

1. The concurrent finding of fact recorded in the impugned judgment on the charge for the offence punishable Under Section 7 read with Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is under challenge before this Court, urging various grounds. Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has invited our attention to the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 and defence witnesses D.W.-4 and D.W.-5 to show that the concurrent finding of fact is erroneous for want of evidence with regard to the demand of illegal gratification made by the Appellant with P.W.-1/complainant for furnishing past Revenue records (45 years old) to produce the same in the Civil Court at the illegal gratification of Rs. 450/-. The High Court on reappreciation of the evidence on record examined the correctness of the finding of guilt on the charge and very carefully examined the prosecution evidence and concurred with the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court on the charge framed against the Appellant. The correctness of the same is questioned in this appeal placing strong reliance upon the evidence elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, the complainant and the Panch Witness respectively.

2. By a careful reading of the relevant portion of both the witnesses, it does not appeal to us that there is any error committed by the High Court in concurring with the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court on the conviction on the charge. Further, the grievance of the Appellant is that the defence evidence has not been considered at all at the time of appreciating the evidence both by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, though it is required to be considered at the time of recording of finding on the charge.

3. We have threadbare examined the aforesaid contentions. We are of the considered view that the Appellate Court has consciously applied its mind and reappreciated the evidence and held that the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court on the charge is found to be legal and valid.

4. The submission made by Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, that the finding is erroneous for want of evidence with regard to the demand of illegal gratification from the complainant/P.W.-1 which is sine qua non for convicting the accused Under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. By a careful reading of evidence of D.W. 4 and D.W. 5, it does not support the case of the defence, therefore, the submission made in this regard to annul the concurrent finding of fact on the charge is not possible for this Court in these proceedings in exercise of its appellate power Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of guilt on the charge framed against the Appellant.

5. Lastly, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that having regard to the incident which is of 22 years old, the sentence imposed for the charge for two years is on the higher side. This contention of the learned Counsel is appealable to us. Having regard to the fact that the occurrence is of 22 years old, keeping this important aspect in mind, we deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence from two years to one year. We order accordingly.

6. It is stated by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that the Appellant has already undergone four months sentence. The Appellant, who was released on bail pursuant to this Court's Order dated 17.10.2011, shall serve out the remaining period of sentence, as modified in this Order. His bail bonds stand cancelled and he be taken into custody forthwith.

7. The impugned Order as far as the sentence is concerned stands modified accordingly. With the aforesaid modification in the period of sentence only, this appeal is partly allowed.

