CGHC010112992005 2026:CGHC:41566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 125 of 2005 Reserved on : 07.07.2026 Delivered on : 24.09.2026 Brij Naresh Singh, S/o Shri Ramswaroop Singh, aged about 42 years, R/o Maharana Pratap Nagar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant (s) versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Special Police Establishment Lokayukt Bilaspur, Office- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate. For State : Dr. Smt. Richa Pandey, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 31.01.2005 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Case No. 04/2002, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act : R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 2 months. U/s 13(i)(D) & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act : R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 2 months. (Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently) ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2026.09.25 10:40:44 +0530 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant was posted as a Sub-Engineer/Junior Engineer in the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board at Janjgir and the complainant was carrying on fabrication work through a workshop situated at Government land, which was demolished on 20.06.2001 on account of removal of encroachment drive conducted by the authorities. On 26.06.2001, he submitted an application for shifting the existing electricity connection from the demolished workshop to his residential premises. According to the prosecution, when the complainant approached the appellant for processing the application, the appellant demanded Rs.3,500/- as illegal gratification. It is also case of the prosecution that on 30.06.2001, when the complainant again approached the appellant and requested him to complete the work as his business had come to a standstill, the appellant reiterated the demand and directed him to bring Rs.1,000/- as advance payment to his residence in the night of 02.07.2001, with the remaining amount to be paid after shifting of electricity meter. 3. Since the complainant was unwilling to pay the illegal gratification, he approached the Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta), Bilaspur, and submitted a written complaint on 02.07.2001 (Ex.P/6). On receipt of the complaint, preliminary verification was undertaken and a trap was arranged. Two independent Government officials were associated as panch witnesses. The complainant produced ten currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination each, amounting to Rs.1,000/-. Their serial numbers were noted in the pre-trap proceedings and phenolphthalein powder was applied to the notes. A demonstration of the chemical reaction with sodium carbonate solution was also given. The complainant was instructed to hand over the tainted currency to the appellant only upon demand. A tape recorder was also supplied to him for recording the conversation and he was instructed to give the pre- arranged signal by lighting a cigarette after the transaction and a preliminary panchnama (Ex. P/8) was also prepared. 4. It is also the case of the prosecution that the trap party proceeded to Janjgir. Initially, the appellant was not available at his residence. Subsequently, the complainant met him near a transformer site, where the appellant directed him to come to his residence at about 10:00 p.m. The complainant accordingly went to the residence of the appellant. After remaining there for sometime, he came out and gave the pre- arranged signal. The trap party immediately entered into the house and apprehended the appellant. Upon being questioned about the bribe amount, the appellant stated that the money received from the complainant has been kept beneath the pillow. The tainted currency notes were accordingly recovered from beneath the pillow and the serial numbers thereof tallied with the numbers recorded in the pre-trap memorandum. The hand-wash of the appellant and the washes of the currency notes and pillow cover turned pink on being treated with sodium carbonate solution. The relevant solutions and articles were seized vide Ex. P/17 & P/18 and subsequently the seized items were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein. 5. The prosecution, in order to bring home guilt of the appellant, has examined as many as 12 witnesses namely Ashok Kumar Dubey (PW- 1), G.L. Rathore (PW-2), Shiv Kumar Rathore (PW-3), Rajendra Rathore (PW-4), S.P. Shah (PW-5), A.N. Agrawal (PW-6), I.C. Jain (PW-7), Meenaram (PW-8), K.S. Sahu (PW-9), Anil Sharma (PW-10), Dilesh Kumar Kurre (PW-11) & R.J. Toppo (PW-12) and exhibited documents Ex. P/1 to P/22. The appellant, in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. In defence, he examined Ramjilal Thawait (DW-1) and Lal Singh (DW-2) and also exhibited the statement of the complainant as Ex.D/1. 6. The accused was arrested and the offence bearing Crime No. 00/2001 for commission of offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the appellant by the Special Police Establishment, Bhopal. The seized solutions and materials were sent for chemical examination. After usual investigation and completing all the formalities including obtaining sanction from the competent authority to prosecute the appellant, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for commission of offence under Section Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, 1988. 7. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence, material on record has recorded its finding that the demand has been proved by the prosecution not only by the tape recorder wherein the demand and acceptance has been proved by the prosecution by direct evidence as well as duly supported by corroborative evidence and recorded its finding that accused has demanded Rs. 3500/- and accepted Rs. 1000/- from the complainant which is gratification, thus, all the ingredients to attract the aforesaid offence for which the accused has been charged, have been found proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, it has convicted the accused as detailed above. Being aggrieved with the order of conviction and imposition of sentence, the accused has preferred instant appeal before this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and facts available on record. He would further submit that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the sanction for prosecution has not been proved in accordance with the law. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has wrongly interpreted the statement of the complainant whereas the trial Court ought to have considered the fact that according to the complainant himself the amount was not handed over to the accused and the appellant was asked to take the notes out from under the pillow, therefore, the change in colour in sodium carbonate took place. He would further submit that there is no corroboration in the statement of the seizure witnesses and the complainant with respect to the demand and recovery of the amount. 9. He would further submit that the conviction has been recorded solely on the testimony of the complainant who was admittedly interested in the success of the trap and no independent witness has supported the alleged demand of bribe, therefore, conviction cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the complainant's testimony. He would further submit that the independent witness, namely Anil Sharma, who allegedly accompanied the complainant at the time of initial demand, did not support the prosecution regarding the alleged demand, therefore, the very foundation of the prosecution case stands demolished. He would further submit that there are material contradictions regarding the time of demand, preparation of the complaint, trap proceedings and recovery of the tainted money. He would further submit that the appellant was not competent to sanction or shift the electricity connection independently, therefore, there was no occasion for demanding illegal gratification. He would further submit that the prosecution sanction was granted mechanically without proper application of mind, therefore, the entire prosecution stands vitiated. He would further submit that no certificate has been submitted by the prosecution as required under Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act, therefore, the conversation recorded in the transcript has no evidentiary value in the the eye of law, therefore, the conviction based on the tape record conversation, is illegal and the applicant deserves to be acquitted from the charges for which he has been convicted. Alternatively, he would submit that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant is proper, then, considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2001, this appeal is pending since 2005, the appellant is now aged more than 58 years; therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) [(2023) 18 SCC 251], State of Lokayuktha Police Davanagere Vs. C.B. Nagaraj [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 620], Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 310], K. Shanthamma Vs. The State of Telangana [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 192], P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. The Dist. Inspector of Police and others [(2015) 10 SCC 152] & Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) [(2023) 4 SCC 731]. 11. Per contra, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment and opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based upon proper appreciation of evidence and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. He would further submit that the complainant has consistently deposed regarding the demand of Rs. 3,500/- and acceptance of Rs. 1,000/- by the appellant as part payment and his testimony has remained unshaken during cross-examination. He would further submit that the evidence of the complainant receives complete corroboration from the trap proceedings, independent panch witness, recovery of tainted currency from the appellant's residence, positive phenolphthalein test, FSL report and documentary evidence prepared during the trap. He would further submit that once acceptance and recovery of tainted money stand established, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act comes into operation and the appellant has failed to rebut the same by any probable explanation. He would further submit that the prosecution sanction has also been proved by the competent authority, who has categorically stated that after examining all relevant records and material collected during investigation, sanction was granted. Hence, no illegality has been committed by the trial Court and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 13. From the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the Point emerged for determination of this Court is :- “Whether the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court?” 14. To appreciate the Point, this Court has to examine the evidence brought on record before the trial Court. 15. The complainant (PW-4) in his examination-in-chief has supported the case of the prosecution and reiterated that the appellant demanded Rs. 1000/- to be payable on 02.07.2001 upto 1 o’clock in the night, failing which electricity connection will not be installed and also stated that remaining amount is payable after shifting of the electricity connection. Further in paragraph 6 of his evidence, he has stated that the accused has told him to come to his house about 10 O’clock at his residence at Chandaniya where he will collect the money he has also stated that before meeting with the complainant, he was given a blank tape recorder which was kept in his baniyan and he was also provided cigarette and matchbox. This witness has further stated that when he entered into the house he has given Rs. 1000/- to him then the accused took the amount and kept the same beneath the pillow and when the trap team caught hold the wrist of the appellant and asked him for which purpose you have received the money from the complainant and where the same has been kept then the appellant replied that the currency notes received from the complainant has been kept beneath the pillow and when the tape recorder was opened during his evidence, he has stated that initially there is his voice and later on it is voice of Mr. Singh and also there was voice of the Lokayukt persons. He has also admitted that transcript (Ex. P/10) is in accordance with the tape. In the cross-examination, the demand has been affirmed as he has stated that when the police enquired him he has stated that the appellant has demanded Rs. 1000/- which has been brought by him and also asked him to count and he has also informed to the police that the said amount was given to the appellant in his hand and he has stated twice-thrice but it has not been recorded in his statement (Ex. D/1) then he cannot say. He has further stated that before the Police, he has stated that the accused has told him that he has taken money and kept beneath the pillow. He has also admitted that negotiation was done with the appellant wherein he has asked him to bring NOC and reiterated that he has stated twice or four time that he has brought Rs. 1000/- and emphatically denied that the accused has not demanded money from him. This witness has denied all the suggestions regarding false complaint made by him. 16. S.P. Shah (PW-5) who is Executive Engineer has stated that the appellant has authority to carryout all the work pertaining to Janjgir Distribution Centre and rural and urban area and in the cross- examination, he has admitted that if the consumer does not submit document for shifting of the electricity connection till then no connection can be given. 17. A.N. Agrawal/Sanctioning Authority (PW-6) who is Superintending Engineering exhibited the sanction order (Ex. P/14) and has stated that the authorities have granted sanction after receiving letter from Special Police Establishment and all the original documents or the photocopy of the documents before granting sanction to prosecute against the appellant. 18. I.C. Jain (PW-7) who was the member of the trap team has been examined before the trial Court wherein in his examination-in-chief he has explained the procedure and in the cross-examination he has admitted that he has not seen that the complainant has given notes to the accused as he was standing outside of the room whereas the entire procedure was conducted in the room and also admitted that he has not seen who has kept the notes beneath the pillow and when he entered into the room, the notes were not in the hand of the accused. 19. Meenaram (PW-8) who was witness to the trap proceedings has narrated the procedure and stated that before hand-wash procedure when Mr. Toppo asked the accused that he has taken bribe notes then the accused told that he has taken money for shifting electricity connection which is kept beneath the pillow. This witness was cross- examined by the defence wherein he has denied that he has kept the notes at the place of occurrence and also admitted that he has not seen the incident of giving money by the complainant. 20. R.J. Toppo (PW-12) Dy.S.P. Special Police Lokayukt has explained the procedure of trapping and in the cross-examination he has admitted that neither he nor anyone who is out of the room can see that the complainant has given money to the accused or not but admitted that when they entered into the room they found that the money was kept beneath the pillow and also admitted that in the transcript panchnama there is discussion of submission of NOC and also admitted that in the transcript, there is mentioning of bringing Rs. 1000/- and also admitted that no verification has been mentioned that the voice belongs to the accused and the complainant. He has also admitted that for business, the appellant being Sub-Engineer has no authority to give the electricity connection and also admitted that after receipt of entire documents and getting approval from the Executive Engineer, the connection can be given. Page 11 of 20 21. The appellant has examined Ramjilal Thawait (DW-1) who has stated in his examination-in-chief that the complainant has told him that if the accused will give some consideration, he will compromise with the accused and also told that the complainant demanded Bolero vehicle or Rs. 5 lacs for compromise. 22. Lal Singh (DW-2) has stated that when the accused has demanded documents for transfer of connection then the complainant has threatened the accused. 23. Learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence has recorded its finding in paragraph 32 that from the evidence of the complainant as well as the evidence of independent witness I.C. Jain (PW-7), it is quite vivid that the accused has demanded bribe from the complainant and the same was given in the house of the accused which was kept beneath the pillow and it has also recorded finding that availability of the complainant at the residence of the accused at about 10 O’clock in the night would also link to establish that a demand was made by the accused and no justifiable explanation of availability of the complainant at 10 O’clock in the night has been brought on record by the accused. As such, availability of the complainant at 10 O’clock further supports that a demand was made and to fulfill the said demand, complainant was available at the house of the accused. Learned trial Court has further held that if it is a legitimate demand for doing the statutory duty then a receipt should also been placed on record by the defence to rebut the presumption as provided in Section 20 of the Act. 24. Further from the analysis of the evidence of the complainant (PW-4), it is quite vivid that the appellant has demanded Rs. 1000/-, failing which the connection will not be installed and further from transcription (Ex. Page 12 of 20 P/10) it is quite vivid that as demanded by the accused, Rs. 1000/- is given and further presence of the complainant at accused’s residence clearly proves beyond reasonable doubt that a demand was made and to fulfill the demand the complainant had gone to the house of the accused at about 10 O’clock in night and notes were found beneath the pillow in the house. This clearly proves beyond reasonable doubt that the demand was made and the bribe amount was accepted by the accused. Thus, all the essential ingredients to attract the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act i.e. demand and acceptance, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. 25. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant did not actually handover the money to the appellant and according to the complainant himself the amount was not handed over to the accused and the appellant was asked to take the notes beneath the pillow, therefore, the change in colour in sodium carbonate took place. As such, it cannot be held that the accused has accepted the bribe amount. This submission deserves to be rejected as the complainant in his evidence has stated that when he entered into the house he has given Rs. 1000/- to him then the accused took the amount and kept the same beneath the pillow and when the trap team caught hold the wrist of the appellant and asked him for which purpose you have received the money from the complainant and where the same has been kept then the appellant replied that the currency notes received from the complainant have been kept beneath the pillow. As such, it is proved by the prosecution that the accused has accepted the bribe amount. 26. It is true that proof of demand and acceptance are the sine qua non for conviction under the relevant provisions of the Act. The prosecution cannot succeed merely on the basis of recovery. But the present case is materially different from a case resting solely upon recovery. In the present case, there is direct evidence of demand from the complainant, followed by the trap, recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant's residence, matching of their serial numbers with the pre- trap record, positive phenolphthalein reaction and supporting evidence of the panch witnesses. The chain of circumstances is complete and consistent with the prosecution case, therefore, the finding of proving demand and acceptance by the prosecution is in accordance with the law laid down by Constitution Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) [2023 (4) SCC 731] wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court has summarized the principle of proving demand by direct or circumstantial evidence in case relates to the Act, 1988 and has held in paragraphs 88 to 88.3 as under:- “88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarized as under: 88.1 (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. 88.2 (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. 88.3 (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. 27. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Karunanithi Vs. The State Represented by Inspector of Police reported in [2025 INSC 967] has held in paragraph-14 as under:- 14. A constitution Bench of this Court in Neeraj Datta vs. State (NCT of Delhi 2023(4) SCC 731 has held that for recording a conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) and (ii) of the Act, the prosecution has to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence or circumstantial evidence. In other words, to convict a person under the aforesaid provision demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is sine qua non. 28. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State by Lokayukta Police vs. Sri K. Rangayya and Anr [2026 INSC 575] and has taken the same view. Once demand and acceptance and presence of the complainant in accused’s residence at 10 O’clock in the night stand proved, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act comes into operation. Even otherwise, the accused has not offered any plausible explanation regarding possession of the tainted currency notes as well as presence of the complainant in his house at about 10 O’clock in the night, as such the presumption, remains un-rebutted by the accused. 29. Further submission of the appellant that he has been falsely implicated due to animosity, as such the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, 1988, is not applicable against the appellant, is being considered by this Court. From the facts of present case, analysis of the evidence, material on record, it is quite vivid that the element of animus between the appellant and the complainant, is not proved. In such circumstances, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, 1988 would not militate against the appellant. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of State of Lokayuktha Police, Devanagere Vs. C.B. Nagaraj [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1175] in paragraph 21 has held as under:- “21. As far as the submission of the State is that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, as it then was, would operate against the Appellant is concerned, our analysis supra would indicate that the factum of demand , in the backdrop of an element of animus between the Appellant and complainant, is not proved. In such circumstances, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act would not militate against the Appellant, in terms of the pronouncement in Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, (2006) 2 SCC 250: '22. In view of the aforementioned discrepancies in the prosecution case, we are of the opinion that the defence story set up by the appellant cannot be said to be wholly improbable. Furthermore, it is not a case where the burden of proof was on the accused in terms of Section 20 of the Act. Even otherwise, where demand has not been proved, Section 20 will also have no application. (Union of India v. Purnandu Biswas [(2005) 12 SCC 576: (2005) 8 Scale 246] and T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. [(2006) 1 SCC 401: (2006) 1 Scale 116])' (emphasis supplied)’” 30. Further submission of leaned counsel for the appellant that the sanction (Ex. P/14) to prosecute the appellant is invalid, is being considered by this Court. 31. From perusal of the record, it is quite vivid that the Superintendent Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Bilaspur who is appointing authority (Ex. P/4) and to remove or dismiss the appellant being posted as Sub-Engineer has granted the sanction. The sanctioning authority while granting sanction has taken into consideration the facts, records and the evidence has recorded satisfaction for granting sanction. The said sanctioning authority was also examined before the trial Court as PW-6 wherein he has stated that after going through the entire records, letter of the Special Police Establishment, he has passed the order and nothing has been brought on record to rebut the said evidence of sanctioning authority. Even the appellant is unable to place on record that any fact which is required to be considered by the sanctioning authority has not been sanctioned while questioning the legality of sanction granted by the sanctioning authority. In absence of any such facts which have not been considered and may occasion to failure of justice, have not been brought on record, therefore, the finding of the learned trial Court in paragraph 33 that the valid sanction has been granted, cannot be held to be illegal warranting interference by this Court. 32. Learned counsel for the appellant has further raised doubt regarding sanction for prosecution on the ground that A.N. Agrawal (PW-6), the sanctioning authority, admitted that the sanction order was prepared on the basis of the office note, draft was prepared by the Legal Officer and he did not independently apply his legal expertise. The said submission also cannot be accepted as the validity of sanction is to be examined from the standpoint regarding competency of authority while granting sanction or the authority has examined the relevant material and the order of sanction reflects consideration of the material placed before it. There is no material on record to demonstrate that the sanctioning authority is lack of competence or that the sanction was granted without consideration of the material collected during investigation. 33. Further submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the accused was not competent to independently sanction or release an electricity connection, is equally of no assistance as PW-5 has explained the procedure and has also stated that the appellant was entrusted with electricity connection-related work and in absence of any rebuttal by the accused lacking his competent to transfer the connection. The submission made by the appellant regarding authority of the appellant to execute the work to deny demand of money for the duty which was not assigned to him, is nothing but after thought story which has rightly been negatived by the learned trial Court. 34. Now further submission of the learned counsel for appellant is that on account of his conviction by the learned trial Court he has been dismissed from the service and no monetary benefit like pension or gratuity has been paid to him, therefore, he has already suffered economic crisis for last 20 years and he is aged about 65 and is also not keeping good health, therefore, he would pray for reducing the jail sentence awarded by the trail Court. 35. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission and would submit that the learned trial Court has already taken a lenient view and has only imposed RI for 1 year and would pray for no leniency should be taken by this Court. He would further submit that looking to the conduct being government servant, he has harassed the complainant for shifting of electricity connection and has demanded money. He would further submit that corruption in the society is increasing and has taken a chronic disease affecting the public at large, thus he would pray for no leniency to be taken by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. He would further submit that the statute as it stood at the time of commission of offence by the appellant on 31.01.2005 minimum jail under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act was six months and RI for 1 year under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He would further submit that it is well settled legal position of law that once the statute does not provide the minimum jail sentence, this Court cannot reduce the jail sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant and would pray for rejection of the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant to reduce the sentence already undergone by him. 36. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is aged about 67 years and he has already been deprived with all retiral dues on account of termination from service after conviction, now this court is examining whether the sentence can be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. The statute does not provide any sentence less than the minimum sentence that can be imposed as such this Court may not reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the accused which is less than the minimum sentence prescribed under the statute. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Lal Meena vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Central Bureau of Investigation [(2015) 6 SCC 185] has examined the issue wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 19, 20, 21 and 22 as under:- “19. In Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar and others10, this Court took the view that: “11. the cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence.” 20. As far as punishment for offences under the PC Act is concerned, we do not think that there is any serious scope for reforming the convicted public servant. The moment he is convicted, he loses his job. Hence, there is no significance to the theory of reformation of his conduct in public service. The only relevant object of punishment in such cases is denunciation and deterrence. That is (2006) 2 SCC 359 (2013) 9 SCC 516 the reason the Parliament has restricted the judicial discretion in imposing punishment. 21. To quote Friedmann, “Generally, the philosophy of deterrence still prevails in modern criminology. We continue to be concerned with preventing, by appropriate punitive sanctions, both the individual offender and other members of society from the repetition of crime, or the imitation on the part of others by similar actions” 22. Unless the courts award appropriately deterrent punishment taking note of the nature of the offence under the PC Act and the status of the public servant at the relevant time, people will lose faith in the justice delivery system and the very object of the legislation on prevention of corruption will be defeated. The court is the conscience of the statute and hence its judgments should project and promote the policy aims of punishment, lest it should shake the faith of common man in courts. The judgment on sentence shall not shock the common man. It should reflect the public abhorrence of the crime. The court has thus a duty to protect and promote public interest and build up public confidence in efficacy of rule of law. Misplaced sympathy or unwarranted leniency “Law in Changing Society, W. Friedmann, 2nd Edition, P.224. will send a wrong signal to the public giving room to suspect the institutional integrity, affecting the credibility of its verdict. Thus, while awarding sentence in cases under the PC Act, the court should bear in mind the expectation of the people of its paramount duty to prevent corruption in society by providing prompt conviction and stern sentence.” 37. Considering the above stated legal position that not less than the minimum sentence prescribed under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be awarded by the Court, as such prayer for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone which is one day only in the present case deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected. 38. Considering the fact that the appellant is now 65 years old and the incident took place 25 years ago, as such mitigating factors are available for this Court to pass adequate sentence upon the appellant by reducing the sentence, this Court is of the opinion that the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced from one year to six months for commission of offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentence awarded under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, shall remain unaltered, i.e. one year as awarded by the trial Court, both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. As such, the Point determined by this Court is answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent interfering in the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. 39. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. The appellant is reported to be on bail and his bail bonds are canceled and he is directed to surrender before the trial Court on 30th November, 2026 to serve out the remaining part of sentence awarded by this Court. 40. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun