JUDGMENT : V SRISHANANDA, J. Heard Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Lokayukta. 2. The present appeal is filed by the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in Special Case No.36/2011, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Special Court, Yadagiri by judgment dated 07.01.2020. 3. The accused has been sentenced as under: “Accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default undergo imprisonment for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he is further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two and half years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- in default undergo imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act . The sentences and in default sentence shall run concurrently. Supply free copy of the Judgment to the accused forthwith. M.O.1 to 6 being articles, notes, cassette and paper used for keeping the bribe amount is ordered to be return to the concerned police after appeal period is over with a direction to proceed with the same as per law.” 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the case are as under: Accused was working as revenue inspector of Yadagiri. Mohd. Nizamuddin, being a social worker indulged in helping the poor persons in his locality to avail old age pension and widow pension. As a part of his social work, he had received applications from Smt. Chandbi (P.W.4), Smt. Rashida Begum (P.W.5), Smt. Maremma (P.W.6), Smt. Salimabi (P.W.7), Smt. Tajeya Begum (P.W.8), Smt. Zilakan Begum (P.W.9), Smt. Mallamma (P.W.10), Mallayya (P.W.11), Smt. Chandramma (P.W.12) and nine other such persons of his locality. 4.1. He filed those applications before the Village Accountant, who conducted a Panchanama to ascertain the information provided in the applications and thereafter forwarded the same for processing to the accused. The complainant, approached the accused for processing the applications. The accused said to have demanded a sum of Rs.500/- per application and later on after sufficient bargaining, the amount was reduced to Rs.100/- per application and Rs.1,800/- for eighteen applications. 4.2. Despite, repeated follow-up, accused failed to process the applications for a considerable period of almost one year. The complainant, approached the accused for processing the applications. The accused said to have demanded a sum of Rs.500/- per application and later on after sufficient bargaining, the amount was reduced to Rs.100/- per application and Rs.1,800/- for eighteen applications. 4.2. Despite, repeated follow-up, accused failed to process the applications for a considerable period of almost one year. Being disgusted with the attitude of the accused, on 17.06.2009, the complainant approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Lokayukta, Yadagiri and narrated the conduct of the accused and pending applications. 4.3. To ascertain the veracity of the oral complaint, the Deputy Superintendent of Police said to have given a voice recorder to the hands of the complainant and directed him to record the conversation of demand of illegal gratification. After receipt of such voice recorder, on 21.06.2009, complainant approached the accused. Accused again demanded a sum of Rs.1,800/- for processing the pending eighteen applications. In conversation, accused demanded that the complainant may make a round figure and pay the bribe amount. 4.4. After hearing the conversation recorded in the voice recorder, a complaint came to be lodged vide Exhibit P.2 and the case came to registered in Crime No.6/2009 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 , 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 and FIR was sent to the Special Judge under sealed cover. 4.5. Thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Lokayukta, Yadagiri formed a raid team comprising himself and two independent witnesses, namely, Kursheed Ahmad (P.W.2), a Junior Health Assistant and Sidramreddy (P.W.3), a Senior Health Assistant, to act as panchas for the intended raid. The head of the raid party read over the contents of the complaint and made the panch witnesses to hear the conversation recorded in the voice recorder and thereafter took the intended bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- comprising two currency notes of Rs.500/- denominations and the serial numbers of those notes were recorded in a separate slip and thereafter phenolphthalein powder was smeared on those currency notes. Chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with colourless sodium carbonate solution was demonstrated to the panch witnesses and colourless solution on coming into contact with phenolphthalein powder, turned into pink colour and the same was stored and sealed and stored separately. Chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with colourless sodium carbonate solution was demonstrated to the panch witnesses and colourless solution on coming into contact with phenolphthalein powder, turned into pink colour and the same was stored and sealed and stored separately. The complainant and shadow witness (P.W.2) were directed to go to the accused and on demand made by the accused, the complainant was directed to handover the tainted currency to the hands of the accused and give a signal to the rest of the raid party. All these aspects of the matter were reduced into writing vide entrustment mahazar. Thereafter, the raid party along with the complainant and shadow witness proceeded to the office of the accused. 4.6. On visiting the accused, the complainant told him that he has brought the bribe money demanded by him and wanted to pay the same to the hands of the accused. The accused at that juncture said to have told the complainant through sign language that the money shall be kept in a white paper in a folded manner and then be handed over to him. As per the instructions of the accused, the complainant took out a white paper and kept the tainted currency in a folded paper and later on wanted to handover the same to the accused. At that juncture, accused said to have opened his table drawer and directed the complainant to keep the money, which was inside the folded white paper into the drawer. Accordingly, the complainant kept the same in the drawer and later on gave the pre designated signal to the head of the raid party. 4.7. Immediately, head of the raid party, co-pancha and other sub-staff of the head of the raid party arrived on the scene and they enquired the accused as to where is the tainted currency. At that juncture, accused said that he did not receive the tainted currency but it was kept by the complainant in the table drawer. 4.8. In the presence of co-pancha, the sub-staff of the head of the raid party opened the table drawer and took out the tainted currency from the table drawer of the accused and co-pancha was directed to verify the serial numbers of the tainted currency which were entered in the entrustment mahazar. 4.8. In the presence of co-pancha, the sub-staff of the head of the raid party opened the table drawer and took out the tainted currency from the table drawer of the accused and co-pancha was directed to verify the serial numbers of the tainted currency which were entered in the entrustment mahazar. Co-pancha/P.W.3 verified the serial numbers of the currency notes which were kept in the folded white paper which were tallying with the serial numbers of the currency notes which were entered in the entrustment mahazar. The same was seized and colour test was also conducted but the hand wash of the accused did not change its colour and the same was sealed and seized. The explanation of the accused was also obtained and later on, the necessary documents were also collected. 4.9. All these aspects of the matter have been reduced into writing by way of a trap mahazar. The conversation recorded at the time of handing over the tainted currency to the accused is also incorporated in the trap mahazar. The accused was arrested and he was sent to the judicial custody. 5. After completing the necessary formalities and detailed investigation, chargesheet came to be filed against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 6. Learned Special Judge secured the presence of the accused and after compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., framed the charges for the aforesaid offences. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 7. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, in all, twenty witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.20 and as many as fifty two documents were placed on record which were marked as Exhibits P.1 to P.52 besides marking six material objects. 8. On conclusion of recording the evidence of the prosecution, the learned Trial Judge recorded the accused statement. The accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances that were put to him and did not furnish any explanation in writing as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. nor adduced any defence evidence. 9. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted and sentence the accused as referred to supra. 10. 9. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted and sentence the accused as referred to supra. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court in this appeal on the following grounds: The impugned judgment passed by the court below is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the law and records against the principles of natural justice. That it is submitted that the prosecution has led the evidence of PW 1 and he claims to be the complainant on the basis of information given by him case was registered. He was treated hostile. In his chief Examination he has stated that he and PW-2 went to the office of accused and given 1000/- of two 500 denomination notes to the accused, the accused instructed the complainant to give the money keeping in the paper thereafter the complainant kept the amount in the paper and the cover was kept in the draw as told by the appellant. Thereafter the complainant signaled the 1.0 and PW-3 rushed to the spot and raided by recovering the amount. It is specifically stated in the chief examination that the amount kept in draw was removed and kept on the table by PW-3, thereafter the amount was wiped by cotton and same was dipped in the carbonate hydrogen solution which was mixed with Phelipthene powder and color was turned to pink. Thereafter hands of the accused was dipped in the phelipthene powder and color was not changed, which shows amount was not received by the accused and same was forcibly kept in draw. The court below failed to consider the same, which resulted in convicting the accused. The PW-1 has treated hostile. Therefore entire evidence of PW-1 should be rejected. That the PW-1 being the complainant has specifically stated that he has not given written complaint to the Lokayukta Police. The respondent police registered the case on the basis of written complaint filed by PW-1. The evidence of him is fatal to the case of prosecution, on that ground alone the judgement passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. The respondent police registered the case on the basis of written complaint filed by PW-1. The evidence of him is fatal to the case of prosecution, on that ground alone the judgement passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. That the PW-1 in his cross examination specifically admitted that he himself has went to the office of accused and applications are given to one Kalappa Kulkarni and he does'nt know when the applications are referred to the accused. Since the applicants PW-4 to 19 have advised the complainant to lodge a complaint to Lokayukta, then only work will be done by the accused, on the advise of the applicants the complaint was lodged by him to the Lokayukta Police. Further PW-1 has admitted in the cross examination never demanded bribe amount to PW-1. Since he has suspected the work is not done on the ground that the accused was not paid the bribe amount. Therefore he has lodged the complaint. The said admission is enough to hold that the accused is innocent, the court below without any basis come to the wrong conclusion that the accused has accepted the bribe. Hence the indulgence of this Hon'ble court is sought. It is relevant to submit that PW-2 is the shadow witness to the trap, he has stated in the chief examination that the amount was recovered from the accused and hands of the accused was dipped in the carbonate hydrogen solution and the same was changed to pink color. PW-3 has not stated with clarity that whether hands of the accused was dipped in the said solution or not and whether the color was changed or not, he has said that the amount was recovered and same was dipped in the said solution and the color was not changed, thereafter the respondent police rubbed the notes with cotton and same was dipped in the carbonate hydrogen and thereafter color was changed. The PW-2 is not specific and consistent that whether amount was recovered from the hands of accuse was dipped in the solution and the color of the same was not changed and only when amount was rubbed with cotton thereafter. Whether the cotton was dipped in the solution or amount is not forthcoming. The court below convicted the appellant without properly appreciating the evidence placed on the ground. Whether the cotton was dipped in the solution or amount is not forthcoming. The court below convicted the appellant without properly appreciating the evidence placed on the ground. On that ground alone the Judgment passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. That the prosecution has led evidence of PW-3 who is another shadow witness to the trap. His evidence creates doubt with regard to the his presence in the trap, as he has narrated the fact claiming to be present, when the amount was demanded and paid by the complainant to the accused. Infact he was present in the Jeep, only when the complainant signaled, thereafter the IO and PW-3 rushed to the spot, therefore his evidence has to be disbelieved in entirety. The court below convicted the accused relying on the evidence of PW-3 which is against the documents and evidence placed on the record. On that ground also the judgment passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. It is relevant to submit that PW-3 he has also stated in his chief examination itself that the police recovered amount from draw and same was dipped in the sodium carbonate and the color of the same was not changed. In his cross examination it is admitted that when the hands of accused was dipped in the sodium carbonate, which clearly establish that either the notes or the hands of the accused when dipped in sodium carbonate, no color was changed which goes to show that that amount recovered from draw are not the amount received from the complainant which is enough to acquit the accused. That, the court below passed the judgment on the assumption and presumption which has resulted in conviction of the appellant. 11. Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that in the case on hand neither the demand is established by the prosecution nor the acceptance which is a sine qua non to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offences. 12. 11. Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that in the case on hand neither the demand is established by the prosecution nor the acceptance which is a sine qua non to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offences. 12. He would further contend that there is no consistency in the oral testimony of the complainant, who has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution partly and the testimony of the shadow witness and remaining prosecution witnesses exposing the hollowness in the case of the prosecution which warrants an order of acquittal by setting aside they impugned judgment. 13. He would further contend that accused has been falsely implicated in the case on hand and it was not his duty to process the application and therefore, when there was no work pending at all with the accused, the question of demanding the illegal gratification by the accused would not arise at all. 14. He would further contend that the principles enunciated in the constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211, would not be applicable in the case on hand, inasmuch as the incident is of the year 2009 and unamended Section 7 and Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are to be read into while appreciating the question of demand and acceptance as is contemplated under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and therefore, the appeal needs to be allowed. 15. Per contra, Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned Special Public Prosecution appearing on behalf of the Lokayukta supports the impugned judgment. 16. He would further contend that in the case on hand, admittedly the applications of Smt. Chandbi (P.W.4), Smt. Rashida Begum (P.W.5), Smt. Maremma (P.W.6), Smt. Salimabi (P.W.7), Smt. Tajeya Begum (P.W.8), Smt. Zilakan Begum (P.W.9), Smt. Mallamma (P.W.10), Mallayya (P.W.11), Smt. Chandramma (P.W.12) and nine other aspirants of old age pension and widow pension were pending and the same were in the custody of the accused. 17. 17. Therefore, the fact of work pending and non- completion of the work in the guise of demanding the illegal gratification coupled with the conversation recorded in the voice recorder and thereafter recovery of the tainted currency from the table drawer of the accused, would be sufficient enough to maintain the order of conviction. 18. Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned Special Public Prosecution appearing on behalf of the Lokayukta would further contend that mere fact that the complainant turning hostile to the case of the prosecution partly did not cause any serious dent to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the arguments put forward on behalf of the complainant cannot be countenanced in law and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal. 19. Having heard the arguments on both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether the material evidence placed on record in the form of oral testimony and documentary evidence would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the accused/appellant for the offences under Sections 7 read with Section 13 (1)(d) punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ? (ii) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity? (iii) Whether the sentence is excessive? (iv) What order? Regarding Point Nos.1 and 2: 20. In the case on hand, the following are the admitted facts: The accused was the Revenue Inspector of Yadagiri. The applications of Smt. Chandbi (P.W.4), Smt. Rashida Begum (P.W.5), Smt. Maremma (P.W.6), Smt. Salimabi (P.W.7), Smt. Tajeya Begum (P.W.8), Smt. Zilakan Begum (P.W.9), Smt. Mallamma (P.W.10), Mallayya (P.W.11), Smt. Chandramma (P.W.12) and nine other persons were pending or processing with the accused. Village accountant had already conducted the spot inspection and forwarded the applications for processing to the accused. Tainted currency, comprising two currency notes of Rs.500/- denominations marked at M.O.3 were seized from the table drawer of the accused. Colour test with regard to the hand wash of accused was in negative. Conversation recorded and incorporated in the mahazar contained the voice of the accused. 21. Following facts are in dispute: Accused not demanding illegal gratification. Accused not accepting the tainted currency. The stand of the accused that tainted currency were thrusted into the table drawer. Colour test with regard to the hand wash of accused was in negative. Conversation recorded and incorporated in the mahazar contained the voice of the accused. 21. Following facts are in dispute: Accused not demanding illegal gratification. Accused not accepting the tainted currency. The stand of the accused that tainted currency were thrusted into the table drawer. Accused was not a person to pass the necessary orders in respect of pending applications. 22. In the light of the above admitted and disputed facts, from the material evidence on record is appreciated, it is no doubt true that the complainant did not support case of the prosecution in toto. To the extent, he did not support the case of the prosecution, he has been treated as hostile by learned public prosecutor and with the permission of the Court, he was cross-examined by the public prosecutor by confronting the contents of the complaint marked at Exhibit P.1. 23. In such cross-examination, the complainant admits the suggestions made to him to a major extent. However, with regard to the contents of trap mahazar, P.W.1 did not admit the suggestion made to him that the accused took the folded white paper and kept the same in his drawer. He maintained that as per the signal given by the accused, it is he who has kept the tainted currency wrapped in a white paper in the table drawer of the accused. 24. In the cross-examination of P.W.1 on behalf of the accused, P.W.1 admits that in 2007, he had given the similar applications to one Kallappa Kulkarni. He admits that those applications were misplaced in the office of the Revenue Inspector. He further admits that he does not know the contents of Exhibit P.1 but since the applications were misplaced in the office of the Revenue Inspector, he has prepared the fresh applications and handed it over to Kallapa Kulkarni. 25. He also admits that he does not know what is the date, the applications have reached the accused. He admits that to expedite the pending applications, he approached the Lokayukta and he has not stated that accused has actually demanded illegal gratification and applications are pending in the office of the accused on account of non-payment of the illegal gratification. 26. In his further admission that he has not read the contents of trap mahazar. He admits that to expedite the pending applications, he approached the Lokayukta and he has not stated that accused has actually demanded illegal gratification and applications are pending in the office of the accused on account of non-payment of the illegal gratification. 26. In his further admission that he has not read the contents of trap mahazar. He admits that accused has given a file containing the applications and therefore he handed over the same to the Lokayukta Police at the time of drafting the trap panchnama. He also admits that he has met the accused twice. 27. In his further cross-examination, he admits that there are several civil cases pending against him. He admits that the applicants are not aware of the demand made by the accused and the amount paid by him. He denied the suggestion that as on the date of trap, there was no work pending with the accused. 28. P.W.2 is the shadow witness and P.W.3 is the co-pancha. Both of them have supported the case of the prosecution. 29. Shadow witness and the co-pacha being total strangers with government servants, did not nurture any previous enmity and animosity to depose falsely against the accused. P.W.2 being the shadow witness, deposed before the Court in line with the entrustment mahazar and trap mahazar with graphic details. He has also stated about the money being recovered from the table drawer of the accused. He identified the photographs in this regard. 30. P.W.3 in his examination-in-chief, while deposing in line with the contents of experimental mahazar, deposed before the Court to the effect that after the pre-designated signal was received by the head of the raid party, himself, head of the raid party and others rushed to the place where the accused was sitting and on an enquiry, the accused told the head of the raid party that the money was kept in the table drawer and the same was recovered and he was asked to verify the serial numbers of the seized tainted currency and he verified the serial numbers and noted that it tallied with the serial numbers mentioned in the entrustment mahazar. He identified the tainted currency as M.O.3. 31. Rest of the witnesses are all formal in nature namely, PWD Engineer, who has drawn the sketch, the applicants were given the applications for grant of old age pension and widow pension. 32. He identified the tainted currency as M.O.3. 31. Rest of the witnesses are all formal in nature namely, PWD Engineer, who has drawn the sketch, the applicants were given the applications for grant of old age pension and widow pension. 32. In the detail cross-examination of these witnesses, no positive material is elicited so as to dislodge the case of the prosecution to any extent or disbelieve the defence taken by the accused that a false case has been foisted against him. 33. On re-appreciation of the material on record, in the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the appellant, it is crystal clear that the tainted currency were recovered from the table drawer of the accused. 34. It is not the case of the appellant that taking advantage of his absence, complainant thrusted the tainted currency wrapped in a white paper into the table drawer of the accused. If the accused is totally innocent as is sought to be canvassed before this Court why would he allow a stranger to put the white paper into his table drawer is a question that remains unanswered; More so, when there was a specific chance for the accused to explain as to what has happened on the date of incident, he failed to mention the same in his statement given before the Investigation Officer or at least at the time of recording the accused statement before the Court. On the contrary, he failed to place his version on record by answering to the question number No.73 wherein he has stated as meaning thereby, he has got no explanation to offer. 35. In the light of the above admitted and disputed facts, no doubt there is a material on record that the colour test with regard to the hand wash of the accused is in the negative. 36. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that demand and acceptance need not be a direct demand and acceptance. The Courts are not precluded from inferring the available surrounding materials on record in adjudging whether there was any demand and acceptance. 37. If there was no demand at all, as to the illegal gratification, what made the accused to keep the applications pending for a period of one year is a question again remains unanswered on behalf of the appellant. 38. 37. If there was no demand at all, as to the illegal gratification, what made the accused to keep the applications pending for a period of one year is a question again remains unanswered on behalf of the appellant. 38. Further, in the conversation recorded in the voice recorder, which has been transcribed and incorporated in the mahazar, it is crystal clear that the accused is talking about of Rs.500/- per application and later on it was bargained and it was agreed to be paid at the rate of Rs.50/- per application. When the complainant has stated about Rs.800/-, the accused said to have demand that it could be made into a round figure of Rs.1,000/-. 39. Further, if there was no demand at all when the complainant approached the accused on the day of trap, how the accused permitted the complainant to keep the tainted currency wrapped in a white paper into his table drawer is again a question that remains unanswered. 40. Handling of tainted currency and colour test would be sufficient proof in a case of this nature to establish that there was acceptance by hand but in a case like this where the complainant has stated specifically that as per the directions of the accused, he kept the tainted currency folded in a white paper into his table drawer and in the absence of any plausible explanation offered by the accused for the tainted currency to be recovered from his table drawer, as he is depicted in series of photographs which were taken before opening the drawer and after opening the drawer, would make it clear that the acceptance was not by hand but it is an indirect acceptance. 41. Admittedly, the table and the table drawer was in exclusive custody of the accused and none else had the control over the said table and drawer. 42. Under such circumstances, the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant that there was no direct demand nor acceptance which are sine qua non for establishing the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , cannot be countenanced in law. 43. Further, material on record would also depict that the complainant has turned hostile partly, as he was not able to recollect the contents of the complaint in toto and did not support the case of the prosecution in toto. 43. Further, material on record would also depict that the complainant has turned hostile partly, as he was not able to recollect the contents of the complaint in toto and did not support the case of the prosecution in toto. Later on, with the permission of the Court, he has been treated as hostile witness and contents of the complaint were confronted to him. On such confrontation, major portion of the complaint averments have been accepted by P.W.1 in the cross-examination by public prosecutor. 44. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be thrown out in toto and there is no bar for the Court to appreciate the testimony of the hostile witness as well to the extent it would support the case of the prosecution. 45. Moreover, in the case on hand, since shadow witness and co-pancha, who are totally strangers to the complainant and the accused, have deposed about the contents of entrustment and trap mahazars with graphic details, the contention urged on behalf of the accused that he has been falsely implicated in the incident cannot be countenanced in law. 46. In the absence of any plausible explanation offered by the accused with regard to the incident, especially when specifically he has been asked to explain or place his version about the case, accused having failed to offer any explanation, would be sufficient enough in holding that he was guilty of demanding the illegal gratification for processing the applications which were pending with him for more than one year. 47. From the above discussion, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences. 48. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative and negative respectively. Regarding Point No.3: 49. Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the accused is now aged about 58 years and suffering from several ailments and therefore, minimum punishment of one year may be imposed for the offence under Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , as it stood unamended. 50. Regarding Point No.3: 49. Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the accused is now aged about 58 years and suffering from several ailments and therefore, minimum punishment of one year may be imposed for the offence under Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , as it stood unamended. 50. Per contra, Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned Special Public Prosecution appearing on behalf of the Lokayukta opposes the same stating that the incident is of the year 2009 and at the time of incident, the accused was hale and healthy and therefore, no mercy can be shown. 51. In the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Judge has passed a separate sentence for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well. 52. Since the offence under Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a higher offence and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act merges With Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , separate sentence of imprisonment ordered for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for a period of one year needs to be set aside by applying the doctrine of merger. 53. Taking note of the fact that the accused is aged 58 years, if the punishment of two and half years for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is reduced to two years, ends of justice would be met. Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative. Regarding Point No.4: 54. In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, the following order is passed: ORDER (a) The Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. (b) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , separate sentence ordered by the learned Trial Judge for one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act , is set aside. (c) The conviction for the offence punishable under 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , sentence of imprisonment of two and half years is reduced to two years. (d) Time is granted for the appellant to surrender before the Trial Court till 20.07.2025.