JUDGMENT H.S. Bhalla, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.8.1995 passed by Special Judge, CBI, Punjab, Patiala, vide which he convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as “the Act”). The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 7 of the Act and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 13(2) of the Act and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. 2. A synoptical resume of the prosecution case is as under: The appellant was posted as a Mate at Railway Station Dera Baba Nanak. He was incharge of Gang No.9. One Makhan Singh, complainant, was working under his control as Gangman and doing patrol duty for the last about six months. The complainant was having 7/8 gangmen with him who were hired on labour duty. In December 1992, the appellant demanded an amount of Rs.200/- per month as illegal gratification from Makhan Singh, complainant on the pretext that if he wanted to remain on patrol duty. The appellant, being the in charge of Gang No.9, put Makhan Singh on patrol duty. 3. On 20.1.1993, the appellant met Makhan Singh, complainant at Railway Station Dera Baba Nanak and demanded illegal gratification from him for the months of December 1992 and January 1993 for allowing him to remain on patrol duty. The appellant deterred Makhan Singh that in case of his failure in fulfillment of the aforesaid demand, his duty would be changed. The complainant was not interested in giving illegal gratification to the appellant and made a false promise that he would give illegal gratification. Thereafter, the complainant approached Vigilance Inspector, namely, Tasbir Singh in the office of Vigilance Bureau at Gurdaspur and informed about the whole episode. Vigilance Inspector recorded the statement of complainant and the complainant appended his thumb impression in token of its correctness. Thereafter, a case was registered against the appellant. Thereafter, the complainant approached Vigilance Inspector, namely, Tasbir Singh in the office of Vigilance Bureau at Gurdaspur and informed about the whole episode. Vigilance Inspector recorded the statement of complainant and the complainant appended his thumb impression in token of its correctness. Thereafter, a case was registered against the appellant. Four currency notes of the denomination of Rs.1 00/- each were produced by the complainant before Tasbir Singh, Vigilance Inspector. Phenolphthalein powder was applied to the currency notes and the currency notes were handed over to the complainant after conducting his search. Currency notes were handed over to the complainant with an instruction to pass on to the appellant on his demand. Balwinder Singh was instructed to act as a shadow witness. The shadow witness, namely, Balwinder Singh, was also instructed to follow the complainant and further instructed to hear the conversation between the appellant and the complainant and give a signal to the raiding party in case the appellant demanded and accepted the currency notes as bribe. In the raid, another witness, namely Khazan Chand was also joined. The complainant and Balwinder Singh, shadow witness, were sent to approach the appellant. The rest of the members of the raiding party stood concealed at some distance. Thereafter, the appellant demanded the money from the complainant and accordingly the complainant handed over the money as bribe to the appellant on his demand. The appellant accepted the money and put it back pocket of his pent. Balwinder Singh gave a signal to the raiding party. Tasbir Singh, Vigilance Inspector, conducted a raid and apprehended the appellant. The hands of the appellant were dipped in the mixture containing the water of sodium carbonate. Resultantly, the colour of the mixture turned pink. Four currency notes each of the denomination of Rs.100/- were recovered from the back pocket of the pent of the appellant. In addition to the aforesaid currency notes, some other articles were also recovered from the possession of the appellant. After conducting the preliminary investigation, the same was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Sanction for prosecution was obtained from the competent authority. On completion of the investigation, the appellant was challaned and sent up for trial. 4. The appellant was charge sheeted under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) and 13(2) of the Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. Sanction for prosecution was obtained from the competent authority. On completion of the investigation, the appellant was challaned and sent up for trial. 4. The appellant was charge sheeted under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) and 13(2) of the Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. Prosecution in order to prove its case has examined Khazan Chand (PWI), Makhan Singh (PW2), Balwinder Singh (PW3), Constable Ramesh Kumar (PW4), Vigilance Inspector Tasbir Singh (PW5), Asstt Director Forensic Science Laboratory Bablinder Kaur (PW6), Sukhdev Singh (PW7), DSP, CBI Surjan Singh (PW8), Sudershan Tripathi, Permanent - way Inspector (PW9), Divisional Engineer, Jagdish Chander (PW10), Mohinder Singh (PW11) and MHC Sardul Singh (PW12) and after tendering some documents, closed its evidence. 6. The appellant-accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated that a false case was registered against him. He further stated that the complainant was known to the raiding party. He also stated that Tasbir Singh, Vigilance Inspector, Balwinder Singh and Khazan Chand foisted this case against him. He further stated that he had a dispute with regard to possession of a quarter with Makhan Singh, complainant, which he was illegally occupying. He opted not to lead evidence in defence. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 8. The record clearly spells out that Khazan Chand (PW-1) was associated in the raiding party, who was working as an Assistant in the office of Senior Medical Officer and in his presence, tainted currency notes were recovered from the accused, which was given by complainant Makhan Singh (PW-2). Balwinder Singh (PW-3) is a shadow witness and Tasbir Singh (PW-5) is the Vigilance Inspector, who conducted the raid and had recovered the tainted currency notes from the accused. I find from the statement of the complainant and as well as from the statements of these witnesses that their statements are consistent on all material particulars and they have stood to the test of cross-examination and in spite of searching cross­ examination, nothing of importance could be elicited in favour of the defence. They have proved beyond reasonable doubt the demand of illegal gratification made by accused from Makhan Singh (PW-2) as a motive for showing official favour to him in order to allow him to continue on patrol duty. They have proved beyond reasonable doubt the demand of illegal gratification made by accused from Makhan Singh (PW-2) as a motive for showing official favour to him in order to allow him to continue on patrol duty. Thereafter voluntary acceptance of the bribe money is also proved and ultimately recovery of the bribe money from the accused is also proved from the statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. The learned defence counsel has pointed out certain contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, but they were rightly not taken into consideration by the learned trial Court since they do not materially affect the case of the prosecution. The statement of Makhan Singh (PW-2) was recorded by the Vigilance Inspector. Makhan Singh gave the currency note of Rs. 400/- to which phanclphthallain powder was applied. The currency notes were then entrusted to Makhan Singh (PW-2). A memo was prepared in which the numbers of the currency notes were written. Both Makhan Singh and Balwinder Singh were instructed to approach the accused and to pass on the bribe money to him on his demand. Tasbir Singh, Inspector (PW-5) joined Khazan Singh (PW­ 1) working in the office of Senior Medical Officer and complainant handed over the bribe money to the accused. Balwinder Singh ( PW­ 3) witnessed it and he gave the appointed signal to the raiding party. Balwinder Singh (PW-3) then came to know that the accused had gone to Amritsar and he was to return by train. Accused got down from the train and was standing near the guard room. Makhan Singh met him there. Accused told to Makhan Singh that he was to go to the house of Mohinder Singh, who was living in the nearby village and that he would talk with him there. Accused left for the village and Makhan Singh followed him. When the accused reached near the house of Inder Singh, Makhan Singh gave him the currency notes of Rs.400/- and there is no discrepancy about the place where the bribe money was given and recovered from the accused. As already discussed above, the inconsistencies and discrepancies are liable to be noticed only if they go to the root of the case or they cause a dent in the prosecution version. Some discrepancies are bound to occur on account of lapse of time. As already discussed above, the inconsistencies and discrepancies are liable to be noticed only if they go to the root of the case or they cause a dent in the prosecution version. Some discrepancies are bound to occur on account of lapse of time. Normally, it has been seen that every witness on the scene of occurrence can not give an identical account of what happened and variations are bound to exist especially on account of lapse of time. Faced with this situation, the learned defence counsel submitted that the statement of Balwinder Singh (PW-3) does not inspire confidence and he was also declared as a hostile witness and during the course of cross-examination conducted by the Public Prosecutor, he supported the version of the prosecution, but this contention of the learned defence counsel is liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection. The record clearly spells out that Balwinder Singh (PW -3) due to weak mental state and sickness was unable to furnish the entire details, but subsequently when examined by the Public Prosecutor, he supported the prosecution on material aspects and that apart, he was cross-examined by the learned defence counsel, but he stuck to his stand and the case of the prosecution could not be shattered in any manner. Even if he was declared hostile witness, the entire evidence could not be discarded. The statement of Balwinder Singh (PW-3), if read as a whole, lends support to the statements of Khazan Singh (PW-l) Makhan Singh (PW-2) and Balwinder Singh (PW-3) and Tasbir Singh (PW-5). The statements of the prosecution witnesses in spite of minor discrepancies, inspire confidence and all the ingredients of the offence are proved from the statements. Makhan Singh (PW-2) has acted as a decoy witness and there is nothing on the file to spell out that he is inimical towards the accused. His alleged dispute with the accused regarding the possession of a quarter and demolition of a wall does not make him an inimical witness. The case of the prosecution is also supported by independent witnesses and they have no animosity against the accused so as to depose falsely against him. Statements of Sukhdev Singh (PW-7) and Sudarshan Tripathi, Permanent - way Inspector (PW-9) prove the duty of the accused. Accused was made in charge of Gang No.9. The case of the prosecution is also supported by independent witnesses and they have no animosity against the accused so as to depose falsely against him. Statements of Sukhdev Singh (PW-7) and Sudarshan Tripathi, Permanent - way Inspector (PW-9) prove the duty of the accused. Accused was made in charge of Gang No.9. Makhan Singh (PW-2) was Gangman under him and accused used to put Gangman on duty. He extracted labour work and patrol duty from the Gangman. Makhan Singh (PW-2) was put on patrol duty for the last about six months before the occurrence. The accused demanded illegal gratification from him in case he desired to remain on patrol duty in future. This demand was made in December, 1992. The accused demanded Rs.200/- for December, 1992 and Rs.200/- for January, 1993 and even if the duty register was not produced before the Court, it is not such a lapse that would upset the balance of the prosecution and the muster roll is available on the file. The presence of the Gangman is entered in the muster roll on the basis of which bill was prepared. Moreover, the accused denied that Makhan Singh (PW-2) did not work in his Gang. A payment of a sum to a public servant whether paid before or after doing of the official act, would constitute bribe within the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. Moreover, when a public servant is charged under Section 7 of the Act and he has, allegedly, accepted the illegal gratification for procuring an official act, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove whether or not the accused, who is a public servant, was capable of doing and intended to do such an act. Explanation under Section 7( d) of the Act clearly defines motive or reward for doing and it lays down that the person, who receives gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do or has not done, comes within this expression. 9. The prosecution has succeeded in proving its case and it is established that accused demanded and voluntarily accepted illegal gratification. The recovery of the bribe money from the accused is ­also proved beyond doubt. 9. The prosecution has succeeded in proving its case and it is established that accused demanded and voluntarily accepted illegal gratification. The recovery of the bribe money from the accused is ­also proved beyond doubt. The contention of the learned defence counsel that Tasbir Singh (PW-5), Vigilance Inspector, was not authorised, is again liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI brought to the notice of the learned Special Judge the general notification dated 9.7.1968 according to which, the Punjab State Government authorised Inspectors of Police to investigate the offence under the Act in the whole of the Punjab State. 10. I have gone through the law point quoted in the case of Des Raj Vs. State of Punjab, 1992 R.C.R. 382 and I find that the same is applicable to the facts of the case in hand. The Inspectors of Police were empowered to conduct investigation under the Act and there was no legal infirmity. The contention of the learned defence counsel that the sanction of the prosecution is not accorded by the competent authority is also liable to be rejected. Prosecution has examined Jagdish Chander (PW-10), Divisional Engineer, who proved the sanction order, Ex. PW -10/1 and his statement clearly spells out that he accorded the sanction to prosecute the accused after applying his mind to the facts of the case placed before him. Moreover, it was not suggested to this witness during the course of cross-examination that any other official was competent to accord sanction. Moreover accused offered no explanation at all in this case. Rs.400/- tainted money was recovered from him and he has totally denied the prosecution version and stated that this case is false, which was foisted by Makhan Singh, decoy witness in collusion with Tasbir Singh, Vigilance Inspector, Khazan Chand, recovery witness and Balwinder Singh, shadow witness. There is nothing on record to show that all these witnesses hatched up a conspiracy to involve the accused in this case. Makhan Singh (PW-2) had been passing in front of the office of Vigilance Department in connection with employment of his children in the Irrigation Department and it cannot be inferred that he had any liaison with Tasbir Singh, Vigilance Inspector, so as to join hands with him to foist this case against the accused. Makhan Singh (PW-2) had been passing in front of the office of Vigilance Department in connection with employment of his children in the Irrigation Department and it cannot be inferred that he had any liaison with Tasbir Singh, Vigilance Inspector, so as to join hands with him to foist this case against the accused. Khazan Chand (PW­ 1) and Balwinder Singh (PW-3) are not related to Makhan Singh (PW-2), nor they have any other links with him. There is nothing to be set right and no interference is called for and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. In view of the above discussion, appeal filed by the appellant fails and is dismissed. Conviction and sentence recorded by the Special Judge, CBI, Punjab, Patiala, is affirmed. ———————————-