1. One Peer Shafrief-ud-din filed complaint before Superintendent of Police Vigilance Organization, Srinagar on 28th Sept. 2001, stating therein that in the year 1990-2000, he was working as Clerk (Munshi) in the shop of one Bashir Ahmad Dar who is carrying on business in Fruit Mandi, under the name and style of M/s Dar Fruit Growers. The period of employment expired on 31st of March 2000, whereaf­ter his employer threw him out of job. It was also complained that entire salary including bonus etc remained deposited with the employer who in order to gob­ble-up the same did not pay it to him, which constrained him to file a claim before the Dy Labour Commissioner under Payment of Wages Act (for short the Authority) on 15th May 2000 wherein a prayer was made for issuance of direction to Bashir Ahmad Dar for payment of wages etc to the complainant. It was also stated in the complaint that after the evidence was lead on both the sides before the Authority, it was proved that the complainant was paid only the amount which was due to him for having worked overtime, whereas the salary, bonus etc was not paid to him. It was also complained that on 12th Sept. 2000, the Authority prepared award for an amount of Rs.90,000/- and was placed on the file. The amount of Rs.15,000/- was demanded as illegal gratification. It was further complained that since the complainant was idle person he could notpay the amount to the clerk Ab. Hamid Lone (for short the appellant). It was also alleged that before this, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the appellant whereafter the appellant did not give the copy of the order to the complainant and instead took the complainant to his employer for negotiating a compromise. It was also alleged that the appellant took some amount from the employer of the complainant and told the complainant the award amount will be deposi ted by the employer with the Authority. It was also complained that on 15th Feb. 2001 an award of Rs.16000/- was prepared and notice was sent to employer of the complainant directing him to deposit the aforementioned amount up to 16th March 2001 with the Authority. It was also complained that on 15th Feb. 2001 an award of Rs.16000/- was prepared and notice was sent to employer of the complainant directing him to deposit the aforementioned amount up to 16th March 2001 with the Authority. It was also complained that thereafter an application was filed before the Authority requesting him for release of the amount of Rs.16,000/- but the disbursement was delayed to enable the employer to file appeal which appeal was ultimately dis­missed by Additional District Judge, Srinagar. On 18th Sept. 2001. Cheque for an amount of Rs.16,000/- was received by the complainant on which the appellant demanded the amount of Rs.3,000/- from the complainant which complainant paid to him. It was also stated in the complaint that on 27th Sept. 2001 he filed an application for issuance of copy of the file which was marked by the Authority but the appellant delayed issuance of copy and made further demand of Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification. The complainant, though, brought the demanded bribe amount with him but approached the Vigilance Organization Kashmir (VOK) and re­quested for initiating action in the matter and also requested that steps be taken for paying back the amount to the complainant and action be initiated against the appellant. It is this complaint which became basis for registration of case FIR 25 of 2001. Investigating team was constituted which was headed by Dy. S.P Mr. Badana. The amount brought by the complainant was in the denomination of one note of Rs. 500/- and five notes of Rs. 100/-. On these currency notes phenolphthalein powder was sprinkled and notes were returned to the complainant. Demonstrations were conducted, Ab. Majid Beigh Naib TehsilJar Magistrate was included as part of the team as an independent witness. In a glass of water one spoon of sodium carbonate was mixed and the Magistrate was asked to dip the fingers of his both hands in the said water. The colour did not change. Thereafter complainant was asked to dip his fingers, as the complainant had handled the currency notes which were smeared with phenolphthalein powder the colour of water changed into pink and same was kept in bottle which was sealed. Documents were prepared about these demonstra­tions. The team headed to the office of the Dy. The colour did not change. Thereafter complainant was asked to dip his fingers, as the complainant had handled the currency notes which were smeared with phenolphthalein powder the colour of water changed into pink and same was kept in bottle which was sealed. Documents were prepared about these demonstra­tions. The team headed to the office of the Dy. Labour Commissioner, were on demand of the appellant Rs.1000/- were paid by the complainant to him and thereafter the said amount was recovered from the appellant. The documents were prepared to evidence this fact. Similarly in a glass of water sodium carbonate was mixed. Initially the fingers of both the hands of the Magistrate were dipped into it, the colour did not change and thereafter the appellant's fingers of both the hands were dipped into it on which the colour changed into pink. The mixture was kept in bottles which were sealed and seized. Document evidencing same were also prepared. Thereafter in a glass of water, a spoon of sodium carbonate was mixed, initially the Magistrate's fingers of both the hands were dipped into the water the colour did not change and thereafter the left pocket of the shirt of the appellant was dipped into it on which the colour changed into pink, same was kept in bottle and sealed, shirt was also seized. Documents were also prepared. The case file titled Peer Sharief ud din v. Bashir Ahmed Dar was also seized on spot. Document evidencing i this fact was prepared on which besides others one Design Nursing Orderly Halima Bano working in the office of Dy. Labour Commissioner has also signed as a witness. Identity Card of the appellant was also seized. Seizure memo was prepared. Magistrate's seal was also seized and document about it prepared. Site plan was I also prepared. After the completion of the investigation, report under section 173. Cr.P.C was filed on 16th May 2002 before the court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption Srinagar, as the competent authority issued sanction u/s 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 for launching the prosecution against the appellant. 2. After hearing Id counsel for parties, Id trial judge ordered for framing of the charge against the appellant for having allegedly committed the offence punishable u/s 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 2006 read with section 161 of RPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and was accordingly put on trial. 2. After hearing Id counsel for parties, Id trial judge ordered for framing of the charge against the appellant for having allegedly committed the offence punishable u/s 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 2006 read with section 161 of RPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and was accordingly put on trial. The prosecution examined the witnesses and thereafter the statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C on 11th of Oct. 2004. The appellant examined witnesses in defence to prove his innocence. 3. After conclusion of trial and after hearing the Id counsel for parties, the Id trial judge vide its judgment dated 10th Dec. 2009 convicted the appellant under section 161 RPC and 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 2006. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the commission of offence u/s 161 RPC and was also sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment u/s 5(2) of P. C Act 2006 and a fine of Rs.1000/-. It was directed that in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. It is this order and judgment which is called in question in this appeal by the appellant. 4. The prosecution witness Ab. Majid Beigh Magistrate was examined by the trial court on 20th August 2002. In his statement the said witness stated that on 28th Sept. 2001 he was posted as Naib Tehsildar Srinagar. Dy. Commissioner sent a written order to him whereunder he was directed to report in the office of Vigilance Commissioner. The witness has stated that he reported to the office of Dy. S.P Mr. Badana, wherein the demonstration took place, details whereof have been given hereinabove. The witness further stated that the officials of the Vigilance Organiza­tion counted Rs.1000/- in his presence. A solution was prepared in which he dipped his fingers but the colour did not change, thereafter phenolphthalein powder sprinkled on the notes, the witness counted the notes and his fingers were again dipped into the solution, the colour of water changed into pink, the amount was given to a person who was sitting there and it was the same person who had handed over the amount to the officer of Vigilance Organization. Documents were prepared, the witness signed those documents which docu­ments were shown to him in the court and were marked as EXPWAMB and EXPWAMB1, thereafter team comprising of the officer/officials of Vigilance Orga­nization and the Magistrate went to Batamaloo Adda. The witness and Dy. S.P Mr. Badana waited outside for the signal of the shadow witness; the shadow witness and other witnesses went inside the office of the Dy. Labour Commissioner, after some time a person came out and signaled the Dy. S.P and thereafter they went in to room of the appellant in the Dy. Labour Commissioner's office and in presence of the Magistrate, the amount was recovered from left pocket of the appellant's shirt. Solution was prepared on spot in which the witness dipped his fingers but the colour did not change, thereafter the appellant's fingers were dipped and colour changed into pink. Shirt was removed and the pocket put into the solution where­after the colour changed into pink. A file was also recovered from the locker of the appellant which was also seized. Documents were prepared on spot. These documents exhibits EXPWAMB-II and EXPWAMB-III and EXPWAMB-IV were stated to be true and correct by the said witness. Another document EXPWAMB-V was also stated to be true and correct. Another document EXPWAMB-VI was prepared which related to the entrustment of money. The contents of all these documents were admitted by the witness to be true and correct. Currency notes were shown to him in the court which he identified. The seized bottles were also shown to the witness in the court. The witness further stated that he cannot say as to where the bottles are same or not as they were not signed by the said witness. About the seized shirt the witness again said that it is the same shirt which was worn by the appellant. The seized file is same which was seized on spot. In cross examination the witness stated that the order which was sent to him by Dy. Commissioner whereunder he was directed to report in the Vigilance Office was not seen by him in the court. The witness further stated that it was Friday at around 11-11.30 when he went to the Vigilance Office where he was asked to meet Mr. Badana. In the office of Mr. Badana he found 4-5 persons seated there including that of Shadow witness. The witness further stated that it was Friday at around 11-11.30 when he went to the Vigilance Office where he was asked to meet Mr. Badana. In the office of Mr. Badana he found 4-5 persons seated there including that of Shadow witness. He further stated that six persons were seated there. The witness further stated that after offering Friday prayers they went to the office of the Dy. Labour Commissioner. The witness also stated that he does not remember as to whether hand of any other person was washed with the solution on which the colour turned pink in the Vigilance Office. The witness also stated that before signing the documents which were prepared he read them and if anything contrary to what all transpired would have been stated therein he would not have signed those documents. The witness also stated that at about 2 PM the team reached the office of the Dy. Labour Commissioner where they spent almost 45 minutes and at about 3 PM they returned from the office of the Dy. Labour Commissioner and after completion of the proceedings in the office of the Dy Labour Commissioner, the witness went to his home. The witness further stated that the appellant was searched by officials/officers of the Vigilance Organization. The witness further stated that in the appellant's room there was one male person and one female person and the shadow witness was also in the room and the other witnesses of the Vigilance Organization were standing on the door. The witness also stated that when he and Mr. Badana entered the room of the appellant, he was sitting in the chair and shadow witness was sitting on the arm of the chair. 5. Assadullah prosecution witness deposed before the court, that on 28th of Sept. 2001, he was posted as Record Keeper in the office of Vigilance Organization Kashmir. On 29th Sept. 2001 Mr. Gh. Hyder Dy. S.P at around 2.30 PM called him, his office. The witness further stated that he carried the paraphernalia required it trap with him. In the room of Dy. SP, besides some persons, Inspector Parvaiz ahmed, Head Constable Mohammad Iqbal and Magistrate were present. Complainant was asked to, produce the money which was required to be paid as illegal ratification to the appellant. The witness further stated that he carried the paraphernalia required it trap with him. In the room of Dy. SP, besides some persons, Inspector Parvaiz ahmed, Head Constable Mohammad Iqbal and Magistrate were present. Complainant was asked to, produce the money which was required to be paid as illegal ratification to the appellant. The witness stated that he was asked to sprinkle powder on notes, the numbers of the currency notes were also recorded. Thereafter water was brought in a glass and Magistrate dipped his fingers in it on which the colour of the water did not change, thereafter the currency notes which were smeared with powder were handed over to the complainant. The complainant was asked to dip his hands into water and the moment he dipped the fingers into the water, colour thereof changed into pink. The water was kept in bottle and sealed. Documents were prepared. Thereafter the trap team went to the office of Dy. Labour Commissioner where, at the signal of the shadow witness, they entered into the room of the appellant. The Vigilance officer asked appellant to raise his hands and was further asked to produce the amount which he received as illegal gratification from the complainant. The witness further stated that the appellant took out the currency notes from his right pocket whereafter the Investigating officer directed for bringing a glass of water in which one spoon of powder was mixed and Magistrate was asked to dip his fingers, the colour did not change, thereafter the appellant was asked to dip his hand into it whereafter the colour changed into pink. This pink colour water was kept in bottle and was sealed. Document was prepared. The pocket of shirt which the appellant was wearing was dipped in another glass of water, the colour whereof changed into pink. Documents were prepared in respect of the currency notes and other items. The contents whereof he found to be correct and identified his signa­tures on these documents. In cross examination the witness stated that he is aware about the essentials which are necessary for laying the trap. He also stated that the independent witness searched the members of the trap team. The contents whereof he found to be correct and identified his signa­tures on these documents. In cross examination the witness stated that he is aware about the essentials which are necessary for laying the trap. He also stated that the independent witness searched the members of the trap team. The independent witness issues the certificate but he does not know as to whether in this case the independent witness issued such certificate, as it is the job of the investigating officer to know the same. The witness further stated that the shadow witness was Selection Grade (SG) constable Gh. Ahmad. The witness also stated that in the room of Dy. S.P, the hands of independent witness and complainant were dipped in water. The witness stated that after sprinkling powder on the currency notes he washed his hands. The witness further stated that in the statement which he has given in the court he may forget certain things. The witness also stated that the documents including that of memo of demonstrations were prepared in his pres­ence, however, he does not know who prepared these documents. The witness also stated that during the trap proceedings he remained busy with his own job so it was difficult for him to say who prepared the documents. The witness further in the -wee examination stated that the currency notes which were received by the appellant as illegal gratification were taken out by the appellant from his pocket and thereafter his hands were washed. The witness again stated that after recovery of the amount from the appellant his hands were washed. 6. The complainant in his statement deposed before the court that in the year 1999 he was employed by one Bashir Ahrned Dar as clerk (Munshi), his monthly salary was Rs.4700/- he was also getting bonus of one month. He was also getting additional charges of Rs.15/- per box. He worked for one year with Bashir Ahmed Dar. Bashir Ahmed Dar had some dispute with his brothers. Bashir Ahmed Dar owner of the shop stopped the salary and commission of the complainant and did not pay the same, whereafter he filed an application before the members of Associ­ation who did not take any interest in the matter. Thereafter lie filed an application before the Dy. Labour Commissioner were rough award for Rs. 90,000/- was prepared on 20th Sept. 2000. The appellant demanded Rs. Thereafter lie filed an application before the Dy. Labour Commissioner were rough award for Rs. 90,000/- was prepared on 20th Sept. 2000. The appellant demanded Rs. 15000/- from the com­plainant so that the award is passed in his favour. The appellant was working as clerk in the said office and was dealing with these cases. At that point of time complainant paid only Rs.3,000/-. The complainant was idle and he was regularly visiting the office of the Authority, but copy of the order was not given to him. In the meanwhile, the Authority told the complainant that he must try to resolve the dispute with his employer. The appellant accompanied the complainant to meet the members of the Association where the appellant was kept away from the deliberations and there­after the appellant told the complainant that the employer will deposit the money with the authority, however, they did not come there. The complainant further stated that in his absence the award of Rs.16,000/- was passed whereas it was decided that an amount of Rs. 90,000/- will be passed. Thereafter the complainant went to the office of Dy. Labour Commissioner and requested for issuance of copy of the judgment. On cross examination the witness stated that it was found that the award of Rs.16,000/- was passed whereas he was assured that an award of Rs. 90,000/- will be passed. The appellant told the complainant that the balance amount will be paid to him through another award. The employer Bashir Ahmed Dar deposited an amount of Rs.16,000/- in the office of the Dy. Labour Commissioner. As the amount was not paid to the complainant he filed an application, but still the amount war, not paid to him. In the meanwhile, the employer Bashir Ahmed Dar filed appeal in the court of Additional District Judge Srinagar, which appeal being time barred was dismissed. After dismissal of appeal by Additional District Judge, the complainant was not paid the award amount and was made to wait for one month and thereafter an amount of Rs.16,000/was paid to him. The appellant demanded an amount of Rs.3,000/-from the complainant which was paid to him. The complainant thereafter filed an application before the Dy. Labour Commissioner for issuance of copy which was marked by the said au thority. The appellant demanded an amount of Rs.3,000/-from the complainant which was paid to him. The complainant thereafter filed an application before the Dy. Labour Commissioner for issuance of copy which was marked by the said au thority. The application was thereafter taken to appellant and the appellant again de­manded Rs.1,000/- from the complainant as he was the person who was dealing with the case. As the complainant thought that justice has not been meted out to him so he filed written complaint before the Vigilance Organization. The complaint vas shown to him in the court which was written by him and was signed by him. The contents thereof were admitted by him to be true and correct. The complainant thereafter narrated sequence of events which had taken place in the vigilance organization and thereafter in the office of Dy. Labour Commissioner. The Magistrate's hands were dipped into the glass of water on which the colour did not change but when the hands of the complaint dipped into it, the colour changed into pink. Documents were prepared in the office of V.O about these demonstrations. The complainant has also stated that when the complainant entered the room of the appellant, the appellant told him that today the complainant has brought the money and took him in the another room where he received Rs.1,000/- from the complain­ant. On the signal given by the shadow witness members of the team entered the room and appellant was asked to raise his hands. The appellant had kept the amount which he received as illegal gratification in the left pocket of his shirt. The Dy. S.P recovered the money from the pocket of the appellant, then a glass of water was brought in which the Magistrate dipped his hands, but the colour did not change thereafter the fingers of both hands of the appellant were dipped on which the colour changed into pink. Thereafter another glass of water was brought before the Magistrate who dipped hands into it but colour did not change but when left pocket of shirt of the appellant in which the amount was kept was dipped into the water the colour changed into pink. The documents were prepared on spot which were signed by the complainant. The water was also sealed in bottles. The documents were prepared on spot which were signed by the complainant. The water was also sealed in bottles. The documents and bottles were shown to the complainant in the court which he found to be same which were prepared/seized at the time of trap. In cross examination complainant stated after the trap was laid, the appellant was also brought to the V.O. He was wearing a different shirt. The witness also staled that his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded. After recording the statement same was read over by the I.O to him which the complainant found to be correct. The part of the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C wherein the complainant had stated that the salary was not paid to him and up to the stage that an amount of Rs.16,000/- was paid to him was put to the complainant which he said to be true and correct. Another part of the statement recorded u/s 161 relating to the demand of illegal gratification of an amount of Rs.15,000/- was also put to the complainant which he stated to be correct. Another part of the statement recorded u/s 161 wherein the complainant has stated that the appellant had put the complainant to trouble even after taking the illegal gratification did not help him so he made the complaint before S.P was also stated to be true and correct. Another part of the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C viz that during investigation the Dy. S.P summoned the Magistrate and constituted a party of few persons and the Magistrate took the amount of Rs.1,000/- comprising of one note of Rs.500 and five notes of Rs.100/- denominations which were paid to the appellant and the numbers were jotted down and powder was sprinkled on them thereafter the amount was returned to the complainant and the document was prepared was accepted to be true and correct by the complainant. Another part of the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C viz the Dy. SP directed a constable to be with the complainant and told him that in case the appellant demands money same should be paid to him was also accepted to be true and correct. Another part of the statement recorded under section 161 which was put to the complainant viz the Dy. SP directed a constable to be with the complainant and told him that in case the appellant demands money same should be paid to him was also accepted to be true and correct. Another part of the statement recorded under section 161 which was put to the complainant viz the Dy. S.P alongwith his partiesand in presence of Magistrate Rs.1,000/- was recovered from the pocket of the appellant and the numbers were checked and water mixed with white powder was also accepted to be true and correct by the complainant. The complainant in cross examination stated that the moment the Dy. SP alongwith other members of the team entered the room they asked the appellant to hands-up and thereafter he was searched. The complainant, however, stated that he does not remember as to documents were signed on spot by the trap team or not. However, the documents were signed. The complainant in cross examination has further stated that when he paid Rs.6,000/- to the appellant he knew that he is committing an offence but then he had no option but to pay the amount. He also stated that at that point of time he did not go to the Vigilance Organization as he had developed greed of getting Rs.90,000/-. 7. Inspector Parvaiz Ahmed has also in his statement reiterated what has been stated by the complainant and other witnesses and supported the prosecution case. In his cross-examination the said witness stated that the currency notes which were recovered from the appellant were given by the complainant in his presence to the head of the investigating team. Assadullah sprinkled powder on them he had also brought bottles with him. He has further stated that they reached the office of the Dy Labour Commissioner at around 3.30 PM. He has also deposed that at the signal of the shadow witness all the members of the trap team entered the room. The complainant had paid the amount to the appellant. Thereafter demonstra­tion took place, the amount which was recovered from pocket of the appellant had same numbers which the complainant had produced in the office of the Dy. SP. The Dy.SP recovered the amount from the pocket of the appellant and the other steps were taken. The Dy. SP searched the appellant. Thereafter demonstra­tion took place, the amount which was recovered from pocket of the appellant had same numbers which the complainant had produced in the office of the Dy. SP. The Dy.SP recovered the amount from the pocket of the appellant and the other steps were taken. The Dy. SP searched the appellant. On being questioned by the court the witness stated that the complainant had filed a claim petition for payment of wages and it is for this reason that the appellant had demanded the amount to the complainant so as to render some assistance to him. 8. The Investigating Officer (I.O) Mr. Badana, was also examined in the court. He gave narration of the facts, details whereof have been given hereinabove. He stated that on the basis of his investigation it was prima facie proved the appellant has committed the offence punishable u/s 5(2) and Section 161 RPC. On cross examination the I.O stated that at around 3.30 PM they reached the office of Dy. Labour Commissioner. The I.O specifically denied the suggestion that he had asked the shadow witness to put the money into the pocket of the appellan t. He has further deposed that the statement of the prosecution witnesses were recorded in the police station after the trap was over, as the statement could not be recorded for securit" reasons in the office of the Dy. Labour Commissioner. The I.O after reiterating a that had happened in the investigation, stood by his investigation. 9. Gh. Mohammad Bhat SG constable in his statement in the court supported the prosecution case in its entirety being a shadow witness. He also stated that after the appellant and complainant talked to each other which he could not hear, the complainant paid amount of Rs.1,000/- to the appellant and the appellant kept the same in the pocket of his shirt. On this he gave signal to the members of the team who came to the room and appellant was asked to hands up. Money was recovered from the pocket of the appellant. Documents were prepared. Demonstrations were also made. He thereafter gave details about the demonstration etc. He on every step supported the prosecution case. He also stated that there was also one lady clerk in the office room of the appellant. 10. Mohammad Iqbal Head Constable, also gave all the details which have been stated hereinabove. Documents were prepared. Demonstrations were also made. He thereafter gave details about the demonstration etc. He on every step supported the prosecution case. He also stated that there was also one lady clerk in the office room of the appellant. 10. Mohammad Iqbal Head Constable, also gave all the details which have been stated hereinabove. The said witness stated that the appellant took out the money from his pocket and handed over to Mr. Badana Dy. SP. 11. In the statement recorded u/s 342 Cr.P.C the incriminating material which had come on record was put to the appellant. The appellant in his reply admitted that the officers of the Vigilance Organization came in the office room of the appellant. He also stated that Mr. Badana and two constables tied his hands and put some money into his pocket and thereafter he was asked to take out the money. The appellant also stated that he had never demanded any money from the complainant but in fact paid Rs.4000/- to the complainant because he was poor and was jobless. This money was paid to the complainant by the appellant in install­ments for his sustenance. It is also stated that the employees who were available in the office room of the appellant were not examined and reiterated his statement that the police put the money into his pocket. He denied the allegations of having demanded any money from the complainant for preparing an award of Rs.90,000/-. He has further stated that he has not committed any offence bu t police has conspired against him. He has further admitted that after the amount was forcibly put into his pocket he was asked to take it out and then was made to dip his hands into the water. In the said statement he also stated that when the trap was laid no officer was present in the office. He has also stated that he was beaten/slapped and after putting the money into his pocket he was asked to take it out and it was this money on which they had sprinkled some medicine. The appellant led evidence in support of his defence. 12. He has also stated that he was beaten/slapped and after putting the money into his pocket he was asked to take it out and it was this money on which they had sprinkled some medicine. The appellant led evidence in support of his defence. 12. One Mohammad Mabqool Mir who is employee of the Labour Department, in his statement stated that the complainant on the date of occurrence which was a Friday in the morning came to his office and asked for issuance of copy of the award which award of Rs. 16,000/- he had already received. The witness has further stated that one Head Assistant Ab. Gani Mir told the complainant that officer is on leave so he should come on Monday to get the copy of the order which, however, will be given to him provided he gave "Stamps". The witness has further stated that the complainant, however, on same day came back in the office after Friday prayers and the moment he entered the room some persons also entered and two persons caught the hands of the appellant and third person put something into the pocket of the appellant, thereafter he was beaten and taken into another room. After this, these persons disclosed identity being officers of Vigilance Organization Kashmir and after half an hour they left the place. The witness has further stated that the appellant was not searched in his presence. The witness has admitted that the complainant had a case in the Labour Commissioner's office and he used to come there. The witness also stated that when complainant entered the room of the appellant one Farooq Ahmed and Ab. Hamid were present there. The witness also stated that the officers of Vigilance Organization did not search any other person other than the appellant. He has also deposed that the shirt which was worn by the appellant had only one pocket. 13. Hamlima another witness deposed before the trial court that the day of occurrence was a Friday. After offering Friday prayers she came back to office. Meanwhile, the complainant came and asked the appellant to accompany him thereafter they started talking to each other. In the meanwhile, 10-12 people entered the room they caught the appellant and probably he was beaten and it was 28th Sept. 2001. In the cross examination the witness stated that she has been working in the department from 1998. Meanwhile, the complainant came and asked the appellant to accompany him thereafter they started talking to each other. In the meanwhile, 10-12 people entered the room they caught the appellant and probably he was beaten and it was 28th Sept. 2001. In the cross examination the witness stated that she has been working in the department from 1998. She has further deposed that she, Head Assistant Ab. Gani, Ab. Hamid Sr. Assistant working in one room. She also deposed that she knew the complainant from the date he had filed his case. She has further deposed that when complainant entered the room he called the appellant and thereafter they went into another room. She has also deposed that a person belonging to Vigilance Organization was also there what happened in the another room she does not know. 14. Defense witness Farooq Ahmed Dar in his statement before the court has deposed that some officers of the Vigilance Organization came in the office of the Dy. Labour Commissioner it was a Friday. After offering Friday prayers he came back. He was sitting in the room of P.A/Head Assistant of Dy. Labour Commissioner's office, the appellant was also present there. Meanwhile, one person came and he tried to put some money in to the pocket of the appellant. Appellant told him what are you doing and thereafter 2-3 persons came and appellant was taken into another room we heard some noise. He has also deposed that they remained outside the room and thereafter they were told the appellant has been arrested. He has further deposed that when the appellant was arrested at that time Ab. Gani Mir, Ab. Hamid and Mohammad Af aq and Mst. Halima were also present there. In cross examination this witness has admitted that in the year 2001 the appellant was dealing with the court cases. 15. Ab. Gani Mir defence witness has deposed that after offering Friday prayers at about 3 PM he along with the appellant was sitting in the room. Complainant came and three persons were accompanying him. Complainant called the appellant and they went to the Waranda and entered adjacent room. The said witness has admitted that the appellant was dealing with the court cases. The appellant was preparing the certificates as also the notes which the officer would sign. 16. Heard Id counsel for parties. Considered the matter. 17. Mr. Complainant called the appellant and they went to the Waranda and entered adjacent room. The said witness has admitted that the appellant was dealing with the court cases. The appellant was preparing the certificates as also the notes which the officer would sign. 16. Heard Id counsel for parties. Considered the matter. 17. Mr. Molvi Ajaz Id counsel for the appellant made all out efforts to dislodge the prosecution case inter alia on the ground the appellant has been framed up in a false case; the contradictions which have come on record during the trial of the case would not lead a reasonable person to hold that the offence has been brought to home to the appellant beyond all shadow of doubt; the prosecution projected one case in the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C and that during the trial of the case, painted different picture. The Id counsel in order to substantiate his argument read the prosecution evidence in extenso. The Id counsel highlighted the discrepancies in the statement of prosecution witnesses which according to the submission of the Id counsel are major contradictions sufficient to throw doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. Ld counsel in a bid to persuade the court to take a view that the prosecution case is false referred to the written complaint of the complainant and his statement recorded during trial of the case as also of the other witnesses and submitted that in the complaint the complainant has made allegations against the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and further stated that the appellant being only clerk would not be in a position to lend any help to the complainant so could not demand money from him for a job which he could not do. The Id counsel also referred to the memos prepared during the investigation of the case and stated that there being major discrepancies between these memos and statement of pros­ecution witnesses recorded during the trial, the prosecution case is bound to fail. The Id counsel referred to and relied upon the following judgments, AIR 2009 SC 1887 , AIR 1995 SC 2345 , AIR 1970 SC 450 , AIR 1976 SC 739 , AIR 1975 SC 1432 , AIR 1973 SC 498 , AIR 1989 SC 982 , AIR 1980 SC 1558 and AIR 1979 SC 1408 . The Id counsel referred to and relied upon the following judgments, AIR 2009 SC 1887 , AIR 1995 SC 2345 , AIR 1970 SC 450 , AIR 1976 SC 739 , AIR 1975 SC 1432 , AIR 1973 SC 498 , AIR 1989 SC 982 , AIR 1980 SC 1558 and AIR 1979 SC 1408 . Ld counsel also referred to and relied upon case titled M.O. Shamshudin, appellant v. State of Kerala, respondent reported in 1995 (2) Crimes page 282 and stated that in the event this court upholds the conviction of the appellant, then the sentence of the appellant be reduced to the period already under gone by him. 18. Mr. N.A. Shah Id Dy. AG on the other hand while arguing the case stated that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all shadow of doubt. Ld counsel further submitted that minor discrepancies in the statement of prosecution witnesses will not render the prosecution case doubtful. Id counsel in support of his argument referred to and relied upon judgment reported in AIR 2009 SC 2112 , 2009(5) SCC117, 2009 (9) SCC 752 , 2010 (1) SCC 398 and submitted that the appeal merits dismissal. 19. The argument advanced by the Id counsel for the appellant that in view of the stand taken by the prosecution at investigation stage and at trial stage two different pictures are painted and that major contradictions which have come on record are sufficient to entitle the appellant's acquittal, may not succeed in the facts and circumstances of this case. It is specifically stated in the complaint that the complainant was an employee of Bashir Ahmed Dar who did not pay salary/bonus etc to the complainant which constrained him to file claim petition before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. It is also specifically stated that the appellant was working as clerk in the said department. It is also stated that the complainant was told that an award of Rs.90,000/- will be passed in his favour and Rs. 6,000/- was taken from him by the appellant and thereafter award for an amount of Rs.16,000/- was passed which though was received by him but for providing the copy of the award file the appellant further demanded an amount of Rs.1,000/-. 20. 6,000/- was taken from him by the appellant and thereafter award for an amount of Rs.16,000/- was passed which though was received by him but for providing the copy of the award file the appellant further demanded an amount of Rs.1,000/-. 20. What is proved in the trial of the case is that the complainant had lodged a claim with the authority under Payment of Wages Act, in which the award of Rs.16,000/- has been passed in his favour; which award amount he has received.lt is also proved during the trial both by prosecution witnesses and the defence witnesses that appellant was working as clerk in the department and he was dealing with the court cases. The effort of Id counsel for the appellant to state that one of the prosecution witnesses has given different date of occurrence pales into insignif­icance in view of the fact that the appellant in his statement u/s 342 Cr.P.C recorded by the trial court has admitted that the complainant and the officers/officials of the Vigilance team came to his office on 28th Sept. 2001. It is also admitted on either side that the complainant and officers/officials of the V.O came to the office of the appellant on Friday after Friday prayers. The prosecution has successfully proved that a written complaint was filed with V.O.K by the complainant. An amount of Rs.1000/- in the denominations of one currency note of Rs.500/- and five currency notes of Rs.100/- were produced before the Vigilance Organization. The numbers of the notes were taken, phenolphthalein powder was sprinkled on them. 21. The independent witness viz Magistrate's fingers were dipped into the water due to which the colour of water did not change and after that the fingers of the complainant who had received back the smeared notes were dipped into the water, the colour of water turned into pink. It is also proved on evidence during trial that the demand was made by the appellant to the complainant for payment of Rs.1,000/- for issuance of copy of the file/award. The complainant has in unequivocal terms stated about the demand so made by the appellant. It is this demand made by the appellant which constrained him to file complaint with the Vigilance Organization and resultantly trap was laid. 22. Dispute is raised by the appellant about the receipt and recovery of the currency notes from his person. The complainant has in unequivocal terms stated about the demand so made by the appellant. It is this demand made by the appellant which constrained him to file complaint with the Vigilance Organization and resultantly trap was laid. 22. Dispute is raised by the appellant about the receipt and recovery of the currency notes from his person. The stand of the appellant, is that, the money was forcibly thrust into his pocket by the officers of the Vigilance Organization and he was thereafter forced to take out the same from his pocket. It is this aspect of the case which requires consideration of the court to find out as to on which side the truth lies. 23. The prosecution in order to prove receipt and recovery of the bribe amount have examined independent witness viz Magistrate, shadow witness and other witnesses. The shadow witness has specifically stated that when the complainant went into the office room of the appellant, he took him into another room. They talked with each other and money was received by the appellant and put into his pocket on which he signaled the trap team. The witness has stated, the appellant was asked to raise his hands and thereafter he was asked to take out money from his pocket which he did. The Magistrate independent witness supported the pros­ecution version. The complainant has in unequivocally terms stated in his statement that money was demanded and received by the appellant and thereafter it was recovered from his pocket. In the cross examination the statement made by complainant u/s 161 Cr.P.C has been brought on record. The important portion of the statement were put to him, which he admitted to be correct, and it is this statement which in all fours inculpate the appellant. 24. From amongst the defence witnesses one witness has stated that money was thrust into his pocket whereas other witnesses including Halima who's pres­ence in the room has been admitted by the independent witness magistrate has stated that the appellant and complainant and one person went into the adjacent room and what transpired there they do not know anything about the same. The appellant has stated that the police officers have conspired against him and thus framed him in false case. The appellant has stated that the police officers have conspired against him and thus framed him in false case. No single reason is given as to why the police officers/of­ficials would conspire to support this plea not to talk of proving same by leading evidence. No such question is put to witnesses during cross examination. The appellant in his statement recorded u/s 342 Cr.P.C has stated that I.O and two other persons tied his hands and thereafter money was thrust into his pocket, but this stand taken by him is not supported even by defence witnesses. Only one witness has stated that money was tried to be put into his pocket by one person, but even this half hearted attempt does not derive support from the statement of appellant and his other witnesses. On evidence it is proved that the money was received by appellant, put into his pocket and then recovered there-from by I.O. The stand of appellant that money was thrust into his pocket and then he was forced to take it out does not derive support from the host of witnesses lead on either side. The money was demanded and received by appellant for issuing certified copy of file/award, that is how on his fingers being dipped into solution. Same turned pink. 25. It appears that in order to justify taking of money and recovery thereof, the appellant put-forth yet another story that he had advanced some money as loan to the complainant who was idle and act of mercy was shown to enable him to sustain himself. This plea it appears was taken by the appellant to justify the receipt of amount which was subsequently recovered from his pocket, but it appears that he dropped the idea of projecting such a defence either at his own choice or on some advice received. 26. The I.O and other witnesses have not been cross examined by the appellant, on the plea of having hatched conspiracy against the appellant or forcibly putting money into his pocket. No evidence in defence is brought on record to prove the plea taken in the statement recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C. It appears that the appellant like drowning person has tried to catch on very straw to save himself from clutches of law. 27. No evidence in defence is brought on record to prove the plea taken in the statement recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C. It appears that the appellant like drowning person has tried to catch on very straw to save himself from clutches of law. 27. The evidence which has been brought on record and which is discussed hereinabove do show that there are some discrepancies in the statement of prose­cution witnesses, viz one PW has given date of occurrence as 29th Sept. 2001, but in view of admission of appellant that Vigilance Organization team laid trap and in view of the fact that all other prosecution and defence witnesses have given date of occurrence as 28th Sept. 2001 the discrepancy is rendered inconsequential. Similarly some witnesses have stated that hands were dipped in solution and some stated that fingers were dipped. These expressions used by witnesses do not change the complexion of case. By slating that hands were dipped, what is conveyed is that it were gingers which touched the solution. The appellant had to issue copy of award/file as same was marked to him by the authority and admittedly he was dealing with court cases, including that of the case of complainant, so the bribe was demanded and accepted for a job which the appellant was performing. Even, otherwise, Sec. 5(1) (b) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 2006 makes a person liable for being punished even if he accepts bribe for other person who is competent to do any work. Taking over all view of the statement of the prosecution witnesses as also that of the statement recorded u/s 342 Cr.P.C and the statements of defence witnesses one reaches to inescapable conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case beyond all shadow of doubt against the appellant. 28. The judgments referred to and relied upon by the Id counsel for the appellant have proceeded on their own facts. None of the judgment support the case of the appellant. The judgment in M.O. Shamshudin's case (supra) supports the prosecution case. 29. 28. The judgments referred to and relied upon by the Id counsel for the appellant have proceeded on their own facts. None of the judgment support the case of the appellant. The judgment in M.O. Shamshudin's case (supra) supports the prosecution case. 29. The plea of the Id counsel for the appellant that the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court be reduced to the period already under gone cannot be accepted as no circumstances not to talk of any extra ordinary circumstances is brought on record to accept the submission of the Id counsel for the appellant. 30. The criminal justice system is essential component for orderly functioning of the State. A crime when committed and proved beyond all shadow of doubt in a properly constituted trial has to be answered by giving appropriate punishment to the guilty. Any leniency shown is bound to encourage crime in the society. A person who commits the offence and which is proved at trial is to be punished by awarding appropriate punishment. The corruption has reached to alarming heights. This menace if not fought at all levels is bound to destroy the moral fabric of the society. Corruption like monster can devastate the society and State. 31. For the reasons recorded in this judgment, this appeal is dismissed. The personal bond and the surety bond of the appellant are cancelled. The appellant to surrender for serving the remaining part of his sentence. The Id trial judge including concerned authorities to take steps for taking the appellant into custody for serving the remaining part of the sentence.