Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1228 (MP)

Chandrabhan Kardam v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2009-10-29

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA, S.S.DWIVEDI

body2009
Judgment A.K.SHRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1. ) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4-7-2001 passed by learned Special Judge, Morena in Special case No. 3/1999 convicting the appellant under Sections 7, 13(l)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and thereby sentencing him to suffer one years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of three months, two years rigorous imprisonment and fine Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of three months, respectively with a further stipulation that both the sentences shall run concurrently, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ( 2. ) In brief the case of prosecution is that Dwarika Prasad Tyagi (complainant) submitted a written complaint on 16-1-1998 in the office of Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Gwalior that one public servant in order to get the loan sanctioned is making demand of illegal gratification. The Superintendent of Police deputed Inspector S. L. Rajoriya to do the needful according to law. Accordingly, said Inspector Rajoriya handed over one mini tape-recorder with a C. D. to complainant and a panchnama thereof was prepared. The complainant was tutored how to play and pause the said tape-recorder. The complainant thereafter recorded the conversion in respect of making demand of bribe by the appellant from him and threreafter the said tape-recorder was handed over by the complainant in the office of Lokayukt and a panchnama thereof was prepared. In the office of the special Police Establishment, the transcript of the recorded version of the appellant and complainant was also prepared. Thereafter, complainant submitted another complaint Ex. P/20 to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment on the basis of which a Dehati Nalishi was prepared and matter was referred for registration of the case to Bhopal. ( 3. ) In the complaint Ex. P/20, complainant made complaint that under the scheme of I. R. D. P. he submitted an application in the Block Office of Pahadgarh to obtain loan of Rs. 14,000/- for purchasing two she-buffaloes. The said block officer after preparing the case referred it to State Bank of India, branch Jaura in which appellant was serving on the post of Field Officer and the application is pending for its disposal before the appellant. 14,000/- for purchasing two she-buffaloes. The said block officer after preparing the case referred it to State Bank of India, branch Jaura in which appellant was serving on the post of Field Officer and the application is pending for its disposal before the appellant. It is also mentioned in the complaint that in order to get his loan sanctioned, the complainant met appellant several times, but appellant was making demand of bribe from him. On 16-1-1998 he (complainant) came to Lokayukt office and after discussion again went to Morena at the residence of appellant and met appellant who directed the complainant to come in the evening of next day with bribe of Rs. 3,000/- so that his loan may be sanctioned. Since complainant is not keen enough to give any amount of bribe and wanted that appellant should be caught red handed, therefore, he is submitting this complaint. ( 4. ) The Inspector Rajoriya wrote a letter to the Collector for sending two gazetted officers so that they may be made as panch witnesses. Accordingly, one Mr. M. S. Chaudhary, Deputy Collector and Mr. S. S. Tomar, Tahsildar, came in the office of Special Police Establishment as panch witnesses. The Inspector Rajoriya handed over the written complaint given by the complainant to these panch witnesses, who after going through it and making certain enquiry from the complainant found the complaint to be prima facie correct. These panch witnesses also made necessary endorsement in the complaint in that regard. ( 5. ) Thereafter, on being submitted by the complainant 30 currency notes having denomination of Rs. 100/- each, in total Rs. 3000/-, their numbers were noted down in pre-trap panchama. One constable Ramesh- wardayal applied phenolphthalien powder on these currency notes and Head Constable Veersingh after taking search of the clothes, which the complainant was wearing, kept the treated currency notes in the right pocket of his trousers. The complainant was pacified that he should not come in contact with the treated currency notes before handing it to the appellant. The fingers of the hands of the constable Rameshwardayal, who coated phe- nolphthalein powder on the currency notes, were dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate and on dipping the fingers, the colour of the solution turned to pink, which was collected in a separate sealed bottle. The fingers of the hands of the constable Rameshwardayal, who coated phe- nolphthalein powder on the currency notes, were dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate and on dipping the fingers, the colour of the solution turned to pink, which was collected in a separate sealed bottle. This demonstration was made in presence of the complainant and the panch witnesses and these persons were told that if appellant will take the treated currency notes in his hands, the particles of the powder will fall on his palm and if thereafter his hands are washed in the solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution would change to pink. ( 6. ) At 4:00 p.m. the trap party proceeded to Morena in which Dy. S. P. A. S. Bhadoriya, Inspector K. S. Sijoriya, R. N. Dubey Head Constable, Constables Veersingh, Ajbeer Singh, Naresh and Ravindra Singh were also included. The constable who applied phenol- phthalein powder in the office of the Special Police Establishment, his hands were got cleaned and he was left in the office of Special Police Establishment. The hands of the members of the trap party before they proceeded for the trap were subjected to phe- nolphthalein test, but the colour of the solution did not change. ( 7. ) The trap party arrived at Housing Board Colony, Morena at 5:00 p.m. Complainant was sent to the house of the appellant, but he was not found there since he had gone to market. The members of the trap party took their convenient position nearby the house of the appellant. At 7:30 p.m. appellant came to his house and thereafter complainant was sent after giving necessary directions to him and he was further directed that after the transaction of bribe takes place, he would rub his hands on his head, which would be the signal to the members of the trap party that the transaction of bribe has taken place. Constable Raghuvir Singh and Head Constable Veersingh were deputed at the gate of the house of the appellant. ( 8. Constable Raghuvir Singh and Head Constable Veersingh were deputed at the gate of the house of the appellant. ( 8. ) The complainant went inside the house of the appellant and after 5-7 minutes came out and gave signal to the members of the trap party and on receiving the signal Ravindra Singh and Veersingh, Head Constable, rushed inside the house of the appellant and they were chased by the panch witness M. S. Chaudhary and other members of the trap party. The left hand of the appellant from the wrist was caught by Ajbeer Singh while his right hand was caught by constable Ravindra Singh. The members of the trap party introduced themselves to the appellant and thereafter Head Constable Veersingh prepared a fresh solution of sodium carbonate in which the fingers of the hands of the appellant were dipped and on dipping the fingers, the colour of the solution changed to pink. The tinted hand wash of the appellant was collected in a separate sealed bottle. Thereafter, again a fresh solution of sodium carbornate was prepared in which the fingers of the hands of panch witness M. S. Chaudhary were dipped, but the colour of the solution did not change. The colourless solution was collected in separate sealed bottle. On being inquired from the appellant that where he has kept the bribe money, he (appellant) told that he has kept it in the left pocket of his shirt. Thereafter, panch witness M. S. Chaudhary took out the treated currency notes from the pocket of the appellant and their numbers were tallied with pre-trap panchnnama and they were found to be the same. These currency notes were seized and a panchnama was prepared. The treated currency notes were kept in separate sealed envelop. Thereafter, fresh solution of sodium carbornate was prepared and the fingers of the hands of the panch witness Mr. Chaudhary were subjected to phenolphtha- lein test which was found to be positive. The tinted hand wash of the panch witness was also collected in separate sealed bottle. ( 9. ) The appellant was directed to take out his shirt so that the pocket be subjected to phenolphthalein test. Indeed, thereafter pocket of the shirt of the appellant was also subjected to phenolphthalein test, which was found to be positive and the tinted wash of the pocket of the shirt was also collected in separate sealed bottle. ( 9. ) The appellant was directed to take out his shirt so that the pocket be subjected to phenolphthalein test. Indeed, thereafter pocket of the shirt of the appellant was also subjected to phenolphthalein test, which was found to be positive and the tinted wash of the pocket of the shirt was also collected in separate sealed bottle. Thereafter, the fingers of the hands of the complainant were also dipped in fresh prepared solution of the sodium carbonate and on dipping his fingers in the said solution, the colour of the solution turned to pink, which was collected in separate sealed bottle. ( 10. ) After the investigation was over, a charge-sheet was submitted in the Special Court. The learned Special Judge on the basis of the allegations made in the charge-sheet framed charges punishable under Sections 7, 13(l)(d)/13 (2) of the Act. Needless to emphasis, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence. ( 11. ) In order to prove the charges, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and placed Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/40, the documents on record. The defence of appellant, which he took during the cross examination of the proseuction witnesses as well as in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. is that he has been falsely implicated on the insistence of one J. P. Sharma and Raghuvir Kochar, who are after him. Further, explanation which the appellant gave in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. is that these two persons were insisting the appellant to do illegal acts and after 30- 11-1997 there was no recommendation of his to sanction the loan, therefore, all the persons became annoyed and were having hostile attitude against him. In support of his defence he examined Rajendra Kumar Gupta (DW-1), Deputy Manager State Bank of India, Govind Sharma (DW-2), Bank Guard, State Bank of India Branch Jaura, Rakesh Kumar Agrawal (DW-3), Branch Manager State Bank of India Branch Jaura and Janardan Mishra (DW-4), Shopkeeper and local resident of Jaura. ( 12. ) The learned Special Judge on the basis of evidence and other material placed on record, came to hold that charges are proved against the appellant and eventually convicted him and passed the sentence which we have mentioned hereinabove. ( 12. ) The learned Special Judge on the basis of evidence and other material placed on record, came to hold that charges are proved against the appellant and eventually convicted him and passed the sentence which we have mentioned hereinabove. In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing his judgment of conviction and order of sentence. ( 13. ) The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that in the present case the complainant submitted two complaints in the office of Special Police Establishment; they are dated 16-1-1998 (Ex. P/17) and 19-1- 1998 (Ex. P/20). So far as the first complaint (Ex. P/17) is concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel that although the case of prosecution is that appellant made demand of illegal gratification, but neither his name; the amount of alleged demand of bribe nor the cause for which the demand of bribe is being made has at all been mentioned and thus, the complaint appears to be fictitious. Further, it has been contended by learned counsel that on the basis of complaint dated 16-1-1998 (Ex. P/17), a tape recorder was handed over to the complainant to record the conversation of making demand of bribe and thereafter a transcript (Ex. P/33) dated 17-1-1998 was prepared in respect to the conversation which took place between the appellant and complainant in respect of making demand of bribe, but the second complaint dated 17-1-1998 (Ex. P/20) is not in consonance to the transcript and, therefore, the evidence of transcript is having no credential value. Learned counsel has also invited our attention to the testimony of complainant (PW-8) and has contended that in Court whatever has been stated by him, did not find place in the transcript (Ex. P/33). Apart from this, it has also been advanced by learned counsel that the tape recorded evidence, in absence of any scientific proof has no evidentiary value because unless and until it is borne out from the evidence that the voice which has been recorded in the cassette is the voice of appellant and the complainant, no finger can be pointed out on the appellant. ( 14. ( 14. ) By inviting our attention to the evidence of complainant and one Mahesh Chandra Gupta (PW-1), who at the relevant point of time was serving on the post of Gramin Vikas Prabandhak (Rural Development Manager), has submitted that the complainant never submitted any application for obtaining loan to purchase the two she-buffaloes, but he submitted an application (Ex. P/10) in the year 1997 to obtain loan of Rs. 20,000/- for opening a grocery shop, which was already rejected on 22-2-1997 i.e. prior to the posting of appellant in Jaura Branch, as he was posted there on 5-8-1997 and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to make any demand of bribe from the complainant. It has also been put forth by learned counsel that indeed appellant was made an instrument by one J. P. Sharma (PW-6), who was serving as Assistant Agriculture Officer in the State Bank of India, Jaura and was repeatedly insisting appellant to deal with the different application to sanction loan according to the whims of this witness and it was told by this witness to the appellant that his share will be given to him, but, the appellant was not accepting his offer and as a matter of fact, he also made a complaint about the attitude of this witness and his illegal activities to the Branch Manager by submitting a written complaint against him, which is Ex. P/7 on which action was taken by the senior bank officers. Learned counsel has also invited our attention to the evidence of Vijay Rajan, who was serving as Branch Manager in State Bank of India, Jaura Branch during that period. Learned counsel submitted that witness J. P. Sharma (PW-6) was given warning on the complaint, which was made against him by the appellant and, therefore, in order to implicate him falsely a concocted complaint was submitted by the complainant. In this context, learned counsel has also invited our attention to the evidence of defence witness Janardan Mishra (DW-4). According to learned counsel, indeed Janardan Mishra (DW-4) was acting like a mediator to get the loan sanctioned of the villagers through Mr. J. P. Sharma and because the appellant was not processing the applications according to the wishes of these two witnesses, therefore, he has been falsely implicated. ( 15. According to learned counsel, indeed Janardan Mishra (DW-4) was acting like a mediator to get the loan sanctioned of the villagers through Mr. J. P. Sharma and because the appellant was not processing the applications according to the wishes of these two witnesses, therefore, he has been falsely implicated. ( 15. ) It has also been put forth by learned counsel that the evidence of panch witnesses as well as the evidence of other witnesses is not at all reliable and on close scrutiny of the evidence of these witnesses, it is luminously clear that they are not worth reliable. According to learned counsel, the learned Special Judge has erred in placing reliance on the evidence of these witnesses and thereby convicting the appellant. By inviting our attention to the hallmark of the sanction to launch prosecution (Ex. P/30),it has been contended by learned counsel that the same has not been accorded in accordance with law. On the contrary, mechanically without application of mind jeopardizing the career of the appellant the same has been accorded. ( 16. ) Combating the aforesaid submissionn of learned counsel for the appellant Shri Bansal, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State, has argued in support of the impugned judgmet and has submitted that the case of prosecution is luminously clear and it is proved that appellant who was a public servant made demand of illegal gratification from the complainant and also accepted the same. According to learned Public Prosecutor, the demand of bribe and its acceptance has not only been proved from the evidence of complaint, but it has also been corroborated by the evidence of panch witness M. S. Chaudhary (PW-9). In support of his contention learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Hazari Lal v. The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1980 SC 873 : 1980 Cri LJ 564. Learned counsel has also submitted that since the treated currency notes were recovered from the possession of the appellant, therefore, Section 20 of the Act, which speaks about the statutory presumption of obtaining bribe by a public servant is attracted and it was for the appellant to explain that how and in what manner and under what circumstances the appellant has received the said money. Since there is no satisfactory explanation offered by the appellant, therefore, it will be presumed that he has accepted the bribe money. ( 17. Since there is no satisfactory explanation offered by the appellant, therefore, it will be presumed that he has accepted the bribe money. ( 17. ) So far as the valid sanction to launch prosecution is concerned, learned counsel has submitted that the sanction (Ex. P/30) has been accorded after due application of mind and even for the sake of argument, in absence of showing any prejudice by the appellant, if for one or other reasons, the same is found to be not valid, appellant would not be entitled for any advantage and in this context learned Public Prosecutor has invited our attention to Section 19 of the said Act. ( 18. ) Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be partly allowed. ( 19. ) So far as the first point which learned counsel for the appellant has put emphasis in respect to the credential value of the tape recorded version and transcript is concerned, according to us, since the prosecution did not submit any scientific proof that the cassette containing the tape recorded voice is of appellant and complainant, no reliance can be attributed to this electronic evidence. As a matter of fact, just like an admitted signature is sent to compare with the disputed signature to the handwriting expert for obtaining its opinion, in the similar manner in order to prove the authenticity and hallmark of the tape recorded version it was for the investigating agency to record the specimen and admitted voice of the appellant and complainant and it should have been sent to the expert to compare the disputed voice recorded in the cassette with the admitted voice of the appellant and complainant and then only any reliability on the tape recorded evidence could be attributed. The investigatig agency has totally deviated from this procedure and, therefore, according to us, the electronic evidence is not at all helpful to the prosecution. ( 20. ) Merely because the prosecution is unsuccessful in proving the electronic evidence against the appellant it cannot be said that its case is totally failed. The investigatig agency has totally deviated from this procedure and, therefore, according to us, the electronic evidence is not at all helpful to the prosecution. ( 20. ) Merely because the prosecution is unsuccessful in proving the electronic evidence against the appellant it cannot be said that its case is totally failed. If the prosecution is able to prove the demand of bribe made by appellant and its acceptance by other cogent evidence, certainly appellant can be convicted unless and until it is shown by him that the evidence of prosecution witness particularly the evidence of complainant and panch witness is not at all reliable. ( 21. ) The status of complainant in the eye of the law is that of an accomplice, but the conviction cannot be said to be illegal because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, if his evidence is otherwise found to be clear, cogent and trustworthy. The opening words of Section 133 of the Evidence Act are that an accomplice is a competent witness, which would mean that conviction can be based on its sole testimony provided his evidence is trustworthy. However, illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act says that the evidence of an accomplice is not worthy of credit unless it is corroborated in material particulars. If we keep both these provisions in juxtaposition to each other and on reading these provisions conjointly, we find that corroboration of the evidence of an accomplice is the rule of prudence and it is universally followed and, therefore, from the beginning the law has been developed that it is always unsafe to act upon the solitary testimony of an accomplice unless it is corroborated in material terms so as to implicate the accused. Thus, in order to reach any conclusion it is on the safer side to have corroboration of the evidence of an accomplice. ( 22. ) True, as it is borne out from the record that the appellant was posted in State Bank of India Branch at Jaura on 5-8-1997 and earlier to this date the application to sanction loan (Ex. P/10) of the complainant was already rejected on 22-2-1997. In this context, para 4 of the testimony of Branch Manager, Mahesh Chandra Gupta (PW-1) may be seen. On going through the application to obtain loan (Ex. P/10) of the complainant was already rejected on 22-2-1997. In this context, para 4 of the testimony of Branch Manager, Mahesh Chandra Gupta (PW-1) may be seen. On going through the application to obtain loan (Ex. P/10) of the complainant, this Court finds that he submitted an application to obtain loan of Rs. 20,000/- in order to open a grocery shop while in the complaint (Ex. P/20) dated 17-1-1998 it has been complained by the complainant that he submitted an application to obtain loan of Rs. 14,000/- to purchase two she-buffaloes. The loan was not sanctioned and the application (Ex. P/10) was returned to the Block Development Office on 22-2-1997, because the loan which the complainant took earlier before submitting application (Ex. P/10), was not repaid by him. Hence, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that there was no occasion for the appellant to make the demand of bribe and to accept it, although appears to be quite attractive, however, on deeper scrutiny found to be devoid of any substance, because if we go through the evidence of complainant (PW-8), we find that he is literate up to 8th standard only. This witness is from rural area and we can admire that what is the standard of literacy if a student is educated up to 8th standard in village environment and for this reason frankly this witness has admitted in para 15 of his cross examination that he cannot read properly and can write up to certain extent only. Further he says in the same para that the format to obtain loan (Ex. P/10) was not filled by him, but the same was filled by Gramsevak Mahavir and on the said format he simply put his signature. Further he has stated that he put his signature on the blank form which was filled by Gramsevak Mahavir at his house. It is also borne out from para 15 of his testimony that he told Mahavir that he is desirous to purchase she-buffallo and for that purpose format (Ex. P/10) may be filled. Not only this, he also told Mahavir that Rs. 14,000/- will be required by him to purchase she -buffalo. In para 17 of his cross examination this witness has stated that after handing over the form to obtain loan (Ex. P/10) to Mahavir he never went to Block Office, Pahadgarh. P/10) may be filled. Not only this, he also told Mahavir that Rs. 14,000/- will be required by him to purchase she -buffalo. In para 17 of his cross examination this witness has stated that after handing over the form to obtain loan (Ex. P/10) to Mahavir he never went to Block Office, Pahadgarh. Further, he says that he has no knowledge that where and in which office Mahavir submitted the said form. Although he has admitted that Mahavir informed him that his form has been submitted in the Bank. On close scrutiny of para 17 of the cross examinaton of complainant, we find that said Gramsevak Mahavir informed complainant that his (complainants) form to obtain loan is with one Bank employee Mr. Joshi and when complainant met Mr. Joshi, he informed that the target to disburse the loan of the Bank is over and, therefore, in the next year only the form of the complainant to obtain loan will be taken into consideration. We have also seen the requisite form (Ex. P/10) at this juncture and we find that No. 136 dated 22-1-1997 has been mentioned and, therefore, we can infer that one Mr. Joshi of the Bank informed the complainant that his application to obtain loan will be considered in next year (in the year 1998). It is relevant to mention here that the date of trap is 17-1- 1998. ( 23. ) On going through the entire statement of the complainant, we find that nowhere it was informed to him that his loan was not sanctioned on account of non payment of his earlier loan, which was still subsisting. Hence, according to us, the complainant was having an impression that his application to obtain loan (Ex. P/10) is with the Bank. Had it been confronted to the complainant in his cross examination that his application to obtain loan was not allowed and if he would have answered in affirmative, in that situation the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant could have been accepted that there was no occasion for the appellant to make demand of bribe from the complainant. In cross examination para 18 complainant is saying that in the next year when he went to the Bank, he found that Mr. Joshi has been transferred and in his place appellant has been posted. In cross examination para 18 complainant is saying that in the next year when he went to the Bank, he found that Mr. Joshi has been transferred and in his place appellant has been posted. According to the complainant, he met appellant 2-4 days earlier to the festival of Sankranti (I4th January). It would be relevant to mention here that the date of trap is 17-1-1998 viz. three days after the festival of Sankranti. According to the complainant, when he met appellant in the Bank, he (appellant) did not show his form to obtain loan, on the contrary he told that the cases to disburse loan of the village of complainant are being dealt in his Branch and in case the complainants form is there it will also be processed. Thus, it can be inferred by us that neither complainant was informed that his loan has not been sanctioned nor appellant was knowing that the loan of complainant has not been sanctioned since his (complainants) earlier loan is still subsisting and therefore, according to us, the motive in the present case to obtain bribe by the appellant is very much there and there is nexus between the performance of official duty and the demand and acceptance of bribe. ( 24. ) We also did not find any merit in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that in the complaint (Ex. P/20) dated 17-1-1998 the complainant has made complaint that appellant is making demand of illegal gratification for sanctioning the loan in respect to she-buffalo while application to obtain loan (Ex. P/10) is for the purpose to obtain loan to open the grocery shop, because in para 15 and 17 of the cross-examination of the complainant, we find that he (complainant) only put his signature on the blank form to obtain loan and the same was filled by Gramsevak Mahavir and was also submitted by said Gramsevak in the Bank. It is a matter of common parlance that in village on account of illiteracy usually filling the form to obtain loan etc. is not being done by the person for whose benefit the said form is being filled and this task is done by Sarpanch, Upsarpanch, Gramsevak, School Teacher etc. in whom the villagers are having full confidence and faith. Thus, if in the present case the requisite form to obtain loan (Ex. is not being done by the person for whose benefit the said form is being filled and this task is done by Sarpanch, Upsarpanch, Gramsevak, School Teacher etc. in whom the villagers are having full confidence and faith. Thus, if in the present case the requisite form to obtain loan (Ex. P/10) of the complainant was filled by Gramsevak and if the Gramsevak filled the purpose of obtaining loan to open a grocery shop, since complainant gave the blank form to the Gramsevak, therefore, he (complainant) was under impression that the purpose to purchase she-buffalo must have been mentioned in the form (Ex. P/10) and, therefore, if in the complaint (Ex. P/20) the complainant has mentioned that he has applied to obtan loan to purchase two she-buffaloes, looking to the facts and circumstances and the evidence placed on record, it will not somersault the case of the prosecution. ( 25. ) Specifically the complainant is saying in his testimony that appellant made demand of bribe of Rs. 3,000/- from him to get the loan sanctioned. We have already held hereinabove after marshalling the evidence that appellant and complainant both were unaware that the application to obtain loan has yet to be processed and both of them were unaware that on account of subsistence of earlier loan of the complainant the loan of complanant has not been sanctioned, and therefore, appellant was under impression that the application to obtain loan is still pending. From the evidence of the Bank officers, namely, Mahesh Chandra Gupta (PW- 1), Rambahadur Singh Tomar (PW-3), Vijay Rajan (PW-5) and J. P. Sharma (PW-6) no- where it is gathered that it was in the knowledge of appellant that the application /form (Ex. P/10) of complainant to obtain loan has already been processed and loan has not been sanctioned. This point was also not confronted in cross examination to these witnesses. ( 26. ) On going through the testimony of the complainant, we find that in his presence pre- demonstration of the change of colour of the solution of sodium carbonate on coming into contact with the phenolphthalein powder was made and the currency notes coated by phenolphthalein powder were kept in his pocket with a direction that he should not come in contact with the treated currency notes til the demand of bribe is made by the appellant. In para 8 of his testimony the complainant has specifically stated that in between 3-4 p.m. the trap party proceeded to Morena in two Government vehicles and arrived in the Housing Board Colony where appellant was residing. The complainant was sent to the house of the appellant in order to ascertain whether he is in his house or not. The children of the appellant told that appellant had gone to the market. The appellant came near about 6.30 to 7.00 p.m. to his residence. Thereafter, the complainant along with one constable again went to the house of appellant and knocked the door. On being asked by the appellant that who is there, in answer to it appellant spoke his name. Thereafter, appellant asked whether he has brought the money, on this, complainant replied that yes he has brought the money. Further, when appellant asked that who is the other person with him, the complainant introduced the constable to be his uncles son. This conversation took place between appellant and complainant at the gate of his house. ( 27. ) In para 9 this witness further says that thereafter complainant requested him to come inside the room and thereafter on being demanded by the appellant the complainant took out the treated currency notes from the pockef of his trousers and handed over the same to the appellant, which he kept in the pocket of his shirt after counting it. Appellant also offered a cup of tea, but the complainant did not accept the offer and told that he is not feeling well and immediately came outside and gave the signal to the members of the trap party. On receiving the signal the members of the trap party rushed inside the house of the appellant and one constable caught hold the hands of the appellant tightly. Thereafter, the fingers of the hands of the appellant were dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate and on dipping his fingers the colour of the solution turned to pink, which was collected in a separate sealed bottle. ( 28. Thereafter, the fingers of the hands of the appellant were dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate and on dipping his fingers the colour of the solution turned to pink, which was collected in a separate sealed bottle. ( 28. ) Complainant further says in para 10 that the hands of one person was washed in the solution of sodium carbonate, but the colour did not change and thereafter that person took out the treated currency notes from the pocket of the appellant and by showing those currency notes to the complainant to ascertain that whether they are the same currency notes and when the complainant gave answer in affirmative, the hands of the that person were subjected to phenolphthalein test, which was found to be positive. The tinted hand wash of that witness was also collected in a separate sealed bottle. ( 29. ) Thereafter , shirt of the appellant was took off and the pocket of that shirt was also subjected to phenolphthalein test, which was found to be positive and the tinted wash of the pocket of the shirt was also collected in a separate sealed bottle. On different sealed bottles, signatures of the complainant were obtained. ( 30. ) True, in para 27 of his cross examination the complainant is admitting that on the complaint being made by the appellant earlier to the incident, a case against Hemendra Sharma, J. P. Sharma and Raghuvir is pending in special Court established under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. But, according to us, this would not mean that appellant did not make any demand of bribe. In cross examination in respect to keeping the treated currency notes by the appellant in his pocket is made in para 39 and 40, but nothing is carved out from the entire evidence of the complainant that appellant did not make demand of bribe and accepted the same. The averments made in the examination in chief by the complainant that appellant made demand of bribe of Rs. 3,000/- and accepted the same, has not been dismantled in cross examination. Hence, in the present case according to us, there is clear evidence of the complainant although his status is that of an accomplice, that appellant made demand of bribe and when the bribe amount of Rs. 3,000/- and accepted the same, has not been dismantled in cross examination. Hence, in the present case according to us, there is clear evidence of the complainant although his status is that of an accomplice, that appellant made demand of bribe and when the bribe amount of Rs. 3,000/- was given to him, he (appellant) after accepting and counting the same kept the bribe money in his pocket. ( 31. ) Although the evidence of complainant is luminously clear like a noon day and, therefore, the conviction of appellant can be accorded merely on the basis of the evidence of the complainant without any corroboration in view of Section 133 of the Evidence Act, but in the present case the evidence of complainant is also corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses. Ajbeer Singh (PW-11) is a constable in the office of Lokayukt police and this witness was sent as a surveillance witness alongwith complainant to over hear and to see how and in what manner the transaction of bribe is taken place. The complainant is also saying that one constable was sent with him and when appellant put query about his introduction, he was introduced as his cousin brother by the complainant. According to Ajbeer Singh (PW-11), he alongwith complainant went to the house of the appellant and the complainant Dwarika Prasad knocked the door of the house of appellant and the door was opened by appellant himself. Thereafter, on seeing the complainant, he was requested to come inside the room by the appellant, where appellant enquired about the money and thereafter, complainant took out the treated currency notes from his pocket and handed it over to the appellant, which he kept in the pocket of his shirt. Thereafter, appellant came outside the room and gave signal to the members of the trap party. Thereafter, this witness has stated that as soon as the members of the trap party came inside the room this witness caught hold the left hand while constable Ravindra caught hold right hand of the appellant. This witness has also proved the phenolphthalein powder test conducted on the appellant, complainant and the panch witness who took out the treated currency notes from the pocket of the appellant. This witness has also proved the phenolphthalein powder test conducted on the appellant, complainant and the panch witness who took out the treated currency notes from the pocket of the appellant. In para 6 of his cross examination this witness specifically says that after counting the treated currency notes appellant kept it in his pocket and when the members of the trap party entered inside the room of the house of the appellant, then only he caught hold of his hand. ( 32. ) At this juncture, we would also like to scan the testimony of panch witness Dy. Collector M. S. Chaudhary (PW-9). According to this witness, on receiving the signal given by the complainant that transaction of bribe has taken place this witness who was one of the member of the trap party rushed inside the house of the appellant and found that the constable had caught hold the hands of the appellant and thereafter phenolphthalein test was conducted on the fingers of the hands of the appellant and on dipping his fingers the colour of the solution of the sodium carbonate changed to pink. The tinted hand wash of the appellant was collected in separate sealed bottle and a label was pasted on the said bottle on which he signed. Thereafter, a fresh solution of sodium carbonate was prepared and the fingers of the hands of this panch witness were dipped, but the colour of the solution did not change. Thereafter, this witness took out the treated currency notes from the pocket of the appellant and their numbers were tallied with the pre-trap panchnama, which were found to be the same and the treated currency notes were kept in a sealed cover. Thereafter, shirt of the appellant was taken off and the pocket of shirt was also subjected to the phenolphthalein test, which was found to be positive. The tinted wash of the pocket of the shirt was also collected in a separate sealed bottle and the signature of this witness was obtained on the label which was pasted on the bottle. Thereafter, the fingers of the hands of this witness was also subjected to phenolphthalien test, which was found to be positive and the tinted hand wash of this witness was also collected in separate sealed bottle. ( 33. Thereafter, the fingers of the hands of this witness was also subjected to phenolphthalien test, which was found to be positive and the tinted hand wash of this witness was also collected in separate sealed bottle. ( 33. ) On close scrutiny of the prosecutions aforesaid witnesses, there is no hair escape in order to infer that appellant has been falsely implicated because he made com- plaint against Bank employees J. P. Sharma (PW-6), although on the complaint being made by the complainant against this witness some action was taken by the Bank officials against Mr. Sharma. ( 34. ) There is overwhelming evidence that appellant made demand of bribe of Rs. 3,000/ - from the complainant and the bribe money according to the scheme of the trap was handed over by the complainant to the appellant. The treated currency notes were also recovered from the possession of the appellant since they were found in the pocket of his shirt and, therefore, it is proved that appellant was in possession of the bribe money and if that is the position, it was for him to explain that how he has received the money in view of statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act that he has accepted the illegal remuneration. In the present case no satisfactory explanation has been offered by the appellant and, therefore, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the said Act is also against the appellant. The Supreme Court in Girja Prasad (dead) by LRs. v. State of M. P., (2007) 7 SCC 625 : ( AIR 2007 SC 3106 ) while considering the scope of Section 4 and Section 4(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947 (equivalent provisions of Sections 20, 13(1 )(d)/13(2) of the Act) has categorically held in paras 22 and 23 that once it is established that the accused was possessing the bribe money, it was for him to explain that how the bribe money has been received by him and if he fails to offer satisfactory explanation, it will be presumed that he has accepted the bribe. The decision of Girja Prasad (supra) is squarely applicable in the present factual scenario. The decision of Girja Prasad (supra) is squarely applicable in the present factual scenario. In another decision, State of Maharashtra v. Rashid B. Mulani, (2006) 1 SCC 407 : ( AIR 2006 SC 825 ); 2006 Cri LJ 794) the explanation given by the accused that he received the bribe money from the complainant as payment towards government expenses, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, the explanation was not found to be reasonable and probable and it was held by the Supreme Court that the accused has been rightly convicted. In the present case there is no probable explanation advanced by the appellant and, therefore according to us, the decision of Rashid B. Mulani (supra) is also applicable in the present case. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in B. Hanumantha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1992 Cri LJ 1552 is also applicable in the present case. Near about three decades ago the Supreme Court in Hazarilal (Supra) held that it is not necessary to prove that the accused has made demand of bribe and accepted the same by adducing direct evidence, this can also be inferred even by the circumstantial evidence. However, the present case is rather on better footing because the demand of bribe of Rs. 3,000/- made by appellant and its acceptance is not only proved by the direct evidence of the complainant, but by the evidence of surveillance witness Ajbeer Singh also the factum of making demand of bribe and its acceptance is proved. ( 35. ) Now-a-days corruption is spreading just like cancer in the society. The practice of giving and demanding bribe is a social offence having its serious effect in a healthy society. The impression in the public at large is that without giving bribe, a public servant would not discharge the lawful duty which he is otherwise required to discharge. This type of practice being adopted by the public servant is to be strictly condemned. The misuse of power while discharging their public duty and intention of demanding or /and accepting the bribe by a public servant is just like a disease of cancer in the society and, therefore, when it is proved that a public servant by misusing his power and position by adopting corrupt means had made demand of bribe, suitable sentence should be awarded. ( 36. ( 36. ) We have also gone through the reasoning assigned by learned Special Judge holding the appellant to be guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1 )(d)/ 13(2) of the Act and we find that the reasons so assigned by learned Special Judge are cogent and are based on correct appreciation of the evidence and thus by this judgment we hereby extend our stamp of approval to the finding of the learned Special Judge and we hereby affirm the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7, 13(l)(d) /13(2) of the Act. ( 37. ) However, we would like to interfere in the quantum of sentence. The incident had occurred near about 12 years ago since it occurred on 16-1-1998. The case was tried before learned Special Judge for more than three and half years and the appeal is pending for last eight years before this Court. The age of accused is now near about 54 years and when the incident occurred his age was near about 43 years. The appellant appears to be a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community coming from poor background and has a family to support. In this view of the matter, we hereby interfere in the quantum of custodial sentence of two years awarded by the learned Special Judge to the appellant under Section 13(2) of the Act and reduce it to one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment of three months. One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default further imprisonment of three months under Section 7 of the Act passed by learned Special Judge is modified to simple imprisonment. However, it is made clear that both the sentences shall run concurrently. ( 38. ) Resultantly, this appeal succeeds in part. The conviction of appellant under Sections 7, 13(1) (d)/13(2) of the Act accorded by learned Special Judge is hereby affirmed, however, the sentence is modified as indicated hereinabove. The appellant is on bail. He is hereby directed to surrender on or before 30-11 -2009 before learned Special Judge to serve out the sentence and till then his bail bonds shall survive and the bail bonds shall be cancelled only after appellant surrenders before learned Special Judge on or before 30-11-2009. The appellant is on bail. He is hereby directed to surrender on or before 30-11 -2009 before learned Special Judge to serve out the sentence and till then his bail bonds shall survive and the bail bonds shall be cancelled only after appellant surrenders before learned Special Judge on or before 30-11-2009. It is further made clear that if the appellant fails to surrender on or before 30- 11-2009, learned Special Judge shall issue arrest warrant and shall also take steps against the surety of the appellant. The Registry is hereby directed to send the original bail bonds of appellant to learned Special Judge and a photocopy thereof be retained in the file. In case appellant surrenders before learned Special Judge on or before 30-11- 2009, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.