Point of law: commission of offence had taken place in 1968 and the judgment was delivered in 1985. The conviction was under Section 467 and 471 of IPC. In that case also, the long delay in the litigation process was one of the factors taken into consideration by the Court in reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.

JUDGMENT :

AJIT SINGH, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record of this case.

2. The prosecution story of this in brief is that on 20th June, 1978 one Suraj Mal moved a complaint against the present accused appellant Ram Kumar in writing (Ext.Ka-13) before the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Meerut. It was mentioned in the said complaint that the accused appellant posted as operator at the public tube-well No. 52 H.G. in village Dehpa was habitual of accepting bribes from the farmers to irrigate their fields. Complainant's sugar cane (perhi) field measuring six bighas was not irrigated and it went dry. The tube well operator, the present accused appellant, was demanding Rs. 60/- as bribe from the complainant and the complainant gave the currency notes to the accused appellant who kept the same in his pocket after its verification and counting.

3. Further prosecution case is that the members of the trap party overheard the conversation going on in between the complainant and accused appellant. Inspector Chawala and and his other companions entered the Gher and the accused was surrounded. Mr. Chawala, after disclosing his identity to the accused appellant, made the search of the accused person and recovered Rs. 60/- from the accused appellant. The currency notes of the recovered amount were the same which were given to the complainant to be given to the tube well operator (the present appellant) as bribe. The serial numbers of the currency notes were found exactly tallied with the memo, which is marked as Ext.Ka-2. The currency notes along with the shirt of the accused wearing at that time were taken into custody by the concerned Inspector.

4. Thereafter, the accused as well as the complainant both were asked to put their hands into the liquid of sodium carbonate in two different glasses and the liquid turned red, which was sealed separately in two dry bottles. The recovery memo was prepared and marked as Ext.Ka-3. All the relevant formalities were done and First Information Report of this incident was lodged by the Inspector, which is marked as Ext.Ka-12. Thereafter, investigation of this matter was entrusted to Inspector Harpal Singh PW-5 under the direction of S.P. (Vigilance), Meerut. He prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the members of the trap party and applied for and obtained sanction from the concerned Executive Engineer to prosecute the accused appellant, the sanction letter is marked as Ext.Ka-16.

5. The trial started and concluded into conviction and sentence of the accused appellant, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 30.1.1981. By the impugned judgment and order the accused appellant had been convicted and sentenced to one year R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, three months' further R.I. Further, for the offence under Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act the accused appellant was convicted and sentenced to one year R.I. for the offence under Section 161 IPC with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, three months' further R.I. It was also directed that both the sentence shall run concurrently.

6. The aforesaid judgment and order dated 30.1.1981, narrated above, has been challenged before this Court by means of the present appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident is of the year 1978. The appellant is now aged about 82 years and he is suffering from age related ailments. For the last 42 years, the sword of punishment had been hanging over the head of the accused appellant. The appellant had been in imprisonment for about twenty days. Learned counsel has further submitted that he does not want to press this appeal on merits but wants to argue only on the quantum of sentence.

8. The learned AGA has strongly opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and he submits that the impugned judgment and ord