JUDGMENT : A. Badharudeen, J. Crl.Appeal No.1511/2018 is at the instance of the 1 st accused in C.C.No.268/2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha and he assails conviction and sentence imposed against him in the above case dated 21.11.2018. 2. Crl.Appeal No.961/2022 is at the instance of the prosecution to enhance the sentence on the ground that inadequate sentence was imposed in this case, without considering the gravity of the offence. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/1 st accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the judgment under challenge and the relevant records including the depositions of the witnesses. 4. The prosecution case is that the 1 st accused, who was working as the Headmaster of ‘Our Lady Shepherd Anglo Indian L.P. School’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘OLSAI L.P. School’), Kunjithai, being a public servant, entered into a criminal conspiracy with the 2 nd accused, Lessly Bevero (now no more), who was the Chairman and Corporate Manager of the Central Board of Anglo Indian Education to demand an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from Smt.Suharabi and from Sri.Abdul Majeed, Kattisery House, Machanthuruth, who is the husband of Smt.Suharabi, to appoint her as a permanent Arabic Teacher in the said school. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, the 1 st accused, by abusing his official position as a public servant, demanded and accepted an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- from Sri.Abdul Majeed for the appointment of his wife, named Suharabi, as a permanent teacher in Arabic. The accused accepted the amount in four instalments on 11.06.2005, 02.07.2005, 06.08.2005 and 12.08.2005. On this premise, the prosecution alleges that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 , 8 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter), and Sections 409 , 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code . 5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the 1 st accused that in this matter, the allegation is that the 1 st accused demanded and accepted Rs.1,50,000/- from PW18, Sri.Abdul Majeed, who is the husband of PW17, Smt.Suharabi, after demanding the same from PW17 also, who was appointed as Arabic Teacher in OLSAI L.P.School, Kunjithai. 5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the 1 st accused that in this matter, the allegation is that the 1 st accused demanded and accepted Rs.1,50,000/- from PW18, Sri.Abdul Majeed, who is the husband of PW17, Smt.Suharabi, after demanding the same from PW17 also, who was appointed as Arabic Teacher in OLSAI L.P.School, Kunjithai. According to the learned counsel for the 1 st accused, on going through the evidence of PW17 and PW18, it could be gathered that a complaint was lodged when Rs.1,50,000/- allegedly given by PW18 was not used for the maintenance works of the school. It is pointed out that going by the evidence PW17 and PW18, PW17, her husband (PW18) and PW2 went to the office of the Board at Perumannoor for getting back the amount. The 1 st accused and other persons were present there. PW17 did not get back the money on that day. The Chairman told them that they would inform the matter and accordingly, PW17 and PW18 returned. After a few days, the 2 nd accused called her and directed her to reach his residence. Accordingly, PW17 and her husband (PW18) went there. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were present there. According to PW17, some amount (presumably Rs.40,000/-) was given to them, but they did not accept the same. Subsequently, PW2 informed PW17 that the 1 st accused had come with an amount of Rs.40,000/-, and accordingly, PW18 went near the residence of PW2. An amount of Rs.40,000/- was handed over in cash by the 1 st accused and four cheques for Rs.15,000/- each were issued in favour of PW2, by the 1 st accused. It was further informed that the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- had been credited to the account of the Board, and hence, the same would not be returned. 6. The point argued by the learned counsel for the 1 st accused is that the evidence would suggest that the amount was received by the Management and the 1 st accused, being the Headmaster, was compelled by PW17, PW18 and PTA members to give Ext.P5 acknowledgment stating that he had received the amount. It is pointed out further that since the amount was received by the Management, the Headmaster could not be fastened with criminal culpability and therefore, the verdict under challenge would require interference. 7. It is pointed out further that since the amount was received by the Management, the Headmaster could not be fastened with criminal culpability and therefore, the verdict under challenge would require interference. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly resisted the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the 1 st accused/appellant and submitted that the evidence of PW17, PW18 and PW19, supported by the evidence of PW2, categorically established the demand and acceptance of Rs.1,50,000/- by the 1 st accused. Thereafter, due to the intervention of PW2 and in the presence of the 2 nd accused, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was subsequently repaid, while Rs.50,000/- was retained on the premise that the said amount was paid to the Bank and Rs.1 Lakh was obtained by the 1 st accused himself. 8. In this matter, acting on the evidence recorded as that of PW1 to PW23 and Exts.P1 to Ext.P32 including Exts.D1 to D3 contradictions marked as that of PW17, where the 1 st accused did not adduce any defence evidence independently, the Special Court found that the 1 st accused committed offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. Accordingly, the 1 st accused was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 9. Now, the question arise for consideration are; (i) Whether the Special Court is justified in holding that the 1 st accused/appellant committed offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988? (ii) Whether the verdict would require interference? (iii) The order to be passed? Point Nos.(i) to (iii) 10. In this case, the prosecution case emanated on the basis of Ext.P22 complaint lodged by PW16 and PW16 deposed about lodging of Ext.P22 complaint. The crucial witnesses given evidence in support of demand and acceptance of Rs.1,50,000/- by the 1 st accused are PW17 and PW18, supported by the evidence of PW19. PW17 examined in this case is Smt.Suharabi, who was appointed as Arabic Teacher and working as Arabic Teacher in OSLAI L.P.School, Kunjithai from 01.06.2005. The crucial witnesses given evidence in support of demand and acceptance of Rs.1,50,000/- by the 1 st accused are PW17 and PW18, supported by the evidence of PW19. PW17 examined in this case is Smt.Suharabi, who was appointed as Arabic Teacher and working as Arabic Teacher in OSLAI L.P.School, Kunjithai from 01.06.2005. She deposed that she joined the said school on 01.06.2005, and that her appointment was made pursuant to a discussion between her and the 1 st accused regarding the creation of a post of Arabic Teacher, as there were originally seven Muslim students who wanted to study Arabic, and on admitting four more Muslim students to create the post of an Arabic Teacher. Accordingly, she put up an application before the 1 st accused and an interview was conducted at the school by accused No.1/the Headmaster, accused No.2/the Chairman, and PW5. There was only one applicant and accordingly, she was appointed in the school and she joined the school on 01.06.2005. After a few days of her joining, the 1 st accused demanded Rs.1,25,000/-, stating that the amount was required for giving to the Board members and for constructing a compound wall for the school. PW17 informed the matter to her husband PW18, and when PW18 contacted the 1 st accused over phone, the 1 st accused initially demanded Rs.1,25,000/- and then enhanced the amount to Rs.1,50,000/-. Thereafter, they arranged Rs.50,000/- from their friends and the people of the locality and the said sum was paid as the first instalment. Subsequently, Rs.25,000/- each was paid on two occasions. Thereafter, on demand, Rs.50,000/- more also was paid. The evidence of PW17 is that the money was paid by PW18, her husband and the demand was made by the 1 st accused to her. During cross-examination, PW17 categorically stated that money was given by her husband (PW18) and demand was made to her. Regarding Ext.P5, the 1 st accused answered that it was obtained under compulsion. When a suggestion was made that the 1 st accused did not demand or accept any money, PW1 denied it and reiterated that the 1 st accused had demanded the money. Regarding Ext.P5, the 1 st accused answered that it was obtained under compulsion. When a suggestion was made that the 1 st accused did not demand or accept any money, PW1 denied it and reiterated that the 1 st accused had demanded the money. During re-examination, the legal advisor sought the permission of the court to put questions under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and when PW17 was questioned, she stated that Rs.40,000/- was returned back by the 1 st accused at the Board office. 11. Another crucial witness in this case is PW18, the husband of PW17, Smt.Suharabi. He deposed that he had been working as Cleric of the Elayakovilakom Juma Masjid, Mattanchery. According to him, PW17 was working as Arabic teacher in OLSAI L.P.School, Kunjithai, since 1 st June 2005. His evidence is that when PW17 went to the school for admitting their second son in the school, the 1 st accused, who was the Headmaster of the school told her that seven Muslim students were there who want to study Arabic and if four more students were admitted, the post of an Arabic Teacher could be created. Accordingly, PW17 and PW18 admitted four students from their relation in the school, as instructed by the 1 st accused. An interview was conducted at the school at Kunjithai by accused No.1, the Headmaster, accused No.2, the Chairman, and PW5 towards the end of the month of May. PW18 deposed that PW17 attended duty from the month of June onwards. After some days, the 1 st accused demanded money from PW17, stating that it was to be given to the members of the Board and for constructing compound wall for the school. PW17 informed the matter to him and when he contacted the 1 st accused over phone, he demanded Rs.25,000/- more and informed him that altogether Rs.1,50,000/- was required. Pursuant to the said demand, they borrowed money from their friends and the people of the locality and Rs.50,000/- was given as the first instalment. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.25.000/- each were given on two occasions. Subsequently, Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) was also given. The amounts were given on 11.06.2005. 02.07.2005. 06.08.2005 and 12.08.2005. On three occasions, the amount was given by PW18 and the uncle of PW17, named Shahul Hameed at the residence of the 1 st accused near Mathilakom. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.25.000/- each were given on two occasions. Subsequently, Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) was also given. The amounts were given on 11.06.2005. 02.07.2005. 06.08.2005 and 12.08.2005. On three occasions, the amount was given by PW18 and the uncle of PW17, named Shahul Hameed at the residence of the 1 st accused near Mathilakom. The last instalment of Rs.50,000/- was given at the residence of PW18 at Machanthuruth. According to PW18, the 1 st accused came to his residence and obtained this amount of Rs.50,000/-. PW18 deposed further that when no work was conducted at the school, the people of the locality raised an issue. PW17 and PW18 demanded back the amount. On 02.09.2005, PW18 filed Ext.P10(a) complaint before the 2 nd accused. On the basis of the complaint, the 2 nd accused and members of the Board came to school for enquiry. The 1 st accused admitted the receipt of Rs.1,50,000/-. Ext.P5 is the acknowledgment written by the 1 st accused on 06.09.2005. Later, the 1 st accused agreed to return an amount of Rs.40,000/- in cash and to give four cheques for Rs.15,000/- each. Accordingly, the 1 st accused gave an amount of Rs.40,000/-. He gave four cheques through PW2. When the 1 st accused handed over an amount of Rs.60,000/- to PW2, the above cheques were returned. PW18 produced Ext.P5 before the Vigilance Inspector. He affixed his signature in Ext.P20 Mahazar regarding the same. PW18 identified Ext.P4 complaint filed by PW17. PW18 admitted that the P10(a) was prepared by him. According to him, when they went to the office of the Board, accused Nos.1 and 2 along with PW5 were present, and the decision to return the amount was taken there. 12. PW2 is a friend of PW18. He deposed that PW17 is the wife of PW18. During the period 2001-2004, PW2 was the member and President of the PTA of OLSAI L.P.School, Kunjithai. According to PW2, PW18 approached him and told him that the Headmaster obtained an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from him in connection with the appointment of his wife as Arabic Teacher in the school. Since PW18 requested for his help, he contacted the Administrative Board. When he contacted the members of the board, they informed him that the board was aware of the payment of Rs.50,000/- only, and that they were unaware of payment of Rs.1,00,000/-. Since PW18 requested for his help, he contacted the Administrative Board. When he contacted the members of the board, they informed him that the board was aware of the payment of Rs.50,000/- only, and that they were unaware of payment of Rs.1,00,000/-. The 1 st accused was the Headmaster of the school and the Chairman was Lessly Bevero. When PW2 called the 1 st accused, he replied that lakhs of rupees ought to have been given for the seat, and he informed him further that there was no problem regarding the job, and that there was guarantee for the same. 13. PW2 deposed that PW18 told him that the amount was obtained for sanctioning the post and for approval of the appointment. According to PW2, at the time of demand, Rs.50,000/- was meant for the Board and the Board was not responsible for Rs.1 Lakh. PW2 further deposed that PW2, PW17 and PW18 went to the office of the Board at Perumannoor and understood that Rs.50,000/- was for the Board and that the Board was not responsible for the remaining amount of Rs.1 Lakh demanded and accepted by the 1 st accused. PW2 supported the payment of Rs.40,000/- at his residence and stated that the balance amount of Rs.60,000/- retained by the 1 st accused was paid by way of four cheques, with an undertaking to pay the same within two months, so that the cheques would be returned. 14. PW3 examined in this case is the member of the Administrative Committee of OLSAI, L.P. School. He deposed about decision of the Board meeting on 16.09.2005 to appoint PW17. According to PW3, the Board found that the Headmaster obtained Rs.1,50,000/- for the appointment of the teacher (PW17) and Rs.50,000/- remitted to the account of the Board. 15. PW4 examined in this case is the another member of the Administrative Committee of the Central Board of Anglo Indian Education. Ext.P3(a) is the communication issued by the 2 nd accused appointing the Enquiry Committee and Ext.P3(f) is the finding of the committee signed by PW4. According to PW4, the 1 st accused was found guilty for having received Rs.1,50,000/- and remitted Rs.50,000/- to the Board. PW4 further deposed that as per the statement given by the teacher, the amount was demanded and accepted by the Headmaster (A1). 16. According to PW4, the 1 st accused was found guilty for having received Rs.1,50,000/- and remitted Rs.50,000/- to the Board. PW4 further deposed that as per the statement given by the teacher, the amount was demanded and accepted by the Headmaster (A1). 16. PW5 testified further that when he enquired to the 2 nd accused, he informed him that only Rs.50,000/- was obtained by the Board. PW5 deposed that Smt.Suharabi handed over Ext.P4 letter dated 03.09.2005 to the 2 nd accused stating about the payment of amount and requesting for confirmation of the post. The PTA meeting of the school was convened at the office of the Board at Perumannuur. Apart from PW5, the Board members and accused Nos.1 and 2 were present. After the PTA meeting, PW5, accused Nos.1 and 2 and the board members discussed the aforesaid issue. The 2 nd accused informed that it was the 1 st accused who received the amount, and that the Board received only Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only). The 1 st accused informed that only that much amount was received and informed that they could enquire it directly. 17. By giving emphasis to the statement of PW17 during cross-examination, wherein a suggestion was put to PW17 that, in order to get back Rs.60,000/- from the 2 nd accused, the 1 st accused stood as a guarantor, to which PW17 answered, “might be” and based on the answer given by PW17 to another question to the effect that, in order to obtain the money from the 2 nd accused, the 1 st accused, being a believable person, had issued cheques, to which PW17 answered, ‘Yes’, the learned counsel for the 1 st accused argued that the evidence tendered by PW17 during cross-examination in the above line would indicate that the money was demanded and accepted by the 2 nd accused, though it was routed through the 1 st accused. 18. It is the well settled principle of evaluation of evidence that the deposition of a witness to be taken as a whole without segregating stray sentences in isolation. 18. It is the well settled principle of evaluation of evidence that the deposition of a witness to be taken as a whole without segregating stray sentences in isolation. On perusal of the evidence of PW17 during cross-examination, even though PW17 given reply, as argued by the learned counsel for the 1 st accused that when another suggestion was made to the effect that the 1 st accused never demanded or accepted money from PW17 and he helped to get back the money from the 2 nd accused, PW17 categorically answered that the money was demanded by the 1 st accused. During chief examination, PW17 categorically stated that the 1 st accused demanded Rs.1,50,000/- and the money was given by her husband, PW18. PW18 supported demand and acceptance of Rs.1,50,000/- by the 1 st accused and the evidence of PW18 in this regard not at all shaken. Thus, overall evaluation of the evidence of PW17 in no way would suggest that the money was demanded by the 2 nd accused and demand was not by the 1 st accused. 19. On scrutiny of the other evidence, it could be gathered that in the instant case, as per the evidence given by PW4 and PW5, the members of the Director Board of the school, only Rs.50,000/- was paid to the Board and Rs.1 Lakh was taken personally by the 1 st accused. PW2 also supported this evidence. In such scenario, it could not be held that the evidence of PW17 would go to show that the money was demanded by the 2 nd accused and the 1 st accused never demanded the money. 20. In this matter, the evidence of PW18, as discussed hereinabove would indicate that the 1 st accused initially demanded Rs.1,25,000/- for disbursing the same to the Board members and for constructing a compound wall for the school. Thereafter, when PW18 contacted the 1 st accused, the 1 st accused stated that an additional sum of Rs.25,000/- would be required. Accordingly, the 1 st accused demanded Rs.1,50,000/-, which was paid in instalments on 11.06.2005, 02.07.2005, 06.08.2005 and 12.08.2005 and accepted by the 1 st accused. 21. Thereafter, when PW18 contacted the 1 st accused, the 1 st accused stated that an additional sum of Rs.25,000/- would be required. Accordingly, the 1 st accused demanded Rs.1,50,000/-, which was paid in instalments on 11.06.2005, 02.07.2005, 06.08.2005 and 12.08.2005 and accepted by the 1 st accused. 21. Regarding Ext.P4, the undertaking given by the 1 st accused to PW17 is concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that Ext.P4 would show that the money was demanded and accepted by the 1 st accused and the 1 st accused agreed to repay the same. But the probative value of this evidence is seriously challenged by the learned counsel for the 1 st accused on the submission that Ext.P4 was obtained on compulsion, as deposed by PW17. In fact, the 1 st accused, who was the Headmaster of the school, had no occasion to give Ext.P4 under compulsion if he had not demanded and received the money offered to be repaid. The obtainment of Ext.P4 by compulsion, as deposed by PW17, is to be understood in the context that, since a persistent demand for repayment was made, the 1 st accused issued Ext.P4. In this connection, it is held that even ignoring Ext.P4, the other evidence discussed in detail categorically established that the 1 st accused demanded Rs.1,50,000/- from PW17 and PW18 and accepted the same from PW18 and out of which, Rs.1,00,000/- was enjoyed by him, though subsequently repaid. 22. Now, it is necessary to address the ingredients required to attract the offences under Section 7 and Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. The same are extracted as under:- Section 7 :- Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. 22. Now, it is necessary to address the ingredients required to attract the offences under Section 7 and Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. The same are extracted as under:- Section 7 :- Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. – Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government Company referred to in clause (C) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 13 :- Criminal misconduct by a public servant. – (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,- a) xxxxx (b) xxxxx (c) xxxxxx (d) If he,- (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. xxxxx (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than four years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. 23. xxxxx (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than four years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. 23. In this connection, it is relevant to refer a 5 Bench decision of the Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State reported in [ AIR 2023 SC 330 ], where the Apex Court considered when the demand and acceptance under Section 7 of the P.C Act to be said to be proved along with ingredients for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and in paragraph No.68, it has been held as under : "68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under: (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind: (i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. (iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. (f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. (g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) and (ii) of the Act. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.” 24. Thus, it has to be held that the ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, are established beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the conviction imposed by the Special Court does not require any interference. 25. Regarding the sentence, the Special Court sentenced the 1 st accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the 1 st accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. 26. In default of payment of fine, the 1 st accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. 26. In this matter, Crl.Appeal No.961/2022 has been filed by the prosecution seeking enhancement of the sentence on the ground that the punishment imposed on the 1 st accused is inadequate, considering the gravity of the offence. Hence, the learned Public Prosecutor pressed for enhancement of sentence. Going through the sentence imposed, I am inclined to hold that in consideration of the facts involved, the sentence can be reduced to the minimum possible and as such, Crl.Appeal No.961/2022 is liable to be dismissed. In the result, Crl.Appeal No.1511/2018 stands allowed in part by confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence as under: The 1 st accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the 1 st accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. Crl.Appeal No.961/2022 stands dismissed. The order suspending sentence and granting bail to the 1 st accused stands cancelled and the bail bond executed by the 1 st accused also stands cancelled. The 1 st accused is directed to surrender before the Special Court, forthwith to undergo the modified sentence, failing which, the Special Court is directed to execute the sentence, without fail. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment of the Special Court, forthwith, without fail, for information and compliance.