JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral):- Parma Nand accused stands convicted under Section 7 read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months vide judgment and order dated 24.12.2002 by learned Special Judge, Hoshiarpur. Feeling aggrieved, convict has preferred the instant criminal appeal. 2. Prosecution case is that complainant Chander Dev was demanding copy of khasra girdawari of the land of his mother from the accused, who was posted as Revenue Patwari. The accused kept on putting off the matter. Ultimately on 23.12.1999, Chander Dev along with Varinder Kumar went to the accused and requested for supply of copy of khasra girdawari. However, the accused demanded Rs.700/- as illegal gratification for the same and asked the complainant to come next day to receive the copy. The deal was, however, settled at Rs.500/-. The complainant did not want to pay the bribe money. Accordingly the complainant along with Varinder Kumar went to Paras Ram, DSP, Vigilance at Hoshiarpur on 24.12.1999 and made statement about the aforesaid demand. Thereupon the instant case was registered and investigated. 3. The complainant given five currency notices of Rs.100/- denomination to the DSP who applied phenolphthalein powder to the same and returned the same to the complainant vide memo Exhibit PD in which numbers of the currency notes were also recorded. Varinder Kumar was made shadow witness. Necessary instructions were given to the complainant and the shadow witness. Hardev Singh, Assistant from the office of District Education Officer, was also joined in the raiding party. 4. The complainant and the shadow witness went inside the office of the accused, whereas the remaining raiding party stayed back. The accused demanded bribe money from the complainant for supply of copy of khasra girdawari. The complainant gave the tainted currency notes to the accused. The shadow witness gave necessary signal to the raiding party, who reached the spot and caught the accused red-handed. The accused was holding the tainted currency notes in his hand. Hardev Singh took the same from the accused at the asking of the DSP. Hand wash of the accused in sodium carbonate solution turned its colour to pink. The solution was sealed in a nip and was seized by the Police. The accused was holding the tainted currency notes in his hand. Hardev Singh took the same from the accused at the asking of the DSP. Hand wash of the accused in sodium carbonate solution turned its colour to pink. The solution was sealed in a nip and was seized by the Police. The tainted currency notes were also sealed into parcel and taken into possession by the Police. Copy of khasra girdawari supplied by the accused to the complainant was also taken into possession by the Police. A register was also seized from the spot. Necessary investigation proceedings were conducted at the spot. The accused was arrested. Sanction for prosecution of the accused was obtained. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr. P.C.)was presented for prosecution of the accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act. 5. Charge under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses to bring home the charge against the accused. Sucha Singh PW-1 proved appointment and posting of the accused as Patwari. 7. Chander Dev complainant PW-2, Varinder Kumar shadow witness PW-3, Hardev Singh PW-4 and Paras Ram retired DSP PW-8 broadly stated according to the prosecution version. 8. Head constable Govinder Kumar PW-4A stated that the case property was not tampered with in his custody in Malkhana. 9. Jiwan Lal PW-5 proved sanction for prosecution of the accused. 10. Joginder Pal PW-6 proved photostat copy of service book of the accused along with letters of his appointment and posting. 11. Constable Pawan Kumar, PW-7, being formal witness, tendered his affidavit in evidence. 12. The accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. admitted his posting as Revenue Patwari in the concerned circle but broadly denied all other incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case after he was brought from his office by Vigilance Bureau officials in the presence of Mangat Ram Sarpanch, Surjit Singh Lamberdar and Ram Dass Lamberdar. However, no evidence was led by the accused in his defence. 13. The accused summoned Mangat Ram Sarpanch and Ram Dass Lamberdar as witnesses in his defence. However, no evidence was led by the accused in his defence. 13. The accused summoned Mangat Ram Sarpanch and Ram Dass Lamberdar as witnesses in his defence. But when they came present in the Court, they were given up as unnecessary. 14. Learned Special Judge, Hoshiarpur vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.12.2002 convicted and sentenced the accused as already noticed in the opening part of this judgment. Feeling aggrieved, the convict has filed the instant criminal appeal. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their assistance. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that mother of the complainant had transferred her land to Mukhtiar Singh and his son before the alleged occurrence and application for mutation had been filed by Mukhtiar Singh on the basis of sale deed but complainant’s brother objected to the mutation. It was submitted that the complainant and his mother were opposing the complainant’s brother and it was suspected by the complainant that the accused was helping the complainant’s brother and for this reason, the accused has been falsely implicated. It was also argued that no independent witness was joined although there is shop and school near the office of the accused and public persons keep passing from there as admitted by the complainant. It was also canvassed that Hardev Singh PW- 4 has stated that the accused had already been caught outside his office by officials of Vigilance Bureau when this witness reached the office of the accused and, therefore, he is not an eye witness. It was also vehemently argued that investigating officer Paras Ram, PW-8 has not stated that he had himself offered for search before searching the accused and, therefore, the accused deserves acquittal. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on four judgments of this Court namely State of Punjab versus Kushal Singh Pathania, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 498; Satinder Kumar versus State of Punjab, 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 12; Shushil Kumar Versus The state of Punjab, 1974 CLR, 193 and Criminal Appeal No.237- SB of 2004 titled as Kuldip Singh versus State of Punjab decided on 09.03.2010 17. Learned counsel for the appellant also prayed for reduction in sentence submitting that the occurrence took place more than eleven years ago and the accused is out of job. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant also prayed for reduction in sentence submitting that the occurrence took place more than eleven years ago and the accused is out of job. 18. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently contended that all the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and there is no reason for false implication of the accused and prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 19. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. All the prosecution witnesses have broadly stated according to prosecution version. Their statements could not be impeached or shaken in their lengthy crossexamination. There is no reason why the witnesses would depose falsely against the accused or would implicate him in false case. It was simply suggested to the complainant that he suspected the accused to be helping the complainant’s brother in the matter of mutation. However, the complainant denied the suggestion. There is no material on record to substantiate the aforesaid suggestion. On the contrary, even the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. did not advance any such ground for his false implication. The accused in his said statement simply denied the prosecution version and claimed to be innocent, having been implicated in false case. It is also worth mentioning that there is no reason why Varinder Kumar PW-3, Hardev Singh PW-4 and Paras Ram PW-8 would implicate the accused in false case or would depose falsely against him, allegedly at the instance of the complainant. No suggestion was given to them as to why they would depose falsely against the accused. It may be mentioned that Hardev Singh PW-4 being official from the office of District Education Officer was an independent witness joined in the raiding party. Paras Ram, DSP also had no axe to grind by implicating the accused in a false case. Moreover, Paras Ram had already retired when he entered into the witness box and, therefore, the had no reason or motive to depose falsely against the accused. It cannot be said that no independent witness was joined in the raiding party. Hardev Singh was joined as independent witness in the raiding party. 20. The statement of Hardev Singh that Vigilance Bureau officials had caught the accused outside his office when this witness reached there, does not help the accused in any manner. It cannot be said that no independent witness was joined in the raiding party. Hardev Singh was joined as independent witness in the raiding party. 20. The statement of Hardev Singh that Vigilance Bureau officials had caught the accused outside his office when this witness reached there, does not help the accused in any manner. It has come in evidence that when the police officials on getting signal from shadow witness reached the office, the accused came out of the office. Hardev Singh was sitting in the Gypsy and he also reached there. Consequently, it cannot be said that Hardev Singh is not eye witness of the case. 21. The contention that Paras Ram did not offer himself for search is not sufficient to acquit the accused. In the instant case, the accused was still holding the tainted currency notes in his hand when he was caught by the Police and, therefore, non-offering of search by the investigating officer pales into insignificance. Judgments cited by counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the instant case because in those cases the accused were acquitted not on this sole ground but also on account of many other infirmities in the prosecution case. 22. Statements of the complainant and the shadow witness prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. Recovery of tainted currency notes from the hand of the accused as stated on oath by all the four material witnesses i.e. Chander Dev, PW-2, Varinder Kumar PW-3, Hardev Singh PW-4 and Paras Ram PW-8 further corroborates the prosecution case. Hand wash of the accused also strengthens the prosecution case regarding recovery of tainted money from the accused. 23. It is also significant to notice that the accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. specifically alleged that he was taken from his office by the Vigilance Bureau officials in the presence of Mangat Ram Sarpanch, Surjit Singh Lamberdar and Ram Dass Lamberdar, but the accused did not dare to examine any of them in support of his aforesaid version. The accused summoned Mangat Ram and Ram Dass in his defence and did not summon Surjit Singh at all. Mangat Ram and Ram Dass came present in the Court but they were given up by the accused as unnecessary witnesses. The accused summoned Mangat Ram and Ram Dass in his defence and did not summon Surjit Singh at all. Mangat Ram and Ram Dass came present in the Court but they were given up by the accused as unnecessary witnesses. On the contrary, prosecution evidence is cogent and credible and is sufficient to bring home the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 24. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction is affirmed. 25. As regards prayer of counsel for the appellant for reduction in sentence, the same also cannot be accepted because sentence of imprisonment for one year only, as imposed by the trial Judge, cannot be said to be excessive, keeping in view the menace of corruption, which is spreading its tentacles in the society like cancerous growth. Menace of corruption has to be curbed with strong hands. Even taking into consideration the fact that the occurrence took place more than eleven years ago and the appellant might be out of job, no ground for reduction of sentence, which is already moderate, is made out. 26. As a necessary upshot of the discussion aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant criminal appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant, who is on bail, shall surrender to his bail bonds or shall be arrested to undergo the remaining period of sentence. ----------0BSK0----------