1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. We are of the opinion that no fault can be found with the conviction of the appellant. The chain of events clearly show that the appellant who was a Patwari had tried to extort money for effecting a mutation on the basis of a gift deed that had been presented by the complainant, P.W.1. We, however, feel that in the light of the fact that the appellant, as of today, is 72 years of age and the matter has been pending in one Court or the other since January, 1987, and the prosecution is under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 under which a discretion is left to the Court to impose a sentence of less than one year, we deem it appropriate in the facts of the case, to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code from one year to three months; all the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The appeal is dismissed with the above modification in the sentence.
. J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI] . J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 14, 2010.