sustenance and that he is no longer in public service. Learned Counsel submitted that the essence of sentence is to serve as a reformation or deterrent and by the whole hug of trial that the 1st convict has gone through, he has learnt his lessons. He therefore urged me to take into account section 311 (1),(2) and 416 (2) (b), (f) and (g) of Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 and impose noncustodian sentence on the convict. The learned Counsel for the 2nd convict also made similar submissions like the learned Counsel for the 1st convict but added that the 2nd convict is a 1st offender, a man of integrity and that he served this country well with an unblemished record. He added further that the 2nd convict just lost his wife and he is equally battling with life threatening ailment which requires the 2nd convict to have medical attention every week. He therefore urged me to apply section 311 (1), (2) (c) and 416 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 and impose non-custodian sentence on the 2nd convict. The learned prosecuting Counsel in his submissions stated that the essence of sentencing are twofold sentencing without option of fine and sentencing simpliciter. He however submitted that even where the Act or statute did not provide discretion to be exercised by the Court, the Court can still exercise its discretion by passing a lesser sentence and not the maximum. Now having listened to the submissions of Counsel I have perused sections 311 (1) (2) (c), 416 (1) and (2) of Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015. In the instant case although section 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related offences Act 2000 did not make provision as regards discretion of 61