JUDGMENT (Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C, r/w Section 27 of the P.C.Act, to set aside the order and acquit the appellant who has been convicted by the Special Judge (Special Court for Trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act) Salem made in Special Case No.22 of 2014, dated 18.11.2016.) 1. The convicted sole accused is the appellant herein. 2. This Criminal Appeal is filed against his conviction and the sentence passed by the Special Judge (Special Court for Trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act) Salem made in Special Case No.22 of 2014 dated 18.11.2016 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and sentenced him to undergo R.I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for another 6 months; convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for another 6 months for offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the sentences are ordered to be undergone by the accused concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution is that: (a) The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Salem who investigated the case registered in Crime No.6/AC/2002 has submitted a final report in Court implicating the accused for the offences under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (b) The substratum of the final report is that from 10.09.2001 to 27.03.2002, the accused A.Duraisamy served as Commercial Inspector in the offence of the Assistant Executive Engineer/O&M//Vazhappadi South TNEB and as such the accused is a public servant as defined u/s.2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (c) On 23.03.2002 at about 16.00 Hrs. the accused at his office demanded a sum of Rs.500/- as gratification other than legal remuneration from the complainant Devarajan, S/o.Angamuthugounder, Vadakkukadu, Veppilaipatti, Vaszhappadi Taluk, for registering the application of the complaint seeking installation of change over switch in the service connection bearing number 31 to facilitate the complainant in drawing water through compressor set from the bore-well newly sunk by the complainant to the well of the complainant situate in S.F.No.44/2. In the afternoon of 26.03.2002, the accused reiterated the demand with the complainant. In the afternoon of 26.03.2002, the accused reiterated the demand with the complainant. d) Subsequently on 27.03.2002, at about 17.00 hrs at his office, the accused in pursuance of the earlier demands demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.500/- from the complainant Devarajan in the presence of official witness, as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for registering the application preferred by the complainant for installing change over switch in service connection 31 to facilitate drawing of water from the new bore-well sunk by the complainant and as such the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. e) During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecutions ten witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and 22 documents were exhibited as Exs.P1 to P22. Material objects 1 to 5 were identified by the relevant prosecution witnesses. 4. After trial, the learned Special Judge for the prevention of Corruption Act has laid the conviction and sentence as stated supra. 5. Mr.Shunmuga Velayugham, learned Senior Advocate contended that: a) The demand for gratification alleged to have been made by the accused with the defacto complainant P.W.2 Devarajan has not been established by the prosecution through independent witness and as such on the basis of the evidence of the complainant P.W.2 Devarajan and that of the official witness P.W.3 Jegadeesan, who are not only interested but also partisan witnesses. b) In the absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification by the accused, mere recovery of tainted money at the instance of accused by conducting test is not sufficient to establish charge u/s.7 or 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and that in such cases, the statutory presumption adumbrated u/s.20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be applied in favour of the prosecution. c) The accused since specific suggestion was put to P.W.2 during the cross-examination that the co-employees of the accused, who got irked due to the strict discipline exhibited by the accused in discharging his duties have stage managed to foist a false case against the accused with the help of P.W.2. Specific suggestions were put to P.W.5, the then AEE of Vazhappadi South T.N.E.B office and P.W.6, the then Trainee Assessor of the said office on this specific point. Specific suggestions were put to P.W.5, the then AEE of Vazhappadi South T.N.E.B office and P.W.6, the then Trainee Assessor of the said office on this specific point. d) The statement of the accused was not recorded by P.W.9, the trap laying officer immediately after the trap as required under Rule 47 of the DVAC Manual the entire investigation is vitiated. 6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has made submissions in support of the judgment of the trial Court. 7. As per prosecution, initial demand for gratification was made on 23.03.2002 and 26.03.2002 by the accused with P.W.2 Devarajan (defacto-complainant) and on 27.03.2002 at about 17.00 Hrs, the accused at his office demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.500/- from P.W.2 Devarajan in the presence of P.W.3 Jaganathan, (shadow witness) accompanying official witness, as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for registering the application preferred by P.W.2 Devarajan for installing change-over switch in the electricity service connection bearing number 31 to facilitate P.W.2 in drawing water from the newly sunk bore-well to the well situate in S.F.No.44/2 and as such the accused has committed offences u/s 7 and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 8. P.W.1 is the Superior officer who had granted Ex.P1 sanction order for prosecution. P.W.2 is the defacto-complainant. While P.W.3 is the official witness, shadow witness. P.Ws.4 to 6 are the staffs in the office of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. While P.W.7 is the Court Staff who has send the material for scientific report and P.W.8 is the Assistant Director, Forensic Science Department who gave Ex.P17 Chemical Analysis Report and P.W.9 is the T.L.O. while P.W.10 is the Inspector of Police and M.O.1 Series is the tainted money. 9. As per the scheme of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, the basis requirement for sustaining a prosecution for the offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the said Act is that on the date of the commission of the offence, the accused should be a "public servant" as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act. 10. As per the scheme of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, the basis requirement for sustaining a prosecution for the offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the said Act is that on the date of the commission of the offence, the accused should be a "public servant" as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act. 10. As per the rigour of the provisions under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, a complete bar is created on the power of the Court to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 7,10,11,12 and 15 of the said Act alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction of the competent authority enumerated in clauses (a) or (b) or (c) of sub-section 1. In the face of the persuasive evidence, with regard to application of mind by P.W.1 to all relevant documents placed before him for perusal available on record, the ratio laid down in Mohamed Iqbal Ahmed Vs.State of A.P ( AIR 1979 (SC) 677 ) is of no avail to the accused. 11. The pre-condition envisaged under Section 19 for taking cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused is also very much satisfied in the present case. 12. On elaborate discussion, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that Ex.P1 sanction order is a valid one and contra argument that it is a invalid one, sans substance. 13. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined the above prosecution witnesses and has examined P.Ws.2,4,9 and 10. 14. To sustain a charge under Section 7 or 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution is obliged to establish the following "foundational facts" through material and legally acceptable evidence. (i) Demand for gratification by the accused. (ii) Acceptance of money as gratification by the accused. (iii) Recovery of gratification money from the accused or at the instance of the accused. 15. On an combined evidence of P.W.2 along with P.W.3, it is seen that five acres of land along with a well provided with electricity through SC No.31 situate in S.F.44/2 Veppilaipatty Village, Vazhapadi Taluk belong to P.W.2 Devarajan, the defacto-complainant. The electricity service connection bearing No.31 stood recorded in the name of P.W.2's father, Angamuthu. 15. On an combined evidence of P.W.2 along with P.W.3, it is seen that five acres of land along with a well provided with electricity through SC No.31 situate in S.F.44/2 Veppilaipatty Village, Vazhapadi Taluk belong to P.W.2 Devarajan, the defacto-complainant. The electricity service connection bearing No.31 stood recorded in the name of P.W.2's father, Angamuthu. Due to scarcity of water in the well, P.W.2 sunk a bore-well in S.F.No.44/1D to draw water from the bore-well to the well situate in S.F.No.44/2. Subsequently on application by P.W.2, the electricity service connection SC 31 was transferred in the name of P.W.2 as per Ex.P12 order dated 19.03.2002 passed by P.W.4 Pachamuthu, the then Assistant Accounts Officer of TNEB, Vazhapadi south. In order to facilitate drawing of water from the bore-well to the well situate on S.F.No.44/2, changeover switch has to be installed in S.C.No.31. For installing change-over switch, necessary orders have to be obtained by P.W.2 at the Vazhapadi South, TNEB office. During the relevant period, P.W.5 Sathiyamurthy was serving as Assistant Executive Engineer and the accused was employed as Commercial Inspector at the Vazhapadi south TNEB office. 16. In order to prove the factum of demand, the prosecution have necessarily laid upon P.W.2 and P.W.3. Ex.P2 is the complaint. Ex.P18 is the F.I.R and Ex.P6 is the Application Form given by P.W.2 for the electricity supply connection. 17. As per the recitals found in Ex.P2 complaint and Ex.P18 F.I.R the accused is alleged to have demanded gratification from P.W.2 Devarajan on the following dates: (i) On 23.03.2002 at about 4.00 P.M at the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, TNEB, Vazhapadi south. (ii) In the afternoon of 26.03.2002 at the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, TNEB, Vazhapadi south. 18. After perusing the evidence of P.W.2, I find that on receiving the application the accused enquired with P.W.2 as to whether P.W.2 has brought the money as demanded by him. When P.W.2 on reply that he did not kept money as demanded and he is having only Rs.50/- 19. 18. After perusing the evidence of P.W.2, I find that on receiving the application the accused enquired with P.W.2 as to whether P.W.2 has brought the money as demanded by him. When P.W.2 on reply that he did not kept money as demanded and he is having only Rs.50/- 19. It is seen from his evidence that the accused after receipt of Rs.50/- from P.W.2 has appears to have told him that he could not issue receipt for the said amount and only on payment of Rs.500/- he will receive the receipt of Rs.50/- and it is insisted by the accused that P.W.2 has to come and meet him on the following day with Rs.50/- towards the receipt and Rs.500/- as demanded him. Except the evidence of P.W.2, there is no other evidence is available for the initial demand said to have been made on 23.03.2002 and 26.03.2002. 20. No doubt in a bribe case, the complainant would have been aggrieved by the conduct of the accused public servant. The very fact that the complainant lodged a complaint with the Vigilance police is reflective of his grievance. Such a handicap in his evidence may require the Court to scrutinize the evidence with care but it does not call for outright rejection of the complainant's evidence at the threshold. A pedantic approach rejecting the evidence of a complainant simply on the premise that he was aggrieved against the bribe taker would only help the corrupt officials getting insulated from legal consequences. 21. Our Apex Court went on to hold that credibility of witness has to be tested in the touch-stone of truthfulness and trustworthiness. 22. Bribe is not taken in public view and therefore there may not be any person who could see the giving and taking of bribe. Since offences like bribery is committed is secrecy, independent evidence seldom exists. Whether the evidence of a witness deserves to be accepted or not has to be decided on appreciation of evidence and no hard-and-fast rule can be laid in this regard. In a case in which a witness is partly reliable, courts normally seek corroboration. However in a case in which the witness is wholly reliable, court do not seek any corroboration. Seeking corroboration in all circumstances of the evidence of a witness forced to give bribe would lead to absurd result. In a case in which a witness is partly reliable, courts normally seek corroboration. However in a case in which the witness is wholly reliable, court do not seek any corroboration. Seeking corroboration in all circumstances of the evidence of a witness forced to give bribe would lead to absurd result. Moreover corroboration of the evidence of witness can be found from other materials. 23. After going through the cross-examination of P.W.2, there is nothing in the cross-examination to discredit the evidence of P.W.2. Except making a stray suggestion that a false case has been foisted against him at the instance of the co-employee due to the strict discipline exhibited by the accused in discharge of his duty. Except the self-serving statement by way of suggestion nothing has been put to P.W.2 to discredit his evidence. P.W.2 is an stranger. In the absence of any special circumstances, this Court find its hard to reject the evidence of P.W.2 merely because he has happened to the complainant. Corroboration need not essentially be through direct evidence. Corroboration can be by way of circumstantial evidence also. The circumstantial evidence, in this instance case, has let in by the prosecution by way of P.W.3 namely Jegadeesan, the shadow witness. 24. In order to establish the alleged final demand for gratification made by the accused, the prosecution has necessarily relied upon the oral testimonial of P.W.2 and P.W.3. P.W.2 has categorically deposed the initial demand made on 23.03.2002 at 4.00 P.M and 26.03.2002 when he presented the application along with necessary V.A.O Certificate and both the times, the accused said to have been made a demand of Rs.500/- to effect Electricity charges supply connection. The very same demand has been reiterated by the accused in the presence of P.W.3. 25. It is a specific evidence of P.W.2 that on the penultimate day on receiving the application the accused enquired P.W.2 as to what was told to him (P.W.2). P.W.2 told the accused that he was instructed to get attestation in the documents. Further on enquiry by the accused, P.W.2 told the accused that he had obtained necessary signatures from the Veppilaipatty V.A.O and Vazhapadi EB. Revenue Officer. Thereafter the accused enquired with P.W.2 as to whether P.W.2 has brought the money demanded by him. P.W.2 told the accused that he has brought the money. The accused directed P.W.2 to give the money. Further on enquiry by the accused, P.W.2 told the accused that he had obtained necessary signatures from the Veppilaipatty V.A.O and Vazhapadi EB. Revenue Officer. Thereafter the accused enquired with P.W.2 as to whether P.W.2 has brought the money demanded by him. P.W.2 told the accused that he has brought the money. The accused directed P.W.2 to give the money. P.W.2 took Rs.500/- from the left outer pocket of his shirt and gave it to the accused. On receiving the money the accused by saying to P.W.2 that money should have been tendered in the first instance, kept the money inside a zip bag. 26. At this juncture it is relevant to state that the final demand for gratification made by the accused as spoken to by P.W.3, the shadow witness duly corroborates the evidence of P.W.2 on material aspects including previous demand. Merely because P.W.3 is a part of the raiding party he cannot be termed as a interested witness nor his evidence be eschewed especially when it is found to be of credence. 27. On perusal of the cross-examination of P.W.3, I find that P.W.3 was not even confronted with the suggestion as to why he has deposing in favour of the prosecution and hence, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the version of P.W.2 in the witness box duly corroborates P.W.2 regarding the ultimate demand and its acceptance. 28. After going through the lengthy cross examination of P.W.3, I find that the version of P.W.3 regarding his presence along with P.W.2 at the time of the ultimate trap proceedings, acceptance of money by the accused from P.W.2 and the final demand made by the accused regarding Rs.500/- and receipt of the same and keeping the tainted money in his bag and arrival of police and conducting of the chemical analysis test and seizing of the property inspires the confidence of this Court to place his reliance and the evidence of P.W.9/T.L.O also appears to be clear and cogent and duly corroborates the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and hence, in view of the categorical evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, P.W.9 (T.L.O) coupled with Ex.P17 chemical analysis report given by P.W.8 Scientific Officer, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved all the necessary ingredients to invoke the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 29. In the case of C.M.Girish Babu Vs.CBI (AIR 2009 SC 2012) our Apex Court has categorically held that when recovery of money from the possession of the accused is established by the prosecution and factum of demand is also stated, it is obligatory on the part of the Court to apply the statutory presumption available u/s 20 of the Prevention of corruption Act in respect of offence u/s 7 and the factual presumption available u/s 114(a) of the Evidence Act in respect of the offence u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) in favour of the prosecution. 30. In the case of Narendra Champak Lal Trivedi Vs.State of Gujarat (2012-7-SCC-80) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when once the prosecution succeeds in establishing the foundational facts (viz) acceptance or obtainment of gratification by the accused, the Court is obliged to draw on inference that the said gratification was accepted as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act. 31. The ratio laid down in the above referred cases is squarely applicable to the facts established in the present case. Hence by applying the statutory as well factual presumption available to the prosecution u/s 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 114 (a) of the Evidence Act this Court has to presume that the accused accepted M.O.1 series money of Rs.500/- from the defacto complainant P.W.2 Devarajan as gratification for performing an official act in favour of P.W.2. 32. Therefore the trial Court has rightly applied the above preposition of law which is squarely applicable to the case established by the P.W.2 and P.W.3 and accordingly held that the prosecution is entitled for presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 114 (a) of the Indian Evidence Act and presume that the accused had accepted Ex.MO1 series, money of Rs.500/- from the P.W.2 defacto-complainant as gratification for performing an official act in favour of P.W.2. 33. Now it is settled law that the presumption available u/s 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a rebuttable presumption and the presumption can be dislodged by the accused bringing on record some evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that money was accepted other than for the prohibited motive or reward as stipulated u/s 7 of the Act. 33. Now it is settled law that the presumption available u/s 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a rebuttable presumption and the presumption can be dislodged by the accused bringing on record some evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that money was accepted other than for the prohibited motive or reward as stipulated u/s 7 of the Act. It is equally settled law that it is obligatory on the part of the court to consider the explanation offered by the accused and the consideration of explanation has to be on the anvail of preponderance of probability and is not to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. 34. At this juncture the specific defence taken by the accused is that he has been thrown into the vortex of the present criminal proceedings by the disgruntled co-employees who were inimical towards him due to the strict discipline exhibited by him in the discharge of his duties. Except this vague defense, the accused has not come forward with any explanation, leave alone plausible explanation, as to how he came to handle the tainted money during the trap held at his office on 27.03.2002. 35. As stated supra, I find that except the bald suggestion or his self-serving suggestion that due to the inimical attitude of the coemployees, a false case has been foisted against him has been made only for the sake of suggestion and there is no positive evidence or any explanation has been obtained either from the prosecution witnesses or by the independent witnesses especially when P.W.4 to P.W.6 were all staffs from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The other discrepancies and omissions as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the evidence of P.W.2 are only minor in nature and the same does not affect the clear and cogent evidence of the prosecution. Ex.P6 was projected as application form said to have been returned in part by P.W.2 and completed in the remaining part by the accused after the receipt of the amount Rs.500/- . 36. This was challenged by the learned Senior counsel that Ex.P6 application form produced by the prosecution is a fabricated document and the same is handiwork of the vigilance police after the arrest of the accused to suit the theory of the prosecution. 36. This was challenged by the learned Senior counsel that Ex.P6 application form produced by the prosecution is a fabricated document and the same is handiwork of the vigilance police after the arrest of the accused to suit the theory of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 are already discussed in the preceding paragraphs which clearly states about the coming into the existence of Ex.P6 namely the application form for the new service connection which was initially filled up a part by P.W.2 and after receipt of the taint money, the accused himself has completed his application form. In this regard the evidence of P.W.5 Assistant Executive Engineer, assumes significance. 37. P.W.5 Sathyamurthy, the then Assistant Executive Engineer of Vazhapadi south TNEB office asserted that major portion of recitals in Ex.P6 application is in the handwriting of the accused. Not even a suggestion was put to P.W.5 as to why he is deposing against the interest of the accused. Hence absolutely there is no valid reason to reject the evidence of P.W.5. From the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5 it is established without any shadow of doubt that Ex.P6 came into existence on 27.03.2003 at the Vazhapadi south AEE office on the date of the trap as contended by the prosecution and as such absolutely there is no ground to suspect the genuiness of Ex.P6 application. 38. The next contention raised by the learned Senior Advocate is that non observance of the Rule 47 of the D.V.A.C manual that immediately after the arrest, P.W.9 Trap Laying Officer has not recorded the statement of the accused. In this connection brother Mr. Justice A.D.Jagadish Chandira, in the reported decision in CDJ 2019 MHC 2027 [D.Chellaiah Vs.State by the Inspector of Police] following the decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in 2013 1 CWC 136 (Duraimurugan Vs. State, Deputy Superintendent of Police, VAC, Velore, wherein in paragraphs 38 and 37, it was held as under:- "38. A careful reading of the above cited decision would disclose that the accused cannot make any complaint with regard to the nonfollowing of the procedures contemplated under the Vigilance Manual and as per the decision rendered in Vineet Narain's case, cited supra, any deviation from the established procedure should be viewed seriously and severe disciplinary action taken against the official concerned. 37. 37. In the light of the above said decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the appellant/accused has no locus standi to take advantage of non compliance of the procedure as contemplted under the DVAC Manual and if it at all, it is for the concerned authority to take action against the officials concerned. Moreover, in this case, as per the evidence of P.W.3, immediately after the trap proceedings and phenolphthalein test, P.W.11, the Trap Laying Officer had questioned the appellant/accused in due compliance of Rule 47 of the DVAC Manual and it is supported by Ex.P14, Mahazar. Further, in due compliance of Rule 47(2) of the DVAC Manual, the appellant/accused has also been questioned during further investigation. Thereby, the ground raised by the appellant/accused with regard to noncompliance of the DVAC Manual cannot be countenanced. 39. The decisions laid in P.Paulraj's case, R. Venkatraj's case and Thulasiram's case, stands over ruled in view of the authoritative decision given by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Duraimurugan V State, Deputy Superintendent of Police, VAC, Vellore reported in 2013(1) CWC 136 and hence this court is following the ratio decidenti and hold that the decision in i) P.Palraj v State represented by Inspector of police, Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Wing, Thoothukudi (2012 (3) MWN Crl 380). ii.) R. Venkatraj V State represented by the Inspector of Police (2012 (1) MWN (Cr) 448). ii.) R. Venkatraj V State represented by the Inspector of Police (2012 (1) MWN (Cr) 448). iii.) Thulasiram v State represented through Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Virudhunagar District, Crl.A. ( MD) No. 77 of 2017 dated 09.11.2011 is no longer a good law nor binding upon the lower Court since the Hon'ble Division Bench has taken the view, as stated supra, and hence, I find that the same has already been negatived by the trial Court and in view of the judgment cited supra, non compliance of the Rule 47 of the D.V.A.C Act manual cannot vitiate the trap proceedings since the said rule is only an administrative instructions does not have any statutory force making it as mandatory and hence the finding rendered by the trial Court on the similar lines is hereby confirmed as the same does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality, warranting interference and thus, all the 3 points raised by the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant stands negatived and the defence has failed to probablize the suggestive case and hence the finding rendered by the trial Court that the accused is found guilty of offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act is hereby confirmed. 40. 40. Hence, in view of the above analysis, I find that the prosecution has successfully demonstrated the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and hence this Court is bound to apply the presumption under section 21 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the presumption is a compulsory presumption which the Court is bound to comply when the acceptance of illegal gratification is satisfactorily proved as held in 2004 3 SCC 753 (T.Sankar Prasad V. State of Andra Pradesh) and in the instant case there is no direct evidence to prove the acceptance of illegal gratification and Court can even apply factual presumption under the application of process for coming to a finding regarding acceptance of the illegal gratification and in the absence of any other fact to rebut the presumption and in the absence of any other fact to rebut the presumption under Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the presumption under Section 20 (1) of the P.C Act stands unrebutted and consequently the charges are held to be proved and hence this Court finds that a similar finding recorded by the trial Court to hold the charges are proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 41. On the point of quantum of sentence, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused heard. 42. The appellant convicted is now 74 years old and is having enumerate list of ailment. Fine amount imposed by the trial Court has been already paid. 43. Taking into consideration the advance age of the petitioner and also the list of ailment he is suffering, I am inclined to reduce the sentence awarded under Section 7 of the P.C Act from one year R.I to six months S.I and also reduce the sentence awarded under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) from 2 years R.I to one year S.I. with fine amount as stated by the trial Court. The fine imposed and the default clause ordered by the trial Court remains unaltered. The period of sentence already undergone by the appellant/accused shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Sentence granted are ordered to run concurrently. 44. In this view of the matter, this Criminal Appeal is partlyallowed only to the limited extent, as indicated above. The fine imposed and the default clause ordered by the trial Court remains unaltered. The period of sentence already undergone by the appellant/accused shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Sentence granted are ordered to run concurrently. 44. In this view of the matter, this Criminal Appeal is partlyallowed only to the limited extent, as indicated above. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act, passed by the learned Special Judge (Special Court for Trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act) Salem in Special Special Case No.22 of 2014 dated 18.11.2016, is hereby confirmed and sentence has been reduced to the extent indicated above.