JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal, J 1. The accused-appellant Surain Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') being Patwari of Circle Gudher Dhandi, having demanded a sum of Rs.300/-on account of illegal gratification for entering the mutation on the basis of the sale deed has been trapped by the Vigilance Department under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Consequently, he faced trial; convicted by the learned Special Judge, Ferozepur, vide its judgment dated 28.5.1996 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Briefly stated, the facts as unfolded by the prosecution, are that on 17.12.1990, Kehar Singh-complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') approached the accused in his office situated near Baghi Hospital, Ferozepur, for entering the mutation in the names of his sons namely Wasakha Singh and Darshan Singh, on the basis of the sale deed relating to 4 kanals land purchased by them from one Ahama Ram son of Mohna Ram resident of Village Gudhar Dhandi for a consideration of Rs.10,000/-. The accused demanded a sum of Rs.400/-as illegal gratification for entering the mutation from the complainant but the bargain was settled at Rs.300/-. As the complainant was not willing to pay the money, he approached Sohan Singh (a shadow witness) and both of them approached the Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur, where Babu Singh, Inspector Vigilance Department recorded his statement Ex.PF and took into possession three currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/-each and after applying pehno-phsthalene powder and after conducting the personal search of the complainant, handed over to him the said currency notes. Thereafter, he completed the formalities. Sohan Singh was deployed as shadow witness and he was directed to indicate after the accused accepts the illegal gratification. Babu Singh Inspector Vigilance Department, made his endorsement Ex.PF/1 on his statement Ex.PF and sent the same to the police station, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PR was registered at Police Station City Ferozepur. On their way to the office of the accused, they also joined Hari Singh, a Government employee as a witness and issued them directions as usual. On their way to the office of the accused, they also joined Hari Singh, a Government employee as a witness and issued them directions as usual. When the complainant reached the office of the accused, then the accused enquired from the complainant about the bribe money, which was demanded on the previous day, then the complainant responded in positive and handed over the aforesaid three currency notes to the accused. After the accused put the same into his pocket, Sohan Singh, a shadow witness indicated after going out of the office and the police apprehended the accused red handed. Inspector Babu Singh, after giving his identity arranged a glass tumbler and put clean water in the same and mixed sodium carbonate and made its solution. He got washed the hands of Hari Singh in the said water but the colour of the water did not change. Thereafter, when the accused washed his hands, then the colour of the water turned pinkish. Thereafter, Inspector Babu Singh transferred the said mixture into an empty nip and prepared its parcel, sealed it and took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PH. Thereafter, Inspector Babu Singh searched the accused and recovered three currency notes Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 from the front pocket of the shirt worn by him. After comparing the numbers of the currency notes with the numbers recorded in the memo Ex.PG, they took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PJ. Personal search of the accused was conducted. Documents recovered from him were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PK. He completed the other formalities; after recording the statements of the witnesses; got the sanction for prosecution of the accused; collected report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PT and challaned the accused. 3. The prosecution established its case by examining Jait Kumar, Naib Sadar Kanungo (PW1), Kehar Singh complainant (PW2), Sohan Singh Shadow witness (PW3), Inspector (now DSP Vigilance Bureau Ludhiana) Babu Singh (PW4). After tendering into evidence report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PT, the prosecution closed its evidence. 4. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication. He further stated that mutation regarding the land Killa No.16/1/3 could not be recorded because the said Khasra number was not in existence. The complainant Kehar Singh got corrected the sale deed from Khasra No.16/1/3 to 16/1/1 and got the mutation sanctioned afterwards. He further stated that mutation regarding the land Killa No.16/1/3 could not be recorded because the said Khasra number was not in existence. The complainant Kehar Singh got corrected the sale deed from Khasra No.16/1/3 to 16/1/1 and got the mutation sanctioned afterwards. He further explained that on the day of occurrence he never accepted the money nor he recorded any entry in the mutation register for mutation of said khasra number and Kehar Singh complainant had grudge against him as he had a common-boundary wall with Jagat Singh and Bhagat Singh. He had gone along with Kanungo for demarcation of the common boundary between the complainant and Jagat Singh and Bhagat Singh, on the application but Wasakha Singh son of the complainant stopped them from demarcating the common wall so he had recorded an entry in roznamcha and police help was sought for demarcation. He further explained that two karams of land was encroached by the complainant and he had to surrender 8 marlas of land and the complainant had quarrelled with him in his office on 8.12.1990 and a report was lodged in the roznamcha regarding this incident. He has further stated that the money was forcibly thrusted in his pocket which he was not accepting and in the mean time Inspector came and took out the money from his pocket as he had refused to enter the mutation on the basis of the sale deed Ex.P4 on the file. In defence, the accused examined Lal Chand, Patwari Halqa Gudhar Dhandi (DW1). The trial ended in conviction. Hence this appeal. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to establish : (a) the accused was a public servant and that he used corrupt or illegal means or abused the position as such; (b) he obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing for pecuniary advantage. 5. It has been often seen that due to inordinate delay in pendency of the trial, the witnesses turn their side and shift their stands and refuse to come at the help of the State but it is one of such cases where two witnesses stuck to their guns. Kehar Singh complainant (PW2) and Sohan Singh, shadow witness (PW3) have fully supported the prosecution case. Besides them, Inspector Babu Singh has also proved the recovery as effected by him from the accused. Kehar Singh complainant (PW2) and Sohan Singh, shadow witness (PW3) have fully supported the prosecution case. Besides them, Inspector Babu Singh has also proved the recovery as effected by him from the accused. No doubt, the prosecution has not examined Hari Singh an official witness but that does not in any way effect the prosecution case as on close scrutiny of the two witnesses, they have withstood the test of cross examination and Hari Singh was given up as won over. The trial court while holding that non examination of Hari Singh, an official witness, is insignificant, placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case Dalbir Kaur vs. State of Punjab, 1976 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 527, wherein it was observed that there is no duty on the prosecution to examine the witness who has been won over by the accused, as the accused could also try his luck while examining him but the accused did not choose to examine him as defence witness, but the prosecution has left him as won over. 6. It is not a case where the accused has denied the recovery of the currency notes, however, he has stated that the currency notes were thrusted by the complainant in his pocket but in the meanwhile, Inspector Babu Singh raided and recovered the money from him. He neither demanded the money nor he accepted the same, whereas demand and acceptance has been fully established by two witnesses. They had no enmity or animosity against the accused for implicating him in this case. No such evidence has been led by the accused that the complainant had put the money forcibly in his pocket. 7. Much stress has been laid on the DDR No.137 dated 23.11.1989 Ex.DA recorded by the accused in his register, vide which demarcation report of 8 karams of the land belonging to Kehar Singh on one side and Jagat Singh and Bhagat Singh on the other side was made and it was observed that 8 karams of the land was encroached by Kehar Singh. He has also taken me through another report No. 158 dated 8.12.1990 Ex.DB, recorded by the accused, wherein it was mentioned that Kehar Singh threatened the accused with dire consequences for effecting the demarcation against him, therefore, he has urged that the witness Kehar Singh complainant had animosity against the accused and implicated him in this false case. 8. In this regard, it may be mentioned that the demarcation took place as far back as on 23.11.1989, whereas the occurrence took place on 18.12.1990. The demarcation is not the final verdict regarding surrender of the land. The complainant could proceed to get it demarcated again and again, still Jagat Singh and Bhagat Singh had to go a long way to take possession of the said 8 karams, therefore, the said demarcation by itself is no cause for implicating the accused in the case. As regards the DDR No.158 dated 8.12.1990 Ex.DB, the accused never complained to his higher officers regarding the alleged threat given by the complainant. He also did not refer the said DDR to the higher officers. DDR having been recorded by the accused himself in the rapat roznamcha in his possession, could be said to be an admission in his own favour. It is also not established that this DDR was recorded on 8.12.1990 itself. Had it been recorded by him on that very day, then it would have been made part of the investigation. The said DDR appears to have seen the light of the day at the time of evidence. 9. As regards the other argument that the sale deed was with regard to Khasra No.16/1/3, whereas no such khasra number existed, therefore, mutation could not be entered. As such, the motive for implicating the accused fails and does not stand established. In this regard, it may be observed that the sale deed was no doubt for Khasra No.16/1/3. Be that it may, the sale deed was bearing wrong khasra number, yet, the accused cannot be said to have been falsely implicated as at the time of demand of money by the accused, neither the complainant knew that the sale deed was bearing wrong khasra number nor it is the case of the accused that he had verified about the sale deed and it was not bearing right khasra number and as such he could not enter the sale deed. At the same time, Patwari was duty bound to record the entry in the mutation register, which may ultimately be rejected by Mutation Officer, therefore, he certainly appears to have demanded money for making an entry. It is all the more probable that the accused may have demanded money for doing wrong act for a consideration. It is also well settled by now that when once it is established that a public servant accepted the gratification, which was not his legal remuneration, then burden shifts on him that the money was not accepted as a motive or reward and such presumption is rebuttable. It has been duly established on the record and as admitted by the defence that a sum of Rs.300/-was recovered from the pocket of the accused by the vigilance department, then onus shifts upon the accused to establish that the money so recovered was on account of legal remuneration but he failed to discharge the onus. Besides the admission of the accused regarding recovery of tainted money Ex.P1 to Ex.P3, which has been duly established by the witnesses and has been corroborated by Inspector Babu Singh (PW4), we have the evidence of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PT, which reveals that both the nips in question on analysis were found positive qua the presence of pehno-phsthalene powder. The other factor that Kehar Singh complainant (PW2) and Sohan Singh shadow witness (PW3) are related to each other is no ground to discard their testimonies. The day in and the day out,the character of the public qua the safeguarding of the State interest is receding for the reason that some times the State Agencies themselves stand by the accused to support his cause which they once had supported with vehemence, probably for the material gains or other considerations i.e. their own survival. But, here in this case, we have no reason to discard the testimonies of Kehar Singh complainant (PW2) and Sohan Singh shadow witness (PW3), who though are related and their testimony finds corroboration from the testimony of the Investigating Officer as well as from the Forensic Science Laboratory. 10. The day in and the day out, this gigantic problem of corruption in the public servants is on the increase. No facet of public activities has been left unaffected by the stink of corruption. 10. The day in and the day out, this gigantic problem of corruption in the public servants is on the increase. No facet of public activities has been left unaffected by the stink of corruption. Large scale corruption retards the nation-building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. The corruption is corroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralising the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post. The aforesaid view was taken by the Apex Court in case Swatantar Singh vs. State of Haryana, (1997) 4 SCC 14, which was further approved by the Apex Court in case State of M.P. vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar, (2007) 1 SCC (Crl.) 1. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.