JUDGMENT : This appeal is by the accused who has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘Act’ for short) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 7, and five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act with default sentence of imprisonment of six months and one year respectively for each of the offences. 2. The prosecution case is that, after a prolonged litigation, the High Court passed an order directing the Land Tribunal to confer occupancy right in favour of PW5 Ambrose Pinto in respect of a certain extent of land in Sy.No.341 of Beluvai village, Magalore taluk. PW5 made an application to the Nada Kacheri, Moodabidri for issuing occupancy certificate in Form No.10A. The accused was the Deputy Tahsildar at Nada Kacheri and for issuing the said certificate, PW5 alleged that the accused demanded for a bribe of Rs.10,000/and reported the same to Lokayukta Police, Mangaluru. On 5.10.2001 a trap was laid. PW5 along with shadow witness, PW1 went inside the chamber of the accused and as per the instructions of the accused, put the currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder amounting to Rs.8,000/in an envelope and handed over the same to the accused. Little later, accused entertained doubt and came out of his chamber and started running. PW5 showed the accused to the Lokayukta Police who were waiting outside Nada Kacheri. While running the accused is said to have flung the envelope into a bush. The Lokayukta Police later on seized the currency notes and subjected the accused to phenolphthalein test. His hand wash and pants wash answered positive for the said test. Thus he was charge sheeted for the said offences. 3. After appreciating the evidence, both oral and documentary adduced by the prosecution as also the defence, the trial court came to conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove the charges against the accused. It has recorded reasons that the file pertaining to PW5 was in the custody of the accused who was Deputy Tahsildar at Nada Kacheri and therefore the work concerning PW5 was pending before him. The evidence given by PW5 would testify the essential requirement of demand and acceptance of bribe. It has recorded reasons that the file pertaining to PW5 was in the custody of the accused who was Deputy Tahsildar at Nada Kacheri and therefore the work concerning PW5 was pending before him. The evidence given by PW5 would testify the essential requirement of demand and acceptance of bribe. His evidence finds corroboration from the testimony of PW1, the shadow witness. The cross examination of these two witnesses doesn’t disclose that the defence was able to impeach them, rather their testimonies are consistent and inspire confidence to believe them. The evidence given by the investigation officer fortifies the evidence of PW1 and PW5. The evidence given by DW1 is difficult to be believed, his evidence does not testify that he was present at the time of trap and that PW5 kept an envelope containing currency notes on the table of the accused without his knowledge. It stands proved that accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.8,000/from PW5 as a motive or reward for doing an official act and therefore he committed the offences charges against him. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, while arguing submitted that removal of the envelope from a bushy plant at the instance of accused and its seizure are though not disputable, what is important is that there is no evidence indicating that there was demand for bribe by the accused. In the FIR it is recorded that on 3.10.2001 when PW5 met the accused in the Inspection Bungalow at Moodbidri, he made a demand for Rs.10,000/for attending to his work. Thereafter PW5 made a report of the same to the Lokayukta police who laid a trap on 5.10.2001. The evidence of PW5 shows that when he went inside the chamber of the accused, the latter asked him whether he (PW5) had brought the money and to this question he replied that he had brought money and assured him of paying the remaining amount of Rs.2,000/on some other day. According to him the accused asked to count the notes and keep them on the table. Accordingly PW5 counted the currency notes and kept on the table. Thereafter the accused gave him a brown colour envelope and asked him to put the notes inside the cover. According to him the accused asked to count the notes and keep them on the table. Accordingly PW5 counted the currency notes and kept on the table. Thereafter the accused gave him a brown colour envelope and asked him to put the notes inside the cover. Referring to the evidence given by PW1, the shadow witness, he argued that the evidence given by him does not show demand made by the accused when PW5 met him in the chamber, rather what is possible to be made out from the evidence of PW1 is that PW5 voluntarily told the accused that he had brought Rs.8,000/and that the balance would be paid later. Therefore it is the argument of Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra that since PW1 does not corroborate the testimony of PW5 with regard to demand in the office of the accused, there was no demand at all and seizure of the envelope containing currency notes is of no consequence. He argued that when PW5 counted the currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder and kept the same inside an envelope, there was possibility of sticking of the phenolphthalein powder on the outer surface of the envelope. Therefore when his hand wash and pants wash tested positive for presence of phenolphthalein. This does not lead to an inference that the accused accepted the bribe money from PW5 after making a demand for the same. 4.1. He further argued that the demand as alleged in FIR on 3.10.2001 was not sufficient to be considered against the accused, the prosecution was supposed to prove that on 5.10.2001 also, the accused demanded for bribe. If there is no evidence to show that there was a demand on the date of trap, the accused cannot be held guilty of the offences. The learned trial judge has held that there was demand on 3.10.2001, the said finding does not stand to reason because the demand said to have been made on 3.10.2001 in the Inspection Bungalow cannot be considered at all. Since there is no evidence that there was demand by the accused for bribe, holding him guilty of the offences is illegal and not justifiable. In this connection he referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mukhtiar Singh (Since deceased) through his legal representatives Vs. State of Punjab [ (2017) 8 SCC 136 . 4.2. Sri. In this connection he referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mukhtiar Singh (Since deceased) through his legal representatives Vs. State of Punjab [ (2017) 8 SCC 136 . 4.2. Sri. Pramod Chandra also pointed out that there is inconsistency in the evidence with regard to the serial numbers of the tainted currency notes when compared with the serial numbers mentioned in the trap mahazar and entrustment mahazar. He argued that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence of DW1 at all. Disbelieving the testimony of DW1 without assigning any reason is an error committed by the trial court. DW1 has testified that he was very much present in the chamber of the accused on 5.10.2001 and it was PW5 who kept the envelope on the table without the knowledge of the accused. If his evidence had been considered in a proper perspective, it would not have led to convicting the accused. Therefore the appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. Sri. Venkatesh S. Arabatti argued that there is no inconsistency at all in the oral testimonies of PW1 and PW5. Generally there is a demand for bribe before registration of FIR. In this case the first demand was on 3.10.2001 in the Inspection Bungalow. Secondly when PW5 met the accused in the latter’s chamber, there was demand by him. The evidence is clearly to the effect that the accused asked PW5 whether he brought money, and this was nothing but demand. Though in the evidence of PW1, the same is not forthcoming, it doesn’t mean that he does not testify that the accused did not demand for bribe from PW1, he has given the answer in the other way conveying the same meaning. The evidence given by the four prominent witnesses i.e., PW1, PW5, PW6 and PW12, i.e., the investigation officer clearly establishes that the accused did demand for bribe from PW5 for issuing Form No.10A, that there was first demand on 3.10.2001, and again on 5.10.2001 and that the accused himself threw the cover the cover into a bushy plant in order to avoid recovery of money from him. His hands wash and pants wash would not have answered positive for the phenolphthalein test unless he meddled with the tainted money. Accused gave an explanation soon after trap and at that time, he did not mention about presence of DW1 in his chamber. His hands wash and pants wash would not have answered positive for the phenolphthalein test unless he meddled with the tainted money. Accused gave an explanation soon after trap and at that time, he did not mention about presence of DW1 in his chamber. This shows that DW1 was actually not present, he was planted by the accused as an after thought. This has been rightly observed by the trial court. With regard to the discrepancy in mentioning the currency notes in the mahazar, he submitted that it was just a typographical error and PW12 has clarified the same in his evidence. Therefore it was his argument that the evidence as a whole would indicate that the events took place in quick succession on 5.10.2001. The inference that can be drawn from the evidence is that there was demand for bribe by the accused and pursuant to the same he accepted it from PW5. There are no reasons to interfere with the judgment of the trial court. 6. The contentions urged by the counsel clearly indicate that the accused doesn’t dispute the trap laid on 5.10.2001 and recovery of an envelope containing the currency notes from inside a bushy plant at his instance. The point of controversy lies in a narrow compass in that according to Sri. Pramod Chandra there was no demand for bribe by the accused in his office on 5.10.2001 and it was PW5 who voluntarily kept the money on the table. Before answering this point, it is possible to infer that because PW5 counted the currency notes before putting them in the envelope, it was possible that PW5 might have touched the outer surface of the envelope and for this reason it might have been stuck with the powder. Either when the accused put the cover into his pants pocket or when he threw the same into a bushy plant, his hand might have come in contact with the phenolphthalein powder and this could be the reason for his hand wash answering positive for the presence of phenolphthalein; and of course when the pocket portion of his pants was dipped in sodium carbonate solution, it changed its colour answering positively for the presence of phenolphthalein and necessarily this aspect cannot be ignored, for he would not have pocketed the envelope containing the money if he had not demanded for the same. Anyway the defence does not dispute the recovery and what remains to be examined is whether the evidence of PW1 and PW5 would establish the fact of demand made by the accused on 5.10.2001. Before answering this question it is necessary to deal with a legal point argued by Sri. Pramod Chandra. 7. If stated once again at the cost of repetition, his argument was that before acceptance of money on the date of trap there should be a demand and the demand made on the first day i.e., on the date of registration of FIR is no demand at all and it cannot be considered. In support of this point he referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mukhtiar Singh (supra). But I am unable to concur with his argument. The facts in the cited judgment disclose that Mukhtiar Singh, the accused being the investigation officer, in the first instance demanded for a bribe of Rs.3,000/from Sarabjit Singh for exonerating him from the case in which he was implicated. Sarabjit Singh paid the money to Mukhtiar Singh and thereafter he again demanded for Rs.3,000/from Sarabjit Singh and it was scaled down to Rs.2,000/. In connection with this second demand that a complaint was made to the police who trapped Mukhtiar Singh while accepting bribe. The trial court recorded a finding of conviction and the High Court confirmed it. The Supreme Court, in the background of these facts and circumstances has held that not only in respect of first demand for Rs.3,000/, which was said to be paid, and in respect of further demand for Rs.2,000/the allegations are rather omnibus, vague and sweeping. The statement of Sarabjit Singh lacks in material facts and particulars, and per say cannot form foundation of a decisive conclusion that such demand in fact had been made by the accused i.e, Mukhtiar Singh. Therefore it is clear that this judgment firstly doesn’t lay down any principle that there must be clear demand for bribe even just before the trap takes place, and secondly that as the facts disclose that two demands were altogether different and distinct. This cited judgment is of little help to the accused. It is impossible to accept the argument that without there being a demand just before trap, the demand before registration of FIR cannot be considered. 8. This cited judgment is of little help to the accused. It is impossible to accept the argument that without there being a demand just before trap, the demand before registration of FIR cannot be considered. 8. Given a relook to the evidence to find out whether there was a demand for bribe by the accused, the evidence of PW5 clearly discloses that the accused made a first demand on 3.10.2001 in the Inspection Bungalow as recorded in the FIR, Ex.P.17. PW5 has stated that on 5.10.2001 when he met the accused in his chamber, he was asked whether he had brought money. It is true that PW1 the shadow witness has not stated about demand in the way PW5 has stated. But what he has stated in the examination-in-chief is as below: “In the entrance hall of Nada Kacheri, there was one clerk. Looking at CW1, he told the accused, ‘Your Porbhu has come’. Accused was in his chamber which can be seen from the hall. Then, CW1 went inside the chamber of the accused who was present, and sat on the chair in front of the accused. CW1 told the accused about bringing Rs.8,000/and the balance will be paid later. Accused told CW1 to keep the amount on the table. Accordingly CW1 kept the amount from his pocket on the table in front of the accused. The top of table was covered with glass. Then accused told CW1 by giving a cover to put the amount in the same…….” 9. CW1 is none other than PW5. The clear meaning that can be gathered from the above underlined sentences is that there was a demand by accused. Asking PW5 to keep the amount on the table and giving a cover to him for putting the amount in that, convey no other meaning than demand for and acceptance of bribe. If the cross examination of PW1 and 5 is seen, there is no material to hold that these two witnesses are impeached for discarding their evidence. PW6 who is another panch witness supports the oral evidence of PW1 and PW5 to the extent of recovery of envelope containing currency notes at the place where it was thrown by the accused. This recovery is not disputed. 10. The accused examined DW1 in his favour in order to prove that the envelope was kept on the table without his notice. This recovery is not disputed. 10. The accused examined DW1 in his favour in order to prove that the envelope was kept on the table without his notice. What DW1 has stated is that in the month of October, 2001 at about 9.00 a.m. he had been to the office of the accused in connection with his pending appeal. While he was discussing the matter with the accused, one Mr.Pinto i.e., PW5 came and kept an envelope on the table of the accused. Since the accused did not come to know of keeping of the said envelope on the table. Seeing the cover later on, he asked him whether the said cover would belong to him. DW1 answered that the cover did not belong to him and then the accused opened the envelope and found the amount in it. Then the accused went out to hand over the cover to Mr. Pinto and at that time accused was surrounded by the four or five persons. The cross examination of this witness clearly shows that on 5.10.2001 his case had not been posted for hearing and that on every date of hearing he attended the office of the accused in connection with his case, his signature was taken on the proceeding sheet. Therefore it is doubtful that DW1 was really present on 5.10.2001. Moreover when accused gave his statement soon after trap, he did not mention about the presence of DW1. All that he stated was that the work pertaining to PW5 was not within the jurisdiction of his office and that there was no delay from his side. At that time he should have revealed that the envelope was kept on the table by PW5 without his knowledge and the same was seen by the DW1. This stand of accused is nothing but an after thought which therefore requires rejection. As argued by Sri. Pramod Chandra since PW5 touched the envelope its outer surface might have stuck with powder and therefore the hand wash and table top wash answered positive for phenolphthalein test. But when the pocket portion of the pant was dipped in the sodium carbonate solution, there was change of colour. If the accused had not pocketed the envelope there was little chance that the solution changed its colour. But when the pocket portion of the pant was dipped in the sodium carbonate solution, there was change of colour. If the accused had not pocketed the envelope there was little chance that the solution changed its colour. From this the inference that can be drawn is that the accused accepted the bribe pursuant to demand made by him. Therefore I come to conclusion that the trial court’s conclusion in this regard is not erroneous and it must be sustained. In fact Sri Pramod Chandra did not contend that the work pertaining to PW5 was not pending before the accused. Actual inference that may be drawn from the evidence in this regard is that the accused was to attend to the work of the accused. PW3, who was working as First Division Assistant in the Taluk Office, Mangaluru, has admitted a suggestion given to her in the crossexamination that the accused was not required to attend to any work of CW1 (PW5). But her evidence in examination indicates that the file pertaining to the work of PW5 was with the accused till 15.10.2001. The admission of PW3 does not lead to draw an inference that the accused wouldn’t have demanded for bribe; and to assert the probability in it, it should have been brought on record by the defence that the accused had brought to the notice of PW5 that he had nothing to do in the matter of issuance of Form 10A. When this kind of evidence is not there, defence version appears to be improbable. Therefore the conclusion is that accused had in custody the file relating to the work of PW5. 11. Sri. Pramod Chandra argued another point that the age of the accused is now 71 years and if at all there is no scope for taking another in order to acquit the accused, lenient view may be taken for reducing the sentence. Having regard to the facts and circumstances I am of the opinion that there is a case for showing leniency. It appears that the fine imposed by the trial court on the accused is on higher side. Section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act states while imposing fine for the offence under Section 13(2) or Section 14, the amount of fine shall be fixed taking into consideration the amount or value of the property which the accused person has obtained. Section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act states while imposing fine for the offence under Section 13(2) or Section 14, the amount of fine shall be fixed taking into consideration the amount or value of the property which the accused person has obtained. Here the bribe demanded was Rs.10,000/and the amount accepted by him was Rs.8,000/. Though section 16 has no application in relation to offence under section 7, the over all circumstances may be considered for reducing the sentence. Therefore the following : ORDER The judgment of conviction of the accused passed by the trial court for the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) is confirmed. However the sentence is modified keeping in view the sentence structure as it stood before amendment was brought to the Prevention of Corruption Act by Act 1 of 2014. For each of the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), the accused is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.10,000/, and in default to pay the fine he shall further undergo imprisonment for a period of two months. Sentence of imprisonment for both the offences will run concurrently. The period of imprisonment, if any, already suffered by the accused shall be set off.