification of the records summarily, they did not find corresponding entries in the head P. O. summary sheets pertaining to customs duty received on certain parcels. Parcel receipts at Exs. P1 to P3 are marked and Ex. P4 is the daily account of sub Post Office. PW-2 the Assistant Superintendent of West Division, explains how parcels are delivered after collecting customs duty. He also speaks about irregularities and verification of accounts at Rajajinagar Post Office along with PW-1 Gangadhar. After verifying the records, it revealed that on 13-11-1982, parcels mentioned above were received at Peenya P. O. and on 19-11-1982 Rs. 19,473/-was collected as customs duty before delivering parcels to PW-3 Verghese (representative of Southern Electronics). This payment is substantiated by PW-3 as per Ex. P12. PW4 Boraiah was the postal assistant working under the appellant at the relevant point of time who speaks about receipt of the parcel and delivery of the same to PW3 after collecting customs duty. 19,473/-was collected as customs duty before delivering parcels to PW-3 Verghese (representative of Southern Electronics). This payment is substantiated by PW-3 as per Ex. P12. PW4 Boraiah was the postal assistant working under the appellant at the relevant point of time who speaks about receipt of the parcel and delivery of the same to PW3 after collecting customs duty. He admits the entries made by him at Ex. P13, window delivery receipt, Ex. P14 parcel abstract referred to in Ex. P13. Ex. P15 is the customs duty register and the relevant entry is at Ex. P15(a). (9) So far as the evidence of PWs-3 and 4, it reflects the fact that three foreign parcels were received at Sub Post Office, Peenya and delivered to the concerned addressee after collecting customs duty. The evidence of PW-5 Vedanayagam, another assistant, discloses receipt of parcels at Foreign Post Office; Bangalore, and assessment of customs duty on each parcel. Ex. P6 refers to the entry in Sub Office summary of Peenya P. O. and daily account on 19-11-1982 pertaining to the said Post Office, PW8 is Padina Balasubramaniyan who lodged the complaint to C. B. I. as per Ex. P16 after holding a preliminary enquiry and being convinced of the misappropriation; PW10 is the Senior Superintendent of P. O. Bangalore, who inspected and investigated the loss pertaining to Peenya Post Office which revealed that PW2 reported fraud committed by the appellant to the extent of Rs. 1,10,000/-. PW-11 Narayana is the investigating officer who completed the investigation and filed charge-sheet; he refers to FIR issued by the earlier I. O. K. P. Kaushal. (10) The evidence on record would reveal that none of the officials working either at Peenya or Rajajinagar or Foreign Parcel Office had any particular enmity against the appellant. During the normal course of inspection of PW1, non-remittance of amounts pertaining to customs duty came to light which led to an enquiry in the department and non-crediting of customs duty pertaining to the above mentioned three parcels. Though the appellant challenges the confession letters at Exs. P8 to P11, there is nothing on record to show that it was taken under coercion from him. He ought to have raised such objection at the earliest point of time before the Court, but till trial commenced, accused did not take such defence. Therefore, such contention is only for the purpose of defence. P8 to P11, there is nothing on record to show that it was taken under coercion from him. He ought to have raised such objection at the earliest point of time before the Court, but till trial commenced, accused did not take such defence. Therefore, such contention is only for the purpose of defence. The evidence of PW3 establishes remittance of customs duty on Rs. 19,473/-which was taken note of by PW4 who has made corresponding entry in the record. The records maintained at the concerned office would make it crystal clear that PW4 would never receive any amount towards customs duty if it is more than Rs. 100/-; the addressee would be brought to the Post Master and in his presence the amount would be collected before delivering the parcel. This fact is not denied by the accused. The evidence on record makes it crystal clear that after receiving the amount, accused did not credit the same to the concerned account in his post office and therefore it is not reflected in the daily account at Ex. P4 sent by Peenya P. O. to Rajajinagar P. O. Even in his 313 statement, he admits that only Rs. 4/-has been credited to customs duty on 19-11- 1982. (11) The entire evidence on record would reveal that after revelation of fraud, two amounts, Rs. 10,000/- at one time and another Rs. 5,000/-came to be credited by the appellant accused towards the short amount of C. D. Parcels. All these facts would only indicate that the accused who was well aware of misappropriation of amounts by him kept quiet till it was revealed during the regular inspection. There is no material in the form of cross-examination to suspect the bona fides and genuineness of any of the witnesses. In these circumstances, the appellant is not able to establish that the reasoning of the learned trial Judge was perverse and it deserves an order of acquittal. Therefore, the reasoning of the trial Court is held as justified in convicting the appellant. (12) The above conclusion and reasoning would indicate there is no good reason to reverse the judgment of conviction and finding of guilt as proved in respect of the above charges. Therefore, the reasoning of the trial Court is held as justified in convicting the appellant. (12) The above conclusion and reasoning would indicate there is no good reason to reverse the judgment of conviction and finding of guilt as proved in respect of the above charges. (13) Coming to the quantum of sentence, it is seen that so far as the offence under Section Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, commission of the offence is much prior to the coming into force of the Act of 1988. Section 5(1) and (2) of the Act of 1947 are replaced by Section 13 of the new Act of 1988. Under the old Act, if a public servant dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him under his control as a public servant, or allows anybody to do so, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but it may extend up to seven years and shall also be liable to pay fine. Proviso to the said section provides the Court with discretion of reducing the said sentence of imprisonment of less than one year provided there are 'special reasons' to do so. (14) So far as the present enactment of 1988, there is no discretion to the Court to give lesser punishment than one year, therefore, the minimum sentence is one year and maximum is seven years. In the present case, commission of the offence is definitely prior to the Act of 1988. Therefore, the question is, whether there are 'special reasons' to exercise judicial discretion of the Court. (15) As long back as in the year 1973, Their Lordships of the Apex Court said : 'In considering special reasons, judicial discretion of the Court is as wide as demand of the cause of substantial justice.' At paragraph 10, Their Lordships discussed the very purpose of sentence. In the present case, the incident in question has occurred in the year 1982 and charge-sheet came to be filed in 1984 or so. Trial ended in 1998. Now we are in 2010. Apparently as the offence in question has occurred prior to the new Act of 1988, sentence has to be under 1947 Act. In the present case, the incident in question has occurred in the year 1982 and charge-sheet came to be filed in 1984 or so. Trial ended in 1998. Now we are in 2010. Apparently as the offence in question has occurred prior to the new Act of 1988, sentence has to be under 1947 Act. Proviso to section 5(2) of the Act of 1947 gives the Court discretion to the Court to reduce the sentence of less than one year for 'special reasons'. (16) In this case, the appellant accused is 70 years old, guilty of misappropriation of funds as Sub Post Master at Peenya Post Office to the extent of Rs. 1,10,000/-. Though he paid Rs. 15,000/- in the year 1984, he did not pay the rest of the amount for various reasons. Be that as it may, in the last days of his life wisdom has prevailed on this seventy year old man to make good the loss caused on Account of his misconduct, and misappropriation of public money-is credited back to Post Office account. This indicates that he has realized that he has no right to make use of public money. He has retired from service and the offence in question has taken place 28 years ago. Having considered all these facts and taking into consideration that his wife is suffering from terminal illness, the Court is of the opinion discretion has to be shown in the award of sentence. (17) Reliance is placed on the following decisions: Ved Prakash Handooja v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1974 SC 2336 (Ved Prakash Handooja v. Delhi Administration, 1996 Crl. L. J. 4079 (Sukhwant Singh AC v. Union of India and 2003 3 SCC 641 (Ram Narayan Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation) 17A. Accordingly, I pass the following order. (a) Appellant accused shall undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and shall also pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. in default to undergo imprisonment for one week, for the offence punishable under Section 409, I. P. C. (b) So far as the offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, is concerned, he shall undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and also pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to undergo imprisonment for one week. (c) Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 1000/- and in default, to undergo imprisonment for one week. (c) Both the sentences shall run concurrently. (d) The appellant-accused is directed to appear before the concerned trial Court on 12-3-2010 to serve the sentence and also to pay the fine imposed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of conviction, but modifying the quantum of sentence. Appeal dismissed.