Judgment 1. In case FIR No. 16 dated 18-6-1985 under S. 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereafter to be referred to as the Act) and S. 161, Indian Penal Code of Police Station, State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana, Gurgaon, vide order dated 3-11-1986, Special Judge, Narnaul exercising the powers of trial under the Act held the charge under S. 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(d) of the Act and S. 161, Indian Penal Code proved against Raj Singh, Mandi Supervisor, Market Committee, Mahendergarh for having demanded and accepted Rs. 150.00 from Udmi Ram as illegal gratification by abusing his position as Mandi Supervisor and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000.00 on each count. In default of payment of fine, he sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 6 months. He ordered the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Udmi Ram son of Siri Chand was working as Commission Agent under the name and style "V. K. Trading Company" in Anaj Mandi, Mahendergarh in the year 1985. On 15-6-1985 Udmi Ram purchased 60 bags of Gawar from M/s. Amolak Ram Basant Ram Hissar vide bill Ex. PA. On 16-6-1985 he brought said 60 gunny bags of Guwar by Truck No. HRF-6625 to Mahendergarh. This truck was being driven by driver Shankar Lal. By mistake Shankar Lal had taken Octroi Parchi in his own name. After Gawar had been received at their Commission Agents Shop at Mahendergarh on 17-6-1985 Shri Raj Singh Hooda, Mandi Supervisor of Market Committee, Mahendergarh came to their shop and he asked Udmi Ram that no octroi had been paid on Guwar which had been received by their firm "V. K. Trading Company" on 16-6-1985 from Hisar and that octroi Parchi taken was not in the name of "M/s. V. K. Trading Company" and that Guwar had been received in number two by "M/s. V. K. Trading Company" i.e. it was a clandestine deal. Shri Udmi Ram produced the relevant papers before Shri Raj Singh Hooda i.e. Bill Ex. PA, Bilti Ex. PB, Form ST 37 Ex. Shri Udmi Ram produced the relevant papers before Shri Raj Singh Hooda i.e. Bill Ex. PA, Bilti Ex. PB, Form ST 37 Ex. PC, Marks D. Octroi Parchi and told him that he could verify the facts stated by him and it was a regular deal and further they would pay market fee and that he would get his licence to deal in agricultural produce obtained by him from market committee cancelled but he would not get it cancelled if a sum of Rs. 150.00 was paid to him as illegal gratification. He told him that earlier he had got his licence suspended and this time, he would get his licence cancelled and if he wanted that he should carry on commission agents shop at Mahendergarh, he would have to grease his palm. He told him that he should contact him on Tuesday afternoon with Rs. 150.00 as illegal gratification. As Raj Singh Hooda, Mandi Supervisor was insisting upon getting illegal gratification from Udmi Ram on 18-6-1985, he approached Shri Mukhtiar Singh, D.S.P. State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon and told him the entire episode whereupon, on the statement of Udmi Ram, Case FIR No. 16 dated 18-6-1985 was registered under S. 161, Indian Penal Code and under S. 5(2) of the Act at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau (H), Gurgaon against the accused. Thereafter, DSP Mukhtiar Singh along with SI Maharaj Singh, three Head Constables and Udmi Ram came to Narnaul by a jeep in the sub unit of State Vigilance Bureau. He joined Inspector Lala Ram and a constable from there and proceeded to Mahendergarh. He then went to Power House, Dadri Road Mahendergarh and stopped the jeep near the school stand. From there, he called Shri Raj Kumar Sharma, SSE and narrated the facts to him and joined him with him in the raid. At the asking of DSP, Mukhtiar Singh, Udmi Ram produced three currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50.00 each which are Ex. P. 1 to Ex. P.3 before him. He put his initials "MS" on them and applied Phenolphthalein powder to them and then carried out the personal search of Udmi Ram and handed over the said currency notes to him. In this behalf, he prepared memo Ex. 50.00 each which are Ex. P. 1 to Ex. P.3 before him. He put his initials "MS" on them and applied Phenolphthalein powder to them and then carried out the personal search of Udmi Ram and handed over the said currency notes to him. In this behalf, he prepared memo Ex. PF which was attested by Udmi Ram, Lala Ram Inspector, State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana, Narnaul, S.I. Maharaj Singh of State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon and Raj Kumar Sharma SSE. HSEB, Mahendergarh. He directed Udmi Ram to go to the accused, Raj Singh Hooda, Mandi Supervisor and hand over the aforesaid currency notes to him but only on demand by him and not otherwise. Shri Maharaj Singh was deputed to act as shadow witness and to shadow Udmi Ram and to hear the conversation that takes place between Udmi Ram and the accused and witness the transaction taking place between them. He further directed SI Maharaj Singh to raise signal as soon as money was received by the accused pursuant to his demand from Udmi Ram. The raiding party headed by DSP, Mukhtiar Singh came up to the gate of Mandi, Mahendergarh in jeep. Udmi Ram complainant and SI Maharaj Singh proceeded towards the office of Market Committee. Udmi Ram entered the office, whereas SI Maharaj singh stood by the side of a window and the raiding party stood behind the office of Market Committee. After about 3-4 minutes SI Maharaj Singh gave signal by raising his right hand. The entire raiding party including Raj Kumar Sharma, SSE of the H.S.E.B., Mahendergarh entered the office of the Market Committee, Raj Singh accused was going out of his office. He was secured. Udmi Ram complainant was present in the office. DSP Mukhtiar Singh disclosed his identity to the accused. Udmi Ram then told the DSP that the accused had accepted the money and had placed it in the drawer of his table. DSP Mukhtiar Singh procured some water in a jug. He added some sodium carbonate in that water. He got the hands of the accused dipped and washed in that solution of sodium carbonate and the colour of the water turned pinkish. That pinkish solution of sodium carbonate was put in a bottle which was sealed. That sealed bottle Ex. P.5 was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PG. On personal search of the accused, a sum of Rs. That pinkish solution of sodium carbonate was put in a bottle which was sealed. That sealed bottle Ex. P.5 was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PG. On personal search of the accused, a sum of Rs. 427.00 was recovered from him which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PH. Thereafter, the back side drawer of the table of the accused was searched. From that drawer DSP Vigilance Shri Mukhtiar Singh recovered currency notes Ex. P.1 to P. 3. Number of these currency notes were found to be tallying with the numbers lying entered in Memo Ex. PF. Currency notes Ex. P1 to P.3 were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PJ. DSP Mukhtiar Singh then got the bushshirt worn by the accused taken off. He prepared solution of sodium carbonate. He got washed the right side pocket of the bushshirt in that solution of sodium carbonate. Colour of his solution turned pinkish. That solution was put in sealed bottle Ex. P6 which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PG/1. He also got washed the hands of Udmi Ram in a solution of sodium carbonate. Colour of that solution turned pinkish. That solution was put in bottle Ex. P. 7 which was sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PG/2. Seal after use was handed over to Raj Kumar Sharma, SSE, Udmi Rams person was again searched but nothing was recovered from him. In this behalf memo Ex. PK was prepared. DSP Mukhtiar Singh took into possession two registers Ex. PV and Ex. PV/1 vide memo Ex. PV/2. He prepared rough site plan Ex. PX of the place of occurrence. Sealed bottle containing the handwash and the sealed bottles containing the pocket wash of the accused were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban for analysis. 3. Vide report Ex. PQ, the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana Madhuban found Phenolphthalein and Sodium carbonate in the contents of handwash of the accused and the pocket wash of the bushshirt of accused. After obtaining sanction Ex. PU from the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula, which was an authority competent to remove Raj Singh Hooda, Mandi Supervisor from his office, the accused was challaned under S. 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(d) of the Act and S. 161 Indian Penal Code. 4. After obtaining sanction Ex. PU from the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula, which was an authority competent to remove Raj Singh Hooda, Mandi Supervisor from his office, the accused was challaned under S. 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(d) of the Act and S. 161 Indian Penal Code. 4. Vide order dated 19-5-1986, Special Judge, Narnaul charged the accused under S. 5(1)(d) read with S. 5(2) of the Act and S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. 5. At the conclusion of the trial, accused was convicted and sentenced as indicated above by the learned Special Judge, Narnaul. 6. Through this Criminal Appeal, accused has knocked the door of this Court praying for his acquittal. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Learned Assistant Advocate General Haryana and have gone through the record. 8. Udmi Ram PW 1 is the main actor in the play. He has stated that on 15-6-1985, he purchased 60 bags of Guwar from the Commission Agency of M/s. Amolak Ram Babu Ram New Model Mandi, Hisar. He stated that the name of his firm is "V. K. Trading Company". It carries on business in Guwar, Binola and Methi etc. They purchase Guwar etc. from various places in Haryana and Rajasthan. Bill Ex. PA was given to him by M/s. Amolak Ram Babu Ram. It was prepared by Rajinder Kumar. It was signed by him as well. He brought these goods to Mahendergarh on 16-6-1985 by mini truck which was hired through Minie Truck Union, New Mandi, Hisar. Shankar Lal was the driver of that truck. At the octroi Post, Mahendergarh, he left the truck asking the driver to pay octroi duty and obtain octroi receipt and bring the truck to his shop. Driver got prepared the octroi receipt Ex. PD in his own name. Driver handed over to him Bill Ex. PA, Bilti Ex. PB. Form ST-37 Ex. PC and Octroi Receipt Ex. PD. Driver handed over the goods and left. On 16-6-1985, it was Sunday when the goods were unloaded at his shop. On Monday at about 9 a.m. Raj Singh accused who was Mandi Supervisor, Market Committee, Mahendergarh came to his shop and told him that the goods which he had brought were in number two i.e. it was a clandestine deal. Driver handed over the goods and left. On 16-6-1985, it was Sunday when the goods were unloaded at his shop. On Monday at about 9 a.m. Raj Singh accused who was Mandi Supervisor, Market Committee, Mahendergarh came to his shop and told him that the goods which he had brought were in number two i.e. it was a clandestine deal. If he wanted that he should not rake up the matter, he would have to pay him Rs. 150.00 by way of illegal gratification. He produced before him bill Ex. PA, Bilty Ex. PB, Form ST-37 Ex. PC and Octroi Receipt Ex. PD and told him that he could verify the facts and that it was a regular deal and further he would pay market fee. Accused, however, insisted that he must grease his palm or else, he would have to suffer the consequences. He also told him that the amount must be paid to him by the afternoon of the following day, otherwise he would get his licence terminated. On 18-6-1985, he went to the office of the State Vigilance Bureau. Gurgaon and contacted Mukhtiar Singh DSP, State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon and narrated him the entire story. He then went on and stated in terms of the prosecution case as stated above. He stated that he gave money to the accused in three currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50.00 each which had been given to him by DSP Mukhtiar Singh after treating them with Phenolphthalein powder. Accused took these notes and put them in the right front pocket of his bushshirt. SI Maharaj Singh was visible to him because he was standing on one side. Accused could not see SI Maharaj Singh standing in the window because he was having his back. Soon thereafter, there was sound of jumping and running of the persons and there was commotion. Accused then got up and while having side way from the table, he took the money from his pocket and put it in the drawer of the table where he was sitting. Accused, however, could not go out because the raiding party entered the room from different gates and surrounded him. Udmi Ram PW 1 stated that as soon as he reached the office of the accused, on seeing him, accused asked him whether he had brought the money demanded by him. He gave reply in the affirmative. Accused, however, could not go out because the raiding party entered the room from different gates and surrounded him. Udmi Ram PW 1 stated that as soon as he reached the office of the accused, on seeing him, accused asked him whether he had brought the money demanded by him. He gave reply in the affirmative. Accused asked him to hand over the money to him and he gave money to him which he put in the right front pocket of the bushshirt worn by him. It was on seeing the raiding party approaching him that he took the money from his pocket and put it in the drawer of the table where he was sitting. SI Maharaj Singh PW. 5 who was a shadow witness supported the case of the prosecution through and through. He went on and narrated the entire prosecution case. Among other facts he stated that as soon as Udmi Ram entered the room of the accused, the latter asked him whether he had brought the money. Udmi Ram replied in the affirmative. Accused then demanded the money and Udmi Ram then handed over the currency notes to him. He, thereupon gave signal to the police party. The police party came there soon after. Meanwhile, the accused started to leave the room. While attempting to move out of the room, the accused opened the drawer on the back side of the table and put the currency notes into it. The DSP came there. He stopped the accused and introduced himself to the accused. Udmi Ram told the DSP that the accused had put the money in the pocket of the bushshirt but he had lateron thrown the money in the drawer of the table. Shri R. K. Sharma Assistant Executive Engineer of the Haryana State Electricity Board, PW. 6 has tried to help the accused. He is, however, a weakling and fickleminded. He has not been able to help the accused. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that DSP obtained the three currency notes from Udmi Ram. He put his initials thereon, applied some powder to those currency notes. After he had applied powder he handed over those currency notes to Udmi Ram. He directed an SI (reference is to SI Maharaj Singh) to accompany Udmi Ram. He directed Udmi Ram to hand over illegal gratification to the accused. He put his initials thereon, applied some powder to those currency notes. After he had applied powder he handed over those currency notes to Udmi Ram. He directed an SI (reference is to SI Maharaj Singh) to accompany Udmi Ram. He directed Udmi Ram to hand over illegal gratification to the accused. He stated that he was dropped by the police party at a crossing while Udmi Ram and SI Maharaj Singh were despatched to the office of the accused. DSP asked him that he would be called if necessary after 15 minutes. Thereafter, the jeep came back and he was asked to go in the said jeep to the office of the Market Committee where the entire police party and the accused were sitting in a verandah. He was also made to sit in the verandah. DSP told him that they had conducted a raid and that he would get the hands of the accused washed and carry out the remaining proceedings in his presence. DSP then got prepared solution of some powder and got hands of the accused washed in it. Water turned pinkish in colour. That pinkish water was put in a nip and sealed. Thereafter, from the search of the pocket of the accused a sum of Rs. 400.00 and odd was recovered from one of the pockets of his bushshirt. Right side pocket of the bushshirt of the accused was washed in a solution of some powder. The water again turned pinkish. He stated that that solution was also put in a nip and sealed. Police Officer then searched the room inside the office of the Market Committee. Certain members of the police party were ahead of him. They told him that the amount had been recovered from under a file on the left hand side box on the back side of the table. The amount was taken out in his presence. Notes were the same as had been handed over to Udmi Ram by the DSP. He was declared hostile on the request of the Public Prosecutor for the State who cross-examined him. The amount was taken out in his presence. Notes were the same as had been handed over to Udmi Ram by the DSP. He was declared hostile on the request of the Public Prosecutor for the State who cross-examined him. He stated during cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor for the State that while handing over the currency notes to Udmi Ram SI Maharaj Singh was directed to follow him and stand at a point where he could hear the conversation between the accused and Udmi Ram and also witness the amount being given by Udmi Ram to the accused. SI Maharaj Singh was told that he should give signal to the police party as soon as the amount was received by the accused. He has thus, supported the prosecution case in some of its essential particulars. 9. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that Udmi Ram, SI Maharaj Singh and DSP Mukhtiar Singh PWs. should not be believed as they are the organisers of the trap and none of them is an independent witness. It was submitted that there should have been independent corroborative evidence to the demand made by the accused on an earlier occasion. It was submitted that there should have been independent corroborative evidence to support the reiteration of demand by the accused on 18-6-1985. It was submitted that Udmi Ram and SI Maharaj Singh are the members of the trap and they should not be believed without independent corroboration. In support of this submission he drew my attention to Darshan Lal V/s. The Delhi Administration AIR 1974 SC 218 , where it was held that there should be independent and trustworthy corroboration of evidence of trap witnesses. In Ram Parkash Arora V/s. The State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 498 at page 501 . Hon ble Supreme Court speaking about the evidence of trap witnesses observed "they were interested and partisan witnesses. In Ram Parkash Arora V/s. The State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 498 at page 501 . Hon ble Supreme Court speaking about the evidence of trap witnesses observed "they were interested and partisan witnesses. They were concerned in the success of the trap and their evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness and in a proper case, the Court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person." In AIR 1974 SC 218 (supra), according to the prosecution, Darshan Lal had thrown away the currency note on the ground after taking it out from the right pocket of his own pants on his noticing the arrival of DSP. In his cross-examination, the DSP had stated that when he searched the person of the accused and found that he did not carry currency note in question on his person, the punch witness produced the note before him which he took into possession. In his examination-in-chief he had stated that Satish Chander gave him the signal and he reached there. He gave his identity to the accused and searched his person. The witness Satish Chander picked up the hundred rupee currency note given from the ground which was alleged to have been thrown by the accused and he took it into possession. Hon ble Supreme Court held that Niranjan Lal was a partisan witness. Anand Bihari Lal was declared hostile. Complaints against Niranjan Lal were being investigated by the appellant. He had recorded some statements in that connection so Niranjan Lal must have borne grudge against the appellant. The only other witness was Satish Chander. He does not speak about the first offer at all. There is thus no independent reliable corroboration of the statements of Niranjan Lal and Anand Bihari Lal as regards the first demand offer. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to Kalu Ram V/s. State of Punjab (1987) 1 Rec Cri R 259 (Punj and Har) in support of his submission that independent witnesses should be joined in all such raids. Police made no attempt to call an independent witness. This makes the prosecution version shaky and it becomes difficult to find out truth. 11. Police made no attempt to call an independent witness. This makes the prosecution version shaky and it becomes difficult to find out truth. 11. He drew my attention to Mohinder Singh V/s. State of Punjab (1994) 2 Rec Cri R 63 (Punj and Har) where it was held that money giver (decoy witness) and shadow witness are not independent witnesses and are no better than accomplice. Their evidence needs corroboration. Recovery of tainted money from accused by police, presumption arises under S. 4 of Prevention of Corruption Act and S. 161, IPC that accused accepted money as a motive or reward. This presumption is, however, rebuttable. Accused is not obliged to rebut the presumption with same standard of proof as is required of prosecution for recording a finding of conviction. 12. In Tarlok Singh V/s. The State of Punjab, 1983 (2) Chand LR (Cri) 192 it was held that the prosecution had to prove that the accused had actually demanded the bribe money and that after the bribe money was accepted by the accused, it was recovered from his possession. There should be independent evidence to establish that the accused had demanded any bribe money or that such money was recovered at his instance. 13. In Suresh Kumar Shrivastava V/s. State of M.P. (1995) 1 Rec Cri R 366 it was held that mere recovery of money was not sufficient to raise presumption against accused. There should be evidence that the accused had demanded bribe before trap and had voluntarily accepted the bribe money at the time of trap. In Hari Kishan V/s. State of Haryana (1997) 2 Rec Cri R 330 (Punj and Har) it was held that payment of bribe by the accused and its acceptance is required to be proved by independent evidence. Statement of complainant and trap witness cannot be said to be the statements of independent witnesses. 14. In this case, the prosecution case hinges upon the statements of Udmi Ram, DSP Mukhtiar Singh and SI Maharaj Singh PWs. They are witnesses of the trap. It is true that their statements require corroboration by some independent evidence before they are accepted. It is equally true that corroboration is required not as a rule of law but as a rule of prudence and caution. Witnesses of the trap are interested witnesses as they are interested in the success of the trap. It is true that their statements require corroboration by some independent evidence before they are accepted. It is equally true that corroboration is required not as a rule of law but as a rule of prudence and caution. Witnesses of the trap are interested witnesses as they are interested in the success of the trap. It is, however, not a case where there is no corroboration to the evidence of trap witnesses by Shri R. K. Sharma who is an independent witness. Shri R. K. Sharma PW. 6 has stated that the DSP obtained 3 currency notes from Udmi Ram, put his initials thereon, applied powder to them and handed them over to Udmi Ram. He stated that he also directed SI (reference is to SI Maharaj Singh) to accompany Udmi Ram and directed him to hand over illegal gratification to the accused. Udmi Ram, DSP Mukhtiar Singh and SI Maharaj Singh have stated that after currency notes treated with Phenolphthalein powder were handed over to Udmi Ram, SI Maharaj Singh was deputed to act as a shadow witness to follow Udmi Ram to watch the transaction taking place between Udmi Ram and the accused and also hear the conversation between them and gave signal as soon as money was accepted by the accused. They have stated that Udmi Ram and SI Maharaj Singh proceeded towards the office of the Market Committee. Udmi Ram entered the office, whereas Maharaj Singh SI stood by the side of window. A raiding party including Shri R. K. Sharma PW stood behind the office of Market Committee. After about 3-4 minutes, SI Maharaj Singh gave signal by waiving his left hand. The entire raiding party including Shri R. K. Sharma entered the office of the Market Committee. Raj Singh accused was going out of his office. He was secured, Udmi Ram, SI Maharaj Singh and DSP Mukhtiar Singh have thus unanimously stated that Raj Kumar Sharma PW was with them throughout since the inception of the trap till the termination of the trap, Shri R. K. Sharma PW. 6 has stated that Udmi Ram was directed to hand over the illegal gratification to the accused and SI Maharaj Singh directed to accompany him as shadow witness. 6 has stated that Udmi Ram was directed to hand over the illegal gratification to the accused and SI Maharaj Singh directed to accompany him as shadow witness. He stated that while all of them were proceeding to the office of the Market Committee, he was dropped by the police party at a crossing while Udmi Ram and SI Maharaj Singh proceeded ahead and the DSP asked him that he would be called if necessary. After 15 minutes, thereafter, the jeep came and he was asked to go in the said jeep to the office of the Market Committee where the entire police party and the accused were sitting in a verandah. It appears that Shri R. K. Sharma PW 6 wanted to help the accused and therefore, he stated that he was dropped by the police party at a crossing and he did not accompany the police party to the office of the Market Committee and he was called later after the raid had been conducted upon the accused. Shri R. K. Sharma PW 6 is a pivot in the case and was an independent witness. I fail to understand how could he be dropped by the police party at a crossing and called later after the raid had been conducted to witness the washing of the hands of the accused in a solution of sodium carbonate and the washing of the pocket of the bushshirt worn by the accused in another solution of sodium carbonate. He supported the prosecution case in so far as it goes that when the hands of the accused were dipped in a solution containing sodium carbonate, the colour of the handwash turned pinkish and similarly, when the right side pocket of the bushshirt of the accused was washed in a separate solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the pocket wash also turned pinkish. Although SI Maharaj Singh, DSP Mukhtiar Singh and Udmi Ram PWs have stated that the tainted currency notes were recovered lying in a drawer of the table in front of the accused, Shri R. K. Sharma in his anxiety to help the accused has stated that he was told by the police officers who were ahead of him while entering the room being occupied by the accused that the tainted currency notes Ex. P1 to Ex. P1 to Ex. P3 which had been handed over to Udmi Ram by the DSP while organising the raid had been recovered from under a file lying on the left hand side box on the back side of the table. He stated that the amount was taken out in his presence and they were the same currency notes which had been handed over to Udmi Ram by the DSP at the time of organising the raid with his initials thereon. 15. It is, thus, not a case where Raj Kumar Sharma PW has not supported the prosecution case. He has supported the prosecution case in its essential particulars. He has tried to help the accused. The Court cannot close its eyes to his effort at helping the accused. There was no explanation with the accused why the colour of sodium carbonate turned pinkish when his hands were got dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate by the DSP and further why the colour of the pocket of the bushshirt worn by him turned pinkish when it was dipped into a separate solution of sodium carbonate. This aspect of the case gives rise to an inference which would be quite natural to be drawn that he had accepted the currency notes Ex. P. 1 to P.3 from Udmi Ram which had been treated with Phenolphthalein powder by the DSP and further he had put those currency notes into the drawer of the table lying in front of him as at the time when DSP Mukhtiar Singh and SI Maharaj Singh etc. were proceeding to search his person they were told by Udmi Ram that at the sight of their coming towards the accused, the accused had put the tainted currency notes in the drawer of the table lying in front of him. If Udmi Ram, DSP Mukhtiar Singh and SI Maharaj Singh had been actuated by any animosity towards the accused they would have shown the recovery from the pocket of the bushshirt of the accused and they would not have stated at all that the recovery took place from the drawer of the table lying in his front in which he had put them at the sight of DSP Mukhtiar Singh and SI Maharaj Singh etc. coming towards him. 16. We have not to go by the ipse dixit of the prosecution witnesses. coming towards him. 16. We have not to go by the ipse dixit of the prosecution witnesses. We have to consider the worth of their testimony on the touch stone of human probabilities, why should DSP Mukhtiar Singh and SI Maharaj Singh PWs. have deposed against the accused when there is no animus disclosed against them. We cannot ignore the stark realities of life. In every criminal case, there is a tug of war which goes on between the accused and the prosecution, accused trying to win over witnesses; prosecution trying to see that they support the prosecution and do not resile. 17. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that Udmi Ram PW was inimically disposed towards the accused. On 10-5-1985, he had quarrelled with Raj Singh and auction recorder Pehlad Singh. Raj Singh submitted complaint to the Secretary Market Committee, Mahendergarh. He forwarded that complaint to SHO, Police Station, Mahendergarh, Udmi Ram was called by the police in connection with that complaint. Udmi Ram stated that since it was a false complaint, it was withdrawn by him (Raj Singh). It was suggested to him that the complaint was withdrawn because he felt sorry for his conduct. It was submitted that on 13-5-1985, he received letter by post from the Secretary, Market Committee. He sent reply to that letter. The Chairman, Market Committee had issued him notice to show cause why his licence should not be cancelled. It was submitted that notice was drawn by the Mandi Supervisor and signed by the Secretary, Udmi Ram PW admitted that the Chairman of the Market Committee had suspended his licence. It was submitted that he deposited composition fee for the goods for which notice had been given to him on 8-5-1985. It was submitted that as on 10-5-1985. Udmi Ram had quarrelled with Raj Singh, Mandi Supervisor and Pehlad Singh auction recorder who made report to the Secretary, Market Committee who forwarded that complaint to the police on 13-5-1985 and though the matter was compromised, Udmi Ram kept that humiliation in his mind and got him involved falsely. Assuming that there was some animosity between Udmi Ram and the accused, Udmi Ram was mum so far as Pehlad Singh auction recorder was concerned. Why should SI Maharaj Singh and DSP Mukhtiar Singh PWs have supported the prosecution case? Why should Sh. Assuming that there was some animosity between Udmi Ram and the accused, Udmi Ram was mum so far as Pehlad Singh auction recorder was concerned. Why should SI Maharaj Singh and DSP Mukhtiar Singh PWs have supported the prosecution case? Why should Sh. R. K. Sharma PW have supported the prosecution case in its essential particulars? It was submitted that Shri R. K. Sharma supported the prosecution case because he was under the obligation of DSP Mukhtiar Singh. DSP Mukhtiar Singh had held inquiry against him in the year 1982 and there was an allegation against him that he had given tubewell connections by breaking seniority of the applicants. It was submitted that Shri R. K. Sharma PW. wanted to repay the obligation to the DSP who had exonerated him in the inquiry. DSP Mukhtiar Singh admitted in his cross-examination that he had conducted inquiry against Shri R. K. Sharma PW. 2 in the year 1982 but the inquiry was withdrawn from him. He denied this suggestion that he had recommended the filing of the inquiry against Shri Raj Kumar Sharma. He denied this suggestion that he deliberately joined Shri R. K. Sharma because he was under his obligation. It was submitted that DSP joined Shri R. K. Sharma because he was under his obligation and if he were fair, he would have joined Executive Engineer who is senior to Shri Raj Kumar Sharma or he would have joined Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mahendergarh. He stated that Executive Engineer was not available on that day. If Shri R. K. Sharma PW had been under the obligation of DSP Mukhtiar Singh and wanted to repay that obligation he would have supported the prosecution case whole hog and not tried to help the accused in the manner aforesaid. 18. In this case, presumption has also to be raised against the accused as enshrined in Section 4 of the Act. Once the prosecution is successful in proving the recovery of tainted money from the possession of the accused then by virtue of Section 4 of the Act a legal presumption arises that the accused had accepted or obtained bribe money as motive or reward as is contemplated under Section 161, Indian Penal Code. This presumption is of course rebutable. Once the prosecution is successful in proving the recovery of tainted money from the possession of the accused then by virtue of Section 4 of the Act a legal presumption arises that the accused had accepted or obtained bribe money as motive or reward as is contemplated under Section 161, Indian Penal Code. This presumption is of course rebutable. In this case, however, the accused has not been able to create any dent, so far as the credibility of Udmi Ram PW is concerned so that this presumption could be said have been rebutted. 19. Corruption is eating into the very vitals of our polity. It has spread its tentacles so wide that we cannot think at all that we would ever be a corruption free Society. Corruption is uncalled for, exploitation by one who is holding position of vantage over the other as a motive or reward to do him some favour in the discharge of his official duties or to forbear from doing something which falls within the ambit of his official duties. The decision of every case turns on its own facts and the circumstances. Facts of two cases are never the same or similar. In the matter of appreciation of evidence, we have to look to human probabilities. 20. For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that the accused was justifiably convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge, Narnaul. Appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. Conviction and sentence are maintained.