JUDGMENT Shrivastava, J. -- 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of absolvitur dated 21.11.2005 passed by learned Special Judge, Gwalior, in Special Case No.11/2004 acquitting respondent from the charges punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short "the Act"), this appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh after obtaining leave to file appeal under section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. In brief the case of prosecution is that house No.25/3-B located at Deendayal Nagar, which was built up by the Housing Board, was allotted to Ramsevak, who is the son of Matadin (hereinafter referred to as the complainant). Said Ramsevak submitted an application to obtain true copy of the lease agreement on 7.10.2003 in the office of the Estate Officer of M.P. Housing Board because the said copy was to be submitted to register the lease-deed. According to the prosecution, the respondent, who was serving on the post of Assistant Grade III in the office of Estate Officer, made a demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant to get the true copy prepared, but, the complainant was not keen enough to give any bribe, hence, he submitted a complaint on 15.10.2003 to Superintendent of Police of Lokayukta. 3. After registering the said complaint, the investigation was started. Two gazetted officers were summoned through Collector. Gwalior and a letter was written on 15.10.2003. In compliance to the said letter, two Panch witnesses, namely S.P. Gupta, lecturer, and Arvind Bohare. Manager, District Trade and Industrial Centre, were sent. These two Panch witnesses arrived in the office of Lokayukta on 15.10.2003 at 2: 10 p.m. Thereafter. Panch witness S.P. Gupta read over the complaint to the complainant and the contents thereof was accepted by him. On the complaint the complainant endorsed his signature anlj thereafter another Panch witness Arvind Bohare also put his signature. 4. Thereafter, on submitting a currency note of Rs.500/- and five currency notes having denomination of Rs.100/- each (in total Rs.1,000/-), they were, coated with phenolphthalein powder by Constable Ravindra Singh. The pocket of Kurta of complainant was searched by Constable Bhagsingh and in the said pocket treated currency notes were kept with a pacification that after the demand of bribe is made by the respondent, these treated currency notes be given to him by the complainant. The pocket of Kurta of complainant was searched by Constable Bhagsingh and in the said pocket treated currency notes were kept with a pacification that after the demand of bribe is made by the respondent, these treated currency notes be given to him by the complainant. Thereafter, Constable Bhagsingh prepared a solution of sodium carbonate in which fingers of Constable Ravindra Singh were dipped and the tinted pink colour chemical solution was collected in a sealed bottle. The hands of other members of trap party were also washed in freshly prepared solution of sodium carbonate, but on dipping the fingers by them, the colour of solution did not change and the unchanged chemical solution of sodium carbonate was also collected in separate sealed bottle. A pre-trap Panchnama was also prepared. 5. The trap party thereafter proceeded towards the office of the Housing Board where the respondent was serving. The complainant was also pacified how to operate micro tape recorder and thereafter the same was also handed over to him. Constables Ummed Singh and Dinesh Singh were sent alongwith the complainant and they were followed by Panch witness. On reaching the office of the respondent, the members of trap party stood on the ground floor, while the complainant was sent to the' office of the respondent which is at first floor. After some time, the respondent and complainant came out from the office and in front of Maharaja Complex sat in a shop where the complainant gave signal by rubbing his hand on his head. On receiving the signal of the complainant, Constables Dinesh Singh and Ummed Singh caught hold of the hands of respondent from the wrist and the members of trap party also arrived there. After giving introduction by the trap party, fingers of the hands of Panch witness S.P. Gupta were dipped in freshly prepared solution of sodium carbonate, but on dipping his fingers the colour of the solution did not change. The unchanged chemical solution was collected in a sealed bottle. Thereafter, the Panch witness made inquiry from the respondent where he has kept bribe money and it was informed by respondent that the same is in his fist. The bribe money was recovered from the fist of the respondent and on tallying the numbers of the treated currency notes with pre-trap Panchnama, they were found to be same. Thereafter, the Panch witness made inquiry from the respondent where he has kept bribe money and it was informed by respondent that the same is in his fist. The bribe money was recovered from the fist of the respondent and on tallying the numbers of the treated currency notes with pre-trap Panchnama, they were found to be same. Again a fresh solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in which the fingers of the hands of respondent were dipped and on dipping his fingers the colour of solution turned to pink. The fingers of the hands of Panch witness S.P. Gupta thereafter was also subjected to phenolphthalein powder test which was also found to be positive. The tinted hand wash of respondent and Panch witness was collected in separate bottles which were later on sealed. The micro tape recorder was also taken back from the complainant, but complainant told that as he became perplexed in operating tape recorder, therefore, conversation in respect of making demand of bribe by the respondent with him could not be tape recorded. A post-trap Panchnama was also prepared. 6. After obtaining the requisite sanction, as envisaged under section 19 of the Act, a charge-sheet was submitted before learned Special Judge who framed charges punishable under section 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act, which respondent denied and requested for the trial. 7. In order to prove the charges, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and placed EX.P-l to Ex.P-27, the documents on record. The defence of respondent is that he never made any demand of bribe or accepted the same from the complainant. The bribe money was also not seized from him. The, original lease-deed was already given to the complainant and his son much prior to the date of trap and therefore there was having no occasion/motive for the respondent to make any demand of bribe. However, in support of his defence, the respondent did not choose to examine any witness. 8. The bribe money was also not seized from him. The, original lease-deed was already given to the complainant and his son much prior to the date of trap and therefore there was having no occasion/motive for the respondent to make any demand of bribe. However, in support of his defence, the respondent did not choose to examine any witness. 8. The learned Special Judge on the basis of evidence placed on record; came to hold that demand of bribe made by the respondent and its acceptance has not been proved and further it came to hold that document of the lease-deed executed in between the Housing Board and Ramsevak (son of complainant) was already delivered to him, therefore, there was no occasion/motive for the respondent to make any demand of bribe. Hence, learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent from all the charges. 9. In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh after obtaining leave to file appeal. 10. The contention of Shri J.D. Suryawanshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the appellate/State, is that the approach of learned Special Judge that there was no motive for the respondent to make any demand of bribe because the lease-deed was already handed over to Ramsevak (son of complainant) much prior to the date of trap viz. 15.10.2003 , is wrong. Further, it has been contended by him that learned Special Court has been much influenced from the statements of complainant (PW5) and his son Ramsevak Sharma (PW7) because both of them are hostile witnesses, therefore, demand of bribe and acceptance of it by the respondent is not proved from their statements, but learned Special Court has totally ignored that the factum of motive is that later on a demand of true copy of the lease-deed was made by Ramsevak, who is the son of complainant, because he was required to get the lease-deed registered and for that purpose he made demand to deliver a true copy on 7.10.2003 vide his application EX.P-20 addressed to Estate Officer of the Housing Board. So far as acquittal of respondent because the complainant (PW5) and his son Ramsevak Sharma (PW7) did not support the case of prosecution and became hostile is concerned, it has been submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that on the basis of other evidence available on record, particularly of Panch witness S.P. Gupta (PW6) and further that the file of the Housing Board, which was containing application (Ex.P-20) of the son of complainant, was sezied from the possession of the respondent, therefore, there was having a motive for him to make demand of bribe. The contention of learned Public Prosecutor is that even if the complainant would become hostile, it will not somersault the case of prosecution if it is proved from other clinching and circumstantial evidence. In support of his contention, learned Public Prosecutor has heavily placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Hazari Lal v. The State (Delhi Administration) [ AIR 1980 SC 873 ], and a Single Bench decision of this Court Dharmraj v. State of M.P. [ 1989(1) Crimes 265 ]. 11. By placing reliance on the latest pronouncement of Supreme Court State Represented by CBI, Hyderabad v. G. Prem Raj [ (2010) 1 SCC 398 ], it has been contended by learned Public Prosecutor that once the bribe money is seized from the possession of accused, statutory presumption under section 20 of the Act would be made applicable against him and in absence of any cogent evidence in rebuttal that how he came in possession of the bribe money, it shall be presumed that he had made the demand of bribe and accepted the same. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on some more decisions of Supreme Court C.K. Damodaran Nair v. Government of India [ (1997)9 SCC 477 ], M.O. Shamsudhin v. State of Kerala [( 1995)3 SCC 351], M. Narsinga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh [ AIR 2001 SC 318 ], State of Maharashtra v. Rashid B. Mulani [ (2006) 1 SCC 407 ], and Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs v. State of M.P. [ (2007)7 SCC 625 ]. On these premised submissions, it has been contended by learned Public Prosecutor that by allowing this appeal, the impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside and by convicting the respondent under sections 7, l3(1)(d)/13(2) of the Act, suitable sentence be awarded against him. 12. On these premised submissions, it has been contended by learned Public Prosecutor that by allowing this appeal, the impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside and by convicting the respondent under sections 7, l3(1)(d)/13(2) of the Act, suitable sentence be awarded against him. 12. Per contra, Shri Shivendra Singh and Shri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that there was no motive for the respondent to make any demand of bribe as well as there is no clinching evidence that he made any demand of bribe or accepted the same, therefore, statutory presumption under section 20 of the Act would not be made applicable against him. 13. So far as change of colour on dipping the fingers of respondent in the chemical solution of sodium carbonate is concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel that complainant shook his hand from the respondent, and therefore, phenolphthalein powder test was found to be positive. By inviting our attention to para 21 of the statement of Panch witness Arvind Kumar Bohare (PW9), it has been argued that because it is borne out from his testimony that the complainant went in a separate private vehicle, therefore, he was having an occasion to come in contact with treated currency notes and in order to implicate the respondent falsely, it can be inferred that before the shook his hand from the respondent, he touched the treated currency notes, as a result of which, the particles of chemical-powder were fallen on the palm of respondent and hence the chemical test conducted on the respondent was found to be positive. The contention of learned counsel is that why the complainant was sent in a separate private vehicle and other members of the trap party travelled in a separate vehicle, this infirmity raises a doubt about the genuineness of the trap. 14. The contention of learned counsel is that why the complainant was sent in a separate private vehicle and other members of the trap party travelled in a separate vehicle, this infirmity raises a doubt about the genuineness of the trap. 14. By challenging the finding of learned Special Court holding that the sanction (Ex.P-9) is valid, it has been contended by learned counsel that there is no application of mind by the sanctioning authority before according sanction to prosecute the respondent and in this regard, he has also invited our attention to the statement of Brindawan Tiwari (PW4), Section Officer of the Housing Board, who has categorically stated that sanction order was prepared by the law department and the Commissioner who was the sanctioning authority had only signed on that document and hence, it has been submitted by learned counsel that there is no legal sanction in the eye of law and on this additional ground also, the respondent is entitled to be acquitted. On these premised submissions, it has been argued by learned counsel that learned Special Judge has assigned cogent reasons in acquitting the respondent and there is no substance in this appeal and the same be dismissed. 15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 16. In a case where the charges under section 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act arc levelled against the accused, prosecution is obliged to prove the motive, demand of bribe and acceptance of it by the accused and if the recovery of the bribe money is found from the possession of the accused, statutory presumption would be made applicable against him and the accused is required to explain the circumstances that how he came in possession of bribe money. Needless to say, explanation should be based on preponderance and probability so that a prudent man may digest the said defence. It is also equally true that if the defence is found to be probable, due weight-age should be given to it. The essential ingredients to prove the charges under section 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act have been taken into consideration by the Supreme Court in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay and another [ AIR 1986 SC 2045 ]. The essential ingredients to prove the charges under section 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act have been taken into consideration by the Supreme Court in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay and another [ AIR 1986 SC 2045 ]. which are: (1) that the accused was a public servant; (2) that he must be shown to have obtained from any person any gratification other than legal remuneration; and (3) that the, gratification should be as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour to any person. It is immaterial whether amount is received before or after the favour is done. To constitute an offence under this section, it is enough if : (a) the public servant who accepts the gratification, takes it by inducing a belief or hold out that he would render assistance to the giver; and (b) the giver gives the gratification under that belief. 17. Testing the above-said ingredients and tests on the touchstone and anvil of the evidence placed on record in order to ascertain whether there is cogent evidence to prove the charges or not, we shall now examine the evidence of prosecution as well as defence made by the respondent during the cross-examination on the prosecution witnesses as well as under section 313 of CrPC statement, although he did not examine any witness in support of his defence. 18. Ravindra Singh (PW1) is the Constable who on the date of trap applied phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes given by the complainant. The other important witnesses are Brindawan Tiwari (PW4), who has proved sanction order (Ex.P-9) to prosecute the respondent, complainant Matadin Sharma (PW5) and his son Ramsevak (PW7) who me the hostile witnesses, Panch witness S.P. Gupta (PW6), Ummed Singh Tomar (W8), Panch witness Arvind Kumar Bohare (PW9) and Investigating Officer K.S. Nagar (PW11). 19. True, complainant Matadin Sharma (PW5) and his son Ramsevak Sharma (PW7) have been declared hostile and they have not supported the case of prosecution and have categorically stated that neither respondent made any demand of bribe from the complainant, nor accepted the same and further complainant did not submit any application in the office of Lokayukta. However, complainant Matadin Sharma (PW5) in his testimony has admitted his signature on his complaint (Ex.P-14). However, complainant Matadin Sharma (PW5) in his testimony has admitted his signature on his complaint (Ex.P-14). After he was declared hostile, cross-examination was made by Public Prosecutor and in para 4 he admitted that he gave currency notes of Rs.1,000/- in the office of Lokayukta. He has also admitted his signature on pre and post-trap Panchnamas. In para 10 of his cross-examination this witness has admitted that he got written the complaint application (Ex.P-14) from one Subhash Dubey on 15.10.2003. Hence, writing of complaint (Ex.P14) from Subhash Dubey as well as having his signature on this complaint has been admitted by the complainant. Further, he has admitted that he endorsed his signature on the pre and post-trap Panchanamas as well as he also gave currency notes of Rs.1,000/- in the office of Lokayukta Ramsevak Sharma (PW7), who is the son of complainant, is also a hostile witness and has not supported the case of prosecution. However, merely because these two witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the case of prosecution, it cannot be said that the respondent cannot be convicted if there is other clinching evidence and proved circumstance in order to hold that charges are proved. 20. Undisputedly Panch witnesses S.P. Gupta (PW6) and Arvind Kumar Bohare (PW9) are the independent witnesses. We do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the scribe of the complaint Subhash Dubey has not been examined in order to ascertain whether the facts stated in the complain (Ex.P-14) are true or not, because, on going through the statement of S.P. Gupta (PW6), we find that this independent witness read over the complaint to the complainant and after hearing the contents thereof, complainant accepted the contents and put his signature. True, in para 12 this witness has stated that when he read over the complaint (Ex.P-14) to the complainant, at that time, it was not containing his (complaint's) signature, but further he has clarified that after reading the contents of the complaint, pen was given to the complainant and thereafter complainant put his signature on his complaint. True, in para 12 this witness has stated that when he read over the complaint (Ex.P-14) to the complainant, at that time, it was not containing his (complaint's) signature, but further he has clarified that after reading the contents of the complaint, pen was given to the complainant and thereafter complainant put his signature on his complaint. According to us, the real intention to read over the contents of the complaint to the complainant is that whether he accepts the contents of the complaint or not and even if at the time when the complaint (Ex.P14) was being read over by the Panch witness, it was not containing the signature of complainant, since after hearing the contents of the complaint, he accepted the same to be true and thereafter his signature was obtained, therefore, according to us, the case of prosecution would not become weak and no benefit can be given to the respondent on account of this irregularity. The complainant in cross-examination has admitted that the complaint was got written from one Subhash Dubey and further he admits that it bears his signature. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of independent Panch witness S.P. Gupta in respect to his evidence that he read over the complaint to the complainant and after hearing its contents, the complainant accepted the same and put his signature. Hence, according to us, demand of making bribe by the respondent has been proved from the statement of independent Panch witness S.P. Gupta (PW6). The statement of S.P. Gupta has been corroborated by the testimony of other Panch witness Arvind umar Bohare (PW9) who has categorically stated that Panch witness S.P. Gupta read over the contents of the complaint in high tone to the complainant. 21. The approach of learned Special Court holding that there was no motive for the respondent to make any demand of bribe because the original lease-deed was already delivered to the son of complainant in whose favour the lease-deed was executed, is perverse. 21. The approach of learned Special Court holding that there was no motive for the respondent to make any demand of bribe because the original lease-deed was already delivered to the son of complainant in whose favour the lease-deed was executed, is perverse. On going through relevant file of the Housing Board article "Ka" which was seized by the Investigating Officer from the possession of the respondent, we find that original lease-deed was given to the complainant (rather of Ramsevak in whose favour the lease-deed was executed) on 19.9.2003 and there is signature of the complainant on the file of its receipt, but, the cause and motive of making demand of bribe is altogether different. An application (Ex.P-20) was submitted by Ramsevak Sharma (who is the. son of complainant and in whose favour the lease-deed was executed by the Housing Board) in the office of Estate Officer of the Housing Board where the respondent was serving. In this application (Ex.P-20), it has been categorically stated that he needs a true copy of the lease-deed because the lessee Ramsevak Sharma wants to get the lease-deed registered. This application was submitted on 7.10.2003 in the office of the Estate Officer of the Housing Board. There is evidence that this application was submitted to the respondent and indeed according to the statement of Investigating Officer K.S. Nagar (PW11), the file article "ka" was seized from the respondent. On going through the note-sheet dated 13.10.2003 of the file of Housing Board, this Court finds that vide application Ex.P-20, a true copy -of the lease-deed has been demanded because the lessee wants to get the lease-deed registered. This application of Ramsevak Sharma was allowed on 14.10.2003. Hence, the respondent was having motive to make demand of bribe from the respondent because he was possessing the said file in which order has already been passed by the competent authority to deliver true copy of the lease-deed and therefore we can infer that the respondent made demand of bribe on 14.10.2003 to deliver true copy of the lease-deed. Nedless to say that the date of complaint (Ex.P-14) is 15.10.2003 and we can infer that on 14.10.2003 the respondent made demand of bribe from the complainant. Indeed, this fact is also mentioned by the complainant in his complaint (Ex.P-14) that on 14.10.2003 the respondent made demand of bribe of Rs.1,000/-. Nedless to say that the date of complaint (Ex.P-14) is 15.10.2003 and we can infer that on 14.10.2003 the respondent made demand of bribe from the complainant. Indeed, this fact is also mentioned by the complainant in his complaint (Ex.P-14) that on 14.10.2003 the respondent made demand of bribe of Rs.1,000/-. The complaint was submitted by the complainant in the office of Special Police Establishment on 15.10.2003 and on the same date trap was conducted. Hence, according to us, the approach of learned Special Court that since original lease-deed was already delivered to the complainant, therefore, respondent was not having any occasion to made any demand of bribe, is perverse and contrary to the documents and the evidence placed on record. 22. We are not at all impressed by the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that in the application EX.P-20 Ramsevak is making demand to deliver true copy of the lease-deed for the purpose of its registration while in the complaint (Ex.P-14) it has been stated that true copy of the lease-deed is needed to obtain loan from the State Bank and because why the true copy of the lease-deed is necessary it is not clear, therefore, the case of prosecution is not proved. Be that as it may, we are not at all concerned that for what purpose the true copy of the lease-deed was needed, but in both these documents prayer to deliver true copy is 'made and to deliver true copy competent authority of the Housing Board passed an order to issue true copy of Ramsevak and therefore respondent was having motive to make demand of bribe to deliver the true copy of the lease-deed. 23. True, the complainant has not supported the case of prosecution that respondent made any demand of bribe or accepted the same, but he is a hostile witness and it appears that he has been won over by the respondent. The Supreme Court in Hazari Lal (supra), has categorically held that demand of bribe and its acceptance can also be proved from other circumstantial evidence. 24. The Supreme Court in Hazari Lal (supra), has categorically held that demand of bribe and its acceptance can also be proved from other circumstantial evidence. 24. In the present case, no person was sent along with the complainant as surveillance witness in order to overhear what actually transpired between the respondent and the complainant, but from the statement of the Panch witnesses, Constable and Investigating Officer, it is emphatically proved that after receiving the signal from the complainant, hands of the respondent were caught and were subjected to phenolphthalein powder test which was found to be positive. According to the statement of independent Panch witnesses, Investigating Officer K.S. Nagar (PW 11) and Constable Ummed Singh Tomar (PW8), treated currency notes were seized from the possession of the respondent as they were found in his fist. The phenolphthalein powder test was also found to be positive when it was conducted on the fingers of the hands of the respondent. Hence, according to us, since respondent was possessing the bribe money with him, statutory presumption that he has accepted the bribe as envisaged under section 20 of the Act would be attracted and it was for him to explain how he came into the possession of the bribe money. Not even a single witness has been examined by the respondent except the bald statement given by him in his statement recorded under section 313 of CrPC that he did not accept the bribe money as it was not required by him because he already gave the original lease-deed to the complainant. The Supreme Court in Girja Prasad (supra), in the similar facts and circumstances from para 22 to 23 as well as in para 31 while dealing with the same situation, came to hold that since no evidence in rebuttal has been adduced by the accused, therefore, statutory presumption is not rebutted against him and hence by applying the abovesaid principles in the present facts and circumstances of the case, we can say that there is presumption against the respondent that he accepted the bribe money. 25. 25. If there was no motive for the respondent to make any demand of bribe from the complainant, why on 14.10.2003 he did not give the true copy of the lease-deed although it was already ordered by the officer of the Housing Board to deliver the same and why did complainant go to the restaurant outside his office, all these circumstances indicate that respondent made a demand of bribe and since the bribe money was seized from his fist, as proved by the statement of independent Panch witness S.P. Gupta (PW6) and also from the testimony of Investigating Officer K.S. Nagar (PW 11) and Constable Ummed Singh Tomar (PW8), it can be inferred that he accepted the bribe money. Needless to say the circumstances that the officers of the Housing Board already passed the order on the application (Ex.P-20 dated 7.10.2003) of Ramsevak Sharma that true copy be delivered to him and this order is dated 14.10.2003 and the complaint (Ex.P-14) was made by the complainant on 15.10.2003 stating therein that the demand of bribe of Rs.1,000/- has been made by the respondent on 14.10.2003. The latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court G. Prem Raj (supra), is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 26. The latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court G. Prem Raj (supra), is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 26. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that complainant went in a separate private vehicle as stated by Panch witness Arvind Kumar Bohare (PW9) in para 21 of his statement and therefore, he had an occasion to come in contact with treated currency notes so as to implicate the respondent falsely by shaking his hand with him is concerned, according to us, few words in a stray sentence stated by said Panch witness Arvind Bohare would not somersault the entire case of prosecution because the other independent Panch witness S.P. Gupta (PW6) has stated that in two vehicles all the members of trap praty including the complainant went to the office of the respondent; one vehicle was private in which some of the members were sitting and in another Government vehicle rest of the members of trap party were sitting, and therefore, according to us, when the complainant was sitting with the members of trap party, who are well experienced officers of the office of Special Police Establishment, certainly they will not permit the complainant to come in contact with treated currency notes prior of giving it to the respondent. Hence, this contention of learned counsel for the respondent is also not accepted. 27. So far as validity of sanction order is concerned, it appears that no independent application of mind was made by the sanctioning authority and as stated by Brindawan Tiwari.(PW4) who is the Section Officer of the Housing Board, sanction order was prepared by the Law Department of its office on which the Commissioner put his signature, but since the Commissioner was competent to issue sanction order, therefore, according to section 19(3) and (4) of the said Act, no infirmity can be attributed on this count. Even otherwise, this point was not seriously contested by the respondent as it appears from the impugned judgment para 17. Hence, the judgment of acquittal accorded by learned Special Court is hereby set aside and it is hereby held that respondent has committed the offence under section 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act. 28. The question would now rest, what would be the appropriate sentence which is to be passed against the respondent. Hence, the judgment of acquittal accorded by learned Special Court is hereby set aside and it is hereby held that respondent has committed the offence under section 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act. 28. The question would now rest, what would be the appropriate sentence which is to be passed against the respondent. Certainly, now the respondent may lose his job and therefore looking to the over all circumstances, he is hereby sentenced to suffer six months simple imprisonment and fine Rs.,1000/-, in default, 1 month simple imprisonment under section 7 of the Act and one year simple imprisonment and fine Rs.1,000/-, in default, 1 month simple imprisonment under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act. 29. Ex consequenti, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment of absolvitur acquitting the respondent passed by learned Special Judge is hereby set aside and the respondent is hereby convicted for the charges punishable under section 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act to serve out the sentence which we have already mentioned hereinabove. The respondent is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled after he surrenders on or before 19th April, 20 10 before learned Special Judge who shall send the respondent to jail to serve out the sentence. In case respondent fails to appear on or before 19th April, 2010, the learned Special Judge shall issue notice and would take appropriate action against h is surety. The arrest warrant shall also be issued against the respondent. After sending the respondent to jail to serve out the sentence, learned Special Judge shall intimate the Registry of this Court. The Registry is hereby directed to send the original bail bonds papers to the learned Special Court and the copy thereof be retained in this file for the record. The Registry is further directed to send the record of learned Special Court to that Court so as to reach much prior to 19th April, 2010.