JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties through video conferencing. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 08.10.2007, passed by the learned 7th Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I. Ranchi in R.C. Case No. 24(A)/1994 (R) whereby and where under, the learned court below has held the appellant-convict and the co-convict Anugrah Prasad Ambastha guilty for the offences punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and has sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for five days and for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, the appellant-convict and co-convict are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for ten days. It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the two registered envelopes of elder brother of the complainant Ashok Kumar Gupta had come to Hehal through Post-office for its delivery but as the complainant and his brother were out of town, so the same could not be delivered to them. When the complainant (PW-6) went to the post office on 24.10.1994 and asked about the letters, the co-convict-Anugrah Prasad Ambastha demanded Rs. 100/- for delivering the registered letters and has also told in presence of the appellant-convict who was the postman that out of Rs. 100/- the co-convict- Anugrah Prasad Ambastha will keep Rs. 50/- and Rs. 50 will be given to the appellant-convict. When the complainant expressed his inability to pay the said amount, the appellant-convict told the complainant that if the complainant would not pay the said amount then the registered letters would be returned. The complainant was not ready to pay the bribe amount, hence he submitted a complaint to Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB Ranchi. The complaint was verified and after verification, the complaint was found to be true and the FIR of this case was registered. A trap team was constituted. The complainant was not ready to pay the bribe amount, hence he submitted a complaint to Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB Ranchi. The complaint was verified and after verification, the complaint was found to be true and the FIR of this case was registered. A trap team was constituted. The appellant-convict as well as the co-convict were caught red handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 50/- each. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was submitted against the appellant-convict as well as against co-convict-Anugrah Prasad Ambastha. Separate charges for the offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against the appellant-convict and also separate charges under Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against the appellant-convict as well as against co-convict. Upon the appellant-convict pleading not guilty to the charges, he was put to trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined 13 witnesses besides proving the relevant documents and material exhibits. Form the side of the defence the appellant-convict has examined himself under Section 315 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Out of the 13 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-6 Om Prakash Gupta is the complainant himself. He has deposed that he submitted a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. Ranchi mentioning therein that the appellant-convict and co-convict person were demanding Rs. 100/- as bribe for delivery of the registered letters addressed to him. The complaint on being proved by PW-6 was marked Ext. 7. PW-6 further deposed about the members of the trap team and the pre-trap formalities in detail. He has further stated that they reached Hehal Post-office at 04:00 p.m. along with members of trap team. The PW-6 entered inside the post office. First of all, he met the appellant-convict- postman- Ram Bilash Sahu and addressed the appellant-convict as uncle. PW-6 told the appellant-convict that if the letter addressed to PW-6 has come then to give the same to PW-6. The PW-6 entered inside the post office. First of all, he met the appellant-convict- postman- Ram Bilash Sahu and addressed the appellant-convict as uncle. PW-6 told the appellant-convict that if the letter addressed to PW-6 has come then to give the same to PW-6. At this, the appellant-convict told that the letter has come and demanded money by saying “Paisa Dijiye.” Thereafter, the PW-6 went to the Postal Assistant-co-convict and the co-convict told him that if PW-6 gives Rs. 100/- then the letters will be given to him and enquired whether PW-6 has brought the money which was answered in affirmative by PW-6. Thereafter, the co-convict told the PW-6 to collect the letters from postman and instructed the appellant-convict to collect money from PW-6 and to handover the letters to him. The appellant-convict made the entry of the letters and handed over the same and then demanded money. When the PW-6 was going to give the money, the co-convict Anugrah Prasad Ambastha told to give Rs. 50/- to him and PW-6 gave Rs. 50/- to Anugrah Prasad Ambastha and Rs. 50/- to appellant-convict. Both, the appellant-convict and co-convict received money by their right hand. The appellant-convict took the money and kept the same in the pocket of his shirt. Thereafter, the PW-6 gave the signal at which the entire team of C.B.I. came inside and caught hold of the wrist of both the hands and disclosed their identity. The sodium carbonate solution was prepared and the right hand of the appellant-convict was washed in the said solution. The colour of the solution turned pink and the solution was kept in a bottle and sealed. The appellant-convict brought out the bribe money from the pocket of his shirt. The numbers of notes were compared and the numbers tallied. The same were kept in an envelope and sealed. PW-6 has also stated in detail about the post-trap formalities. In his cross-examination, PW-6 has stated that he was a student of Gossner College at the time of occurrence. He cannot say the boundary of the Hehal Post-office. At the time of occurrence, except the appellant-convict and the co-convict none else were present in that room of the post office. One of the bottles was found broken in the court and nothing was there in the bottle. 6. PW-5 Dr. T.K. Sarkar is an independent witness. He cannot say the boundary of the Hehal Post-office. At the time of occurrence, except the appellant-convict and the co-convict none else were present in that room of the post office. One of the bottles was found broken in the court and nothing was there in the bottle. 6. PW-5 Dr. T.K. Sarkar is an independent witness. He has stated about participating in the pre-trap preparation. He is a practicing Advocate of High Court after retirement from his service as Deputy Chief Personal Manager, C.C.L. Ranchi. He has stated in detail about the pre-trap preparations. At about 04:00 p.m. they reached the Hehal Post-office. They were near the window in such a position that they could hear and see the occurrences taking place inside the room. PW-6 entered inside the room. The co-convict enquired from PW-6 whether he has brought money. PW-6 answered that he has brought Rs. 100/- and at that time, the appellant-convict also reached there. The appellant-convict received Rs. 50/- by his right hand and kept the money in the pocket of his shirt. The hand of appellant-convict was dipped in the sodium carbonate solution, the colour of the solution turned pink. He identified Rs. 50/- currency note in court which was given as bribe and identified the shirt of the appellant-convict which the appellant-convict was wearing at the time of occurrence. He has also stated about post-trap preparations in detail including preparation of various documents. In his cross-examination, PW-5 has stated that he was taken for trap by C.B.I. on several occasions. 7. PW-7 Prabhu Nath Singh is another independent witness of the trap. He has stated about the complaint made by PW-6 and the pre-trap preparations. PW-7 further stated that the PW-6 entered inside and met the appellant-convict and thereafter, both of them went to co-convict and talked with him. PW-6 gave the money to the appellant-convict which was received in the right hand by the appellant-convict and the appellant-convict kept the same on his left upper pocket. He has also stated about the hand of the appellant-convict being washed in sodium carbonate solution and the colour of the solution turning pink. He also proved the documents and material exhibits in respect of the post-trap documentation and formalities. In his cross-examination, PW-7 has stated that distance between C.B.I. office and Hehal Post-office is about four kilometers. He has also stated about the hand of the appellant-convict being washed in sodium carbonate solution and the colour of the solution turning pink. He also proved the documents and material exhibits in respect of the post-trap documentation and formalities. In his cross-examination, PW-7 has stated that distance between C.B.I. office and Hehal Post-office is about four kilometers. He entered inside at the time when the appellant-convict was caught. At the time of washing the hands, the bottle was kept there. Nothing was there in the bottle at that time. He further stated that he cannot say the numbers of fifty rupees currency notes and he denied the suggestions that no bribe money was recovered from the appellant-convict. 8. PW-13 S.N. Khan is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has stated that on 29.10.1994, a trap team was constituted. He has stated in detail about the complaint submitted by PW-6 and the pre-trap preparations. All the members of the trap team reached Hehal Post-office. PW-6 entered inside the post office. PW-13 was in the outside Verandah and from there, he could see all things. The co-convict was sitting on the chair and the appellant-convict also came there and occupied the chair of the postman. PW-6 approached the co-convict. The co-convict enquired as to whether the PW-6 has brought the money and PW-6 answered that he has come with Rs. 100/-. The co-convict then went near the chair of appellant-convict and told the appellant-convict to handover the registered letter, at which the appellant-convict made the entry over the registration slip and demanded Rs. 50/- from the PW-6. The PW-6 brought out the two currency notes of Rs. 50/- denomination each and handed over one note to the appellant-convict. The appellant-convict took the currency note and kept the same in the pocket of his shirt and thereafter, he obtained an acknowledgment in the registered letter slip and thereafter, the co-convict also received the money. PW-6 gave the signal at which D.P. Singh challenged the appellant-convict by telling that the appellant-convict has taken bribe of Rs. 50/-. The appellant-convict became nervous and admitted taking Rs. 50/- as bribe. PW-13 has also deposed in detail about the investigation done by him in this case. He has also proved the documents and material exhibits. He sent the material exhibit to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata for chemical analysis. 50/-. The appellant-convict became nervous and admitted taking Rs. 50/- as bribe. PW-13 has also deposed in detail about the investigation done by him in this case. He has also proved the documents and material exhibits. He sent the material exhibit to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata for chemical analysis. He obtained the sanction order and submitted charge sheet. In his cross-examination, PW-13 has stated that he was also involved in the trap and he has seen the entire occurrence. They reached Hehal Post-office at 04:05 p.m. At the time of trap, he was in the Verandah and the door of the room was open. The appellant-convict was visible to him and PW-13 could hear their conversations. He saw PW-6 giving the money. They did not do the trap at the time money was given to the appellant-convict as by that time, signal was not given. He has further stated that the bottles which were marked material exhibits in court did not contain any liquid. 9. PW-12 Dig Bijay Bahadur Singh has stated in detail about the complaint made by PW-6. The complaint was verified by PW-12. He has stated that prima facie he was satisfied that the complaint was true. He has also proved the documents and also stated about the constitution of the trap team and the pre-trap preparations in detail. PW-12 has further stated that they reached the Hehal Post-office at 04:05 p.m. on 29.10.1994. PW-6 entered inside the room. The co-convict-Anugrah Prasad Ambastha enquired whether PW-6 has brought money. PW-6 answered that he has brought Rs. 100/-. Thereafter, the co-convict told the appellant-convict to give the registered letters to PW-6. The appellant-convict made entry in the delivery slip and directed the PW-6 to give Rs. 50/- to him at which PW-6 brought out two notes of Rs.50/- denomination each from his shirt and gave one note to the appellant-convict in his right hand. The appellant-convict after taking the note kept in his pocket of his shirt. Thereafter, the appellant-convict told the PW-6 to sign on the delivery slip and hand over the registered letters. When the PW-6 signed on the delivery slip then the appellant-convict handed over both the registered letters to the PW-6 one of which was in the name of the PW-6 and the other was in the name of his brother Ashok Kumar Gupta. When the PW-6 signed on the delivery slip then the appellant-convict handed over both the registered letters to the PW-6 one of which was in the name of the PW-6 and the other was in the name of his brother Ashok Kumar Gupta. PW-12 has also stated about the money received by co-convict-Anugrah Prasad Ambastha and thereafter PW-6 gave the signal. The members of the trap team entered inside. B.N. Singh, Sub-Inspector challenged the appellant-convict after disclosing his identity. Both the appellant-convict and the co-convict became nervous and admitted taking bribe from PW-6. He has stated about the preparation of sodium carbonate solution and the fingers of the right hand of the appellant-convict being dipped in the said solution, the colour of the solution turned pink. The appellant-convict brought out Rs. 50/- currency note which he took from PW-6. The number of the same was compared with the pre-trap memorandum and the same tallied. PW-12 has also stated about the post-trap documentations and formalities. In his cross-examination, PW-12 has stated that none of the bottles which were marked exhibits contain any liquid. 10. PW-10 Bimlendu Das is the retired Scientific Officer. He has stated about chemical examination of the liquid sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory and upon chemical examination both phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate could be detected in the contents of each of the exhibits marked 433A to 433D respectively. He proved the chemical examination report. In his cross-examination, he has stated that by the time the bottles which were shown to him in court were dry but at the time of examination there was solution in the bottles. 11. PW-2 Prabhu Mahto is a postman of Hehal Post-office. He has stated that he had been working at Hehal Post-office since 1986. He proved the documents to show that appellant-convict was working as postman at Beat No. 2 and the responsibility of delivery of letters marked Ext. 2 and 2/1 were of the appellant-convict. 12. PW-3 Tulsi Oraon is a postmaster. He has proved the delivery slip and other documents. He was working as Postal Assistant in Hehal Post-office in the year 1994. The appellant-convict was the postman of Beat No. 2. In his cross-examination, he has stated that both the registered letters were given to the appellant-convict. 13. PW-1 Shaji George is the Steno of the office of Senior Superintendent of Post, Ranchi. He was working as Postal Assistant in Hehal Post-office in the year 1994. The appellant-convict was the postman of Beat No. 2. In his cross-examination, he has stated that both the registered letters were given to the appellant-convict. 13. PW-1 Shaji George is the Steno of the office of Senior Superintendent of Post, Ranchi. He has proved the sanction for prosecution of the appellant-convict. 14. PW-4 Sindhu Kumar Gupta was working in Paragon Finance Limited, Kokar, Ranchi in 1994. He has sent the letters to PW-6. 15. PW-8 Alok Kumar Gupta has sent one letter in respect of which the occurrence took place. 16. PW-9 Maheshwar Prasad has sent one legal notice. 17. PW-11 Ram Deo Ram has accorded the sanction for prosecution of the appellant-convict. In paragraph no. 2, he has stated that he has accorded the sanction for prosecution at the request of C.B.I. Ranchi. 18. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the appellant-convict was recorded regarding the circumstances appearing in evidence against the appellant-convict and he admitted that he was working as post man in Hehal Post-office in October, 1994 but he denied the material questions put to him. In his examination-in-chief as a witness under Section 315 Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant-convict has stated that by the time, he was posted in Ranchi University, Post-office, he was given certificate by the Vigilance Bureau for doing good work and also given Rs. 200/- and no complaint was ever received against him. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the registered letters addressed to PW-6 was received in his post-office. He used to deliver the registered letters. PW-6 has two registered letters. PW-6 came to the post-office and on that day, the appellant-convict was arrested from the post-office. 19. Learned court below after taking into consideration the evidence in record found that prosecution has been able to prove all the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and the learned court below convicted and sentenced the appellant-convict as already indicated above. The co-convict-Anugrah Prasad Ambastha filed Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1419 of 2007 but as he died during the pendency of the appeal, hence, his appeal abated. 20. The co-convict-Anugrah Prasad Ambastha filed Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1419 of 2007 but as he died during the pendency of the appeal, hence, his appeal abated. 20. Mr. Sunil Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant-convict submits that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in record in its proper perspective and has failed to consider that the appellant-convict just obeyed the direction of the co-convict. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-convict that the learned court below failed to take into consideration the service rendered by the appellant-convict for 30 years without any black spot. Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-convict further submits that as the witnesses have categorically stated that in the marked objects, the bottles which were marked objects did not contain any liquid so, it is highly doubtful as to whether ever the hands of the appellant-convict was washed with sodium carbonate solution. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-convict that sanction for prosecution having been granted at the request of the C.B.I., the same is not a proper sanction. Learned counsel for the appellant-convict further submits that sometime the postman gets money as they are poor person and so the money given by any person for the service rendered by them by handing over the registered letters do not amount to any offence punishable under any law and such taking of money by the postman cannot be termed bribe. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-convict that the appellant-convict is an old person of 75 years and is suffering from various ailments and as the occurrence is of the year 1994 and he has faced rigors of the criminal trial for over 25 years hence, a lenient view may be taken on the point of sentence. Mr. Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-convict relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jogendra Yadav and Others vs. State of Bihar, (2015) 9 SCC 244 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that a person who is an accused under Section 319 ought not to be given an opportunity to avail of the remedy of discharge under Section 227 since it would be contrary to the scheme and intent of the Cr.P.C. which proposition of law is no way relevant to the facts of this case. In the case of K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India and Others, (1991) 3 SCC 655, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India inter-alia held that the sanction for prosecution under Section 6 is not necessary when cognizance of the offence is taken after the accused has ceased to hold the office in question. In the case of Mahadev Ram Mehta vs. State of Jharkhand, 2010 (4) JLJR 455 also relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant a coordinate bench of this court when reiterated the settled principle of law that in absence of a valid sanction, the order of cognizance of the offences is without jurisdiction and would be invalid. In the case of Vijay Shankar Dubey vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2019 (2) JBCJ 220 [HC] next relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant a coordinate bench of this court in the facts of that case held that the exercise of power under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 was not proper. The learned counsel for the appellant lastly submitted that the prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, it is submitted by Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-convict that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the appellant-convict be acquitted of the charges by at least giving him the benefit of doubt. 21. Mr. Hence, it is submitted by Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-convict that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the appellant-convict be acquitted of the charges by at least giving him the benefit of doubt. 21. Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel for the C.B.I. on the other hand defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the testimony of PW-6 which is corroborated by the testimony of PW-13 as also the PW-12 is sufficient to establish the three ingredients that is demand of bribe by the appellant-convict, acceptance of bribe by him and recovery of the tainted bribe money from the appellant-convict and the testimonies of PWs. 6 and 13 have been corroborated by independent witnesses being PWs. 7 and 5. It is further submitted that the evidence in record is sufficient to draw presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 that the appellant-convict has accepted the said amount as a motive or reward as is mentioned under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for performing of a public duty improperly and dishonestly. Thus, the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish all the charges against the appellant-convict and considering the nature of the offence committed by the appellant the sentence is also proper hence, it is submitted that the learned court below having rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant-convict, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 22. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the evidence in the record, it is pertinent to mention here so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-convict regarding the bottles which were marked material exhibits were empty is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that the occurrence is of the year 1994 and the witnesses were examined in court in the year 2005 onwards and the examination of material witnesses being PW-5 started on 14th November, 2005 and PW-13 was examined on 12th June, 2007. Keeping in view the condition of places were the material exhibits are kept and that bottles were glass bottles, the drying up of liquid or breaking of glass bottles when kept for over 11 years certainly cannot be a ground to give any benefit to the appellant-convict. Keeping in view the condition of places were the material exhibits are kept and that bottles were glass bottles, the drying up of liquid or breaking of glass bottles when kept for over 11 years certainly cannot be a ground to give any benefit to the appellant-convict. More so because it is settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph no. 11 and 12 of State of U.P. vs. Zakaullah, (1998) 1 SCC 577 relying upon the judgment in the case of Prakash Chand vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1979) 3 SCC 90 and Hazari Lal vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1980) 2 SCC 390 that officer who arranges the trap makes arrangement to smear phenolphthalein powder in currency notes in order to satisfy himself that the public servant had in fact received the bribe and not that the currency notes were just thrust into the pocket of any unwilling officer. Such a test is conducted for his conscientious satisfaction that he was proceeding against a real bribe taker and that an officer with integrity is not harassed unnecessarily. Regarding not sending the solution collected in a phial during the trap for chemical examination, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph no. 13 of State of U.P. vs. Zakaullah (supra) has observed that the solution in a trap case is also viewed not because there is any such direction by the statutory provision but for the satisfaction of the officer that the suspected public servant would have clearly handled the bribe money if there is no material discrepancy in the evidence regarding preparation of recovery-memo, the reliability of the trap cannot be stated to be impaired for not sending the solution collected in a phial during the trap for chemical examination. 23. So far as the contention of the appellant-convict regarding sanction for prosecution is concerned, it is a settled principle of law as envisaged under Section 19 (3) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 that no finding, sentence or order passed by any Special Judge under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or any irregularity in the sanction required under Section 19 (1) of the said Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vinod Kumar Garg vs. State (Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi), (2020) 2 SCC 88 in paragraph-28, reiterated the settled principle of law in this respect as under:- “28. Similar is the position with regard to the validity of the sanction. A mere error, omission or irregularity in sanction is not considered to be fatal unless it has resulted in a failure of justice or has been occasioned thereby.” (Emphasis Supplied) And it is pertinent to mention here that neither the appellant has contended that any failure of justice has been occasioned because of any error, omission or irregularity in sanction nor he has specifically mentioned as to in what manner there is any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction, hence this ground agitated by the appellant is without any merit. 24. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-convict regarding non-consideration of the service rendered by the appellant-convict for a period of over 30 years is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that in this case the condition precedent to draw a legal presumption that the accused has demanded and was paid the bribe money has been proved and established by the incriminating material on record. Thus, the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 becomes applicable for the offence committed by the appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant-convict was found in possession of the bribe money and no reasonable explanation is forthcoming that may rebut the presumption. Further, the recovery of the money from the appellant-convict has also been proved without doubt through the evidence put forth by PWs. 6, 13, 5, 7 and 12 as the same are sufficient to establish the essential ingredients of demand of the money by the appellant-convict, acceptance of the said money by him and recovery of the tainted notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder from his position. Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to discredit or disbelieve their testimonies. In this backdrop the unblemished service if any rendered by the appellant-convict is not sufficient to rebut the presumption as envisaged under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to discredit or disbelieve their testimonies. In this backdrop the unblemished service if any rendered by the appellant-convict is not sufficient to rebut the presumption as envisaged under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence in record is sufficient to establish all the three charges for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code hence, the learned court below has rightly convicted the appellant-convict. Accordingly, the conviction of appellant-convict is confirmed. 25. So far as the sentence is concerned, the occurrence of this case took place on 24.10.1994. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurjant Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 8 SCC 650 , observed that as the incident in question related in that case to the charge prior to 16.01.2014 with effect from which date the minimum sentence under Section 7 and under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been enhanced by Act 1 of 2014, hence, the statutory minimum sentence applicable will be one year under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as the same stood on 16.01.2014 and the minimum sentence for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 applicable will be six months. In this case, the appellant-convict is now aged about 75 years. It is submitted that the appellant-convict is not keeping good health and the occurrence took place more than two decades ago causing immense and mental incarceration and agony to the appellant-convict. So it will be proper to modify the sentence to one year each for the offences punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and both the sentences shall run concurrently but the fine amount appears to be proper. 26. So it will be proper to modify the sentence to one year each for the offences punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and both the sentences shall run concurrently but the fine amount appears to be proper. 26. Accordingly, the substantive sentence for imprisonment for the appellant-convict is reduced from a period of two years to a period of one year without interfering with the sentence of fine imposed by the trial court and the sentence of the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is maintained. With this modification in sentence, this appeal stands disposed of. 27. It is reported that the appellant-convict is in custody since 16.09.2020, consequent upon his cancellation of bail granted to him during the pendency of the appeal because of non-cooperation with the hearing of the appeal. 28. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned court below forthwith.