Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 553 (PNJ)

Bhim Sain v. State of Haryana

2009-03-21

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, dated 24.01.97, rendered by the Court of Special Judge, Gurgaon, vide which it convicted the accused (now appellant), for the offence punishable under Section 13(I) (d) (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of the same, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. The prosecution case, as summarized, runs in the manner, that on 19.11.92, Birpal, complainant, appeared before Darshan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon. He made a statement PF before him, which was read over and explained to him. After admitting the same to be correct, he signed it. It was stated by him, in the aforesaid statement, that he was a resident of village Baskusla, and an agriculturist by profession. He had passed 9th class. His grand-father had two sons namely Bharat Singh and Chattar Singh and three daughters namely Meera Bai, Gajo and Jainda. His uncle Chattar Singh had expired about 7/8 years earlier to 19.11.92. Chattar Singh had four sons namely Satpal Singh, Rambir Singh, Mukesh and Samey Singh. The complainant had three brothers namely Sukhpal Singh, Rampal Singh, and Satish. They filed a Civil Suit in the Court of Sub Judge-III Class, Gurgaon, against the sisters of their father (Buas) for the transfer of land measuring 109 kanals 2 marlas, in their favour, situated in village Baskusla. The said suit was decreed on 05.06.90. The complainant alongwith Chattar Singh had met Bhim Sain, Patwari, for entering the mutation, in the revenue record, in their favour. He also handed over a copy of the judgement of the Civil Court to the said Patwari. The Patwari accepted the copy of the judgement, referred to above, after comparing the same, with the certified copy of the same (judgement). He demanded a sum of Rs. 400/-, as illegal gratification, for entering the mutation. The complainant requested the Patwari that he being a poor person, had already spent sufficient amount, in the Court proceedings, and, as such, was unable to pay such a hefty amount, but he (Bhim Sain, Patwari) did not listen to his request. He demanded a sum of Rs. 400/-, as illegal gratification, for entering the mutation. The complainant requested the Patwari that he being a poor person, had already spent sufficient amount, in the Court proceedings, and, as such, was unable to pay such a hefty amount, but he (Bhim Sain, Patwari) did not listen to his request. The complainant alongwith Chattar Singh again met the aforesaid Patwari about 5/6 days earlier to 19.11.92 in his office, situated in Shivaji Nagar, Gurgaon. The accused told him that the previous copy of the judgement handed over to him had been lost by him and another copy be supplied. The complainant handed over to him another photocopy of the judgement, referred to above. He again demanded a sum of Rs. 400/-as gratification, other than legal remuneration, from the complainant. Since the complainant did not want to pay gratification, other than legal remuneration, to the accused, he put him off, on the pretext, that he be given sometime so as to enable him to arrange the amount. It was further stated by him that Bhim Sain, Patwari, accused, was not ready to enter the mutation until and unless he was paid the amount of Rs. 400/-demanded by him, as gratification, other than legal remuneration, for the aforesaid work. On the basis of the said statement of Birpal, the first information report was registered. Birpal, complainant, produced four currency notes of the denomination of 100/-each, before Darshan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police. The currency notes were taken into possession, vide memo exhibit PG after noting the numbers thereof, attested by Birpal and other witnesses. Thereafter, phenol-pathelein powder was applied to the said currency notes. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, also appended his initials on these currency notes. Thereafter, the same were handed over to Birpal, vide memo PH. Darshan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, went to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, for obtaining the permission. The Deputy Superintendent of Police moved an application PP for obtaining the permission and requested for providing a Gazetted Officer, to be a member of the raiding party. The Deputy Commissioner, vide order PP/1, granted necessary permission and deputed Daya Ram, Block Development Officer, to be a member of the raiding party. Thereafter, the raiding party, headed by Darshan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, and consisting of Birpal, complainant, Jas Ram, Inspector, as shadow witness, and other witnesses was constituted. The Deputy Commissioner, vide order PP/1, granted necessary permission and deputed Daya Ram, Block Development Officer, to be a member of the raiding party. Thereafter, the raiding party, headed by Darshan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, and consisting of Birpal, complainant, Jas Ram, Inspector, as shadow witness, and other witnesses was constituted. Birpal, was instructed that, as and when, he handed over the tainted currency notes to the accused, he would give a signal while putting his hand on his head. Jas Ram, Inspector, was instructed to hear the talk between Birpal and Bhim Sain, accused, as also exchange of currency notes. The other members of the Police party, stayed at some distance. On receipt of the requisite signal, the raiding party entered the office of the accused. The Deputy Superintendent of Police disclosed his identity. The search of the accused was conducted. From the left side pocket of the shirt of the accused, the tainted currency notes in the sum of Rs. 400/-of the denomination of Rs. 100/-each, were recovered. The tainted currency notes P1 to P4 were sealed in an envelope and taken into possession, vide recovery memo PI. The hands of the accused were got washed in the water mixed with sodium carbonate. The colour of the same turned pinkish. The said solution was put in a quarter bottle P8. The same was sealed with the seal, bearing impression JR, and taken into possession vide memo PL. The shirt of the accused was got removed. The pocket of the shirt P5 was reversed, and also washed, in a freshly prepared solution of water mixed with sodium carbonate. The solution turned pinkish. The same was also put in quarter bottle P6 and taken into possession vide recovery memo PJ. The shirt was converted into a parcel and was also taken into possession vide the same memo. Thereafter, the hands of Birpal, complainant, were also got washed, in a freshly prepared solution of water mixed with the sodium carbonate. The solution turned pinkish. The same was put into quarter bottle P7, duly sealed and taken into possession vide recovery memo PK. Phocopies of Rojnamcha P10, and Decree-Sheet P11, were also taken into possession vide recovery memo PM. Rough site plan PQ of the place of recovery, was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. The solution turned pinkish. The same was put into quarter bottle P7, duly sealed and taken into possession vide recovery memo PK. Phocopies of Rojnamcha P10, and Decree-Sheet P11, were also taken into possession vide recovery memo PM. Rough site plan PQ of the place of recovery, was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. On return to the Police Station, the case property was deposited with the Moharrir Head Constable. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 3. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Section 13(I) (d) (ii) of the Act, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Yashwant Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon (PW1), who prepared the report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Deep Chand, Naib Tehsildar (PW2), who proved PA, the posting order of the accused, Mool Chand, Draftsman (PW3), who prepared the scaled site-plan PB, Birpal, complainant (PW4), Chattar Singh, Sarpanch (PW5), who did not support the case of the prosecution, and was declared hostile, Jas Ram, Inspector (PW6), the shadow witness, Daya Ram Yadav, Block Development Officer (PW7), a witness to the recovery, and Darshan Singh, (Retired) Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW8), the Investigating Officer. The prosecution also tendered into evidence the affidavits PC, PD and PE of Constable Ram Kirpal, Head Constable Jagphool Singh, and Constable Om Parkash, respectively. Sanction PR of the District Magistrate, and report PS of Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, were also tendered into evidence by the prosecution. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was Criminal Appeal No. 100-SB of 1997 recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. It was stated by him that Bharat Singh, father of Birpal, had taken loan after mortgaging his land, and on account of non-payment of the same, the said land was ordered to be attached, by the Court. It was further stated by him, that Bharat Singh, approached him about 15/20 days, prior to the alleged incident, for preparation of old age pension document. It was further stated by him, that Bharat Singh, approached him about 15/20 days, prior to the alleged incident, for preparation of old age pension document. It was further stated by him, that he refused to prepare the said document, as the same could not be prepared, as his land had been attached, by the order of the Court. Bharat Singh, then threatened him to take revenge. It was further stated by him, that, on account of this reason, he was falsely implicated. 6. He examined Joginder Singh (DW1), Clerk, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, who proved application DW1/A and report DW1/B, and Khalil Ahmad, (DW2), Tehsildar Deputy Controller, Civil Defence, Gurgaon, who proved application DW1/A and report DW1/B. The accused also tendered in evidence exhibit D3, copy of the order dated 04.01.88, D4 copy of the order dated 29.08.92, and D5 copy of the order dated 29.08.92, and closed the defence evidence. 7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant. 9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 10. The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that the trial Court, was wrong in recording conviction and awarding sentence to the accused, on the basis of unreliable and uncorroborated evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that the evidence of Birpal, complainant, was not corroborated, through any independent source, as Chattar Singh, Sarpanch, prosecution witness, did not support the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that, as such, it could be very well said that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. Birpal, PW4, is the complainant. According to him, he met Bhim Sain, Patwari, accused, and requested him to enter mutation, in his favour, on the basis of the judgement and decree passed by the Civil Court. His deposition was further to the effect that a copy of the decree was handed over by him to Bhim Sain, accused, and he assured that he would do the work. His deposition was further to the effect that a copy of the decree was handed over by him to Bhim Sain, accused, and he assured that he would do the work. He further stated that the accused, however, did not do his work and demanded Rs. 400/-from him, as gratification other than legal remuneration. It was further stated by him that since a sum of Rs. 400/-was not readily available with him, he went to the Vigilance Office, and made his statement PF. His evidence further proceeded, in the manner, that he handed over four currency notes of the denomination of 100/-each (P1 to P4) to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, which were taken into possession vide memo PG. The currency notes were initialed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The same were treated with phenol-pathelein powder, and after noting down the numbers thereof, in the memo, the same were handed over to him. It was further stated by him, that he was instructed to go to the Patwari, and hand over the tainted currency notes on demand by him. Thereafter, he went to the office of Patwari and found him sitting on a cot. He asked him to enter the mutation. The accused demanded the gratification, other than legal remuneration, in the aforesaid sum, from him. It was further stated by him that he handed over the tainted currency notes to the accused and gave a signal to the Police party. He further stated that thereafter the Deputy Superintendent of Police Darshan Singh, alongwith other witnesses reached the spot. The tainted currency notes P1 to P4 on search of the pocket of the shirt of the accused were recovered. The same were washed in a plastic Can. The colour of the water turned pink. It was further stated by him that the currency notes were taken into possession vide memo P1. Thereafter, the shirt of the accused was got removed and the pocket thereof, was reversed and got washed into the water, mixed with sodium bi-carbonate, as a result whereof, it turned pinkish. He further stated that the solution of hand wash and pocket wash were taken into possession by putting the same in separate quarter bottles. The shirt was also taken into possession vide recovery memo PJ, after converting the same into a parcel. He further stated that the solution of hand wash and pocket wash were taken into possession by putting the same in separate quarter bottles. The shirt was also taken into possession vide recovery memo PJ, after converting the same into a parcel. It was further stated by him that his hands were got washed in a freshly prepared solution, in the aforesaid manner, which also turned pinkish. The solution was put into a separate bottle, and taken into possession. He further deposed that the record was also taken into possession, from the office of the accused. The statement of Birpal, PW4, was duly corroborated by Jas Ram, shadow witness, PW6, in all material particulars. Further corroboration to the statement of Birpal, was provided by Daya Ram Yadav, (Retired) Block Development Officer, PW7, who was a member of the raiding party, and, in whose presence, the recovery of tainted currency notes was effected from the accused and the proceedings regarding hand wash, and pocket wash took place. Further corroboration was provided to the statement of the complainant through the evidence of Darshan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, PW8, the Investigating Officer. Still further corroboration to the statement of Birpal, was provided through the hand wash of the accused, as a result whereof, the colour of the solution turned into light pinkish, and the pocket wash of the shirt, as a result whereof, the colour of the freshly prepared solution turned into light pinkish. Not only this, still further corroboration to the statement of Birpal, complainant, was provided through PS, report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, according to which, phenol-pathelein powder was detected on tainted currency notes P1 to P4 and pathelein and sodium carbonate were detected in hand wash of the accused, hand wash of the complainant, and pocket wash of the shirt of the accused. In Hans Raj Vs. State of Haryana (1997(3) RCR 427, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect that the chemical test is a corroborative piece of evidence. Even no explanation, was furnished by the accused, as to how, the solution, in which the fingers of his hand were washed, and the solution, in which, the pocket of his shirt was washed turned into light pinkish. Even no explanation was furnished by the accused, as to how, the tainted currency notes of Rs. Even no explanation, was furnished by the accused, as to how, the solution, in which the fingers of his hand were washed, and the solution, in which, the pocket of his shirt was washed turned into light pinkish. Even no explanation was furnished by the accused, as to how, the tainted currency notes of Rs. 400/-, reached the pocket of his shirt, which were a short while ago, with the complainant. In Roop Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1991 (SC) 1125, it was held that where the accused was not able to explain the presence of phenolphthalein powder, on his hands, his conviction, under the relevant Sections, was legally sustainable. There was no reason, on the part of Birpal, PW4, Jas Ram, PW6, Daya Ram Yadav, PW7, and Darshan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, PW8, to falsely implicate the accused, in the instant case. There is nothing, on the record, that the complainant and Jas Ram, as also the other witnesses were having any enmity with the accused earlier to the incident. The trial Court, was right, in holding that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses duly corroborated through other items of circumstantial evidence, was cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy. The trial Court was, thus, right in relying upon the same, for recording conviction and awarding sentence. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 11. It was further submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that since the land, in question, had already been attached, mutation of the same on the basis of the judgement and decree, in favour of the complainant, could not be entered by the accused. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, there was no motive with the accused, to demand and accept gratification, other than legal remuneration, in the sum of Rs. 400/-from the complainant. He also relied upon the statement of Khalil Ahmad, Tehsildar, DW2, who proved DW1/A and report DW1/B. He further stated that according to the report DW1/B, the mutation could not be entered as the killa numbers mentioned in the applications were attached by the order of the Court. It may be stated here that DW1/A, was moved to the Deputy Commissioner on 07.07.95, much after the registration of the present case. It may be stated here that DW1/A, was moved to the Deputy Commissioner on 07.07.95, much after the registration of the present case. Since there was a hitch, in entering the mutation, it was all the more a strong reason, for the accused, to demand gratification, other than legal remuneration and accept the same from Birpal. Even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that no mutation could be entered, on account of the attachment of the land, once an assurance was given by the accused, that he would enter the same and he demanded and accepted gratification other than legal remuneration from the complainant for this work, he committed the offence, punishable under Section 13(I) (d) (ii) of the Act. In Mahesh Parshad Vs. State, 1955, S.C.J., 153, the Apex Court, held that a public servant, who receives illegal gratification, as a motive, for doing or procuring an official act, would be guilty, whether, he was capable of doing it, or whether or not he intended to do it. Section 13(1)(d)(ii) does not require that the public servant, should be competent to do an official act. In State of Punjab Vs. Raj Kumar, AIR 1988 (SC) 805, it was held that if bribe is taken, and given as a motive or reward, for doing or fore-bearing to do an official act, the offence is complete, whether the public servant has the requisite capacity to do it, or not. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Under these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 12. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the statement of Birpal, on the point, that the accused demanded gratification other than legal remuneration in the sum of Rs. 400/-was not corroborated through the statement of Jas Ram, PW6, the shadow witness. He further submitted that, in the absence of corroboration to the statement of Birpal, on the aforesaid point of demand of gratification, other than legal remuneration by the shadow witness, no reliance could be placed thereon to convict the accused for the aforesaid offence. 400/-was not corroborated through the statement of Jas Ram, PW6, the shadow witness. He further submitted that, in the absence of corroboration to the statement of Birpal, on the aforesaid point of demand of gratification, other than legal remuneration by the shadow witness, no reliance could be placed thereon to convict the accused for the aforesaid offence. From the statement of Jas Ram, PW6, it is evident that he was only instructed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police that when Birpal, handed over the tainted currency notes, to Bhim Sain, accused, he should give the requisite signal by putting his hand on the head. He did not state even a single word that he was also instructed to hear the exchange of talk between the accused and the complainant. Since he was only instructed to witness the passing of tainted currency notes, by the complainant, to the accused, from the visible distance, he did his duty. Even, it is evident, from the site plan, that the distance between the place, where Jas Raj, was standing and the place where Birpal was standing, and had exchanged talk with the accused, was too much, wherefrom exchange of talk could not be heard. From that place Jas Ram, could only witness the handing over the tainted currency notes by Birpal, to the accused. There is no reason, to disbelieve the statement of Birpal, on the question of demand of gratification, other than legal remuneration, in the sum of Rs. 400/-from him, by the accused. The statement of Birpal, is corroborated through a number of items of circumstantial evidence, referred to above. 13. The Counsel for the appellant, however, placed reliance on Subash Parbat Sonvane Vs. State of Gujarat, 2003(2), RCR (Criminal), 542 (SC), in support of his contention, that in the absence of clear proof of demand of gratification, other than legal remuneration, by the accused, from the complainant, no conviction, under Section 13(I) (d) (ii), could be recorded. The facts of the aforesaid case, are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. In that case, the evidence was only to the effect that the complainant gave something, which the accused put in his pocket. There was no evidence of demand by the accused. Under these circumstances, the conviction recorded by the Courts below, was set-aside, by the Apex Court. In that case, the evidence was only to the effect that the complainant gave something, which the accused put in his pocket. There was no evidence of demand by the accused. Under these circumstances, the conviction recorded by the Courts below, was set-aside, by the Apex Court. In the instant case, as stated above, there is clear-cut statement of Birpal, with regard to the demand of gratification, other than legal remuneration, in the sum of Rs. 400/-by the accused, and acceptance of the same. Further recovery of tainted currency notes from the pocket of the shirt worn by the accused also furnished corroboration to the statement of Birpal, complainant. In this view of the matter, no help can be drawn by the Counsel for the appellant from Subash Parbat Sonvane's case (supra). The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 14. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the statement of Birpal, on the point of washing of the currency notes, in the plastic Can, was most improbable and unnatural. Birpal, no doubt, stated that the tainted currency notes recovered from the accused were washed in a plastic Can. Such a statement made by Birpal, does not appear to be correct. It appears that only on account of slip of tongue and lapse of sufficient time, between the date of incident, and date of his evidence, in the Court, such a statement was made by Birpal. On the other hand, it is evident that none of the other witnesses namely Jas Ram, PW6, Daya Ram Yadav, (Retired) Block Development Officer, PW7, and Darshan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, PW8, the Investigating Officer, made such a statement. The mere fact that, on one point, Birpal, inadvertently made a wrong statement, but the other witnesses did not corroborate him in relation thereto, did not mean that his entire evidence was required to be rejected. Even if, this part of the statement of Birpal, is ignored, his other evidence duly corroborated through the ocular as well as circumstantial evidence, referred to above, was sufficient to prove the case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The maxim of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, i.e. false in one thing, false in everything is not applicable to this part of the Country. The maxim of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, i.e. false in one thing, false in everything is not applicable to this part of the Country. A part of the statement of a witness, which appears to be not reliable, can be ignored by the Court, but the other parts of his statement, if found to be reliable, can be relied upon. No help, therefore, could be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellant, from the aforesaid statement of Birpal, to prove that the accused did not commit any offence. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 15. No doubt, Chattar Singh, Sarpanch, an independent witness, who was joined with the raiding party, did not support the case of the prosecution. It is to be determined, as to whether, the entire case of the prosecution falls to the ground, on account of non-corroboration of the same, through the evidence of one witness, who resiled from his statement. In my opinion, the mere fact that one witness resiled from his earlier statement, for whatever the reasons may be, cannot be said to be sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of the other witnesses, if the same is found to be reliable. In the instant case, the evidence of the other witnesses, has been found to be cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy, which was sufficient to bring home the guilt to the accused. Chattar Singh, PW5, admitted his signatures, on various documents, prepared at the spot, but stated that the same were obtained in the office of the Vigilance Bureau. How could a person like Chattar Singh, Sarpanch of the village, sign these documents, in the Vigilance Bureau office, when the same were prepared at the spot and he was a member of the raiding party, is a fact, which can hardly be digested. 16. In State of U.P. Vs. Dr. G.K. Ghosh, AIR 1984, (SC), 1453, wherein the shadow witness turned hostile, the Apex Court, observed as under:- “The Court may, therefore, depending on the circumstances of a case, feel safe in accepting the prosecution version on the basis of the oral evidence of the complainant and the Police Officers even if the trap witnesses turn hostile or are found not to be independent. When, therefore, besides, such evidence there is circumstantial evidence which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and not consistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding the prosecution case.” 17. In Hazari Lal Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 (SC), 873, the Apex Court, observed as under:- “We, however, wish to say that the evidence of P.W. 8 is entirely trustworthy and there is no need to seek any corroboration. We are not prepared to accept the submission of Shri Frank Anthony that he is the very Police Officer who laid the trap should be sufficient for us to insist upon corroboration. We do wish to say that there is no rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, nor indeed any rule of prudence, which requires that the evidence of such officers should be created on the same footing as evidence of accomplices and there should be insistence on corroboration. In the facts and circumstances of a particular case a Court may be disinclined to act upon the evidence of such an officer without corroboration, but, equally, in the facts and circumstances of another case, the Court may unhesitatingly accept the evidence of such an officer. It is all a matter of appreciation of evidence and on such matters there can be no hard and fast rule, nor can there by any precedential guidance. We are forced to say this because of late we have come across several judgements of Courts of Session and sometimes even of High Courts where reference is made to decisions of this Court on matters of appreciation of evidence and decisions of pure question of fact. While on this subject of appreciation of evidence we may also refer to an argument of Shri Frank Anthony based on the observations of a learned single Judge in Kharaiti Lal v. The State, (1965), 1 Delhi LT 362 that persons holding clerical posts and the like should not be called as panch witnesses, as such witnesses could not really be called independent witnesses as they would always be under fear of disciplinary action if they did not support the prosecution case. We do not think we can accept the submission of Shri Frank Anthony. We do not think we can accept the submission of Shri Frank Anthony. The respectability and the veracity of a witness is not necessarily dependent upon his status in life and we are not prepared to say that Clerks are less truthful and more amenable than their superior officers.” 18. In Paras Ram Vs. State of Haryana, 1993, Cr.L.J. 416(I), the Apex Court, observed as under:- “That the evidence relied upon was of two Police officials does not ipso-facto gives rise to doubt about its credibility. There is nothing on record to show that these Police officials were hostile to the appellant and their evidence was not shaken in cross-examination. That the private party who was called as a witness by the prosecution did not support it, does not, in the circumstances lead to the conclusion, that the appellant was innocent.” 19. In Ram Kishan Vs. State of Punjab, 1995, Crl. L. J. 2892, it was held as under:- “From the decisions of the Supreme court in the above mentioned cases, it is thus clear that the prosecution version on the basis of oral evidence of the complainant and the Police officers, without corroboration of a public witness can be accepted when besides such evidence, there is circumstantial evidence which is consistent with the guilt of the accused. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the complainant and the Police officers must necessarily be corroborated by independent witnesses to convict the accused in a case under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section (2) of the Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.” The ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, clearly depicts that even if an independent witness, who was joined, with the raiding party does not support the case of the prosecution, and, on the other hand, turns hostile, the Court can rely upon the other evidence, produced by the prosecution, and if the same is found to be reliable, conviction can be based. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The mere fact that Chattar Singh, Sarpanch, resiled from his earlier statement, and did not support the case of the prosecution, did not, in any manner, make the case of the prosecution, in any way, doubtful. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The mere fact that Chattar Singh, Sarpanch, resiled from his earlier statement, and did not support the case of the prosecution, did not, in any manner, make the case of the prosecution, in any way, doubtful. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 20. The Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, could be drawn, against the accused, as the tainted currency notes were recovered from the pocket of the shirt worn by him. He further submitted that once the currency notes were recovered from the pocket of the shirt of the accused, it was for him to explain, as to how the same came into his possession, which were a short-while ago in the possession of the complainant. The submission of the Counsel for the respondent, in this regard, appears to be correct, in view of the evidence, discussed above. In Tarlok Chand Jain Vs. State of Delhi, AIR 1977, S.C. 666, a case, relating to Section 5(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the question, with regard to the interpretation and scope of Section 4 (1) (now under Section 20), arose before the Apex Court, wherein, it was held as under:- “The degree and the character of the burden of proof which Section 4(1) casts on an accused person, to rebut the presumption raised thereunder, cannot be equated with the degree and character of proof, which under Section 101, Evidence Act, rests on the prosecution. While the mere plausibility of an explanation, given by the accused in his examination under Section 342 Cr.P.C., may not be enough, the burden on him to negate the presumption may stand discharged if the effect of the material brought, on the record, in its totality, renders the existence of the fact presumed, improbable. In other words, the accused may rebut the presumption, by showing a mere preponderance of probability, in his favour; it is not necessary for him to establish his case, beyond a reasonable doubt. AIR 1974. S.C. 773, followed. In other words, the accused may rebut the presumption, by showing a mere preponderance of probability, in his favour; it is not necessary for him to establish his case, beyond a reasonable doubt. AIR 1974. S.C. 773, followed. The sole purpose of the presumption under Section 4(1) is to relieve the prosecution of the burden of proving a fact which is an essential ingredient of the offences, under Section 5(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 Penal Code. The presumption, therefore, can be used in furtherance of the prosecution case and not in derogation of it. If the story set up by the prosecution inherently militates against or is in consistent with the fact presumed, the presumption will be rendered sterile from its very inception, if out of judicial courtesy, it cannot be rejected out of hand as still-born.” The plain reading of the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authority, reveals that the accused can rebut such presumption, by leading evidence, or from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is, no doubt, not necessary for him, to establish his case, to rebut such statutory presumption, operating against him, under Section 20, beyond a reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the accused furnished an explanation, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the father of the complainant met him 15/20 days prior to the present incident for preparation of old age pension document. He further stated that he refused to prepare the said document as the same could not be prepared, as his land had been attached by the order of the Court. He further stated that Bharat Singh, then threatened him to take revenge and, on account of that reason, he was falsely implicated, in the instant case. The plea taken up by the accused, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, remained only a plea. It was not substantiated through any evidence. The mere plea taken up by the accused, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without any proof thereof, only remained a plea, and he could not take benefit thereof. The explanation furnished by the accused, was rightly held to be not convincing, by the Court below. It was not substantiated through any evidence. The mere plea taken up by the accused, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without any proof thereof, only remained a plea, and he could not take benefit thereof. The explanation furnished by the accused, was rightly held to be not convincing, by the Court below. No other evidence was led by him to rebut the statutory presumption, operating against him, under Section 20 of the Act. It could, therefore, safely be held that the accused demanded and accepted gratification, other than legal remuneration, in the sum of Rs. 400/-, as a motive or reward, for the purpose of entering of mutation of the land, in favour of the complainant. The aforesaid unrebutted statutory presumption, further strengthens the truthfulness of the case of the prosecution. 21. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 22. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same do not merit any interference. The same are liable to be upheld. 23. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are upheld. If the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, is directed to take necessary steps to comply with the judgment within a period of 2 months, keeping in view the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C. 24. The District & Sessions Judge, is also directed to ensure that the directions, referred to above, are complied with, within the time frame, and compliance report is sent immediately thereafter, to this Court. 25. The Registry is directed to keep track, that the directions are complied with, within the stipulated time. The papers be put up within 10 days, of the expiry of the time frame, whether the report is received or not, for further action. Appeal dismissed.