JUDGMENT By this appeal, the appellant assails legality, validity and correctness of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26-11-1996 passed by the Special Judge, Bilaspur in Special Criminal Case No. 2/1994, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty of commission of offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Act) and sentenced to undergo R. I. of two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each of the offences and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the records of the case and the judgment of the trial Court is that the complainant-Santram, P. W.2 purchased one acre land from one Kamta Prasad Thakur and with the sale deed, the complainant approached the appellant, who at the relevant time was posted and working as Patwari of Circle No. 3, Belsara, Tahsil Takhatpur. At that time, the appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 500/- to get mutation done. The complainant gave Rs. 100/- and for the remaining amount sought time. As the complainant was not willing to pay bribe, complaint in Ex. P-2 was lodged by the complainant before the D. S. P. (Vigilance), Bilaspur. Accordingly, trap was arranged. Currency notes of Rs. 400/- were collected from the complainant. Reaction of phenolphthalein powder in sodium carbonate solution was demonstrated in the presence of the complainant and panch witnesses. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the currency notes and the same was kept in the pocket of the complainant. After completion of pre-trap proceedings, details were recorded in pre-trap panchnama vide Ex. P-3. Further case of the prosecution is that after completing pre-trap proceedings, trap team proceeded to the house of the appellant. The complainant went into the house of the appellant and handed over the currency notes to the appellant and thereafter, signal was given to the trap party, which arrived at the spot. On appellant stating that the notes were kept in the platform in the room, memorandum Ex. P-4 was recorded and thereafter, currency notes were recovered vide Ex. P-5. Various documents, which included registered sale deed, mutation register and Khasra Panchshala were seized vide Ex. P-6. On appellant stating that the notes were kept in the platform in the room, memorandum Ex. P-4 was recorded and thereafter, currency notes were recovered vide Ex. P-5. Various documents, which included registered sale deed, mutation register and Khasra Panchshala were seized vide Ex. P-6. Hand wash of the complainant and panch witnesses were collected and sealed in bottles and currency notes were also collected. Trap panchnama was prepared vide Ex. P-7. Map was prepared vide Ex. P-13. Dehati Nalishi, Ex. P-14 was recorded. FIR was recorded in Ex. P-15. Bottles containing hand wash and wash of currency notes were sent to FSL vide Ex. P-16 and report of the FSL was received vide Ex. P-17. Upon completion of usual investigation and after obtaining sanction for prosecution from the appointing authority vide order dated 10-9-1993, charges-sheet was filed before the Court. On the basis of material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges alleging commission of offence under Sections 7 & 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act on 6-6-1994. The appellant abjured guilt. He was put to trial. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses i.e., Jayakaran Swarnkar, P. W.-1, Santram, P. W. 2, Sudarshan, P. W. 3, Ramdas, P. W.4, R. K. Shrivastava, P. W. 5, Ganesh Sharma, P. W. 6, Nayan Shah, P. W. 7 and R. J. Toppo, P. W. 8. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. in respect of circumstances and evidence appearing against him, which were denied. The appellant stated that he has been falsely implicated. To prove his innocence and in his defence, the appellant stated that the amount alleged to be given was towards return of loan amount taken by the complainant from the appellant. The appellant examined two defence witnesses i.e. Bhagwan Singh, D. W. 1 & Ram Dayal, D.W.2. 4. The learned trial Court relying upon the case of the prosecution, disbelieving the defence, held the appellant guilty of commission of offence and convicted under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced him as described above. 5. The appellant examined two defence witnesses i.e. Bhagwan Singh, D. W. 1 & Ram Dayal, D.W.2. 4. The learned trial Court relying upon the case of the prosecution, disbelieving the defence, held the appellant guilty of commission of offence and convicted under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced him as described above. 5. Assailing the correctness and validity of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the story of demand of bribe by the appellant is not proved by cogent and reliable evidence and the complainant falsely implicated the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the story of demand, in the present circumstances of the case, is liable to be disbelieved, in the absence of there being independent corroboration of demand either from the circumstances or oral evidence. According to him, Santram, P. W. 2, the complainant does not say that the appellant demanded money and thereafter he handed over currency notes to him. Further submission is that two panch witnesses R. K. Shrivastava, P. W.5 & Nayan Shah, P. W. 7 have neither seen the transaction of give and take nor have heard any conversation to prove demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant. It is also contended that the appellant was not competent to order mutation and therefore, the alleged motive for demand of bribe is not proved. Further submission is that one Amrit Rao, Constable, said to have accompanied the trap party, and who was sent along with the complainant and who was standing very close to the complainant at the time of alleged give and take of bribe, though cited as prosecution witness, was given up and the prosecution has failed to explain as to why such an important witness, who alone was in a position to hear conversation and see the incident, was not examined. Therefore, the case of the prosecution with regard to demand as well as acceptance becomes doubtful. Next submission is that at the time of investigation, the Police had taken statement of Bhagwan Singh under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C., in which, Bhagwan Singh had clearly stated that the appellant had given loan to the complainant, but Bhagwan Singh was not examined as prosecution witness and the appellant examined him as defence witness, who categorically stated that Rs. P. C., in which, Bhagwan Singh had clearly stated that the appellant had given loan to the complainant, but Bhagwan Singh was not examined as prosecution witness and the appellant examined him as defence witness, who categorically stated that Rs. 400/- was given by the appellant to the complainant towards loan amount. This fact has also been proved by other defence witness-Ram Dayal, D.W.2, who was also present at the time of transaction and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of two cultivators, who are residents of the village. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance in the case of Bal Krishan Sayal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 689 , Subhash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat (2002) 5 SCC 86 : ( AIR 2003 SC 2169 ), C. M. Girish Babu v. C. B. I. Cochin, High Court of Kerala (2009) 3 SCC 779 : ( AIR 2009 SC 2022 ), Arun Kumar Pandey v. State (2011) 1 CGLJ 99 : (2011 Cri LJ 4631), Darshan Lal v. Delhi Administration AIR 1974 SC 218 , Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 1191 and Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U. P. AIR 1981 SC 911 . 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel, while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, submitted that the demand has been proved from the complaint, Ex. P-2 submitted in writing by the complainant-Santram P. W. 2 in the Vigilance Office. The evidence of Santram, P. W. 2 is credible and does not suffer from any material contradictions and omissions. He further submitted that the complainant had no enmity with the appellant and in the absence of there being any motive for false implication, the story of demand has been rightly believed by the trial Court. He further submits that from the evidence of two panch witnesses, R. K. Shrivastava, P. W. 5 and Nayan Shah, P. W. 7, it is proved that the currency notes were recovered from inside the room of the house of the appellant and hand wash of the appellant found to be containing traces of phenolphthalein, which clearly proved that the appellant handled the currency notes. Therefore, the evidence on record not only proved demand but also acceptance and recovery. 7. Therefore, the evidence on record not only proved demand but also acceptance and recovery. 7. In the case of A. Subair v. State of Kerala (2009) 6 SCC 587 : (2009 AIR SCW 3994), it has been held that: The legal position is no more res integra that primary requisite of an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act is proof of a demand or request of valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant. In other words, in the absence of proof of demand or request from the public servant for a valuable thing of pecuniary advantage, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) cannot be held to be established. Mere recovery of currency notes (Rs. 20/- and Rs. 5/-) denomination, in the facts of the present case, by itself cannot be held to be proper or sufficient proof of the demand and acceptance of bribe. When the evidence produced by the prosecution has neither quality nor credibility, it would be unsafe to rest conviction upon such evidence. 8. The status of person offering bribe and the caution required while assessing his evidence implicating a Govt. servant was examined by the Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in the case of M. O. Shamsudhin v. State of Kerala (1995) 3 SCC 351 : (1995 AIR SCW 2717), wherein, it was held as under : 12. Now confining ourselves to the case of bribery it is generally accepted that the person offering a bribe to a public officer is in the nature of an accomplice in the offence of accepting illegal gratification but the nature of corroboration required in such a case should not be subjected to the same rigorous tests which are generally applied to a case of an approver. Though bribe givers are generally treated to be in the nature of accomplices but among them there are various types and gradations. In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act the complainant is the person who gives the bribe in a technical and legal sense because in every trap case wherever the complaint is filed there must be a person who has to give money to the accused which in fact is the bribe money which is demanded and without such a giving the trap cannot succeed. When there is such a demand by the public servant from a person who is unwilling, and if to do public good approaches the authorities and lodges a complaint, then in order that the trap succeeds he has to give the money. There could be another type of bribe-giver who is always willing to give money in order to get his work done and having got the work done he may send a complaint. Here he is a particeps criminis in respect of the crime committed and thus is an accomplice. thus there are grades and grades of accomplices and therefore a distinction could as well be drawn between cases where a person offers a bribe to achieve his own purpose and where one is forced to offer bribe under a threat of loss or harm that is to say under coercion. A person who falls in this category and who becomes a party for laying a trap stands on a different footing because he is only a victim of threat or coercion to which he was subjected to. Where such witnesses fall under the category of accomplices by reason of their being bribe-givers, in the first instance, the Court has to consider the degree of complicity and then look for corroboration if necessary as a rule of prudence. The extent and nature of corroboration that may be needed in a case may vary having regard to the facts and circumstances. What therefore, emerges from the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court is that the complainant’s evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and the Court has to consider the degree of complicity and then look for corroboration, if necessary, as a rule of prudence. The extent and nature of corroboration that may be needed in a case, may vary, having regard to the facts and circumstances. Evidence on record led by the prosecution, as also by the defence, therefore, is required to be scrutinized in order to find out as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the demand, acceptance and recovery. 9. The complaint, Ex. P-2 has been proved by the complainant, Ex. P-2, in which, he has categorically stated that the appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 500/- for mutation and correction of his name. He has further submitted that he gave Rs. 9. The complaint, Ex. P-2 has been proved by the complainant, Ex. P-2, in which, he has categorically stated that the appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 500/- for mutation and correction of his name. He has further submitted that he gave Rs. 100/- and the balance amount is to be paid in his house on Monday. He further says that he was not willing to give bribe. 10. Santram, P. W. 2 has deposed in his evidence that when he approached the appellant for mutation and correction, the appellant demanded bribe. He further deposed that on such demand, Rs. 100/- was given and for rest of the amount, it was to be paid after 3-4 days. He further states that thereafter he contacted one Ganesh, an Advocate informing that the appellant is demanding bribe, which he was not willing to give, thereafter, complaint in Ex. P-2 was written by Ganesh, P. W.6. He has also clearly deposed that the complaint was written, according to what was stated by him. The story of demand as stated in the complaint, Ex. P-2 and as stated before the Court does not contain any material contradiction relating to the amount and the motive of demand. In the complaint, it has been stated that Rs. 100/- was given, which has also been deposed in the evidence before the Court by the complainant-Santram, P. W. 2. The evidence that the complainant approached one Advocate-Ganesh informing him that the amount was demanded and he was not willing to pay, but action to be taken and appellant be apprehended, has been corroborated by the evidence of Ganesh Sharma, P. W. 6, Ganesh Sharma, P. W. 6 has clearly deposed that on 13-5-1991, the complainant came and informed to him that the appellant demanded Rs. 500/-, out of which, Rs. 100/- has already been given and he was not willing to pay balance amount of Rs. 400/- and wants action against him and also sought advise and whereafter, he was advised to approach the Vigilance Office. He further deposed that on the request of the complainant, the complaint was prepared by him in Ex. P-2. The evidence of Santram, P. W. 2 that the complaint was written by Ganesh, P. W. 6, as stated by him, has not been controverted. He further deposed that on the request of the complainant, the complaint was prepared by him in Ex. P-2. The evidence of Santram, P. W. 2 that the complaint was written by Ganesh, P. W. 6, as stated by him, has not been controverted. Moreover, nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination of complainant-Santram, P. W. 2 to show that there was any enmity between the appellant and the complainant and for that reason, motive for false implication of the appellant was there, despite specific suggestion that case of encroachment and imposition of penalty was not at his instance. In para 9 of cross-examination, Santram, P. W. 2 has stated that the case of encroachment was not initiated at the instance of the appellant and it was at the instance of Sarpanch. He also stated that he had given stamp paper to the appellant for correction and mutation. He has specifically denied the suggestion that loan was advanced to him by the appellant, for which, money was given by Bhagwan Singh, D. W. 1. From the evidence of panch witnesses i.e. R. K. Shrivastava, P. W. 5 and Narayan Shah, P. W. 7, it has come that the complainant was enquired about his complaint and the complainant has stated regarding demand of Rs. 500/- and therefore, both the panch witnesses proved their endorsement on the complaint. In the cross-examination of the complainant, there is no material contradiction and omission. In the absence of there being any evidence or circumstances showing false implication, demand has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 11. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant that in all circumstances, story of demand required independent corroboration, cannot be accepted. In the case of M. O. Shamsudhin (1995 AIR SCW 2717) (supra), it has been held that in a given case, the Court may look forward independent corroboration of story of demand. The fact that the complainant is a interested witness only requires cautious and careful scrutiny of his evidence, but it cannot be said that even if the story of demand is proved by cogent and credible evidence of the complainant, without independent corroboration, it should invariably be rejected. There is clinching uncontroverted evidence on record, which supports the story of demand. In the complaint, it has been categorically stated that out of Rs. 500/-, Rs. 100/- was given to the appellant in the first installment. There is clinching uncontroverted evidence on record, which supports the story of demand. In the complaint, it has been categorically stated that out of Rs. 500/-, Rs. 100/- was given to the appellant in the first installment. In the evidence, the complainant, P. W. 2 has clearly deposed that out of settled amount of Rs. 500/-, Rs. 100/- was given to the appellant. This evidence has remained uncontroverted testimony of receipt of Rs. 100/- by the appellant, also lends support to the story of demand by the appellant from the complainant. Thus, upon close scrutiny of the evidence of the complainant and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M. O. Shamsudhin (supra), I do not find any illegality in the finding of the learned trial Court in holding the demand proved. 12. As far as acceptance of bribe is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant sought to impress upon this Court by submitting that the complainant has only deposed that when he met the appellant, he handed over money without there being any demand. This cannot be accepted. The context and the transaction, under which, the balance amount of Rs. 400/- was to be paid, related to the demand raised by the appellant. The uncontroverted evidence has come on record that Rs. 100/- was taken by the appellant in the first installment. Therefore, the payment of Rs. 100/- by the complainant definitely indicates that the demand was raised by the appellant. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant laid great emphasis on the circumstance that one Amrit Rao, Constable, who had also accompanied the trap party and had gone along with the complainant and was standing very near to the complainant at the time of transaction between the complainant and the appellant, has not been examined and given up by the prosecution. Therefore, according to him, he was most important witness to witness the transaction and hear conversation and his non-examination renders story of demand and acceptance both liable to be rejected. The submission that Amrit Rao was in a position to witness the transaction and also hear the conversation is liable to be rejected, in view of the place and location of his standing during trap. Spot map, Ex. P-13, which is an admitted document, shows the location of Amrit Rao at Point No. 6. The submission that Amrit Rao was in a position to witness the transaction and also hear the conversation is liable to be rejected, in view of the place and location of his standing during trap. Spot map, Ex. P-13, which is an admitted document, shows the location of Amrit Rao at Point No. 6. Map shows that Amrit Rao was standing at one door. However, the room where the appellant and complainant are shown to be present at the time of meeting and alleged transaction, it is not possible to see the transaction from the place, where Amrit Rao is standing and it is also not possible to overhear the conversation between the appellant and the complainant as it is separated by wall and in fact, from perusal of map, Ex. P-13, it is revealed that the place, where Amrit Rao was standing, could not be said to be of such proximity that he could have overheard the conversation or watch transaction between the appellant and the complainant inside the room. Therefore, non-examination of Amrit Rao does not create any doubt nor renders the story of demand and acceptance doubtful. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that two panch witnesses, R. K. Shrivastava, P. W. 5 & Nayan Shah, P. W. 7 have neither seen give and take of money nor have heard any conversation between the complainant and the appellant, in the absence of independent corroboration of demand and acceptance, the appellant is liable to be given benefit of doubt. 15. True it is that two witnesses have accompanied the trap party as independent panch witnesses. However, R. J. Toppo, P. W. 8, who accompanied the trap party, has stated in para 4 of his evidence that when the trap party reached near the fencing around the house of the appellant, the door of the house of the appellant was clearly visible as his house was in the midst of the corridor and none of the members of the trap team could see the incident, therefore, the members of the trap party were spread around his house. There is no suggestion given to those witnesses that the location, where Amrit Rao was standing, was near the place of transaction, so much so that he was in a position to witness the transaction and overhear the conversation between the complainant and the appellant. There is no suggestion given to those witnesses that the location, where Amrit Rao was standing, was near the place of transaction, so much so that he was in a position to witness the transaction and overhear the conversation between the complainant and the appellant. Therefore, in these circumstances, the evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe as truthfully stated by the complainant, who has no enmity against the appellant, is not liable to be disbelieved. 16. R. K. Shrivastava, P. W. 5, one of the independent witness, has clearly deposed in para 5 that when the appellant was asked, he informed that Rs. 400/- have been kept on the platform in his room and on such disclosure, the memorandum in Ex. P-4 was prepared and signed by him. He further states that thereafter Rs. 400/- were recovered and he had signed the memo of seizure Ex. P-5. He has also proved the seizure of various revenue papers vide Ex. P-6. Though, this witness has been declared hostile as he has not supported the prosecution story, yet his evidence with regard to giving of memorandum and recovery of currency notes from the place indicated by the appellant has been proved. 17. Other panch witness, Nayan Shah, P. W. 7 has substantially supported the case of the prosecution on the aspect of the memorandum given by the appellant. In para 3 of his deposition, he has stated that when the appellant was asked by the D. S. P. Shri Dubey, regarding money, he did not say anything. Thereafter, he was searched and currency notes were not found. He was then again enquired and then appellant disclosed that the currency notes are kept on platform and then Shri Dubey prepared memorandum Ex. P-4 and signed by him. Thereafter, he had gone near the platform, where the currency notes were found and then numbers were noted and it tallied with the numbers earlier noted and thereafter hands of the appellant were washed, which turned pink. Even in his cross-examination, nothing could be elicited to disbelieve his testimony, particularly with regard to the memorandum given by the appellant and recovery of currency notes on the basis of that memorandum from the house of the appellant. 18. Even in his cross-examination, nothing could be elicited to disbelieve his testimony, particularly with regard to the memorandum given by the appellant and recovery of currency notes on the basis of that memorandum from the house of the appellant. 18. R. J. Toppo, P. W. 8 has also deposed in para 4 of his deposition that when they entered the house of the appellant, he was found in the house and when he was enquired, he had stated regarding currency notes kept on the platform inside the room, upon which, memorandum was prepared by Shri S. N. Dubey. (Shri S. N. Dubey could not be examined as he died). He further states that numbers of currency notes were tallied. 19. Nayan Shah, P. W. 7 has also deposed that before proceeding for trap, in para 2 of his examination, his hands were washed. He has further deposed in para 3 of his deposition that after taking memorandum, solution was prepared and hands of the appellant were washed, which turned pink, which was kept and sealed in a bottle and thereafter, the currency notes were also washed and wash was also kept. He further deposed in para 4 of his evidence that the hands of the complainant were also washed and kept in sealed bottle. R. K. Shrivastava, P. W. 5 has also deposed in para 5 of his deposition that the hands of the appellant were washed. 20. Hand wash of the appellant was sent to the FSL and vide Ex. P-17 i.e. report, hand wash was found containing traces of phenolphthalein powder. This fact has also been recorded by the learned trial Court. Thus, the aforesaid evidence clearly lends support to the case of the prosecution that currency notes of Rs. 400/- was recovered at the instance of the appellant from the room of the house of the appellant. The recovery is supported from the version of independent panch witnesses R. K. Shrivastava, P. W. 5 and Nayan Shah, P. W. 7 as also by police witness R. J. Toppo, P. W. 8. 21. The appellant has come out with a defence that Rs. 400/- said to be recovered from his possession was not amount to bribe, but it was towards repayment of loan by the complainant Santram, P. W. 2 to the appellant. 21. The appellant has come out with a defence that Rs. 400/- said to be recovered from his possession was not amount to bribe, but it was towards repayment of loan by the complainant Santram, P. W. 2 to the appellant. It is stated that during the course of investigation, the case diary statement of Bhagwan Singh, D. W. 1 was recorded, wherein he has stated that the appellant had demanded Rs. 400/- for being given to the complainant as loan and even if it is accepted that the appellant received Rs. 400/-, it was towards repayment of loan and not towards bribe. 22. In the case of Punjab Rao v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 486 , it has been held that defence of the appellant is required to be examined by applying the test of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, even though, the burden of the accused may not be as heavy as that of the prosecution to prove its defence beyond reasonable doubt, the defence and the explanation for receipt of the money of Rs. 400/- is required to be examined on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. 23. As has already discussed and held hereinabove, the evidence of the complainant-Santram is that against the settlement, an amount of Rs. 500/-, Rs. 100/- has already been given to the appellant, has not been controverted, in his cross-examination. This un-controverted testimony lends support to the story of the prosecution that Rs. 100/-, which was received by the appellant was not towards loan of Rs. 500/-, but was demanded as bribe. It is not a case, where amount recovered from the appellant, is different than the balance amount, which was to be given to the appellant towards bribe. Two independent witnesses R. K. Shrivastava, P. W. 5 and Nayan Shah, P. W 7 have deposed that when the appellant was caught hold by the trap party, he did not say anything with regard to money. It is not a case where at the time of trap, the appellant came out with prompt explanation that whatever received by him, was towards repayment of loan. If Rs. 400/- was towards repayment of loan, as stated by the defence witness, there was no reason for the appellant not to come out with ready explanation, which alone would have been his natural conduct in these circumstances. If Rs. 400/- was towards repayment of loan, as stated by the defence witness, there was no reason for the appellant not to come out with ready explanation, which alone would have been his natural conduct in these circumstances. But there is no such evidence on record to show that any immediate explanation to that effect was offered. 24. Story of loan advanced by the appellant to the complainant has been narrated by the defence witnesses. According to them, complainant and the appellant both had come to Bhagwan Singh. The appellant asked Bhagwan Singh to give loan of Rs. 400/- for being given to the complainant towards loan. The complainant-Santram and two defence witnesses namely Bhagwan Singh and Ram Dayal are residents and cultivator of the same village. The appellant is only a Government servant in a tranferable post and the evidence, which has come on record, it seems rather unusual that if one villager needs loan, he would approach Patwari of the village and not co-villager and then Patwari would accompany other villager and first obtain loan from one villager and give it to other villager. The story of advancing of loan therefore appears to be afterthought story and with a view to create witness of loan transaction between the appellant and the complainant, this unbelievable story has been built up. Therefore, applying the principles of preponderance of probabilities, the defence of the appellant and the explanation regarding receipt of Rs. 400/- as repayment of loan is not at all reliable and liable to be disbelieved. 25. It has also been argued that the appellant was not competent to order mutation; therefore, no case against him is made out. The prosecution has examined two witnesses Sudarshan, P. W. 3 and Ramdas, P. W. 4 Sudarshan, P. W. 3 has stated that he had handed over the revenue papers to the appellant for preparation. Ramdas, P. W. 4 has also stated that the appellant was approached for correction of name, after partition. Moreover, the appellant being a Patwari plays an important role in such mutation proceedings. It has to be noted that in present case, mutation register, Article A has been seized from the appellant, which contains record of mutation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has no role to play in the matter of entries to be made in the register. It has to be noted that in present case, mutation register, Article A has been seized from the appellant, which contains record of mutation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has no role to play in the matter of entries to be made in the register. In fact, the register Article A shows that the entries used to be made by the appellant. The competent authority, who passes the order of mutation, is Tahsildar, and therefore, story of prosecution with regard to demand is not liable to be disbelieved. 26. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that even if the appellant has been found guilty of commission of offence, in the present circumstances, particularly, in the light of total amount, alleged to be demanded as bribe and that the appellant is facing agony of criminal trial, after his arrest, since 1993 and thereafter conviction in 1996 and at present, he is on bail since 1996, the period of sentence may be reduced. 27. There is considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant was arrested in the year 1993 in connection with alleged offences and thereafter, he was facing trial, in which, he was convicted vide impugned judgment dated 26-11-1996. This appeal is pending since 1996 and the appellant was on bail. This Court takes into consideration that the total amount, which the appellant has demanded as bribe is Rs. 500/- and further takes into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the minimum period of conviction, which is required to be awarded under the provision of Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act, conviction of the appellant under Section 7 of the Act is reduced to six months as also conviction under 13(2) is also reduced to one year. Rest part of the sentence shall remain as it is, as has been awarded by the learned trial Court. 28. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed only to the extent indicated above. Appeal partly allowed.