ORDER 1. The appellant and her brother were charged under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, the brother of the appellant who was arrayed as accused no.2 was discharged. 2. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is that, when the complainant went to the office of the Deputy Commissioner to enquire about his case not having been listed for final orders, the appellant asked the complainant to meet her at her house. When the complainant went to the appellant’s house, the appellant made a demand of Rs.50,000/- to place the complainant’s file before the Deputy Commissioner. 3. A complaint was accordingly filed before the Lokayukta, upon which the complainant was given a tape recorder. Two days later, the complainant went to the house of the appellant and the conversation between the complainant and the appellant came to be recorded on the tape recorder. A few days later, a second complaint was filed before the Lokayukta and a case was registered by the police on the basis of the recording of the conversation. On the same day, a trap was conducted. Pursuant to the trap, a phenolphthalein test was conducted, wherein the hands of the appellant turned pink. The Trial Court rendered a conviction against the appellant, which was confirmed by the High Court in the impugned order. While doing so, the evidence available on record was reassessed and finding that there was no perversity in the decision of the Trial Court, the High Court proceeded to confirm the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Resultantly, the sentence to a period of three years of rigorous imprisonment and fine was also confirmed. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the demand allegedly made by the appellant has not been proved. The statement of PW-2, being the shadow witness, is not sufficient to convict the appellant. The recovery was actually made from the brother of the appellant. This aspect was not taken into consideration by both the courts. 5. We are not inclined to accept the aforesaid submissions, as due procedure has been followed in conducting the trap. On two occasions, complaints had been given by the complainant, who stood his cross examination and deposed in line with the case of the prosecution. This aspect was not taken into consideration by both the courts. 5. We are not inclined to accept the aforesaid submissions, as due procedure has been followed in conducting the trap. On two occasions, complaints had been given by the complainant, who stood his cross examination and deposed in line with the case of the prosecution. As there is no perversity in the findings of the High Court in confirming the conviction rendered by the Trial Court, we are not inclined to interfere in this aspect. 6. However, we are inclined to consider the alternative plea made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that, apart from being a lady, the appellant has a 20 years old unmarried daughter, whose interests will have to be taken care of. The occurrence is of the year 2008, post which the appellant has been removed from service departmentally. She was also in jail for about 45 days and has been suffering from physical ailments. 7. Taking note of these mitigating factors, while confirming the conviction, we are inclined to modify the sentence to the one already undergone. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. We are passing this order in the peculiar facts of this particular case. 8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.