Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 932 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Narinder Singh

2009-05-12

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J 1. This appeal is directed against the judgement of acquittal dated 17.07.96, rendered by the Court of Special Judge, Rupnagar, vide which, it acquitted the accused (now respondent), for the offence, punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 30.09.91, Mohinder Singh, complainant, and Waryam Singh son of Chuhar Singh, residents of Sultanpur, came to the office of the Vigilance Bureau, Rupnagar. Mohinder Singh, made a statement that he was an agriculturist by profession. He had taken 3 killas of land, during the year 1991, for cultivation on share basis, from Bakhtawar Singh son of Jamund Singh, resident of Sultanpur, who was his maternal uncle. His maternal uncle backed out of his promise, and filed a case, at Ropar to get back the possession. The complainant had sown crop, in that field. Bakhtawar Singh, obtained a stay order, from the Court at Ropar, against the harvesting of crop. He moved an application to Naib Tehsildar, Chamkaur Sahib, for enquiry regarding the sowing of the crop, by him, at the spot. The Naib Tehsildar marked his application to the Halqa Kanungo and Halqa Patwari. The Halqa Kanungo/Patwari after visiting the spot, submitted their report to the Naib Tehsildar. The complainant wanted to get a copy of the said report. He presented an application, in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Rupnagar. The said application was forwarded to Naib Tehsildar, Chamkaur Sahib. Narinder Singh, accused, was working as Miscellaneous Clerk, in the office of the 'Naib Tehsildar, Chamkaur Sahib. The complainant met the accused, on 27.09.91, and requested him, to send his file to the record room, so that he could get copy of the report. However, the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 150/-, for sending the file to Rupnagar. When he made repeated requests, the accused agreed to accept Rs. 100/-, as bribe, for sending the file. The accused told the complainant to bring Rs. 100/-on Monday, and then he would send the file. The complainant made a false promise, to the accused, for bringing the money. As he never wanted to give the bribe, and was convinced that the accused would not send the file without receiving the bribe money, he brought Waryam Singh with him to the Vigilance Office, where he presented two notes of the denomination of Rs. The complainant made a false promise, to the accused, for bringing the money. As he never wanted to give the bribe, and was convinced that the accused would not send the file without receiving the bribe money, he brought Waryam Singh with him to the Vigilance Office, where he presented two notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/-each, and requested the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, that action be taken accordingly. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, applied phenolpathelein powder to the aforesaid currency notes. Thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, gave a demonstration. The memo regarding handing over of the notes to Mohinder Singh, complainant, was prepared, which was attested by him (complainant), and Waryam Singh. Thereafter, the hands of the witnesses, were got washed with water and soap. Mohinder Singh, was instructed to hand over the tainted currency notes to Narinder Singh, accused, on his demand. He was further instructed not to shake his hands with Narinder Singh, accused. He was also told to request Narinder Singh to send the file containing the report, regarding the land, to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Rupnagar. The shadow witness was instructed to see everything with his eyes, and hear exchange of talks, and money between the complainant, and the accused, and after the amount was accepted by the accused, give the requisite signal. Ruqa was sent through Constable Chaman Lal, for the registration of case, to Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, on the basis whereof, the first information report, was registered. Thereafter, the complainant and the shadow witness, were sent to the spot. 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and the members of the raiding party proceeded towards the spot, in a government jeep. After reaching near the agriculture office at Chamkaur Sahib, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, summoned a witness for joining the raiding party. After joining a government official, as a witness, in the raiding party, they went to the spot, where the raid was to be conducted. There they started waiting for the requisite signal from the shadow witness. After a short while, Waryam Singh, gave the requisite signal, whereupon, the raiding party headed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, alongwith Harbans Singh Dhillon, Inspector Agriculture, reached the office of Naib Tehsildar, Chamkaur Sahib. The complainant identified the accused as the person who had received Rs. 100/-from him, as gratification other than legal remuneration. After a short while, Waryam Singh, gave the requisite signal, whereupon, the raiding party headed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, alongwith Harbans Singh Dhillon, Inspector Agriculture, reached the office of Naib Tehsildar, Chamkaur Sahib. The complainant identified the accused as the person who had received Rs. 100/-from him, as gratification other than legal remuneration. The accused was apprehended. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, introduced him, and Harbans Singh Dhillon, Agriculture Inspector, to the accused. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, told the accused that he was to be searched for accepting the bribe from the complainant. He fetched a glass of water, and prepared a mixture of sodium carbonate powder and the water. The colour of the water did not change. Both the hands of the accused were got washed in the said solution, turn by turn, as a result whereof, its colour turned into light pinkish. That solution was transferred into a nip. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, offered his search to the official witnesses, but nothing was recovered from him. He then took the personal search of the accused, as a result whereof, two tainted currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/-each, bearing No. 8 FB 625244, and OBU 394160 were recovered from the left pocket of the pant of the accused. The notes were handed over to Harbans Singh Dhillon Agriculture Inspector, to tally their numbers with the numbers already noted down in the memo. He compared the numbers of the tainted currency notes recovered from the accused, with the numbers already noted down in the memo, and the same tallied. He handed over the notes to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance. Thereafter, the pant of the accused was got removed. The left pocket thereof, was reversed and dipped in a glass, containing the mixture of water and sodium carbonate, as a result whereof, its colour turned into light pink. The solution was transferred into a separate nip, duly sealed. On further personal search of the accused a sum of Rs. 55/-, one HMT wrist watch, knife, pen etc. were recovered, which were taken into possession, vide recovery memo. The nips duly sealed were sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. The report from the Chemical Examiner was received, to the effect, that the sample contained mixture of water, sodium carbonate and phenol-pathelein. 55/-, one HMT wrist watch, knife, pen etc. were recovered, which were taken into possession, vide recovery memo. The nips duly sealed were sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. The report from the Chemical Examiner was received, to the effect, that the sample contained mixture of water, sodium carbonate and phenol-pathelein. The sanction for launching the prosecution, against the accused, was obtained. After the completion of investigation, the accused, was challaned. 4. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against the accused, was framed , which was read over and explained to him, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case examined Amrik Singh, Clerk (PW1), who proved posting order PA, appointment letter PB of the accused, and sanction accorded by the Deputy Commissioner, Rupnagar, as PC, Mohinder Singh, complainant (PW2), who supported the case of the prosecution, Waryam Singh, shadow witness (PW3), who did not support the case of the prosecution, Mehar Singh, Kanungo (PW4), who proved his report PE, Gurdev Singh, Senior Assistant (PW5), who proved application P9, which was moved by Mohinder Singh, complainant, for getting copy of the report, Harbans Singh, Agriculture Development Officer (PW6), who deposed, with regard to the recovery of tainted currency notes, from the possession of the accused, and Harbans Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance (PW7), the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the Stated closed the prosecution evidence. 6. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He stated that the witnesses were having grudge against him. He further stated that they deposed against him, due to enmity. In his defence evidence, he examined Pritam Kaur (DW1), and Lachhman Singh, retired Naib Tehsildar (DW2). Thereafter, the accused, closed the defence evidence. 7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, acquitted the accused. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant – State of Punjab. 9. Thereafter, the accused, closed the defence evidence. 7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, acquitted the accused. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant – State of Punjab. 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 acquitting the accused, on the grounds, that the statement of the complainant was not supported by Waryam Singh, PW3, the shadow witness, and, as such, there was no corroboration to the same, through any other source; that the complainant was the aggrieved person and had grudge against the accused for not sending the file and, as such, no reliance could be placed on his statement; that the statement of Harbans Singh, PW6, the recovery witness, was discrepant and no reliance could be placed thereon; and that the sanction was invalid. She further submitted that the mere fact that the evidence of the complainant was not corroborated through the statement of Waryam Singh, shadow witness, PW3, could not be said to be sufficient, to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. She further submitted that the evidence of the complainant, was duly corroborated through other items of circumstantial evidence, and recovery of the tainted currency notes from the accused which, were a short while ago with the complainant. She further submitted that the fate of the case of the prosecution, did not hinge only on the statement of Waryam Singh, PW3. She further submitted that the discrepancies pointed out, in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, were minor, in nature, and did not go to the root of the case. She further submitted that the complainant had no grudge against the accused, and, as such, there was no reason on his part to depose falsely. She further submitted that the sanction accorded, in this case, was valid. She further submitted that the trial Court was wrong, in discarding the same. She further submitted that the trial Court, acquitted the accused on flimsy grounds. She further submitted that the judgement of the trial Court, was liable to be set-aside. 11. She further submitted that the sanction accorded, in this case, was valid. She further submitted that the trial Court was wrong, in discarding the same. She further submitted that the trial Court, acquitted the accused on flimsy grounds. She further submitted that the judgement of the trial Court, was liable to be set-aside. 11. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent submitted that the view taken by the trial Court, in acquitting the accused, could be said to be a reasonably possible view, on the basis of the evidence, produced by the prosecution. He further submitted that the mere fact that two views were possible, from the evidence, produced by the prosecution, and the one taken by the trial Court, was a reasonably possible view, the Appellate Court, cannot interfere into the judgement of acquittal. He further submitted that the view taken by the trial Court, in acquitting the accused, could not be said to be perverse or illegal. He further submitted that the trial Court was right, in acquitting the accused and the judgement was not liable to be set-aside. 12. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the contentions, advanced by the the Counsel for the appellant, being grounded, on sound footings, are liable to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Mohinder Singh, PW2, is the complainant, in this case. According to him, he had taken three killas of land from Bakhtawar Singh, his maternal uncle, in the year 1991, on share basis. He further stated that he had sown maize and paddy crops therein. He gave an application to Tehsildar, Chamkaur Sahib PD, who verified by going to the spot, as to who had sown the crop in the land. He further stated that the Patwari made reports PE and PF, which bore his signatures and the signatures of other respectables. He further stated that PG also bore his signatures. He further stated that he gave an application for getting a copy of the reports, from the office of Deputy Commissioner. On 27.09.91, he met Narinder Singh, accused, who was working as Clerk. The accused told that he would send the file till Monday. He demanded a sum of Rs. 150/-, from him, as gratification, other than legal remuneration, but the amount was settled at Rs. 100/-. On 27.09.91, he met Narinder Singh, accused, who was working as Clerk. The accused told that he would send the file till Monday. He demanded a sum of Rs. 150/-, from him, as gratification, other than legal remuneration, but the amount was settled at Rs. 100/-. Since Mohinder Singh, did not want to pay gratification, other than legal remuneration, for the aforesaid work to the accused, he alongwith Waryam Singh, PW3, went to the Vigilance Office, and told the Deputy Superintendent of Police, regarding the demand of gratification, other than legal remuneration, in the sum of Rs. 100/-by the accused, for sending the file. The statement of the complainant PH was recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, which was signed by him (complainant) after admitting the same to be correct. Thereafter, he handed over two currency notes P1 and P2 of the denomination of Rs. 50/-each to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, applied phenol-pathelein powder to the same. A demonstration regarding the change of colour of water, was given to the complainant, and Waryam Singh. Thereafter, the tainted currency notes were handed over to Mohinder Singh, PW2, and Waryam Singh, PW3, was asked to accompany him. Mohinder Singh was told to go to the accused and on demand pay the amount of Rs. 100/-, as gratification, other than legal remuneration. Waryam Singh was told to hear the exchange of talk and money between the two and after the amount was accepted, requisite signal be given by him. It was further stated by him that thereafter a riding party was constituted. He and Waryam Singh, went to the accused. The remaining members of the raiding party stayed behind, at some distance. On demand by the accused, Mohinder Singh, gave him, the tainted currency notes, aforesaid, as gratification, other than legal remuneration. The accused put those tainted currency notes, in the left pocket of the pant, worn by him. Thereafter, Waryam Singh, gave the requisite signal to the raiding party, which came to the spot and apprehended the accused. Thereafter, the hands of the accused were got dipped into a mixture of water and sodium-bi-carbonate. The colour thereof, changed into pinkish. Thereafter, the recovery of tainted currency notes was effected, from the pocket of the pant of the accused. Thereafter, Waryam Singh, gave the requisite signal to the raiding party, which came to the spot and apprehended the accused. Thereafter, the hands of the accused were got dipped into a mixture of water and sodium-bi-carbonate. The colour thereof, changed into pinkish. Thereafter, the recovery of tainted currency notes was effected, from the pocket of the pant of the accused. When the pocket of the pant of the accused was washed, in a freshly prepared solution, the colour thereof, also changed into light pinkish. The statement of Mohinder Singh, PW2,was duly corroborated through the hand wash and the pocket wash of the accused. As stated above, recovery of tainted currency notes was effected, from the pocket of the pant of the accused. It means that the accused had handled the tainted currency notes, and that was why his hand wash and the pocket wash became pinkish. It was for the accused to explain, as to how, his hand wash and the pocket wash became pinkish and how the tainted currency notes came to the pocket of his pant, which were a short-while ago with the complainant. The accused, however, failed to furnish any explanation, in regard to the same. Not only this, further corroboration to the ocular version of Mohinder Singh, PW2, was provided through the evidence of Harbans Singh, PW6, who deposed with regard to the recovery of tainted currency notes and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, PW7, who effected the recovery of tainted currency notes from the pocket of the pant of the accused. Still further corroboration to the ocular version, was provided, through exhibit PX, report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, according to which, on physical and chemical analysis of the contents of the hand wash and the pocket wash, the same were found containing sodium-bi-carbonate and phenol-pathelein. It was further stated, in this report, that in the water, the mixture of phenol-pathelein and sodium-bi-carbonate turns into pinkish. 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. 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. 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 Mohinder Singh, to depose falsely. He had no grudge, whatsoever, against the accused. Since the statement of Mohinder Singh, was duly corroborated through the statements of Harbans Singh, PW6, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, PW7, as also through the aforesaid items of circumstantial evidence, the trial Court, in my opinion, was wrong in holding that no corroboration was furnished to the evidence of Mohinder Singh, as Waryam Singh, did not support the case of the prosecution. On reappraisal and reappreciation, the evidence of Mohinder Singh, PW2, Harbans Singh, PW6, and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, PW7, has been found to be cogent, convincing, reliable, and trustworthy. The ocular evidence duly corroborated by the aforesaid items of circumstantial evidence, could be said to be sufficient, to bring home guilt to the accused. The trial Court was wrong in holding otherwise. The findings of the trial Court, to the contrary, being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence, are set-aside. 13. As stated above, Waryam Singh, shadow witness, did not support the case of the prosecution. It is to be determined, as to whether, the case of the prosecution can be thrown out, merely on the ground, that one witness resiled from his previous statement. In my considered opinion, the case of the prosecution, cannot be thrown out merely on account of the reason that one witness did not support its case. In such circumstances, the Court is put, on guard, to scrutinize the remaining evidence of the prosecution, and, to find out, as to whether, the same was trustworthy. If after such scrutiny the Court comes to the conclusion that the other evidence was trustworthy, then no formidable reason can be coined to disbelieve the same. The evidence of the other prosecution witnesses, as stated above, was duly corroborated through the aforesaid items of circumstantial evidence. In Yakub Ismailbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat (2006(4) RCR (Crl.) 731 (S.C.), two eye witnesses resiled from their previous statements. The Apex Court held that the evidence of the witnesses has to be weighed and not counted. The evidence of the other prosecution witnesses, as stated above, was duly corroborated through the aforesaid items of circumstantial evidence. In Yakub Ismailbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat (2006(4) RCR (Crl.) 731 (S.C.), two eye witnesses resiled from their previous statements. The Apex Court held that the evidence of the witnesses has to be weighed and not counted. The Apex Court, held that the evidence of the sole eye-witness, was sufficient to convict the accused, notwithstanding the fact, that two other witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. In P.P. Fatima Vs. State of Kerala (2004(1) RCR (Crl.) 81, S.C., the panch witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. It was held that such omission, by itself, would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Udai Lal 2008(2) RCR (Crl.) (S.C.) 956, four independent witnesses were joined and examined. They resiled from their statements. However, the Police officials, supported the case of the prosecution. In these circumstances, it was held by the Apex Court, that conviction on the evidence of the official witnesses, notwithstanding the fact that the independent witnesses resiled could be recorded, as the evidence is required to be weighed and not counted. Ultimately, the Apex Court, set aside the judgement of acquittal, rendered by the High Court, and restored the judgement of conviction, recorded by the trial Court. The evidence of the other prosecution witnesses, duly corroborated, through items of circumstantial evidence, referred to above, has been held to be cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy. In these circumstances, non-corroboration of the evidence of Mohinder Singh, through the evidence of Waryam Singh, did not all affect the merits of the case. The trial Court was, thus, wrong in disbelieving the other evidence of the prosecution, which was sufficient to bring home the guilt to the accused, merely on account of the reason that Waryam Singh, failed the support the case of the prosecution. Even if, the evidence of Waryam Singh, is ignored in totality, the other evidence was sufficient to record conviction and award sentence. 14. As stated above, the trial Court, acquitted the accused also on the ground that the evidence of Harbans Singh, PW6, and other witnesses was discrepant. The discrepancies were noted by the trial Court, in para No. 13 of its judgement. 14. As stated above, the trial Court, acquitted the accused also on the ground that the evidence of Harbans Singh, PW6, and other witnesses was discrepant. The discrepancies were noted by the trial Court, in para No. 13 of its judgement. The discrepancies pointed out by the trial Court were that Mohinder Singh, PW2, in his cross-examination stated that he did not mention that they went to the agriculture office and stopped the jeep there, though this fact was found in his statement PA. He also stated that he did not mention that he, Harbans Singh, and the Police, went together and stopped at a distance of 400 yards from Tehsil Office and the jeep was concealed. He further stated that nobody told him at the spot that Harbans Singh was Inspector Agriculture. He further stated that he came to know in Tehsil Office that he was from the Agriculture Department. Harbans Singh, PW6, in his cross-examination stated that he was an Agriculture Inspector, Chamkaur Sahib, on 30.09.91. On that day, Harbans Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, PW7, came to him, through his officers. Accordingly, he went to the office of Naib Tehsildar, Chamkaur Sahib. In his cross-examination, he stated that Mohinder Singh and Waryam Singh, accompanied them. Mohinder Singh and Waryam Singh were already with the Vigilance staff, when he joined them. Mohinder Singh and Waryam Singh were made to sit on the back seat of the jeep. He did not know Mohinder Singh and Waryam Singh earlier. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, told their names to him. They were not introduced by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, in front of his office. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, gave the instructions to Mohinder Singh and Waryam Singh in his presence. He further stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, instructed Mohinder Singh to pass on the bribe money and instructed Waryam Singh to give the signal, after the accused accepted the same. In this manner, the trial Court, held that there were material discrepancies, in the statements of both these witnesses. It may be stated here, that the discrepancies pointed out, by the trial Court, in para No. 13 of its judgement, are minor and insignificant and relate to the details of the case. These discrepancies did not affect the substratum of the case. It may be stated here, that the discrepancies pointed out, by the trial Court, in para No. 13 of its judgement, are minor and insignificant and relate to the details of the case. These discrepancies did not affect the substratum of the case. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, duly corroborated through other items of circumstantial evidence, was consistent with regard to the substratum of the case. Such like discrepancies, are bound to occur, in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, on account of lapse of time. Even otherwise, such like discrepancies, are bound to occur on account of fading of memory. These discrepancies did not at all affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, in any manner. These being the normal discrepancies, could not be taken note of, to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The trial Court was, thus, wrong in disbelieving the case of the prosecution, on account of the reason, that the aforesaid discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, had occurred. The trial Court, was, thus, wrong in holding that on account of the occurrence of such minor discrepancies, the case of the prosecution became doubtful. The finding of the trial Court, in this regard, is, thus, liable to be set-aside. 15. One more ground taken up by the trial Court, to acquit the accused was that sanction accorded, in this case, was invalid and, as such, no cognizance could be taken by the trial Court, and the trial of the case stood vitiated. The finding of the trial Court, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. Exhibit PC is the sanction, which was accorded by the Deputy Commissioner, Roop Nagar, for launching prosecution, against the accused. In this sanction order, the facts of the case, were detailed. It was also held by the competent authority, that the said act of Narinder Singh, Miscellaneous Clerk, Office of the Naib Tehsildar, Chamkaur Sahib, constituted the commission of offences, punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was also recorded by the competent authority that after going through the Police file, and challan papers of the aforesaid case, it was satisfied that a prima-facie case under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was made out against Narinder Singh, Miscellaneous Clerk. It was also recorded by the competent authority that after going through the Police file, and challan papers of the aforesaid case, it was satisfied that a prima-facie case under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was made out against Narinder Singh, Miscellaneous Clerk. It was thereafter that the sanction was accorded by the competent authority. From the sanction order, it was, thus, proved that there was due application of mind to the facts of the case, by the competent authority, before according the sanction. In Shiv Raj Singh Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1968 (SC), 1419, it was held that where the order of sanction shows, on the face of it, what were the facts constituting the offence charged, and that a prima facie case was made out, against the accused and the order further recites that the sanctioning authority after fully and carefully examining the material before it, in regard to the aforesaid allegations, in the case, considers that a prima facie case was made out, against the accused, the order fulfills the requirements of Section 6 (now Section 19) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable, to the facts of the present case. The sanction is held to be valid. The contrary view taken by the trial Court, being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence is liable to be set-aside. 16. Not only this, statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, could be raised, against the accused, as the tainted currency notes were recovered from the pocket of the pant worn by him. Once the tainted currency notes were recovered from the pocket of the pant, worn by 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. In Tarlok Chand Jain Vs. Once the tainted currency notes were recovered from the pocket of the pant, worn by 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. 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, (now Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), the question, with regard to the interpretation and scope of Section 4 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (now Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), 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. 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 4 (I) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, beyond a reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the accused only stated that he was falsely implicated in the instant case. He did not furnish any explanation, as to how the tainted currency notes were found in his possession, which were a short while ago, in the possession of the complainant. The accused, thus, failed to rebut the statutory presumption, operating against him, under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The unrebutted statutory presumption, under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, also strengthened the prosecution case. 17. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 18. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgement of acquittal, rendered by the trial Court, is not based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same is perverse and erroneous. The judgement of acquittal, is liable to be set-aside. 19. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted. The judgement rendered by the trial Court, acquitting the accused is set-aside. The accused (now respondent), is convicted, for the offences, punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 20. There is no extenuating circumstance, to show leniency, in the matter of sentence. Even otherwise, corruption has affected every walk of life. No person can get his legal work done, without greasing the palms of the public servants, though there may be some exceptions. Under these circumstances, the persons who indulge in corruption, must be dealt with severely, in the matter of sentence. In this view of the matter, the accused (now respondent) is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of three years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of two months, for the offence, punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of four years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of two months, for the offence, punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of four years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 7,000/-, in default of payment thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of three months, for the offence, punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both the substantive sentences, shall run concurrently. If the accused is on bail, his bail bonds, shall stand cancelled. 21. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, is directed to take steps, in accordance with the provisions of law, to comply with the judgement, and submit compliance report, within a period of two months. 22. The District & Sessions Judge, is also directed to ensure that the directions, referred to above, are complied with, and the compliance report is sent within the time frame, to this Court. 23. The Registry is directed to keep track and put up the compliance report, on receipt thereof, within the stipulated time. Even if, the compliance report is not received within the time-frame, the papers be put up within 10 days of the expiry thereof for further action, in the matter. Order accordingly.