Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 466 (PNJ)

Sardul Singh v. State of Punjab

2004-04-21

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Sardul Singh son of Harjit Singh, Junior Engineer in Punjab State Electricity Board stands convicted under impugned judgment dated 18.1.1991 of learned Special Judge, Ferozepur under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for brevity the Act) and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced as under : U/S 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, or in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months. U/S 161 Indian Penal Code RI for six months. 2. However, both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The present case was registered at the instance of one Baldev Raj, the complainant (PW8), who is resident of village Tahliwala Bodla. 4. On 10.8.1987 Baldev Raj complainant made a statement before Inspector Harbans Singh (not produced as he died during trial). ASI Ram Lubhaya (PW10) was also present at that time. According to the complainant, in 1982 Jaggo Bai, his mother had purchased 7 killas of land from Viran Bai with electric connection and electric motor and that the mutation of the land was also sanctioned in favour of his mother. Although the fact regarding purchase of the electric motor was given in the sale-deed, yet the motor connection was in the name of Smt. Veeran Bai, the vendor and that the payment of the electricity charges against the bills was to be made by the vendee. It is then alleged that 7/8 days before the present occurrence, the appellant, who was posted as Line Superintendent (P.S.E.B.), Khui Khera, had visited the village of the complainant and had removed the cable of the motor connection. The complainant had met the Sub Divisional Officer in this regard, who asked him to see the appellant and as such on 8.8.1987 the complainant met the appellant at Khui Khera in his office and requested for installation of the cable. The appellant made a demand of Rs. 500/- as bribe for the said job. Being a poor man, when the complainant showed his inability to pay the said amount, the appellant told him that the job could not be done without the said payment and the connection will not be installed. Ultimately, settlement was arrived at Rs. 400/-. The appellant made a demand of Rs. 500/- as bribe for the said job. Being a poor man, when the complainant showed his inability to pay the said amount, the appellant told him that the job could not be done without the said payment and the connection will not be installed. Ultimately, settlement was arrived at Rs. 400/-. Since the complainant was not having money with him on that day, the appellant told him to bring the same on Monday i.e. 10th of August, 1987. As the complainant was not inclined to make payment of the bribe money to the appellant, he alongwith one Karam Chand (PW9) his co-villager approached the Vigilance Officer Ferozepur and made the statement Ex. PG. It was signed by the complainant. Inspector Harbans Singh made his endorsement Ex. PG/1, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PG/2 was recorded in the concerned police station. Baldev Raj complainant then gave four notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each to Inspector Harbans Singh, who treated them with Phenolphthalein (PP) powder and after noting down numbers thereof delivered them back to the complainant through memo. Ex. PH. A direction was made to the complainant to make payment of the said amount to the appellant on demand. Karam Chand (PW9) was made a shadow witness and was instructed to accompany the complainant, over-hear the conversation between the complainant and the appellant and to give a filed signal to the police party on handing over of money. The raiding party thereafter went to the Tehsil Office Fazilka in a jeep. On Kulwant Singh Clerk was also associated with the said party. They went to village Khui Khera. The jeep was parked near the hospital. The complainant and Karam Chand PW were then asked to go to the accused as per scheme of the raid. Baldev Raj complainant went to the appellant and on his demand, paid him the tainted amount of Rs. 400/-. The appellant put the same in the pocket of his shirt. The police party which was standing at some distance came to the spot immediately on receipt of signal from Karam Chand. Inspector Harbans Singh disclosed his identity to the appellant. the person of the appellant was searched. The tainted notes of Rs. 400/- were recovered from his shirt. On comparison, the numbers of the currency notes tallied with the numbers noted in the memo. Inspector Harbans Singh disclosed his identity to the appellant. the person of the appellant was searched. The tainted notes of Rs. 400/- were recovered from his shirt. On comparison, the numbers of the currency notes tallied with the numbers noted in the memo. Ex. PH. On further search a sum of Rs. 318/-, a watch and a pen-pencil were also recovered from the appellant. The same were also taken into possession vide separate recovery memo. Ex. PJ. A glass of water was arranged and some solution was prepared by adding Sodium Carbonate in it. Initially Kulwant Singh PW was asked to dip his hands in the solution. On his doing so, colour of the solution did not change. Thereafter appellant was made to dip his hands in the said solution. On his dipping hand, the solution turned light pinkish. It was transferred into a nip, sealed and thereafter taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex. PK. The appellant was then asked to put off his shirt. The pocket of the shirt was reversed. It was also washed with a fresh solution of PP powder. It also turned light pinkish. The said solution was also transferred into a nip, sealed and then taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex. PL alongwith the sealed parcel of the shirt. The cable given by the appellant to the complainant was also taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex. PM. Rough site plan Ex. PO of the spot was prepared by the Investigating Officer. The other legal formalities were also completed at the spot. After completion of entire investigation and obtaining sanction to launch prosecution, the appellant was challaned in this case. 5. The appellant was charged under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses : 7. PW1 Madan Lal Registration Clerk from the office of Sub Registrar, Fazilka proved certified copies of the sale deeds (Exs. PA and PB) registered in favour of the mother of the complainant. 8. PW2 Malkiat Singh, Upper Division Clerk, PSEB, Abohar Division deposed that Sardul Singh appellant was officiating as Junior Engineer II. 9. PW3 Vinod Kumar Kaura, Superintendent from the office of Chief Engineer (S), PSEB Patiala also deposed to the same effect. 10. PA and PB) registered in favour of the mother of the complainant. 8. PW2 Malkiat Singh, Upper Division Clerk, PSEB, Abohar Division deposed that Sardul Singh appellant was officiating as Junior Engineer II. 9. PW3 Vinod Kumar Kaura, Superintendent from the office of Chief Engineer (S), PSEB Patiala also deposed to the same effect. 10. PW4 Gurdev Singh, Assistant from the Office of Chief Engineer (South), PSEB, Patiala has proved the sanction Ex. PE for launching prosecution against the appellant. 11. PW5 Surinder Kumar son of Chaman Lal, a shopkeeper has proved a complaint register Ex. P1. 12. PW6 Ramesh Chander Lineman, PSEB, Khui Khera has stated that he had joined at Khui Khera from 27.7.1987 and was attached with the appellant, he alongwith the appellant had gone to village Tahliwala Bodla and had removed the wire of Veeran Bai, which was an electric wire of the motor, because it was an illegal connection; one person was present at the spot, who asked them not to remove the cable; the said person did not allow them to remove the cable on which a tiff had taken place and that the said person was Baldev Raj (complainant- herein). This witness has proved the wire Ex. P.2. 13. PW7 Bhagwan Dass has also made a statement to the effect that three persons of Electricity Department were putting the cable for connecting the motor of Roop Chand; when he enquired as to with whose orders they were doing so, they replied that their superiors had ordered for it; thereafter those persons left the place. 14. PW8 Baldev Raj is the complainant, who has reiterated his statement as already alluded in the preceding paras. 15. PW9 Karam Chand is the shadow witness, who was instructed to give the fixed signal to the raiding party. He is also a witness to the recoveries. 16. PW10 ASI Ram Lubhaya, Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur is the Investigating Officer in this case. It may be mentioned that Inspector Harbans Singh was the main Investigating Officer, who had prepared all the relevant documents in this case (who could not be produced by the prosecution as he died during the trial). ASI Ram Lubhaya had joined Inspector Harbans Singh from the very beginning when Baldev Raj had lodged the complaint till the investigation was over. As such this witness has proved all the requisite writings of Inspector Harbans Singh. ASI Ram Lubhaya had joined Inspector Harbans Singh from the very beginning when Baldev Raj had lodged the complaint till the investigation was over. As such this witness has proved all the requisite writings of Inspector Harbans Singh. Kulwant Singh, who was joined in the raiding party from Tehsil office and some other witnesses have been given up as unnecessary. 17. The stand taken by the appellant as emerges from his statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code is that he has been falsely implicated in this case; that on 5.8.1987 during checking of the electric connections of village Tahliwala Bodla by him, it was found that a three phase motor in the name of Viran Bai was running on single phase supply by using a shunt capacitator; that he reported the matter to the SDO, who passed an order of immediate disconnection of this motor for 7 days; that on 6.7.1987 (6-8-1987 ?) he alongwith Ramesh Chander Lineman had gone to disconnect the said connection and when he went to the spot, Baldev Raj complainant was found present at the motor and the cable was removed; that the complainant objected to it, which resulted into a row between them; that the complainant threatened him of dire consequences; that on 8th and 9th of August, 1987 he was on station leave and had left Khui Khera on 7.8.1987 and had gone to Muktsar with his wife due to first Rakhri after his marriage and had returned on 10.8.1987; that he had no power to reconnect a disconnected connection, which was to be done by the SDO, Khui Khera; that the said connection could not be restored before 13.8.1987 and as such there was no reason to make any demand for bribe money; that on the date of occurrence at about 1.00 PM, he was taking his meals in his office when the complainant came there and forcibly put money in his pocket; that he took out the money from the pocket and threw it and in the scuffle, glass of water lying on the table fell upon his clothes and pant; that in the meantime, Vigilance police came there and took him into custody and fabricated the present case against him in connivance with the complainant. 18. In order to strengthen his defence, the appellant has produced : 19. 18. In order to strengthen his defence, the appellant has produced : 19. DW1 Inderjit Bansal, SDO, PSEB, Uchhi Bassi to show that the complainant was running a motor on single phase supply with the help of shunt capacitator; that on 6.8.1987, he had issued the disconnection order, which was executed on the same day; that the appellant had obtained station leave for 8th and 9th August, 1987; that 8th August, 1987 being Saturday was a holiday; that the appellant used to reside at Abohar and in his absence Surender Behl JE was to perform the duty for two days; that the disconnection order cannot be issued by a Junior Engineer. 20. DW2 Surinder Kumar Clerk from the office of R.T.O. has proved the summer time table Ex. DA from Fazilka to Malout. According to this witness the distance between Malout and Tahliwala Bodla is 42 Kilometres. 21. After appreciating the entire evidence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as already indicated above. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant has knocked the doors of this Court for acquittal. 22. I have heard Mr. S.P. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. G.S. Bhandari, learned Deputy Advocate-General representing the State of Punjab. With their assistance, I have gone through the entire record. 23. The first argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no independent corroborative evidence regarding initial demand made by the appellant on 8.8.1987 and for this reason benefit of doubt should be extended to the appellant. The learned counsel then contends that even the trap witnesses in the present case are most interested and partisan ones and even on that count, there is no independent corroboration. Dwelling upon his arguments, the learned counsel contends that the initial demand of the bribe money was allegedly made by the appellant on 8.8.1987, whereas he was on station leave on 8th and 9th August, 1987, as he had to go to his sister at Muktsar on the Rakhri occasion. Dwelling upon his arguments, the learned counsel contends that the initial demand of the bribe money was allegedly made by the appellant on 8.8.1987, whereas he was on station leave on 8th and 9th August, 1987, as he had to go to his sister at Muktsar on the Rakhri occasion. The learned counsel then submits that the trap laid by the Vigilance Department on 10.8.1987 rests upon the evidence of most interested witnesses as the status of Baldev Singh complainant is that of an accomplice and the other witness namely Karam Chand (PW9) is a co-villager of the complainant and he too is a partisan witness, interested in the success of the case. Further the only independent witness to the trap was Kulwant Singh, who was joined from the Tehsil office by Inspector Harbans Singh (since dead) and has been given up as unnecessary. According to the learned counsel, the other official witnesses to the recovery can be termed as interested witnesses. In this eventuality, the independent corroboration to the trap is lacking. Strengthening his arguments in this regard the learned counsel has drawn my attention to the statement of Baldev Singh complainant (PW8) to the effect that he had met the appellant on the first Saturday of the month and not on the second Saturday. From this, the learned counsel wants to fix the specific date of initial demand i.e. 8.8.1987 and states that there cannot be any ambiguity in this regard. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel relies upon the decisions rendered in Darshan Lal v. The Delhi Administration, 1974(2) C.L.R. 611, Ram Parkash v. The State of Punjab, 1981 C.L.R. 159 and Balbir Chand v. State of Punjab, 1991(3) RCR 369. 24. Strengthening the second limb of argument, the learned counsel relies upon Ram Partap v. State of Punjab, 1975 CLR 200, Prem Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1976 CLR 366, Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 91, Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, 1991(1) RCR(Crl.) 351 and Ayyasammi v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 644, as also another unreported judgment in Ram Parkash v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 149-SB of 1992 decided on 16.7.2003. 25. 25. The next argument of the learned counsel is that the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant is also doubtful for the reason that there is no evidence led by the prosecution that Inspector Harbans Singh, the Investigating Officer, who was heading the raiding party, had not offered his own search before conducting the search of the appellant and for this reason the prosecution story becomes doubtful and the appellant is entitled to acquittal. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relies upon the decisions rendered in Tikkam Dass K. Dossani v. The State, 1973(1) C.L.R. 299 and State of Haryana v. Sudesh Kamal, 1991(2) RCR(Crl.) 641 (P&H). 26. The learned counsel has further submitted that all the orders of disconnecting the electric connection were passed by the SDO and the connection thereof was also to be restored by the SDO and as such there was no occasion of making any demand by the appellant from the complainant for the purposes of restoring the electric connection. He then contended that the disconnection was for a short span of 7 days only and ultimately, the connection was restored on 13.8.1987 on the orders of the SDO, as is clear from the evidence on the file and for this reason also, the case of the prosecution fails. While touching the flash back of the events, Mr. Gupta submits that Baldev Raj complainant is not having a very clean record and he in fact is either at the beck and call of the police, being its stock witness or was into the habit of falsely involving the officials in cases under the Act for certain ulterior motives. In this regard, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to the judgments of the Special Judge, Ferozepur in cases titled as State v. Sudesh Kumar and another and State v. Om Parkash (taken on record by way of additional evidence vide my separate order of even date passed in Crl. Misc. No. 50411-M of 2003) and submits that both the aforesaid judgments relate to the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, in which the accused have earned acquittal and that Baldev Raj complainant in one of these cases has been projected as a shadow witness, whereas in the other case he is the complainant. Misc. No. 50411-M of 2003) and submits that both the aforesaid judgments relate to the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, in which the accused have earned acquittal and that Baldev Raj complainant in one of these cases has been projected as a shadow witness, whereas in the other case he is the complainant. These two judgments reflect demeanour of the witness and this by itself is a good ground to discard the statement of the complainant, being most untrustworthy. 27. Lastly, the learned counsel contends that there are reasons with the complainant to falsely implicate the appellant and the version as set up by him is most improbable on the face of it. While drawing my attention to the relevant portion of the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, he submits that the specific defence of the appellant is that on the day of occurrence, at about 1.00 PM when he was taking meals in his office, Baldev Raj complainant came and forcibly put the money in his pocket; the appellant was in the process of throwing out the money and resisted; in the scuffle the glass of water lying on the table fell upon his clothes and pant; in the meantime Vigilance police reached the spot and took him into custody. The learned counsel submits that when the aforesaid infirmities in the prosecution case are seen collectively, the defence as set up by the appellant comes out to be most probable and it speaks volumes of his false implication. 28. On the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel prays for acquittal of the appellant. 29. Refuting the arguments, the learned State counsel submits that there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution story as all the witnesses produced in order to substantiate the charge are most trustworthy. It is then contended that even if Kulwant Singh has been given up as unnecessary, this fact by itself would not be a ground to doubt the prosecution story, which otherwise is getting support from another independent witness namely Karam Chand (PW9). The quality of evidence is to be appreciated and not the quantity, the learned counsel so contends. It is then contended that even if Kulwant Singh has been given up as unnecessary, this fact by itself would not be a ground to doubt the prosecution story, which otherwise is getting support from another independent witness namely Karam Chand (PW9). The quality of evidence is to be appreciated and not the quantity, the learned counsel so contends. It is then contended by the learned State counsel that even the two judgments (Annexures A1 and A2) are of no help to the appellant as both these decisions came after the conclusion of trial in the present case and even otherwise, the facts of those two cases were entirely different and cannot be imported in the instant appeal, which is to be decided on its own facts. From the totality of the evidence adduced, the appellant has no escape, the learned State counsel so contends. 30. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides at length and going through the entire evidence, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt and as such his conviction as recorded by the trial Court deserves to be maintained. 31. The first limb of argument of the learned counsel to the effect that the corroboration of first offer of bribe money is missing, merits rejection outrightly, being misconceived. The appellant, who was posted as Line Superintendent, Khui Khera, had visited the village of the complainant and had removed the cable of his electric connection. The case of the complainant is that he had met the SDO, Khui Khera in this context, who had asked him to see the appellant and thereafter he had met the appellant on 8.8.1987 and requested for installation of the cable. The complainant was a rustic villager. For him the appellant was all in all as the latter had disconnected his electric connection. Even otherwise, the concerned SDO had also asked the complainant to approach the appellant. Even if for the purposes of requesting the appellant for installation of the cable he had not taken any one from his village, in my view, it would not make any difference. He just went in routine to the office of the SDO and thereafter met the appellant on 8.8.1987. The complainant could not even think at any stage that a demand of bribe of Rs. He just went in routine to the office of the SDO and thereafter met the appellant on 8.8.1987. The complainant could not even think at any stage that a demand of bribe of Rs. 500/- would be made by the appellant for reconnection. Admittedly, the second part of the prosecution story, where the appellant accepts the bribe money is getting corroboration. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in this regard are not at all applicable to the facts of the instant case. In Darshan Lal v. The Delhi Administration (supra), on which the learned counsel relies heavily, the prosecution was resting upon the statements of two witnesses. Out of them one witness, who was projected as independent witness about the first offer, was declared hostile and the second witness was rejected, dubbing him as a partisan witness having a grudge against the accused, as certain complaints against that witness were investigated by the accused, being a police constable. In this eventuality, the whole of the prosecution case was doubted. 32. The other judgments relied in this context are again very easily distinguishable on facts. In Ram Parkash v. The State of Punjab (supra), the complainant was doubted on the ground that there was no corroboration to the earlier incident of demand for bribe money. In cross-examination, he had admitted that 52 persons had fulfilled the conditions for grant of loan and out of them 14 persons were, in fact, the land owners and the complainant had asked the accused to certify every application, stating that all the 52 persons are land holders, to which the accused had refused. In this eventuality, this Court held that, in fact, corroboration was required. The prosecution case was otherwise doubted in its totality and the defence of the accused was considered probable. However, in the instant case, I am not doubting the trap laid by the investigating agency and the defence set up by the appellant is also very weak. However, I will be discussing this part of evidence at the relevant stage. Similarly, the decision in Balbir Chand v. State of Punjab (supra) is also on different facts. 33. Much has been said regarding the station leave of the appellant on 8th and 9th of August, 1987. I have seen the leave register brought by the employee of the Punjab State Electricity Board. Similarly, the decision in Balbir Chand v. State of Punjab (supra) is also on different facts. 33. Much has been said regarding the station leave of the appellant on 8th and 9th of August, 1987. I have seen the leave register brought by the employee of the Punjab State Electricity Board. In the said register, firstly the name of one Bakshish Singh is mentioned and on the same page the name of the appellant is recorded. The register is blank after making the entry of station leave regarding the appellant on 8th and 9th of August, 1987. The name of Bant Ram, Junior Engineer is recorded on that page. In my view, the station leave could be entered in the register or even sanctioned after the alleged occurrence, as it is not at all difficult to do so. The categorical statement of the complainant is that on 8.8.1987, the appellant was present in his office. It is very common that the employees come to their offices for disposing of the pending work or even otherwise during the holidays. 8th of August, 1987 when the complainant met the appellant, was Saturday. The complainant was then asked to come on 10th of August, 1987 with the money. The plea regarding leaving of the appellant for Muktsar on 7.8.1987 on account of station leave, in my view, is all manufactured or entered in the register subsequently as the senior officers wanted to help him out. The statement of the complainant appears to be probable if tested on the touch-stone of reliability and the answer is that in case he had to falsely introduce a story of initial demand, it could be projected as of 7th August, 1987 (Friday) instead of 8th August, 1987 (Saturday). Suffice it to say, the trap was laid on 10.8.1987 (Monday). 34. The second contention of learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that services of independent witnesses have not been secured at the time of laying down trap, is also without any force in it. The statement of Baldev Raj complainant is corroborated by the independent witness Karam Chand (PW9). No doubt, he is from the village of the complainant but this cannot be a ground to dub him as interested witness. The complainant has categorically stated in cross-examination that Karam Chand PW is from other caste. The statement of Baldev Raj complainant is corroborated by the independent witness Karam Chand (PW9). No doubt, he is from the village of the complainant but this cannot be a ground to dub him as interested witness. The complainant has categorically stated in cross-examination that Karam Chand PW is from other caste. Karam Chand PW has also stated that the complainant is not from his brotherhood and he had no friendly relations with him. From this, it can be safely inferred that there was no relationship between Baldev Raj and Karam Chand and being co-villagers they knew each other. The discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, in my view, are very immaterial and have no adverse effect at all as these minor discrepancies are with regard to meeting of two witnesses at a particular place. The fact remains that both Baldev Raj and Karam Chand had gone together to the Vigilance Office. The statement of Karam Chand PW, who is a shadow witness, does not suffer from any inherent infirmity. He had no animosity of any kind for which he would come forward against the appellant. 35. Giving up Kulwant Singh as unnecessary by the State counsel in this case cannot be taken as an infirmity and it cannot be said that the trap laid lacks independent corroboration. In Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), (the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant), the Honble Apex Court has observed that in bribery cases it is the duty of the officers in anti-corruption department to secure independent and respectable witnesses of raid. In the instant case, in my view, Karam Chand PW is the most independent witness. 36. The decision in Ayyasammi v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In the said case, while acquitting the appellant, it was observed in para 2 of the judgment : "------There is no independent evidence to show that the appellant demanded Rs. 100/- as bribe from the complainant. The chemical solution did not inculpate him. The money was recovered from the drawer. There is no evidence apart from the complainant to show that the money was placed in the drawer by the complainant at the asking of the appellant. 100/- as bribe from the complainant. The chemical solution did not inculpate him. The money was recovered from the drawer. There is no evidence apart from the complainant to show that the money was placed in the drawer by the complainant at the asking of the appellant. Under the circumstance, we agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction is based more on probabilities than on the evidence proving the guilt against him beyond reasonable doubt." 37. The other judgments relied upon by the appellants counsel in Ram Partap v. State of Punjab (supra), Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (supra) and Prem Kumar v. State of Punjab (supra) are also distinguishable on facts. Similarly, in Ram Parkash v. State of Punjab, supra (unreported), it was observed by this Court that so far as the initial demand of illegal gratification is concerned, the independent witness could not be joined at that time as the complainant could not have imagined that such a demand would be made and, therefore, joining of independent witness at that stage was not necessary. So far as non-examining of the independent witnesses is concerned, though the same has been taken as infirmity in the prosecution case while relying upon the Apex Courts decision in the case of Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), no observation has been made on the conduct of the shadow witness. At the cost of repetition, in my view, Karam Chand PW in the case in hand is the most trustworthy independent witness of trap in which demand of bribe money by the appellant from the complainant, its acceptance by him and the recovery of the said amount from him is proved to the hilt. His statement is free from any adulteration. 38. The third contention of learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that the Investigating Officer should have offered his own search before conducting the search of the appellant also falls on the ground, when the entire trap is found to be honest and reliable. Inspector Harbans Singh, in fact, is the Investigating Officer in this case, who died before his examination in the Court. ASI Ram Lubhaya has stepped into the witness box as PW-10 and has reiterated whatever was done by Inspector Harbans Singh during investigation. Inspector Harbans Singh, in fact, is the Investigating Officer in this case, who died before his examination in the Court. ASI Ram Lubhaya has stepped into the witness box as PW-10 and has reiterated whatever was done by Inspector Harbans Singh during investigation. I have gone through the entire statement of this witness and do not find any infirmity on any count so far as investigation is concerned. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the investigation. 39. In a very recent judgment of Honble Apex Court rendered in T. Shankar Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2004(1) RCR(Crl.) 784 (SC) their Lordships have held that even if the trap witnesses turn hostile, the Court can convict the accused on the basis of evidence of complainant, official witnesses and the other circumstantial evidence. In the said judgment, their Lordships have also dealt with Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which reads as follows :- "4(1). Presumption where public servant accepted gratification other than legal remuneration. - (1) Where in any trial or an offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code or of an offence referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section 5 of this Act punishable under sub-section (2) thereof, 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 the said Section 161, or as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate." 40. Their Lordships while discussing the expression "may presume" and "shall presume" in context of Section 4(1) of the Act have observed thus : "Before proceeding further, we may point out that the expressions, "may presume" and "shall presume" are defined in Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the Evidence Act). The presumptions falling under the former category are compendiously known as "factual presumptions" or "discretionary presumptions" and those falling under the latter as "legal presumptions" or "compulsory presumptions". The presumptions falling under the former category are compendiously known as "factual presumptions" or "discretionary presumptions" and those falling under the latter as "legal presumptions" or "compulsory presumptions". When the expression "shall be presumed" is employed in Section 4(1) of the Act, it must have the same import of compulsion." 41. Their Lordships while dealing with the concept of gratification have elaborately observed that when the money is recovered from the accused persons, a memo. under Section 7 of the Act is obligatory and it is a presumption of law and casts an obligation on the Court to raise it in every case brought under the Act. The presumption is, however, legal presumption and it has to be by proof and not by explanation, which may seem to be plausible. In this regard, in the aforesaid judgment, the other judgments of Honble Apex Court rendered in State of Andhra Pradesh v. V. Vasudev Rao, 2003(4) RCR(Crl.) 917 (SC) and A. Abdul Kaffar v. State of Kerala, 2004(1) RCR(Crl.) 318 (SC), were also referred. In the afore-said case, taking into account the proposition of law and examining the factual position, the Honble Supreme Court upheld the judgment of conviction of the High Court. 42. Following the ratio of the aforesaid decisions I now advert to the defence of the appellant as emerges from his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and also reproduced in the preceding paras. The stand of the appellant is that on the day of occurrence, at about 1.00 PM, he was taking meals in his office when Baldev Raj came and forcibly put money in his pocket. He took out to throw and resisted. In this scuffle, the glass of water lying on the table fell upon his clothes and pant. In my view, the defence is most fragile and weak and cannot be taken into account at all. An attempt has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant to demolish the prosecution version from a stray statement made by ASI Ram Lubhaya (PW-10) in cross-examination, wherein he stated that when he reached the office of the appellant, his pant was wet. The pant could be wet on account of some other reasons also. The tainted amount has, however, been recovered from the pocket of shirt of the appellant. The pant could be wet on account of some other reasons also. The tainted amount has, however, been recovered from the pocket of shirt of the appellant. The shirt was removed and the pocket was dipped in the chemical solution and the same turned pinkish. From the evidence led by the prosecution, the bribe money is proved to have been recovered from the appellant. As such the presumption is against him. In my considered view, the appellant has not at all been able to rebut this presumption. 43. The two judgments, which have been taken on record by way of additional evidence, are again of no help to the appellant. I have gone through the said judgments minutely. In case titled as State v. Sudesh Kumar and another, Baldev Raj (complainant-herein) had appeared as a shadow witness at the time of trap laid by the Vigilance Department, on a complaint of one Parshotam Lal and the statement of Baldev Raj had been doubted by the learned trial Court on the ground that he has also appeared as a witness in an earlier case against Sardul Singh, Junior Engineer (the present case). In the aforesaid case Sudesh and his co-accused earned acquittal on account of inherent infirmities as also for want of proper sanction for launching prosecution. Thus, the said judgment cannot render any help to the present appellant as Baldev Raj-complainant, who has been doubted in the aforesaid case on the ground that he has also appeared as a witness in the instant case against Sardul Singh appellant. At the same time, Sudesh Kumars case has been decided much after the conclusion of trial in the instant case. 44. No doubt, in another case titled as State v. Om Parkash, the conduct of Baldev Raj (complainant-herein) has been doubted but in the said case also there were material infirmities which weighed with the mind of the Court for acquittal. The said judgment has also been passed on 13.1.2003, i.e. before conclusion of trial in the present case. Consequently from the aforesaid two judgments, no adverse inference can be drawn to doubt the prosecution case, as it is proved on its own facts. 45. The unequivocal and irresistible conclusion, thus, is that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the appellant to the hilt. 46. No other point has been urged before me from either side. 47. 45. The unequivocal and irresistible conclusion, thus, is that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the appellant to the hilt. 46. No other point has been urged before me from either side. 47. The sum total of the aforesaid discussion is that the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court is upheld. Resultantly, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 48. Since the appellant is on bail, as his sentence was suspended by this Court at the time of admission of the appeal, he shall now surrender to custody to serve out his remaining substantive sentence. Necessary steps shall be taken promptly in this regard without (sic). Appeal dismissed.