Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 261 (MP)

Phoolsingh Kushwah v. State of M. P.

2010-03-06

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA, INDRANI DATTA

body2010
Judgment A.K.SHRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1. ) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30-6-2004 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Gwalior, in Special Case No. 2/2000 convicting the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Act) and thereby sentencing him to suffer one year R.I. and fine Rs. 2,500/-, in default, further R.I. of three months under Section 7 of the Act and further sentencing him to suffer one year R.I. and fine Rs. 2,500/-, in default further R.I. of three months under Section 13(1)(d)/ 13(2) of the Act 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 appellant was serving on the post of Chairman, Janpad Panchayat, Morar, under Section 26 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and was a public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act. The appellant was discharging the function and duties of Chairman, Janpad Panchayat, Morar, till 2-12-1999. Dr. B. K. Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) on the date of trap was serving on the post of Veterinary Extension Officer. The complainant on 3-11-1999 submitted an application in the office of Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta, Gwalior, complaining against the appellant that he is making demand of bribe of Rs. 5,000/-. On the said application of the complainant, Lokayukta office registered a case and in order to verify the truth, handed over a tape-recorder to the complainant to record the conversion of the demand of bribe made by the appellant. On 6-11-1999 the complainant returned back the tape-recorded and told that on 4th and 5th November, 1999 conversation which took place between him and appellant has been tape recorded. On the basis of tape recorded version, transcripts (Exs. P.31 and 32) were prepared on 6-11- 1999. Another application/complaint thereafter was submitted by the complainant in the office of Special Police Establishment. ( 3. ) In order to trap the appellant, 8-11 -1999 the date was fixed and in that regard Panch witnesses, namely N. K. Sharma (not examined) and Omprakash, were summoned. On 8-11-1999 the complainant gave currency notes of Rs. Another application/complaint thereafter was submitted by the complainant in the office of Special Police Establishment. ( 3. ) In order to trap the appellant, 8-11 -1999 the date was fixed and in that regard Panch witnesses, namely N. K. Sharma (not examined) and Omprakash, were summoned. On 8-11-1999 the complainant gave currency notes of Rs. 5,000/- in the office of Special Police Establishment and on these currency notes phenolphthalein powder was applied. A pre-trap Panchnama was also prepared. The complainant was sent to the residential house of the appellant to offer bribe money by directing him that after appellant accepts bribe money, he would give a signal to the members of the trap party. ( 4. ) According to the scheme, the complainant went to give bribe money at the house of appellant and it is said that after accepting the same, he (appellant) kept the bribe money in a magazine namely "Tandrusti Ki Tarang" which was lying on the table. After the signal was given by the complainant. Head Constables, Investigating Officer, Panch witnesses and other members of the trap party arrived at the spot, where the appellant was present and it is said that police personnel caught hold of the hands of the appellant from the wrist. ( 5. ) The fingers of the hands of the appellant were dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate which became pink. The bribe money was also seized from the magazine and a seizure memo in that regard was also prepared. ( 6. ) After the investigation was over, a charge-sheet was submitted before the learned Special Judge who framed charges punishable under Sections 7, 13(l)(d)/13(2) of the Act against the appellant which he denied and requested for the trial. ( 7. ) In order to bring home the charges, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and placed Ex. P-1 to Ex.P.54, the documents on record. ( 8. ) The defence of the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated because he made several complaints against the complainant about his attitude of accepting the bribe and also that he is derelict to his duties, and in order to save his skin, a false complaint was submitted by him in the office of Special Police Establishment. ( 8. ) The defence of the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated because he made several complaints against the complainant about his attitude of accepting the bribe and also that he is derelict to his duties, and in order to save his skin, a false complaint was submitted by him in the office of Special Police Establishment. It is also the defence of the appellant that an inquiry was also set up against the complainant on the basis of several complaints made by the appellant and hence the complainant is keeping enmity with him. ( 9. ) The further defence which has been set forth by the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. is that on the date of trap viz. 8-11-1999 complainant came to his residence holding a magazine. "Tandrusti Ki Tarang" and kept that magazine on the table. At that juncture, Sardar Singh, Rajveer Singh, Banwarilal and Chandan Singh were sitting and he (complainant) shook his hand with the appellant as well as with these four persons who were sitting inside the room. Thereafter, complainant went outside the room and again came back with the officers of the Lokayukta office. On being inquired by the Lokayukta officers, appellant totally denied that he has accepted the bribe money. Thereafter, complainant told that the bribe money is kept inside the magazine, as a result of which, it was seized. In support of his defence, he examined those three persons, namely Sardar Singh, Rajveer Singh and Banwari Singh as D.W. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. ( 10. ) The learned Special Judge on the basis of evidence placed on record, held that charges are proved against the appellant, as a result of which convicted him and passed the sentence which we have mentioned/ hereinabove. ( 11. ) In this manner, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. ( 12. ) The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that so far as the electronic evidence in the shape of tape recorded version of the appellant and complainant is concerned, the same has not been found to be proved and in that regard, learned counsel has invited our attention to para 37 of the impugned judgment. ( 12. ) The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that so far as the electronic evidence in the shape of tape recorded version of the appellant and complainant is concerned, the same has not been found to be proved and in that regard, learned counsel has invited our attention to para 37 of the impugned judgment. Hence, according to learned counsel, the case of prosecution and the charges which are framed against the appellant are to be proved on the basis of the testimony of the complainant who was examined as P.W. 6 and his testimony should be corroborated from the evidence of Panch witness Omprakash (P.W. 9) because other Panch witness N. K. Sharma has not been examined. Further, learned counsel submits that the investigating agency was duty bound to send a person along with the complainant as a surveillance witness in order to ascertain and to overhear how and in what manner the transaction of bribe takes place and to observe what type of conversation takes place between the complainant and the appellant at the time of passing of the bribe money. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Smt. Meena Balwant Hemke v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 3377 : (2000 Cri LJ 2273). It has also been put forth by learned counsel that the investigating agency was quite aware that complainant is keeping enmity with the appellant and therefore deliberately no person making him to be a shadow witness was sent along with the complainant. By placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Gulam Mahmood A. Malek v. The State of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 1558 : (1980 Cri LJ 1096) it has been contended that by visualizing the entire episode with a view that complainant keeps enmity with the appellant, the evidence which has been adduced by prosecution has to be appreciated. By placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Gulam Mahmood A. Malek v. The State of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 1558 : (1980 Cri LJ 1096) it has been contended that by visualizing the entire episode with a view that complainant keeps enmity with the appellant, the evidence which has been adduced by prosecution has to be appreciated. By placing reliance on two decisions of Supreme Court Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 707 and Ram Prakash Arora v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 498 , it has been argued that since there is no independent corroboration of the statement of complainant whose status is not better than that of an accomplice, due weightage should not be given because admittedly he keeps enmity with the appellant as he had lodged several complainants against him including taking of bribe on the basis of which an enquiry was set up against the complainant. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on another decision of Supreme Court Union of India Through Inspector, CBI v. Purnandu Biswas (2005) 12 SCC 576. ( 13. ) By inviting our attention to the defence which the appellant has set up, it has been argued that since appellant made several complaints against the complainant including the complaint of corruption and because he was keeping enmity with him, therefore, in order to take revenge this vile idea to trap the appellant has been crept out in his mind and in order to give positive attitude to the said vile idea, a trap was arranged on his insistence. ( 14. ) The further defence of appellant is that the date of trap 8-11-1999 was falling during the Deepawali festival days and the complainant having a magazine in his hand as well as sweets, came to the house of appellant and shook his hand and thereafter went outside from the room. Since the appellant was the Chairman of the same department in which the complainant was serving, therefore, there was nothing unusual if the complainant went to meet the appellant on the occasion of Deepawali festival. Since the appellant was the Chairman of the same department in which the complainant was serving, therefore, there was nothing unusual if the complainant went to meet the appellant on the occasion of Deepawali festival. In order to prove the probable defence, learned counsel has invited our attention to the testimony of complainant himself paras 14 and 49 in which he has specifically stated that when the members of trap party entered inside the room and the appellant was interrogated that where bribe money is kept, it was told by complainant that bribe money has been kept inside the magazine which was taken out from the said magazine by Panch witness O.P. Gupta (P.W. 9). The contention of learned counsel is that if the bribe money would have been taken by the appellant, why the complainant told that it has been kept inside the magazine. Indeed, it should have been stated by the appellant when he was caught hold by the trap party and hence it raises serious doubts and it can be inferred that secretly he kept the bribe money inside the magazine and kept that magazine on the table of the drawing room of appellant. ( 15. ) So far as positive result of phenol-phthalein powder test conducted on the fingers of the appellant is concerned, it has been argued by learned counsel that from the office of Lokayukta where treated currency notes were kept in the pocket of complainant, he went to the residential house of appellant on his own scooter and he did not go in the vehicle in which the members of trap party went to the house of appellant and therefore there was an occasion for him to come in contact with the treated currency notes while keeping it in the magazine which he kept in the room of appellant where he shook his hand with the appellant and hence it thereafter the chemical test was conducted on the fingers of the hands of appellant, certainly the colour of solution would turn to pink. According to learned counsel, since recovery of treated currency notes has been made from the magazine and appellant was totally in dark that the said magazine contains bribe money, therefore, it cannot be said that bribe money was seized from the possession, of appellant and if that is the position, statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be made applicable against the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case. On these premised submissions, it has been argued by learned counsel that this appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment be set aside. ( 16. ) On the other hand, Shri Suryawanshi, learned counsel for respondent, argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that on the basis of complaint (Ex. P. 23) dated 12-3-1999 made by the appellant to the Minister endorsing a copy thereof to the Chief Minister, an enquiry was set up against the complainant and a notice was sent to him against which he (complainant) submitted its reply (Ex. P-24) on 30-10-1999 to Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Morar, but no, reply was submitted by the appellant although he was also noticed to submit the reply. This indicates that appellant was having a motive to make demand of bribe because the complaint of the complainant is that appellant had made false complaints against him to the Minister of the department as well as to the Chief Minister and when the complainant approached the appellant in this regard, appellant made a demand of bribe of Rs. 5,000/- and told that if the bribe is given to him, all the complaints will be withdrawn otherwise he would be transferred. By placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court State of U.P. v. Zakaullah, AIR 1998 SC 1474 : (1998 Cri LJ 863) it has been argued that merely because the complainant was having enmity with the accused, his testimony cannot outrightly be rejected. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on another decision of Supreme Court Hazari Lal v. the State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1980 SC 873 : (1980 Cri LJ 564) and has contended that from the circumstantial evidence also the charges of making remand and acceptance of bribe money can be inferred. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on another decision of Supreme Court Hazari Lal v. the State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1980 SC 873 : (1980 Cri LJ 564) and has contended that from the circumstantial evidence also the charges of making remand and acceptance of bribe money can be inferred. Learned counsel by placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Satyanarayana Murthy, (2008) 9 SCC 674, has submitted that even without corroboration of the testimony of complainant, conviction can be accorded. By placing reliance on another decision of Supreme Court State of Maharashtra v. Rashid B. Mulani, (2006) 1 SCC 407 : ( AIR 2006 SC 825 : 2006 Cri LJ 794) it has been argued by learned counsel that presence of some persons sitting in the room of residential house of appellant and examination of those persons as defence witnesses for the first time has been stated by appellant in his statement under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. and no suggestion has been put to prosecution witnesses in this regard and therefore the defence which has been set forth by the appellant is nothing but an after thought. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on State of A. P. v. R. Jeevaratnam (2004) 6 SCC 488 : ( AIR 2005 SC 4095 : 2005 Cri LJ 4908 and has contended that immediately after passing of bribe money the appellant was caught red handed and the defence is also not probable, therefore, learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellant. ( 17. ) By placing reliance on another decision of Supreme Court Girja Prasad (dead) by LRs. v. State of M. P. (2007) 7 SCC 625 : ( AIR 2007 SC 3106 ) it has been submitted that merely the complainant was having enmity with the appellant and he is an interested witness would in itself is no ground to discredit his testimony and the case of prosecution cannot be said to be shaken. v. State of M. P. (2007) 7 SCC 625 : ( AIR 2007 SC 3106 ) it has been submitted that merely the complainant was having enmity with the appellant and he is an interested witness would in itself is no ground to discredit his testimony and the case of prosecution cannot be said to be shaken. According to learned counsel, since the magazine in which treated currency notes were kept was found in the room of the home of appellant and immediately thereafter his hands were subjected to phenolphthalein powder test which was found to be positive, therefore, Section 20 of the Act would be applicable against him and since no proper explanation has been given by the appellant that how he came in possession of bribe money, therefore, the presumption has rightly been drawn by learned trial Court holding that he has accepted the bribe money. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on some more decisions of Supreme Court Union of India Through Inspector, CBI v. Purnandu Biswas, (2005) 12 SCC 576, State of M. P. v. Shambhu Dayal Nagar, (2006) 8 SCC 693 : ( AIR 2007 SC 163 ), M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A. P., (2001) 1 SCC 691 : (2001 Cri LJ 515), B. Noha v. State of Kerala, (2006) 12 SCC 277 and Baliram v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 14 SCC 779. On these premised submissions, it has been argued by learned counsel that no interference is required in the judgment of conviction. ( 18. ) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appellant deserves to be dismissed. ( 19. ) In the present case, complainant Dr. Brij Kishore Sharma has been examined as P.W. 6 and other important witnesses are panch witness Om Prakash Gupta (P.W. 9). Constable Bhagwati Prasad Sharma (P.W. 3) who caught hold of the hands of the appellant, Investigating Officer Arvind Khare (P.W. 12) and Chief Executive Officer Ramesh Shrivastava (P.W. 8). It would be relevant to mention here that learned Special Judge in para 37 of the impugned judgment did not find the tape recorded evidence to be reliable and we would not like to deviate from the said finding because it has been arrived at after correct appreciation of the evidence. It would be relevant to mention here that learned Special Judge in para 37 of the impugned judgment did not find the tape recorded evidence to be reliable and we would not like to deviate from the said finding because it has been arrived at after correct appreciation of the evidence. Hence, in order to ascertain whether there was any demand of bribe made by the appellant and the same was accepted by him and whether the trap was successful or not, we have to scan the testimony of these witnesses and the evidence of defence witnesses. ( 20. ) According to complainant Dr. Brij Kishore Sharma (P.W. 6), he is serving on the post of veterinary extension officer in the office of Janpad Panchayat, Morar. The appellant made certain written complaints in respect of taking bribe by the complainant to the Minister as well as to his senior officers. A written explanation was sought from this witness and in compliance to it, he submitted written reply (Ex. P.24) on 30-10-1999 to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Morar, wherein he specifically denied the allegations made by the appellant of taking bribe against him. In the said reply (Ex. P.24), he also submitted that appellant was giving threat of transfer., In between, the appellant made demand of bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from him with an understanding that in case the said amount of illegal gratification is paid, all the complaints made by the appellant shall be withdrawn, otherwise complainant will be transferred. Specifically this witness is saying that repeatedly appellant made demand of bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from him and therefore ultimately on 3-11-1999 this witness submitted a written complaint (Ex. P. 27) in the Lokayukta office. It would be relevant to mention here that written explanation/reply regarding the allegation made by the appellant against this witness was submitted by him on 30-10-1999 to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Morar, and the complaint (Ex. P.27) which was submitted by this witness in the office of Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta office is dated 3- 11-1999 viz. within four days and the date of trap is 8-11-1999. In between, this witness was sent with the tape recorder to record the conversation between him and appellant about making demand of illegal gratification. On going through Ex. P.27) which was submitted by this witness in the office of Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta office is dated 3- 11-1999 viz. within four days and the date of trap is 8-11-1999. In between, this witness was sent with the tape recorder to record the conversation between him and appellant about making demand of illegal gratification. On going through Ex. P.23, this Court finds that a written complaint was made by the appellant as Chairman, Janpad Panchayat, Morar, against the complainant addressed to concerning Minister with an allegation that while discharging his official duty he (complainant) happens to make demand of Rs. 200/- to 300/- from the villagers and therefore immediately the complainant should be shifted from his present place of posting. ( 21. ) It would be relevant to mention here that despite complainant submitted his reply (Ex. P. 24) on 30-10-1999 to the Chief Executive Officer, but on this date neither the appellant submitted any reply nor appeared before the Chief Executive Officer who was inquiring the complaints made by the appellant against the complainant, although notice was already served to him (appellant) on 27-10-1999. In this context, Ex. P. 21 may be seen in which there is an endorsement of Chief Executive Officer Ramesh Shrivastava (P.W. 8) to issue notice to the appellant as well as to the complainant which has been proved by this witness. According to Ramesh Shrivastava (P.W. 8), although the appellant was directed to remain present along with the witnesses on 30-10-1999, but the appellant and his witnesses did not remain present on 30-10-1999. A copy of the notice issued to appellant to remain present on 30-10-1999 is Ex. P.20. The appellant in reply to questions 48 and 49 recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. has admitted that Ramesh Shrivastava (P.W. 8) was directed to inquire about the complaint made by him against the complainant and further that he was noticed for his appearance as well as for the appearance of his witnesses on 30-10-1999 vide letter dated 27-10-1999. The appellant in reply to questions 48 and 49 recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. has admitted that Ramesh Shrivastava (P.W. 8) was directed to inquire about the complaint made by him against the complainant and further that he was noticed for his appearance as well as for the appearance of his witnesses on 30-10-1999 vide letter dated 27-10-1999. Hence, it is luminously clear that the complaint which was made by the appellant against the complainant about his alleged act of taking bribe, was to be inquired by Ramesh Shrivastava (P.W. 8) and it is also admitted to the appellant that vide letter dated 27-10-1999 he was required to remain present on 30-10-1999 along with his witnesses, but appellant did not remain present before the enquiry officer according to the statement of Ramesh Shrivastava (P.W. 8). There is no evidence in rebuttal of the appellant that he was present on 30-10-1999 before the enquiry officer Ramesh Shrivastava (P.W. 8). The matter would have been definitely different if the appellant would have remain present before enquiry officer Ramesh Shrivastava (P.W. 8) on 30- 10-1999 to prove his complaint and therefore it can be inferred that instead of appearing before the enquiry officer, he (appellant) made demand of illegal gratification from the complainant to get his complaint withdrawn which was being inquired by Ramesh Shrivastava (P.W. 8) in respect to the complaint made by the appellant against the complainant, and therefore, there was a motive to the appellant to make demand of bribe and hence it made a cause to the complainant to lodge complaint in the office of Lokayukta. ( 22. ) As per the statement of enquiry officer Ramesh Shrivastava (P.W. 8), complainant Dr. Brij Kishore Sharma (P.W. 5) appeared and submitted his reply on 30-10- 1999. Merely because the appellant made complaint against the complainant that he is making demand of bribe from the villagers to discharge his official duty and therefore complainant keeps enmity with him, according to us, the testimony of complainant cannot out rightly be rejected. In this context, two decisions of Supreme Court Zakaullah and Girja Prasad (supra) relied by learned counsel for the respondent may be taken into consideration. We may also rely the decision of Supreme Court Hazari Lal (supra) in this regard. ( 23. In this context, two decisions of Supreme Court Zakaullah and Girja Prasad (supra) relied by learned counsel for the respondent may be taken into consideration. We may also rely the decision of Supreme Court Hazari Lal (supra) in this regard. ( 23. ) On going though the testimony of complainant (P.W. 6), we find that a demand of bribe of Rs. 5,000/- was made by the appellant from him so that the complaints made by appellant against him may be withdrawn, as a result of which, this witness made written complaint in the office of Lokayukta which is Ex. P.27 mentioning that in case demand of bribe of Rs. 5,000/- is not fulfilled, the complainant would be transferred. Indeed, this fact also finds place in reply (Ex. P. 24) submitted by the complainant to Chief Executive Officer on 30-10-1999. We are not all impressed with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that in the written reply/explanation (Ex. P.24) the complainant did riot make any reference of making demand of bribe. According to us, firstly it was not required by the complainant to mention all these facts because he was simply submitting his reply in respect to the complaint made by the appellant which was to be inquired by the Chief Executive Officer. Secondly, we can also infer that because appellant being a political person, as he was serving on the post of Chairman, had it been written by the complainant about making demand of illegal gratification, the enquiry officer might be prejudiced. ( 24. ) On the complaint being made by the complainant in the office of Lokayukta, a trap was arranged and according to the complainant treated currency notes of Rs. 5,000/- were kept in the right pocket of his trousers with a direction that after giving bribe to the appellant, he would give a signal to the members of trap party. Thereafter, according to this witness, he went to the residence of appellant on his scooter in which Dy. S. P. Chauhan was also sitting with him and other members of trap party went in the government vehicle. Further, this witness says that nearby the residence of appellant he was accompanied by Dy. S. P. Chauhan and two Constables, but, he alone went inside the house of appellant and these persons were standing outside the house of appellant. S. P. Chauhan was also sitting with him and other members of trap party went in the government vehicle. Further, this witness says that nearby the residence of appellant he was accompanied by Dy. S. P. Chauhan and two Constables, but, he alone went inside the house of appellant and these persons were standing outside the house of appellant. At the house of appellant, complainant told that he has come with the money, thereafter, the appellant by receiving the treated currency notes, kept them in a magazine namely "Tandrusti Ki Tarang" and also asked complainant to sit down, but he did not stop there and immediately came outside and gave signal to the members of trap party. Thereafter, the members of trap party immediately rushed inside the house and caught hold of the hands of the appellant. Immediately thereafter the phenolphtha- lein powder test was conducted on the fingers of the hands of appellant which was found to be positive. ( 25. ) True, complainant (P.W. 6) in para 14 and also in para 49 has stated that he informed the Panch witness as well as to the members of trap party that bribe money has been kept in the magazine and in para 7 of his statement Panch witness Om Prakash Gupta (P.W. 9) has stated that on being inquired by the appellant, he told that bribe money has been kept in the magazine, but according to us, this minor discrepancy would not somersault the entire case of prosecution. We are not at all impressed by the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that since it has come in the statement of the complainant that on giving information to the Panch witness Om Prakash Gupta and to the members of trap party, bribe money was recovered from the magazine lying on the table, and therefore, it can be inferred that appellant is innocent and secretly bribe money was kept in the magazine by the complainant and the appellant was totally unaware of this fact. Because, if secretly bribe money would have been kept by the complainant in the magazine and the appellant did not accept it, how his hands came in contact with phenolphthalein powder which was cated on the currency notes and the phenolphthalein powder test conducted on appellant was found to be positive. ( 26. Because, if secretly bribe money would have been kept by the complainant in the magazine and the appellant did not accept it, how his hands came in contact with phenolphthalein powder which was cated on the currency notes and the phenolphthalein powder test conducted on appellant was found to be positive. ( 26. ) True, the suggestion has been made to the complainant in cross-examination that he shook hand with the appellant, but it has been emphatically denied by the complainant. Such stand has also been taken by the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. and in support of his defence, he also examined Sardar Singh (D.W. 1), Rajveer Singh (D.W. 2) and Banwari Singh (D.W. 3) who have also stated that complainant shook his hand with the appellant and kept a magazine on the table in their presence since they had come to meet appellant on the occasion of Deepawali festival. But, according to us, this defence appears to be concocted and after-thought because the presence of these three witnesses has not been suggested in cross-examination of the complainant and the names of these three witnesses has been firstly introduced and has been stated in 313, Cr. P.C. statement by the appellant. Obviously the defence appears to be an after-thought. In this context, we may profitably place reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Rashid B. Mulani (supra). Since immediately thereafter the appellant was caught red handed, hence, the defence which he has set forth is not found to be probable and in this regard, we may place reliance on the decision of Supreme Court R. Jeevaratnam (supra). ( 27. ) The evidence of Panch witness Om Prakash Gupta (P.W. 9) is also very much relevant since specifically he says that on receiving the signal given by the complainant, the members of trap party including him entered inside the house of appellant and it was found that Constables caught the hands of appellant and on being inquired it was stated by appellant that bribe money has been kept inside the magazine. Therafter, the fingers of the hands of appellant were subjected to phenolphthalein powder test which was found to be positive. Thereafter, the fingers of the hands of this witness were also subjected to phenolphthalein powder test in the fresh solution of sodium carbonate, but the colour of solution did not change. Therafter, the fingers of the hands of appellant were subjected to phenolphthalein powder test which was found to be positive. Thereafter, the fingers of the hands of this witness were also subjected to phenolphthalein powder test in the fresh solution of sodium carbonate, but the colour of solution did not change. The tinted hand wash of the appellant was collected in a separate sealed bottle and un-tinted hand wash of Panch witness was collected in a separate sealed bottle. Thereafter, this witness uplifted the magazine and took out treated currency notes kept in it. The numbers of treated currency notes were tallied with pre-trap Panchnama and they were found to be same. Again the fingers of the hands of this witness were dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate and on dipping his fingers in the said solution, the colour of the solution changed to pink. ( 28. ) The testimony of this witness is also corroborated by the evidence of investigating officer Arvind Khare (P.W. 12). The evidence of these three witnesses is in corroboration to each other on material points except certain minor discrepancies which are not very much material. ( 29. ) We do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that Ramesh Shrivastava (P.W. 8) has not drawn up the proceeding in accordance with law because no order-sheet etc. was written on 30-10-1999. It may be an irregularity on his part, but it cannot be said that this slackness on his part may take an U-turn in the case, because there is specific evidence of this witness that in compliance to the notice sent to the appellant to remain present before this witness for enquiry, he did not remain present. At the cost of repetition, we may further mention here that it has been admitted by the appellant in answer to questions 48 and 49 of 313, Cr. P.C. that he received the notice to remain present sent by Ramesh Shrivastava (P.W. 8). True, it can be inferred that complainant was keeping enmity with the appellant because he made several complaints against him, but at the same time, it can also be inferred that it made a cause and there was a motive for the appellant to make demand of bribe from the complainant to withdraw all the complaints against the complainant. True, it can be inferred that complainant was keeping enmity with the appellant because he made several complaints against him, but at the same time, it can also be inferred that it made a cause and there was a motive for the appellant to make demand of bribe from the complainant to withdraw all the complaints against the complainant. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances that although appellant was asked to remain present before the enquiry officer Ramesh Shrivastava (P.W. 8) in regard to his complaints against the complainant, he did not remain present, therefore, it can be inferred that deliberately he did not appear before the enquiry officer and approached the complainant and made demand of bribe from him so that whenever he will appear before enquiry officer, he may withdraw his complaints or may give reply to enquiry officer in favour of the complainant. This action of appellant clearly indicates that he made demand of bribe from the complainant and the same was accepted on the date of the trap. ( 30. ) Since the bribe money was found in the magazine kept on the table of drawing r6om of the appellant in which he was sitting and the chemical test conducted on the fingers of the hands of appellant was found to be positive, therefore, it can be inferred that appellant has accepted the bribe money from the complainant. Thus, we hereby hold that appellant was possessing the bribe money with him and he was unable to give proper explanation that how he came in possession of bribe money. The explanation which he has offered has already been not accepted by us for the reasons which we have stated hereinabove. Thus, the statutory presumption of having received the bribe money under Section 20 of the Act is also against the appellant. In this context, we may profitably place reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court Purnandu Biswas, Shambhu Dayal Nagar, B. Noha arid Baliram (supra). ( 31. Thus, the statutory presumption of having received the bribe money under Section 20 of the Act is also against the appellant. In this context, we may profitably place reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court Purnandu Biswas, Shambhu Dayal Nagar, B. Noha arid Baliram (supra). ( 31. ) We do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that because there is discrepancy in the evidence of complainant and Panch witness O.P. Gupta that by which mode the complainant went to the house of appellant and because as per the statement of complainant para 11, he went on his own scooter from the office of Lokayukta to the house of appellant carrying treated currency notes with him and further because the complainant keeps enmity with the appellant, therefore, he had an occasion to keep secretly the treated currency notes in the magazine and thereafter when he entered inside the house of appellant he kept the said magazine on the table without informing the appellant that it contains bribe money. According to us, although it has been so stated in para 11 of his testimony by the complainant that he went to the house of appellant on his own scooter, while other members of the trap party went in separate vehicles, but according to his own statement, he was accompanied by Dy. S. P. Chauhan, hence, if Dy. S. P. Chauhan was accompanying the complainant on the scooter, certainly he will not permit the complainant to take out the treated currency notes from his pocket and to allow him to keep them inside the magazine. We may further add that no cross- examination was made upon the Panch witness on the point that while entering in the house of appellant, he (complainant) was carrying a magazine, it would be further relevant to mention here that there is overwhelming evidence of the prosecution that complainant was accompanied upto the house of appellant by Constables and Panch witness etc. and if that would be the position, certainly they would not permit complainant to go inside the house of appellant carrying a magazine in his hand. Hence we can say and it can be validly inferred that bare handed complainant went inside the house of appellant. and if that would be the position, certainly they would not permit complainant to go inside the house of appellant carrying a magazine in his hand. Hence we can say and it can be validly inferred that bare handed complainant went inside the house of appellant. Panch witness O.P. Gupta (P.W. 9) in para 21 has stated that complainant went in different vehicle, but he was not alone and he went along with the members of trap party. Hence, the above said submission of learned counsel for the appellant,has no merit that all alone from the office of Lokayukta to the house of appellant, the com-. plainant went on his own scooter carrying treated currency notes and hence he had an occasion to come in contact with those currency notes while keeping them secretly inside the magazine which according to learned counsel, was kept by the complainant on the table lying in the drawing room of the house of appellant. ( 32. ) We also do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel that Dy. S. P. Chauhan, who accompanied the complainant, has not been examined, therefore, adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution. According to us, even if he would have been examined, his statement would have been only an additional evidence. For no rhyme or reason, this proposition can be drawn that Dr. S. P. Chauhan would have stated that he permitted the complainant to keep the treated currency notes inside the said magazine. ( 33. ) True, it is always useful to have corroboration of the statement of an accomplice 1 by sending some surveillance witness with him in order to ascertain what actually transpired between the accused and the complainant, but it is equally true that in case the testimony of complainant, whose status is that of an accomplice, if found to be reliable and is corroborated by other material circumstantial evidence, the conviction cannot be said to be bad in law. In this context, Section 133 of the Evidence Act is quite clear. From the surrounding facts and circumstances and the evidence placed on record which we have discussed and marshalled in detail hereinabove and from the circumstantial evidence also the demand of bribe and its acceptance by the appellant is proved. The decision of Supreme Court Hazari Lal (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case. From the surrounding facts and circumstances and the evidence placed on record which we have discussed and marshalled in detail hereinabove and from the circumstantial evidence also the demand of bribe and its acceptance by the appellant is proved. The decision of Supreme Court Hazari Lal (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case. The decision of Gulam Mahmood A. Malek, Jaswant Singh and Ram Prakash Arora (supra) placed reliance by learned counsel for the appellant would not apply in the present facts and circumstances and looking to the evidence which we have discussed and marshalled hereinabove. ( 34. ) Ab judicatio this appeal is found to be bereft of any substance and the same is accordingly dismissed. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled after he surrenders on or before 5th April, 2010, failing which learned Special Court shall issue arrest warrant against the appellant and shall also issue notice to his surety and may proceed against surety in accordance with law. In case appellant surrenders before learned Special Judge on or before 5th April, 2010, the bail bonds of surety shall stand discharged. After sending the appellant to jail to serve out the sentence, learned Special Judge shall intimate the Registry of this Court in this regard. The Registry is hereby directed to send the record post-haste so as to reach learned Special Court on or before 5th April, 2010. The Registry is further directed to send the original bail bond papers to learned Special Judge and photocopy be kept in the record. Appeal dismissed.