Judgment : PARTHA SAKHA DATTA, J. (1) THE learned Judge, 1st Special Court, howrah by judgment and order dated 04-02-2003 passed in Special Case no. 6 of 2000 convicted the appellant under section 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 2000/-with default stipulation under section 7 of the Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of rs. 3,000/- with default stipulation under section 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the said Act 1988 with the observation that both the sentences would run concurrently and the detention already undergone be set off under section 428 of the Cr. PC. (2) THE defacto-complainant Mohammad Suleman was a forwarding agent and his business was to book perishable goods with the railways for consignment to different destinations. The appellant was a senior despatch clerk of Howrah Parcel Shed No. 3 who used to demand bribe of Rs. 10/- per bag over and above the freight charge. The appellant told the complainant on 03-06-1999 when the said complainant came with 10 bags of green vegetables for despatch that henceforth in future he would take Rs. 10/-per bag and/or else no consignment would be booked. The complainant lodged a complaint to that effect with the CBI on 3-6-1999. CBI on 04-06-1999 at 7. 25 a. m. prepared a pre-trap memorandum explaining the manner of laying of post-trap memorandum. Complainant offered two 100 rupee denomination notes to the CBI which applied phenopthelene powder on the same. One of the witnesses was asked to count the notes and his both hands were washed in sodium carbonate water solution when the colour of the solution turned pink. Accordingly, it was settled that the complainant would approach the appellant with tainted two 100 rupee denomination notes and in this way the appellant would be trapped. On the next day i. e. 04-06-1999 at 09-30 a. m. the complainant along with one witness came to the accused for booking 20 bags of green vegetables from Howrah to Nagpur. Appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 10/- per bag and the complainant agreed. On the next day i. e. 04-06-1999 at 09-30 a. m. the complainant along with one witness came to the accused for booking 20 bags of green vegetables from Howrah to Nagpur. Appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 10/- per bag and the complainant agreed. Appellant asked him to come to stall No. 28 and after taking snacks from the said stall the appellant asked for payment and when the complainant handed over the two tainted notes of 100-rupee denomination CBI Officers encircled the appellant who then dropped the notes on the floor. The notes were collected, appellant was arrested and was taken to Station Managers office and his hands were washed in a solution of sodium carbonate and water which turned pink. Post-trap memorandum was recorded with seizure of the two notes and the solution containing sodium carbonate and water solution. After investigation charge sheet was submitted under the aforesaid sections of the law. (3) THE defence case was one of false implication. (4) IT is the evidence of P. W. 1 Mohammad Suleman that on 3-6-1999 when he had been to Parcel Shed No. 3 of Howrah Railway Station for booking 10 bags containing vegetables the appellant demanded rs. 10/-per bag and though on that day consignments were booked without payment of bribe the appellant told him that henceforth he would have to pay charge of Rs. 10/-per packet. He lodged a complaint with the cbi on 3-6-1999 itself (exbt. 1). Then there was a pre-trap arrangement on 04-06-1999 which has been narrated as above and then on the said day with the tainted notes the complainant came to the same place for consignment of goods and when the appellant asked whether money was ready for payment he answered in the affirmative and then he and the appellant came to the stall No. 28 of the New Complex of Howrah station and after taking snacks when he handed over the notes to the appellant the CBI officers surrounded the appellant and immediately thereafter appellant; threw away the notes on the floor which were lifted by the witnesses as also by the CBI. Then all came to Station Managers office. Appellants hands were washed and it turned to be pink. Pre-trap memorandum and the post-trap memorandum are Exbt. 3 and 4 respectively. Then all came to Station Managers office. Appellants hands were washed and it turned to be pink. Pre-trap memorandum and the post-trap memorandum are Exbt. 3 and 4 respectively. Seizure was made of two 100 rupee currency notes by the cbi after post-trap memorandum on 4-6-1999 (Material Exbt. I). Three bottles containing chemical hand wash were also marked (Material exbt. II collectively. The witness was cross-examined at some considerable length and what has been stated in the examination-in-chief was almost reiterated in cross-examination. Question was raised in cross-examination as to what prompted him to go to the CBI instead of lodging complaint with the DRM or the Chief Commercial Officer or the Howrah GRPs and it has come out in cross-examination further that prior to 3-6-1999 accused did not ask for any bribe from him and there was no allegation against the appellant by any person in that regard. In the cross-examination he has given the description of office room at which the appellant would work. There was a big table inside the Parcel godown where the despatch clerk sits with three porters. Like him there were many other forwarding agents on that day in the office and the complainant had been acquainted with the appellant for about four years prior to the incident. (5) P. W. 2 Sunil Kumar Prosad, a Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Directorate of Quality Assurance, Department of Supply, Nizam palace, Kolkata said that on 4-6-1999 he had been to the CBI office as per the direction of his Director where he met P. W. 1 Suleman and P. W. 3 Gandrap Lakra. P. W. 1 narrated to him the incident that had taken place on 3-6-1999 and then at 07-25 a. m. on 04-06-1999 this witness was made to touch two 100 rupee denomination notes in the office of the CBI after it was tainted with chemical powder and the colour of the chemical changed into pink. Chemicals were kept in bottles (Material exbt. II) wherein he signed. Then on 04-6-1999 he was taken to shed no. 3 of Howrah Station with P. W. 1. The appellant asked P. W. 1 to come to stall No. 28 and in this way story has been repeated. Appellants body was searched at Station Managers office and a sum of Rs. II) wherein he signed. Then on 04-6-1999 he was taken to shed no. 3 of Howrah Station with P. W. 1. The appellant asked P. W. 1 to come to stall No. 28 and in this way story has been repeated. Appellants body was searched at Station Managers office and a sum of Rs. 73/-could be found from his pocket and a seizure list was prepared therefor (Exbt. 6/1). Appellant was offered the bribe but when he was surrounded by the CBI officers he dropped the notes in the floor which was then seized. (6) P. W. 3 is Gandrap Lakra and he repeats the same story. He is also a witness to the seizure and the trap incident. (7) P. W. 4 Tarak Nath Biswas is a witness to the search in the house of the appellant by the CBI which resulted in recovery of some papers which were seized under seizure list (Exbt. 7). He does not know the details of the paper which were seized. He is not a witness to the incident. (8) P. W. 5 Tarak Nath Ganguly is a Supervisor in the Liner Godown, eastern Railway, Howrah on 4-6-1999. He was called to the officer of the station Superintendent by the CBI. He says that on that day the CBI officers seized some documents from shed No. 3, Parcel Officer, Eastern railway, Howrah under a seizure list (Exbt. 8). According to him the appellant was on duty on 3-6-1999 and 4-6-1999 as it appears from the attendance Register which was seized (Exbt. 9). There is also seizure of personal cash of the employee maintained by the Commercial supervisor and on 4-6-1999 appellant declared cash of Rs. 86/- at the time of joining the duty. The personal cash register is marked (Exbt. 10/1). (9) P.W.6 Ananda Sagar Upadhyay was at the relevant time section commercial Manager of Howrah Station who on 14-12-1999 accorded sanction for prosecution of the appellant. He says that he accorded sanction (Exbt. 12) after he had gone through carefully the papers produced before him and that sanction was accorded after he was satisfied with those papers. (10) P. W. 7 Samit Ghosh was an officer of the CBI at the time who narrated in details about pre-trap and post-trap memorandum and it is not necessary to again repeat what have been stated as above through the mouth of the other witnesses. (10) P. W. 7 Samit Ghosh was an officer of the CBI at the time who narrated in details about pre-trap and post-trap memorandum and it is not necessary to again repeat what have been stated as above through the mouth of the other witnesses. (11) P.W.8 S. K. Bhanja then Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption branch, CBI conducted a search in the house of the appellant on 4-6-1999 and recovered various articles under a seizure list (Exbt. 7). (12) P. W. 9 Joynarayan Rana is an Inspector of Police, CBI who narrated the incident of 4-6-1999 in great details concerning laying of trap, seizure of the money, and other articles and arrest of the accused. (13) P. W. 10 Biswanath Sorkhel also corroborates evidence of the witnesses. (14) P. W. 11 Saibal Kumar Tripathi, the officer of the CBI gives in details the incidents of 3-6-1999 and 4-6-1999. He is the principal officer concerning pre-trap and post-trap memorandum and he submitted charge sheet. (15) THE grounds of appeal are that the learned Judge failed to appreciate that the witnesses to the trap and arrest of the appellant were all interested witnesses and those witnesses were also the witnesses in the previous trap cases by the CBI, that there had been discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the matter of preparation of pre-trap and post-trap memorandum and also in the matter of washing of the hands of the appellant, that no independent v/itness was examined, that the examination of the appellant under section 313 Cr. PC was not in accordance with the law and accordingly the judgment and order impugned are liable to be set aside. (16) MR. Manjit Singh, learned advocate appearing for the appellant strenuously argued that it has come out from evidence of P. W. 1 that in spite of P. W. 1 having been acquainted with the appellant for four years before the incident the appellant never demanded bribe and even on 3-6-1999 no bribe was taken and allegedly the appellant told P. W. 1 that in future only he would charge Rs. 10/-per bag over and above freight charge. Therefore, it is submitted that no case of corruption could be laid out against the appellant till 3-6-1999. 10/-per bag over and above freight charge. Therefore, it is submitted that no case of corruption could be laid out against the appellant till 3-6-1999. It is submitted that the incident of 4-6-1999 is a got-up one registered by the CBI at the behest of the complainant who is not above board and who only wanted to get rid of the appellant from his employment in the Railway But the mere fact that before 3-6-1999 no bribe was taken by the appellant from P. W. 1 is no ground to say that the incident of 4-6-1999 has to be discarded. On 3-6-1999 P. W. 1 had approached the appellant for consignment of 10 bags of green vegetables and though the appellant demanded rs. 10/- per bag P. W. 1 did not oblige him with the money but was told by the appellant that in the future he would have to pay Rs. 10/- per bag. Then he directly went to the CBI office at Nizam Palace and lodged the complaint which we have reproduced above (Exbt. 1). Then after such narration was made, P. W. 2 and P.W. 3 were summoned on 04-06-1999 and in their presence pre-trap arrangement was made. It may be that p. W. 2 and P. W. 3 had been witnesses for the CBI previously in identical cases but by that it cannot be said that P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 had been made to depose falsely with no post-trap incident having at all taken place. But there is no evidence to that effect. It could nor be elicited from their evidence that they had acted as witnesses in any previous trap. But there is no evidence to that effect. It could nor be elicited from their evidence that they had acted as witnesses in any previous trap. On 4-6-1999 p. W. 1 as per arrangement had gone to Parcel Shed No. 3 for booking of consignments and the appellant asked him whether he had brought money and when P. W. 1 answered in the affirmative both the p. W. 1 and the appellant came to Stall No. 28 where both had enjoyed snacks and thereafter P. W. 1 made over two 100 rupee denomination notes which previously had been tainted with chemical powder and as soon as the appellant had touched the notes CBI officers surrounded him and immediately then the appellant threw away the notes on the floor which were picked up by the witnesses of the CBI and then the entire team along, with witnesses and the appellant were taken to the station Managers room where the appellants hands were washed and the solution in the bottle was seized along with the seizure of the money under seizure list in presence of the witnesses. This basic fact has been successfully testified to by P. W. 1, P. W. 2, P. W. 3, P. W. 7, P. W. 9, P. W. 10 and P. W. 11 and no amount of cross-examination could demolish their testimonies. The argument of Mr. Singh that in absence of independent witness trap evidence should not be believed is not acceptable because there is no reason to hold that P. W. 2 and P.W. 3 bear any inimical terms to the appellant or that the members of the CBI team would falsely implicate the appellant. As said above, that no bribe was taken on 3-6-1999 is of no consequence. Argument of Mr. Manjit Singh is that the seizure list should have been prepared in front of stall No. 28 and the owner of the stall No. 28 was the competent witness to the seizure. The argument does not bear any force, because that the accused was trapped and that he accepted two 100 rupee denomination notes on being offered by P. W. 1 could not be demolished. After the appellant threw away the notes he was taken immediately to the Station Managers room where seizure was effected and formalities were prepared. The argument does not bear any force, because that the accused was trapped and that he accepted two 100 rupee denomination notes on being offered by P. W. 1 could not be demolished. After the appellant threw away the notes he was taken immediately to the Station Managers room where seizure was effected and formalities were prepared. The argument that station Manager should have been made a witness and non-examination of the Station manager has vitiated trial is of no force. There is no evidence that Station Master was present in the room when the appellant was taken to and even if Station Master had been present in the room his examination was not necessary because he was not present in front of stall No. 28 when actually the incident had happened. The argument was that there was a long distance between the stall no. 28 and the Parcel Godown Shed No. 3 and there is no explanation as to why the trap was not made inside the godown when the appellant was working as a senior despatch clerk. The argument is of no avail. In order to trap the appellant he was brought to stall No. 28 and the appellant volunteered to come to stall No. 28 where both he and P. W. 1 ate some snacks with tea and after the refreshment was over the trap was executed. Exbt. 2 is the pre-trap memorandum prepared by the officers of the CBI in presence of P. W. 2 and P. W. 3. This is a vivid description as to how demonstration was given by S. K. Tripathi (P. W. 11). The number and denominations of the Government currency notes were mentioned. The details of how to lead the trap on the next day has been mentioned. This pre-trap memorandum was completed at 8-45 a. m. on 4-6-1999 and after it was completed the party left for Howrah Railway station in office vehicle. Exbt. 3 is the post-trap memorandum and it is not necessary for me to reproduce in details as to what had happened on 4-6-1999 because they have been reproduced through summarizing the evidence of the witnesses as above. Exbt. 5 is the sketch map which depicts the office of the appellant, and the place of occurrence which is in front of stall No. 28. Exbt. 5 is the sketch map which depicts the office of the appellant, and the place of occurrence which is in front of stall No. 28. Unquestionably, there was a considerable distance between Parcel Shed No. 3 and the stall No. 28 which is on platform No. 18 in front of gents urinal in Howrah New Complex premises. Exbt. 6 is the seizure list containing seizure of the notes, two bottles, documents etc. after the trap was over. Exbt. 7 is the seizure of some documents from the house of the appellant after seizure which is not relevant for our consideration. Exbt. 8 is the seizure of attendance register, and other registers of the Railway Parcel Office. Attendance register showed attendance of the appellant of both 3-6-1999 and 4-6-1999. (17) IN Hazarilal v. State of Delhi, AIR 1980 SC 873 it was held that where the evidence of the police officer who laid the trap is found entirely trustworthy there is no need to seek any corroboration. The evidence of the officers who laid trap could not be disbelieved in the instant case. For the same reason evidence of P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 who are the trap witnesses cannot also be discarded. With reference to the decision in state of Maharashtra v. Narsingh Rao Gangaram Pimple, 1984 SCC (Cri)109 it can be held that as P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 are not found to have any animous against appellant their testimony cannot be rejected. Minor inconsistencies are immaterial. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 SCC (Cri) 406 it was held that the testimony of a trap witness cannot be rejected merely because the witness had been witness for the prosecution on earlier occasion if evidence of the officers laying the trap is creditworthy. Their evidence can be acted upon even if the trap witnesses turned hostile. (State of U. P. v. Dr. G. K. Ghosh, AIR 1984 SC 1453 ). In Kamaljit Singh v. State of Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 1311 it was held that there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses the evidence of police personnel cannot be relied upon grounds they should not be looked upon with suspicion. (State of U. P. v. Dr. G. K. Ghosh, AIR 1984 SC 1453 ). In Kamaljit Singh v. State of Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 1311 it was held that there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses the evidence of police personnel cannot be relied upon grounds they should not be looked upon with suspicion. M. B. Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2001 SC 147 was held that the fact that public servant is found possession of currency note smeared with phenolphthalein is sufficient to draw legal presumption and the prosecution need not further prove that money was paid to public servant. The same was also the decision in M. W. Mahiuddin v. State of maharashtra, 1995 SCC (Cri) 546. (18) MR. Singh, learned advocate appearing for the appellant referred to the decision in P. Venkata Subbarao v. State. , 2007 Cri L. J. 754. This decision has been cited with reference to the point of sanction. According to the learned Advocate for the appellant the officer according sanction (P. W. 6) did not say in his evidence as to which papers he had carefully perused for the purpose of according sanction. It was not necessary for P.W. 6 to narrate in details the documents which he had perused before he accorded sanction. The decision cited is of no avail because in the reported decision the demand of bribe was made by four persons and documents showing involvement of person actually making demand was not produced before authority and in that context it was held that sanction granted to prosecute the accused was vitiated in law. Here the accused is one and the same. It does not come out from the evidence of p. W. 6 that no document against the appellant was produced before him. Therefore, the argument of Mr. Singh is not acceptable. Then reliance was placed in the case of Smt. Meena Balwant Hemke v. State of maharashtra, 2000 Cri L. J. 2273. This decision is in a completely different factual context. Here chemically treated currency notes were found lying on pad on table of the accused and recovery was not made from the person of the accused and it was held that charge under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 could not be substantiated. Here recovery was made against the appellant himself. Here chemically treated currency notes were found lying on pad on table of the accused and recovery was not made from the person of the accused and it was held that charge under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 could not be substantiated. Here recovery was made against the appellant himself. Then reference was made to the decision in Surendra Sahai v. State of U.P. 1977 Cri l. J. 1670 (Allahabad). It was a case where the Honble Allahabad High court found the evidence of the Vigilance Inspector not reliable and the inspector did not obtain any permission from the Consolidation Officer. The factual scenario is different here. Independent witnesses turned hostile. Evidence of the Vigilance Inspector was found not reliable and in that context it was observed that no permission was obtained from the Consolidation Officer. This decision is of no aid to the appellant. The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Narasimhachary v. State, Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Cuddapah District, 2003 cri L. J. 3315 was also cited. In this decision it was observed that even though trap-evidence is successful the Supreme Court had time and again sounded a note of caution that the circumstances such as the accused officers coming into contact with the tainted notes in the process of pushing the same from table or thwarting the attempts of the complainant to thrust the amount into the hands or pocket need to be taken into account. This decision does not apply here. It was not a case where despite unwillingness on the part of the appellant or without the knowledge of the appellant the tainted notes were thrust into the hand of the appellant and the appellant immediately reacted. The decision in Pooran Chandra Rastogi v. State of U.P. 1992 Cri. L. J. of Allahabad High court speaks of independent witness. This point has been discussed hereinbefore and the mere fact that P.W. 2 and P. W. 3 might be the witnesses in the trap case earlier do not make the evidence unreliable because there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P. W. 1 and the CBI officers. Presence of P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 during the trap is unassailable and they were the witnesses to both the pre-trap and the post-trap memorandum. Presence of P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 during the trap is unassailable and they were the witnesses to both the pre-trap and the post-trap memorandum. The decision in Raosaheb v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 (2) Crimes 80 does not help the appellant. Here the Bombay High Court allowed the appeal in a case under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of corruption Act 1947 but the main ground of allowing the appeal was that the witness did not corroborate the complainant. It was observed that when the prosecution evidence is clouded with such circumstances against the normal human behaviour then a reasonable doubt arises and it will be dangerous to act on the prosecution version. Here the manner in which the pre-trap and the post-trap incidents have occurred as are evidenced through evidence of the witnesses there leaves no room for doubt to say that the circumstances were against the normal human behaviour. The last argument of Mr. Singh was that the examination of the appellant under section 313 of the Cr. PC was not conducted properly and my attention has been drawn to the decision of kerala High Court in Dasan v. State of Kerala, 1987 Cri. LJ. The argument of Mr. Singh is that the accused is a Hindi speaking person but the learned Judge put the questions in English and there is no certificate by the learned Judge that the questions were interpreted to the appellant in Hindi. The argument is of no substance. The appellant is a senior despatch clerk of Eastern Railway, Howrah. He may have hailed from a Hindi speaking region of the country but he does not say that he does not know any other language than Hindi. He signed in the attendance Register in English, he made necessary entries in his office records in English, he signed in the post-trap memorandum in English. It is not the evidence that the accused used to write in his office document in Hindi. In his examination sheet under section 313 Cr. PC he put his signature in such a way that nobody can say that he somehow managed to write his name in English. The examination under section 313 Cr. PC was too much extensive and no question has been left out. The argument is rejected. (19) THUS regard being had to the facts and circumstances as well as evidence on record. The examination under section 313 Cr. PC was too much extensive and no question has been left out. The argument is rejected. (19) THUS regard being had to the facts and circumstances as well as evidence on record. I am of the judgment that the learned trial Court has correctly analyzed the evidence of the witnesses and did not commit any illegality in finding the appellant guilty of offence punishable under section 7 and under section 13 (1) (d) read with section 13(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act and convicted him of the charge. So far as the sentence is concerned it has been very moderate and I find no reason to interfere with the same. (20) THE appeal is dismissed. (21) THE appellant who is on bail bond shall immediately surrender to the learned special Judge, 1st Court, Howrah in connection with special Case No. 6 of 2000 to serve out the sentence within a month from the date of the judgment failing which the learned special Judge, 1st Court, Howrah will take appropriate steps against the appellant to have the sentence executed in accordance with the law. The bail bond of the appellant is cancelled. Criminal appeal dismissed.