Lingom, K. vs Superintendent of Police and Another

Mr. Justice P.S. Gopinathan, J.—The appellant, the accused in C.C.No. 6/2003 on the file of the Special Judge, SPE/CBI-I, Ernakulam was convicted by the learned Special Judge for offence u/s 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ''PC Act''). Consequently, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 20,000 with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months for offence u/s 7 of the PC Act. For offence u/s 13(2), the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of 25,000 with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one year. Assailing the above conviction and sentence, this appeal was preferred.

The prosecution case in brief is as follows:

The appellant was working as a Junior Engineer Grade I (Construction) in Southern Railway, Calicut during the year 2002 and as such he was a public servant coming u/s 2(c) of the PC Act. During May and June, 2002 construction works of 11 culverts (minor bridges) between Calicut and Thanoor was going on. C.W.1, P. N. Shajahan, was the Contractor. C.W.1, after executing the agreement, had started the work. The appellant was supervising the execution of the work. Part payments were permissible at different stages of work. On 27-6-2002 at about 5 p.m., C.W. 1, went to the office of the Executive Engineer, who was examined as P.W. 8, requesting for taking measurements of the work so far completed and for making part payment. P.W. 8 was not in the office. But the appellant was in the office. The appellant enquired as to for what purpose C.W.1 wanted to meet P.W.8. C.W.1 stated that it was for taking steps to measure the work already executed and for part payment. Then the appellant demanded Rs. 2,000 as illegal gratification and stated that in the event the said amount was paid he would take measurements and see that the payment was made. The appellant asked C.W. 1 to pay the demanded illegal gratification by the following day in between 6 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. at his residence in Railway Quarters, Calicut. C.W. 1 being got aggrieved of the demand, called upon P.W. 1, the Inspector attached to CBI and complained about the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant. P.W. 1, after getting instructions from the superior officers, proceeded to Calicut. C.W.1 was asked to meet him at hotel Jaya in Calicut. P.W. 1 along with party proceeded to Calicut and camped at Jaya hotel. C.W. 1 arrived there and gave Ext.P-1 complaint in writing alleging the demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000 by the appellant. P.W. 1 took a copy of Ext.P-1 and Ext.P-1 was sent to the office at Kochi for registering a case. P.W.1, thereupon arranged two officers of the Canara Bank, who were examined as P.Ws. 2 and 7 to lay the trap. P.W.1 demonstrated Phenolphthalein Test in the presence of C.W.1 and PWs. 2 and 7 at the hotel. Copy of Ext.P-1 was given to PWs. 2 and 7 and appraised them about the nature of the complaint. C.W.1 had brought a sum of Rs. 2,000 for being paid to the appellant. M.O.7 series are the currency notes. P.W.1 got the same from C.W.1 and smeared with Phenolphthalein powder, and entrusted back to P.W. 1 to pay to the appellant only on repetition of demand for illegal gratification. Ext.P-2 mahazar, wherein C.W. 1, PWs. 2 and 7 are attestors, was prepared. In Ext.P-2, the description of M.O.7 series were specifically noted. P.W.2 was asked to accompany C.W.1 as a friend and to witness the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification. C.W. 1 along with P.W. 2 proceeded to the house of the appellant in a motor cycle. P.W. 1 along with P.W.7 and raid party with necessary apparatus and materials for conducting phenolphthalein test proceeded to the location of the quarters of the appellant and they took suitable positions as instructed by P.W.1. P.W.1 had instructed C.W.1 to give signal, in the event M.O.7 series were accepted by the appellant, by blowing horns of the motor cycle. C.W.1 along with P.W.2 entered the quarters of the appellant. The appellant welcomed them and they were provided a seat on the cot. The appellant according to the prosecution, discussed with C.W.1 regarding the execution of the work and asked whether C.W.1 had brought the money that he demanded. Responding to the query, C.W.1 took out M.O.7 series and handed over to the appellant which he accepted. He counted M.O.7 series to satisfy that the amount demanded is paid. Then M.O.7 series were kept in a bag which was marked as M.O.10 and it was kept inside the cupboard in the room. C.W.1 and P.W.2 came out of the quarters and gave signal. P.W.1 along with C.W.1, P.Ws. 2, 7 and the raid party rushed to the quarters and disclosed his identity. P.Ws.2 and 7 were also introduced to the appellant. Thereupon, Phenolphthalein Test was conducted on both hands of the appellant separately. The result was positive on both hands. The appellant was asked whether he had accepted illegal gratification from C.W 1. Though with hesitation, on repeated questions, the appellant admitted. The appellant was asked about the money. The appellant stated that it was kept in M.O.10 bag in the cupboard. P.W.1 asked the appellant to take it out. Obeying P.W.1, the appellant took out the bag and then the tainted currency notes were taken out. As ordered by P.W.1 the currency notes were handed over to P.W.7. Thereupon, the identity of M.O.7 series was verified with reference to Ext. P-2 mahazar and seized, for which Ext. P-4 recovery mahazar was prepared. Inside M.O.10 bag there was another sum of Rs. 8,560. Since it was stated that the said amount was the personal earnings of the appellant, it was returned to the appellant for which Ext. P-3 acknowledgment was obtained. The appellant was arrested and released on bail. The records were handed over to the office. Following that, the investigation was taken over by P.W.10, the Additional Superintendent of Police. P.W.10, after completing the investigation submitted the final report, accusing the appellant for the above said offences, before the trial court.

The learned Special Judge took cognizance and issued process responding to which the appellant entered appearance. On his appearance, copies of the final report and connected documents were furnished. Thereafter, the appellant and the prosecution were heard. On finding that there are materials to send the appellant for trial, a charge for the earlier said offence was framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty when the charge was read over and explained. Therefore, the appellant was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 10 were examined. Exts.P-1 to P-22 were marked. M.Os.1 to 10 were also marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the appellant was questioned u/s 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant stated that he was supervising the work executed by C.W.1 till 26-5-2002 and thereafter the work was being supervised by P.W.3 and that payments were effected to C.W.1 for the works executed till the appellant was supervising. The appellant further stated that there was a practice of sending labour money to sub contractors by the contractors through railway employees. Two sub contractors were examined by the appellant as D.Ws. 1 and 2 to establish that there was a practice of sending money by the contractor to the sub contractor through the railway employees. The learned Judge, on appraisal of the evidence, arrived at a conclusion of guilt.Consequently, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as above.

The fact that the appellant was working as a Junior Engineer in Railway as alleged by the prosecution is not only not disputed but also admitted. In support of that allegation of prosecution, P.W.3, another Junior Engineer, who was working under the appellant; and the Executive Engineer, who was examined as P.W.8 had given evidence. Supporting the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 8, there is the evidence of the Chief Engineer as P.W.9 who had accorded sanction to prosecute the appellant. The evidence of P.Ws. 3, 8 and 9 that the appellant was working as a Junior Engineer remains unimpeached. Ext. P-7, order according sanction to prosecute the appellant, issued by P.W.9 also remains unimpeached. No argument was advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, assailing the evidence of the above witnesses and Ext. P-7. In the above circumstance, I concur with the lower court and find that the appellant was working as a Junior Engineer, Gr. I in Railways as alleged by the prosecution and as such he was a public servant coming u/s 2(c) of the PC Act and that the prosecution was launched with due sanction obtained from P.W.9 who was the authority competent to accord sanction to prosecute the appellant.

C.W.1, the de facto complainant, was not examined for the reason that he had gone abroad and his presence could not be procured by the prosecution. We, therefore, miss his evidence. In support of the prosecution case regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, there is testimony of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7 supported by Exts. P-1, P-2 and P-4. P.W.1, the trap officer had given evidence in support of the prosecution case. Ext. P-1 narrates the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant. P.W.1 would depose that C.W.1 complained him over phone and after getting authorisation from the superior officers, P.W. 1 proceeded to Calicut and lodged at hotel Jaya. C.W. 1 went there and lodged Ext.P-1 complaint. After taking a copy, Ext.P-1 was forwarded to the CBI Office, Kochi for registering a case and then P.W.1 procured the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 7 and made arrangements for trapping the appellant. P.W.1 would also depose that C.W.1 had brought M.O.7 series currency notes for being paid to the appellant. P.W.1 obtained the same from C.W.1 in the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 7 for which Ext.P-2 mahazar was prepared. Thereafter, Phenolphthalein Test was demonstrated in the presence of C.W.1, P.Ws. 2 and 7. The contents in Ext. P-1 complaint were appraised to P.Ws. 2 and 7 after giving a copy of the same to them. C.W.1 and P.W.2 were sent together with instruction to P.W.2 to witness the transaction between C.W.1 and the appellant. They proceeded on a motor cycle. P.W.1 and party along with P.W. 7 proceeded to the spot in their official vehicle and took positions in and around the quarters of the appellant. P.W.1 had given instruction to give signal by blowing horns in the event the appellant had accepted the tainted money. C.W.1 and P.W.2 went inside the quarters and later they came out. C.W.1 gave signal by blowing horn. On getting signal, P.W.1 rushed to the quarters of the appellant along with C.W.1, P.Ws. 2 and 7 and disclosed his identity. The hands of the appellant were subjected to Phenolphthalein Test. Hands and solution turned pink. The appellant was found perplexed. When asked whether the appellant had accepted the gratification from C.W.1, the appellant on repeated questions, conceded and took out M.O.10 bag from the cupboard. From M.O.10 bag, M.O.7 series were taken out. As asked by P.W.1, M.O.7 series were handed over to P.W.7. The identity of M.O.7 series were verified with reference to Ext.P-2 and found that M.O.7 series are the same that were smeared with Phenolphthalein powder and entrusted to C.W.1 for which Ext. P-2 mahazar was prepared. Thereupon, the appellant was arrested. For recovery of M.O.7 series, Ext.P-4 recovery mahazar was prepared. Inside M.O.10 bag there was an amount of Rs. 8560. It was handed over to the appellant for which Ext.P-3 acknowledgment was obtained. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested and released on bail. The house of the appellant was searched for which Ext.P-5 search list was prepared. Exts.P-6, P-7 and P-8 series are some of the documents seized from the house of the appellant. M.O.1 is the solution used for demonstrating the phenolphthalein test. M.O.2 is the cloth used for sealing M.O.1. M.O.3 and M.O.5 are the solution used for Phenolphthalein test on the hands of the appellant. M.O.4 and M.O.6 are the clothes used for sealing M.O.3 and M.O.5 bottles. P.W.1 had also deposed that M.O.10 bag was also subjected to Phenolphthalein test and that the result was positive. M.O.8 is the solution used for Phenolphthalein test on M.O.10 bag and M.O.9 is the clothes used for sealing M.O.8 bottle. Returning to the office, the records were handed over. The material objects and the records were then forwarded to the trial court.

P.W.2 would depose that he was working as officer in the Regional Office of the Canara Bank and that on 28-6-2002, he along with P.W.7, a colleague, was summoned to Room No. 208 of Hotel Jaya, wherein PW. 1 along with the party was camping. On arrival, PW.1 disclosed the purpose for which they were summoned. A copy of Ext. P-1 was given to them and the particulars were appraised. Thereafter, M.O.7 currency notes were obtained from C.W.1 and Phenolphthalein Test was demonstrated after smearing Phenolphthalein powder over M.O.7 series. M.O.7 series were then handed over to C.W. 1 for which Ext. P-2 mahazar was prepared, wherein he is an attestor. He would further depose that he along with C.W.1 went to the quarters of the appellant and entered the quarters. P.W.2 was introduced to the appellant as a friend of C.W.1. They were received by the appellant and asked to sit on the cot inside the room in which the appellant was sitting on a chair. C.W. 1 started discussing the work. Thereupon, the appellant asked whether C.W.1 had brought the money demanded on the previous day. When C.W.1 answered affirmatively, the appellant stretched his hands. M.O.7 series were taken out by C.W.1 from his pocket and handed over to the appellant. The appellant accepted the same, counted the notes and then kept in the cupboard. C.W.1 and PW.2 came out and gave signal to PW.1. Thereupon, PW.1 rushed to the house of the appellant along with P.Ws. 2, 7, C.W. 1 and the raid party. The identity was disclosed to the appellant. The appellant was perplexed. Hands of the appellant were subjected to Phenolphthalein test which turned positive. On questioning, the appellant admitted that he had accepted the tainted notes from C.W.1. As asked by PW.1, the appellant took out M.O.10 bag from the cupboard and from it, M.O.7 currency notes were taken out. It was handed over to P.W.7 as directed by PW.1. M.O.7 series were verified with reference to Ext. P-2 and then seized after satisfying the identity. For seizure Ext. P-4 mahazar, wherein himself, P.W.7 and C.W.1 are attestors, was prepared.

P.W.7 had given evidence almost corroborating with the evidence adduced by PWs. 1 and 2. PWs. 1, 2 and 7 were subjected to searching lengthy cross-examination. But no material was disclosed to disbelieve them. What was suggested to PWs. 1 and 2 is that they forced into the quarters of the appellant and thrust M.O.7 series at the hands of the appellant and then seized. To P.W.7, it was suggested that nothing as alleged by the prosecution occurred and the case was falsely registered to which P.W.7 answered negatively. PWs. 2 and 7 are admittedly officers employed in Canara Bank and they are no way connected either to the prosecution or to C.W.1 or to the appellant. On a critical analysis of the evidence of PWs. 2 and 7, I find that they are independent and credible witnesses. There is nothing on record to show that they have got any favour or disfavour either with the result of the prosecution or the defence. The suggestions put to P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7 would show that the appellant had admitted that he was in possession of M.O.7 series. But the explanation is that M.O.7 series were thrust into the hands of the appellant. Regarding that, absolutely there is no evidence. As I mentioned earlier, the appellant had a case that there was a practice for the railway contractors sending money to the sub-contractors through the railway employees. It is in support of that contention, D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined. That defence is contrary to the plea of thrusting M.O.7 series by force. If the statement of the appellant is considered in the light of the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2, the appellant had in fact impliedly admitted the acceptance of money by him. But his case is that it is for being handed over to the subcontractor. It is too difficult to believe that the appellant, middle class officer in Railway, had been working as agent for carrying money of the contractors. However, if that defence is believed, the appellant had voluntarily accepted M.O.7 series for handing it over to the labourers of C.W.1. On a critical reappraisal of the evidence in the light of the defence version, I find that there is nothing to interfere with the conclusion of the trial court that the prosecution had succeeded to establish that the appellant had accepted M.O.7 series from C.W.1 voluntarily.

P.Ws. 3 and 8 were examined by the prosecution to establish that the appellant was supervising the construction of the culvert and that PW.3 was Junior Engineer Grade II appointed to assist the appellant. PWs. 3 and 8 had given evidence that there was practice of giving part payment for which the measurements had to be taken periodically during different stages of the work. Referring to Exts. D-2, D-3 and D-4 and the statement of the appellant, Sri J. Jose, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the appellant was supervising the work executed by C.W.1 till 26-5-2002 only and thereafter the appellant was no way connected with the work executed by C.W.1. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, there was no occasion for the appellant to demand illegal gratification as he was no way connected with the execution of the work. The evidence of PWs. 3 and 8 is consistent that the appellant was the Junior Engineer in-charge to supervise the work. Though Exts. D-2, D-3 and D-4 would show that appellant was taking measurements up to 26-5-2002, there is no evidence on record to come to a conclusion that the appellant was removed from the duty to supervise the work executed by C.W.1 or that PW.3 alone was authorised to supervise the work. There is also no material on record to come to a conclusion that C.W.1 was aware that it was P.W.3 who had to supervise the work. In the above circumstance, I find that Exts. D-2, D-3 and D-4 are not sufficient enough to come to a conclusion that the appellant had no duty to supervise the work that was being executed by C.W.1.

Once it is established the appellant had accepted any gratification it is for him to prove that there was no demand or acceptance as an illegal gratification as a motive or reward in respect of an official act mentioned in Section 7. Otherwise, there shall be a presumption against the public servant u/s 20 of the PC Act which reads as follows:

Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.--(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable u/s 7 or section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.

(2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable u/s 12 or under clause (b) of Section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7, or as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no interference of corruption may fairly be drawn.

The appellant has not at been able to establish that M.O.7 series was accepted or obtained not as a gratification from C.W.1 for discharging the official duty. Relying upon the decision reported in State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede 2010 (2) SCC (Cri) 385, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for the constitution of offence u/s 7 of the PC Act. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution failed to examine the de facto complainant and to establish the demand. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, there is absolutely no evidence regarding the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant. Since there is no evidence regarding the demand, the question of presumption according to the learned counsel would not arise. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the CBI, relying upon the decision reported in M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. 2001 SCC (Cri) 258, T. Shankar Prasad v. State of A.P. 2004 SC (Cri) 870, M. Sunderamoorthy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Inspector of Police, , argued that in a case where the prosecution had succeeded to establish the acceptance of tainted money there shall be a statutory compulsory presumption in favour of the accused and in this case since there is no rebuttal evidence, in the light of Section 4 and 114 of the Evidence Act and Section 20 of the PC Act, there is a statutory presumption in favour of the prosecution that the appellant had accepted the illegal gratification as a reward for discharging the official duty.

Relying upon the decisions reported in Sathianathan Vs. State by Inspector of Police, the learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I, also argued that in the light of the evidence of P.W.2 regarding the demand and acceptance of the tainted money by the appellant, the non-examination of C.W.1 is not at all fatal to the prosecution. It was also submitted that despite the coercive steps taken by the prosecution to procure C.W.1, his presence could not be procured since he was abroad and in the above circumstances, there is sufficient explanation by the prosecution for the non-examination of the de facto complainant. It was also submitted that the non-examination of C.W.1 has no way caused any prejudice to the appellant. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the non-examination of C.W.1 had caused prejudice to the appellant. According to the learned counsel certain questions which were reserved to be put to C.W.1 could not be put to C.W.1; and on expectation that C.W.1 would be examined, those questions were not to put to P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7 and in this way the appellant was highly prejudiced. What was the question omitted remains to be a mystery. I find no merit in the submission. The evidence of P.W.2 would show that referring to the talk on previous day, appellant asked whether money was brought and it was then M.O.7 series were given. Before keeping it in safe custody, it was counted and the amount was satisfied. It is in the counting process both hands were tainted with Phenolphthalein powder which was identified through sodium carbonate solution. The evidence of P.W.2 also would show that they had a warm welcome which indicates that it was solicited visit and payment. First defence suggestion regarding the thrushing of money is belied by the conduct. Alternate defence of entrusting money to convey to subcontractors is a contrary one and not at all probable. The defence evidence that the appellant was acting as carrier of money is unheard of.

Referring to Ext.D-5, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that Ext.D-5 would show that on 27-6-2002 the appellant was out of office from 8.55 a.m. to 6.25 p.m. and that Ext.D-5 itself would belie the case of C.W.1 regarding the demand of illegal gratification. As per Ext.D-5, the appellant was attending minor span projects between Calicut and Farookh section. The learned Standing Counsel would submit that Ext.D-5 is a document submitted after the arrest of the appellant and that the authenticity of the contacts was no way proved by the defence. It is seen that Ext.D-5 was put in cross-examination to P.W.8 to whom Ext.D-5 was seen submitted. P.W.8 had deposed that he had not verified the correctness of the entries in Ext.D-5. As to on which date it was submitted to P.W.8 is also not revealed out in evidence. In the above circumstances, in the absence of any other supporting evidence I am persuaded to arrive at a conclusion that Ext.D-5 is not reliable to come to a conclusion that the appellant was not in the office on 27-6-2002 when the first demand for illegal gratification was made. The allegation of the prosecution that the appellant had demanded illegal gratification is supported by the circumstantial evidence, namely the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, and 7 and Exts.P-4 and P-7 which would show that the appellant had accepted M.O.7 series from C. W.1. In the light of the defence contention and the decisions referred above, I had a very careful scrutiny of the evidence on record. From the evidence on record, I find that the evidence of P.W.2 would show that he was accompanying C.W.1 to the quarters of the appellant and that on 28-6-2002 the appellant repeated his demand for illegal gratification. Thereupon M.O.7 tainted currency notes were given to the appellant by C.W.1. The appellant voluntarily accepted the same. He counted the notes and then safely kept it in M.O.10 bag which was put inside the cupboard in the room. The tainted currencies so accepted by the appellant from C.W.1 was soon recovered by P.W.1 in the presence of C.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.7 for which Ext.P-4 mahazar was prepared. The appellant had not succeeded to establish that M.O.7 series tainted currency notes were accepted by him from C.W.1 for any purpose other than illegal gratification. On the other hand, the fact that he counted the notes after accepting the same and kept the same inside the M.O.10 bag in the cupboard would persuade me to conclude that M.O.7 series were voluntarily accepted by the appellant. In the absence of any explanation regarding the acceptance of M.O.7 series from C.W.1 it is legitimate to arrive at a presumption in the light of Section 114 of the Evidence Act and Section 20 of the PC Act that it was accepted as an illegal gratification. I find that the learned Special Judge had on appraisal of the evidence arrived at a right conclusion of guilt The conviction under challenge is based upon cogent evidence and there is no reason to interfere with the conviction under challenge.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a heart patient as evidenced by his statement before the trial court. He had sought for an opportunity to reform. As regards the health condition, no material is produced in support of the statement. The learned counsel had canvassed my attention to the evidence of P.W.7 that when P.W.1 asked about the presence of money other than M.O.7 in M.O.10 bag, the appellant had stated that he was a heart patient and undergoing treatment. True that there is such an evidence. But that is not at all a reason to come to a conclusion that the appellant has at present suffering any heart ailment. Learned standing counsel for the prosecution submitted that the corruption is rampant in the society any leniency would only encourage the corruption and that the sentence awarded by the trial court is just and appropriate and no reason to reduce the same. Having due regard to the entire circumstances and facts of the case, including the amount of bribe, I find that the sentence awarded by the trial court is a little bit exorbitant and requires modification. I find that a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year each for offence u/s 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the PC Act with a fine of Rs. 50,000 u/s 13(2) of the PC Act would meet the ends of justice.

In the result, while disposing the appeal the conviction under challenge is confirmed. The sentence impugned is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each for offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act and a fine of Rs. 50,000 u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The sentences shall run concurrently. The under trial imprisonment if any, shall be set off. The trial court shall see the execution of sentence and report compliance.