JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Agarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. M.K. Singhal, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the Central Bureau of Investigation. 2. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 30.7.1999 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Uttar Pradesh (East), Dehradun in C.B.I. Case No. 6 of 1992, whereby the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 7 and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution, are that the complainant moved a written complaint before Superintendent of Police (C.B.I), Dehradun on 31.12.1991, which was later registered as an F.I.R. on direction of the Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.). In the said F.I.R. it was stated by the complainant that he is a member of Scheduled Caste community. He had moved an application for loan before the Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Caste Finance & Development Corporation, Dehradun (from hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) for opening a grocery shop. When he later enquired about his loan from the office of the Corporation he was informed that all the formalities at their end had been completed and the papers were forwarded to Punjab National Bank at its Race Course Branch, Dehradun. Consequently when he went to the Bank he was told that the papers have reached the Bank and after the formalities are completed, he will get the loan. After this the complainant states that he completed all the formalities of the Bank and completed all the documentation work. After one month he met the manager of the Bank Sri A.K. Goel, who assured him that loan will be sanctioned. All the same, even after one month when the loan money was not received by him he met Sri Goel on 30.12.1991, along with stamp papers and quotations when he was told by Sri Goel that if you give me Rs. 500/- then only you will get your cheque of the loan amount. The complainant then states that he does not want to give bribe and requested the police to initiate proceedings on his complaint. 500/- then only you will get your cheque of the loan amount. The complainant then states that he does not want to give bribe and requested the police to initiate proceedings on his complaint. The F.I.R. was consequently lodged on 31.12.1991 at about 1.30 PM at the C.B.I. Police Station at Dehradun, and a case was registered at Special Police Establishment Branch, Dehradun as R.C.-41 (A)/91/DAD against the accused under Section 7 of the Act, and Inspector Bhagwan Singh was deputed to investigate the matter. Soon after that, a team was constituted to lay a trap. Shri R.D. Joshi (P.W.2) and Shri Satish Gupta (P.W.3), who were employed in Pyrites Phosphates & Chemicals Limited, Dehradun (from hereinafter referred to as P.P.C.L), were procured as witnesses and were made members of the trap team. A pre-trap demonstration was conducted at the C.B.I. office, Dehradun in presence of all the members of the team in which the manner of trapping, the use of phenolphthalein as well as other methods to be employed for trapping were made known to all the members, and subsequently instructions were also given to the officers. On the same day i.e. 31.12.1991 at about 3:30 P.M., the members of the trap team reached the neighbourhood of the concerned Bank namely Punjab National Bank, Race Course Branch, Dehradun. On the same date at about 4.30 PM accused/appellant Shri A.K. Goel was caught red handed in the premises of Punjab National Bank, Race Course Branch, Dehradun, while demanding and consequently accepting a sum of Rs. 500/- as an illegal gratification from the complainant for disbursing and sanctioning the loan of Rs. 10,000/- in his favour. The tainted currency note of Rs. 500/- delivered by the complainant to the accused/appellant were also recovered in the proceeding from the left pocket of the accused’s trousers. The required formalities were completed by the trap team and the documents were also seized by the team from the bank which were formed as exhibits and placed before the Court. The accused/appellant was arrested. The remaining investigation was conducted by another inspector, namely, H.M. Javed Khan under orders of the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. Branch, Dehradun. 4. The charges were framed against the accused in the Court under Section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. These charges were denied by the accused/appellant. The remaining investigation was conducted by another inspector, namely, H.M. Javed Khan under orders of the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. Branch, Dehradun. 4. The charges were framed against the accused in the Court under Section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. These charges were denied by the accused/appellant. The statements of the accused were also recorded on the date, the charges were framed, wherein he denied the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs. 500/-from the complainant. The defence taken by the accused/appellant was that the complainant had applied for a loan of Rs. 20,000/- but instead a loan of only Rs. 10,000/- was sanctioned, which was in the knowledge of the complainant. On the date of trap proceeding, the complaint wanted to deposit Rs. 500/- in the said branch of Punjab National Bank but since the cash counter was closed and he had expressed his inability to come to the bank the next day, he requested the accused to deposit the amount and delivered the deposit slip bearing his signature to the Accountant and left the money with the accused to be deposited in his account the next day. 5. In all, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses which include complainant/decoy Sri Rakesh Kumar (P.W.1), Sri R.D. Joshi and Sri Satish Gupta (P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively who were the independent witnesses accompanying the trap team), Inspector B.P. Bagchi (P.W.4), Sri S.C. Agarwal (P.W. 5 and independent witness to the incident, at least of the recovery), Sri Arvind Kumar Khanduri (P.W.6), Sri P.N. Khurana (P.W.7), Sri Chandra Pal Singh (P.W.8), Deputy Superintendent of Police Bhagwan Singh (P.W.9), Sri Raj Veer Sharma (P.W.10), Sri N.K. Prasad (P.W.11) and the Investigating Officer Mohd. Javed Khan (P.W.12). 6. In its examination in chief the complainant Rakesh Kumar was P.W.1 who stated that he is a “dhobi” (washerman) by caste and belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. On 19.7.1991, he had moved an application (Exhibit Ka-1 and Exhibit Ka-2) for a loan of Rs. 20,000/- in the office of Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Caste Finance & Development Corporation, Dehradun. In turn the said application was forwarded by the said Corporation for a loan of Rs. 20,000/- to Punjab National Bank at its Race Course Branch in Dehradun. The Branch Manager of the Bank was the accused/appellant. 20,000/- in the office of Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Caste Finance & Development Corporation, Dehradun. In turn the said application was forwarded by the said Corporation for a loan of Rs. 20,000/- to Punjab National Bank at its Race Course Branch in Dehradun. The Branch Manager of the Bank was the accused/appellant. The complainant visited the office of the bank at Race Course, Dehradun several times in the month of August and he was finally told that his form is missing. The complainant thereafter again approached the Manager of the Corporation and requested him to ascertain the correct facts from the Bank. The accused/appellant confirmed the loss of the complainant’s application on telephone to the Manager of the Corporation. Consequently, the Manager of the Corporation issued another duplicate loan application form (Ex. Ka-3) on 6.9.1991. This application was personally delivered to the Bank by the complainant. Thereafter, the accused asked the complainant to come after some days along with stamp papers of Rs. 11/-. The complainant accordingly returned to the office of the Punjab National Bank at its Race Course Branch in Dehradun in the third week of November, 1991 and delivered to the accused the required stamp papers which were later handed over to Mr. Raj Veer Sharma (P.W. 10), an employee of the bank at its Race Course Branch. Sri Sharma was also instructed to procure the signature of the complainant on the necessary documents and papers. Consequently, the signatures of the complainant were obtained on various blank papers which have been proved by the complainant in the court (Exhibit Ka-4 to exhibit Ka-11). The caste certificate was also submitted by the complainant in the Bank and after all these formalities were completed, the complainant was asked to come after a few days. The complainant thereafter contacted the said officer of the bank in the second week of November, 1991. He was asked to get stamp papers of Rs. 95/- as well as quotations of the shop from where he wished to obtain the articles (the loan was being taken by the complainant for opening a grocery shop and the quotations for such articles were required which were to be sold by the complainant from his grocery). He was asked to get stamp papers of Rs. 95/- as well as quotations of the shop from where he wished to obtain the articles (the loan was being taken by the complainant for opening a grocery shop and the quotations for such articles were required which were to be sold by the complainant from his grocery). The complainant finally contacted the accused in the bank on 30.12.1991 and submitted the required quotations as well as the stamp papers as required by the bank and requested the accused to expedite his loan matter. The accused informed the complainant that all the necessary formalities for sanctioning the loan have been completed. All the complainant now has to do is to give Rs. 500/- to him (i.e. the accused) for final sanction of the loan. On this, the complaint expressed his inability to pay an amount of Rs. 500/-, and as a reaction to which the accused returned the stamp papers and the quotations to the complainant and asked him to come on the next date along with Rs. 500/-in case he wants his work to be done. The complainant instead lodged an FIR against the accused narrating the sequence of events as stated above. This FIR was lodged on 31.12.1991 at about 1:15 P.M. in the C.B.I. office at Dehradun. The complainant narrated the entire incident to the Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.), Dehradun and then tendered his written report (Exhibit Ka-12) to him. Consequently, a trap party was arranged by Inspector Bhagwan Singh on 31.12.1991 consisting himself, Inspector B.P. Bagchi, Inspector Yashvir Singh, Head Constable and Constables of the C.B.I. Apart from this, Sri R.D. Joshi and Sri Satish Gupta, were procured as independent witnesses from P.P.C.L. and were also made members of the team. The complainant also remained present throughout. The trap laying officer (P.W.9) introduced all members of the team. The contents of the complaint (Exhibit Ka-12) was also read to all members of the team. Some of the team members also interrogated the complainant in order to clarify some points. The complainant himself narrated the entire version before the members of the team and stated that he has been called by the accused at 3:00 P.M. along with a sum of Rs. 500/- if he wants the loan to be sanctioned. Some of the team members also interrogated the complainant in order to clarify some points. The complainant himself narrated the entire version before the members of the team and stated that he has been called by the accused at 3:00 P.M. along with a sum of Rs. 500/- if he wants the loan to be sanctioned. The pre-trap proceedings were completed at about 2:40 P.M. Thereafter, the constables proceeded for the spot by a motorcycle while other members of the team proceeded for the designated place by an official Maruti Van. The van was parked at an isolated place. Sri Satish Gupta and the complainant were sent inside the Bank premises and other members of the team took their position nearby, though outside the Bank premises. At about 4:20 P.M. a signal was given by Satish Gupta (P.W.3) whereupon all the members of the team rushed inside the Bank premises. Inspector Bagchi was the first to reach there and caught both the wrists of the accused. He was immediately followed by the trap laying officer and other members of the team. Sri S.C. Agarwal (P.W.5) was also present in the cabin of the accused, who was there for some inspection work. After giving introduction the accused was taken into custody. A fresh solution of Sodium Carbonate was prepared at the spot and the accused was asked to pour his right hand fingers into the solution and when he did that the colourless solution turned into pink, which was preserved in a bottle and the bottle (Exhibit-IV) was wrapped with a cloth and sealed. The signatures of the members of the team were also obtained thereon. After that, another fresh solution of Sodium Carbonate was prepared and the accused was asked to pour his left hand’s fingers into that solution. That too had turned pink and that was also sealed in a bottle (Exhibit-V) in the same manner. Thereafter the accused was asked to handover the tainted currency notes which were accepted by him. The accused took out the notes from left pocket of his trousers. The numbers of these currency notes were tallied with the numbers mentioned in the pre-trap memorandum and were found to be the exactly the same. The recovered currency notes were sealed in an envelope (Exhibit-VI) and the signatures of the members of the team were also obtained thereon. The accused took out the notes from left pocket of his trousers. The numbers of these currency notes were tallied with the numbers mentioned in the pre-trap memorandum and were found to be the exactly the same. The recovered currency notes were sealed in an envelope (Exhibit-VI) and the signatures of the members of the team were also obtained thereon. After that the accused was asked to take off his trousers while another pair of trousers were given to him to wear. The left pocket of his trousers was also dipped into a freshly prepared solution of the Sodium Carbonate which was originally colourless but had turned pink on pouring the pocket of that trousers. That pink solution was also sealed in a bottle (Exhibit-VIII). All the members of the team had put their signatures on this. This trousers (Exhibit–X) of the accused was also sealed at the spot. On personal search of the accused, another currency notes of Rs. 2,043/- were found in his possession which were returned to him and on personal search of the complainant nothing was found from his possession. 7. A recovery memo of the entire proceedings (Exhibit Ka-16), conducted at the spot, was prepared by Inspector Bagchi (P.W.4). A specimen seal impression was also prepared. The signatures of all the members were obtained thereon. A copy of recovery memo and specimen seal impression was given to the accused then at the time of spot and the accused had made an endorsement (Exhibit Ka-17) of its receipt thereof. 8. A site plan (Exhibit Ka-30) was prepared at the spot by the trap laying officer at the instance of Sri Satish Gupta (P.W.3). These proceedings were completed at about 6:30 P.M. On receiving instruction from the trap laying officer, Inspector Yash Veer Singh seized the documents from the Bank vide seizure memo (Exhibit Ka-31) pertaining to the loan matter of the complainant. 9. After the above proceedings, a search was conducted at the residence of the accused but nothing incriminating was recovered from there. Some documents were seized from his house and a seizure memo was prepared for that and a copy of the seizure memo was given to the accused and an endorsement of its receipt was obtained from him. 10. Another witness in the present case is P.W.3 Satish Gupta. Some documents were seized from his house and a seizure memo was prepared for that and a copy of the seizure memo was given to the accused and an endorsement of its receipt was obtained from him. 10. Another witness in the present case is P.W.3 Satish Gupta. He was a witness who accompanied the complainant and was a witness to the transaction as well as a witness to the recovery being made from the accused. According to P.W. 3 Satish Gupta on 31.12.1991 he was employed at PPCL. His senior had directed him that he has to accompany a CBI team. He reported at 2 O’ clock at CBI office, Dehradun. He corroborates the story of the prosecution as far as pre-trap demonstration, procedure done regarding using the phenolphthalein, etc. Thereafter, according to P.W.3 Satish Gupta the instruction was given to him that he has to accompany the decoy and he should be with him throughout. According to this witness, accused A.K. Goel was sitting in his cabin and in front of him there was another employee of the bank (P.W.5). The cabin had a transparent mirror and he could see what was going inside the cabin. The complainant (P.W. 1) opened the door of the cabin and went inside the cabin. P.W. 3 kept waiting at the door of cabin. What he saw was that P.W. 1 (the complainant) gave certain papers to the accused. He took the papers and gave to one of his subordinates. These were the same papers which he had seen at CBI office, in the pre-trap demonstration. After 15-20 minutes, Mr. Goel came out of cabin and proceeded towards toilet, while doing so he gave a signal to P.W.1 to follow him towards the toilet. P.W.3 Satish Gupta, thereafter, says that there was some talk going on between the two i.e. P.W.1 and the accused. He further states that he could not hear the conversations between the two, though according to him, the accused was making some gestures by which it appeared that he was demanding something from P.W.1. However, he did not see whether Rakesh Kumar Kannojia had actually given anything to the accused. After that the accused went to his cabin and P.W.1 Rakesh Kumar came to P.W.3 and told him that he has given the money to the accused. However, he did not see whether Rakesh Kumar Kannojia had actually given anything to the accused. After that the accused went to his cabin and P.W.1 Rakesh Kumar came to P.W.3 and told him that he has given the money to the accused. After this Rakesh Kumar and P.W. 1 sat outside the cabin on a sofa, as the cash of the bank was being closed and the main gate of the bank were locked. After 10 minutes when the locks were opened, he came outside the bank and as per plan signaled the trap party and consequently the trap party came inside the bank and caught hold the hands of the accused. After this P.W. 3 Satish Gupta demonstrates the same procedure which was adopted, and as narrated by P.W.1 such as dipping of fingers of the accused in the solution of sodium carbonate, keeping the same in a sealed bottle, dipping of left pocket of the trousers of the accused in the solution of sodium carbonate, etc. He further states that the money was recovered from the left trousers pocket of the accused and the number of the notes was then tallied with those which were given to the complainant at pre-trap proceeding, and they were found to be the same. In other words, barring a few minor contradictions P.W.3 Satish Gupta also corroborates the story of the prosecution. During his examination in chief the prosecution after taking permission of the court had put some questions to P.W.3. He is hence treated to be hostile. All the same, he corroborates largely to the story of the prosecution as regarding the accused coming out of his cabin and signalling P.W. 1 to follow him towards the toilet, etc. He though denies having heard anything nor seeing the transaction of money. He though corroborates the story of the prosecution regarding recovery of the tainted notes from the accused, etc. Therefore, even though in a limited sense P.W.3 also corroborates the story of the prosecution. 11. P.W.2 Sri R.D. Joshi is another independent witness procured by the police. Although P.W.2 did not accompany the complainant and remained outside the bank along with the trap team, he, however, enters the bank after the signal. He goes inside the bank with the trap team and corroborates the story of prosecution as regarding the recovery of notes from the accused, etc. 12. Although P.W.2 did not accompany the complainant and remained outside the bank along with the trap team, he, however, enters the bank after the signal. He goes inside the bank with the trap team and corroborates the story of prosecution as regarding the recovery of notes from the accused, etc. 12. P.W.5 is an important witness inasmuch as he is also a bank employee who just happened to be in the cabin of the accused at the relevant time for some official inspection. When the accused was caught by the trap team, he was a witness to the entire incident and he was also a witness to the incident when P.W. 1 entered the cabin for the first time and gave the documents to the accused. However, since the actual transaction of the money, according to the prosecution, took place outside the cabin near the toilet, he was not a witness to the actual taking and giving of the money. Barring this, he corroborates the entire prosecution story and his statement has a tremendous importance inasmuch as he had no grudge against the accused nor was he a member of trap party and only came to the bank for official inspection and happened to be there at the relevant place at the relevant time. He has totally corroborated the story of prosecution. 13. P.W.4 Sri B.P. Bagchi was posted as an inspector at CBI Police station, Dehradun on 31.12.1991. At about 1:15 to 2:00 P.M., the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Dehradun called him and asked him to assist inspector Bhagwan Singh in an important assignment. He met inspector Bhagwan Singh in the office where two witnesses Sri R.D. Joshi (P.W. 2) and Sri Satish Gupta (P.W. 3) were also present. P.W. 1 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Kannojia had given a written complainant against the accused Sri A.K. Goel that in order to disburse loan to him, he was asked a bribe of Rs. 500/-. He had seen the complaint given by the complainant in the police station. He further corroborates the demonstration done by the trap party and the pre-trap proceedings, as stated by P.W. 1. He further states that P.W.3 Sri Satish Gupta was to accompany the complainant in the bank and after the bribe had been given, he came outside the bank and signaled the trap party, who then entered the bank and arrested the accused. He further states that P.W.3 Sri Satish Gupta was to accompany the complainant in the bank and after the bribe had been given, he came outside the bank and signaled the trap party, who then entered the bank and arrested the accused. On the designated day, Sri Satish Gupta came out of the bank at 4:20 P.M. and he signaled the trap team. Entire trap team went inside the cabin of the accused where one Mr. S.C. Agarwal (P.W. 5), who was an employee of the bank and had come to the bank for some inspection, was also present and was sitting in the cabin of the accused at the relevant time. Inspector Bhagwan Singh challenged Sri A.K. Goel (accused) and thereafter P.W.4 caught both the hands of the accused. The solution of sodium carbonate was prepared and the right hand of the accused was dipped on the solution which turned pink. The solution was then sealed in the bottle. Thereafter, another solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in which the left hand of Sri A.K. Goel (accused) was dipped which turned pink and which was again sealed in a bottle as Exhibit -5. Thereafter, Sri A.K. Goel was asked that where the money which he had taken as bribe. Thereafter Sri A.K. Goel took out the money from his left pocket of trousers. These notes were tallied by Sri Bhagwan Singh from the notes which were given by the complainant to the trap team. These were also sealed and marked as Exhibit-6. Thereafter Sri A.K. Goel was asked to take off his trousers and the left pocket of his trousers was dipped into a freshly prepared solution of the Sodium Carbonate which also turned pink on pouring the pocket. This solution was sealed in a bottle and marked as Exhibit-8. 14. P.W. 9 is Deputy Superintendent of Police Sri Bhagwan Singh, who states that in December, 1991 he was posted in the CBI office at Dehradun as an Inspector. When he reached the office of on 31.12.1991, he received a complaint by Sri Rakesh Kumar Kannojia. He was instructed by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Dehradun that a case be registered on the basis of the said complaint. Thereafter he narrates the story of the prosecution as to how the witnesses were procured, a pre-trap demonstration was made, etc. 15. He was instructed by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Dehradun that a case be registered on the basis of the said complaint. Thereafter he narrates the story of the prosecution as to how the witnesses were procured, a pre-trap demonstration was made, etc. 15. Apart from the decoy/complainant who has totally corroborated the story of the prosecution and had proved that there was a demand of bribe and subsequently it was received by the accused, P.W. 3 Sri Satish Gupta is also a witness to this transaction and though his statement at certain places is contrary to what he had stated to the police, yet it corroborates to the vital part of the transaction and that evidence which he has given goes against the accused and in favour of the prosecution. 16. In the present case, P.W.5 Sri S.C. Agarwal is absolutely an independent witness in the sense that he was not a part of the trap team. He did not accompany as a witness along with trap team but only happened to be at the relevant place at the relevant time and though he has not seen either the demand or the receipt of bribe, he was a witness, from the beginning to the end, of the recovery being made from the left pocket of the accused’s trousers. Moreover, the sequence of event, the story as narrated by the complainant, recovery made from the accused and the allegations made in the first instance by the complainant at the police station, all support the basic theory of the prosecution that the accused demanded a bribe from the complainant for sanctioning a loan of Rs. 10,000/- in his favour and that the accused had repeatedly been harassing the complainant in the matter of grant of loan. This was so because the earlier form submitted by the complainant in the Race Course Branch of Punjab National Bank through the Corporation was said to have been lost by the accused and this was the reason the sanction of the loan was being delayed. All the same, after the trap was laid and the recovery was being made, certain documents were seized from the office of Race Course Branch of Punjab National Bank, which are part of exhibits and one of the exhibits is the earlier form submitted by the complainant which was said to have been lost by the accused. All the same, after the trap was laid and the recovery was being made, certain documents were seized from the office of Race Course Branch of Punjab National Bank, which are part of exhibits and one of the exhibits is the earlier form submitted by the complainant which was said to have been lost by the accused. In other words, the form was never lost and the accused lied to the complainant purely in order to harass him. Moreover, P.W. 10 Sri Raj Veer Sharma further stated in his examination in chief that there was no occasion for calling the form again from the complainant as the original form was in any case in the duplicate and it was that form on which the loan was sanctioned. 17. It was argued at length by the Senior Advocate Sri S.K. Agarwal that no reliance should be placed on the evidence given by P.W. 3 who has been declared as hostile by the prosecution. This argument cannot be accepted. P.W. 3 may not have supported the case of prosecution on certain aspects, but by and large he has supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of even a hostile witness is admissible and it is open to the court to rely upon the dependable part of the evidence, particularly if it is corroborated with the other evidences. 18. The argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellant Sri S.K. Agarwal is that in the present case the prosecution, after taking permission from the court, had cross-examined its own witness (i.e. P.W. 3). Therefore, P.W. 3 has been declared now hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and, therefore, his evidence cannot be read in support of the case of the prosecution. In the present case also, the trial court has examined this matter and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution, after taking permission of the court, had cross-examined P.W. 3 and though on a certain aspect he may not have supported the case of the prosecution, yet his entire evidence cannot be discarded. This view taken by the learned trial court is the correct view. Merely by giving permission to the prosecution to cross-examine a witness nothing adverse to the credit of the witness is decided. It is for the court to exercise his discretion in granting permission to cross-examine a witness in a judicial manner. This view taken by the learned trial court is the correct view. Merely by giving permission to the prosecution to cross-examine a witness nothing adverse to the credit of the witness is decided. It is for the court to exercise his discretion in granting permission to cross-examine a witness in a judicial manner. Further, it is for the trial court to decide whether by virtue of cross-examination of a witness it stood discarded or not. In the present case, P.W.3 differs with the prosecution only on certain aspects. Therefore, his entire evidence cannot be discarded. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana (1976) 1 SCC 389 had held that merely because the court gives permission to the Public Prosecutor to cross-examine his own witness and the witness is declared hostile, it would not completely efface his evidence. In fact, the evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base the conviction upon the testimony of such witness. Relying upon this settled position of law, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 2 SCC 205 held as under :- “11. There appears to be a misconception regarding the effect on the testimony of a witness declared hostile. It is a misconceived notion that merely because a witness is declared hostile his entire evidence should be excluded or rendered unworthy of consideration. This Court in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana held that merely because the Court gave permission to the Public Prosecutor to cross-examine his own witness describing him as hostile witness does not completely efface his evidence. The evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base the conviction upon the testimony of such witness. In Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa it was observed that by giving permission to cross-examine nothing adverse to the credit of the witness is decided and the witness does not become unreliable only by his declaration as hostile. Merely on this ground his whole testimony cannot be excluded from consideration. In a criminal trial where a prosecution witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court by the party calling him for evidence cannot, as a matter of general rule, be treated as washed off the record altogether. Merely on this ground his whole testimony cannot be excluded from consideration. In a criminal trial where a prosecution witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court by the party calling him for evidence cannot, as a matter of general rule, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the court of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction the witness stands discredited or can still be believed in regard to any part of his testimony. In appropriate case the court can rely upon the part of testimony of such witness if that part of the deposition is found to be creditworthy.” 20. Furthermore, in the case of Mrinal Das and Ors. v. State of Tripura (2011) 9 SCC 479, the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated the same position and has stated that the entire evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded and in fact it can be relied upon, particularly in view of the fact it is corroborated by other evidence. This being the position of law, the statement of P.W. 3 cannot be discarded, even though it may be in contradiction to the case of the prosecution on certain aspects. 21. Moreover, the recovery of note of the Rs. 500/- rupee denomination and which was used in trap and which was a tainted rupee is never in doubt. In fact the accused/appellant himself admits that the amount of Rs. 500/- was recovered from the left pocket of his trousers. Therefore, there is a clear presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused appellant for at least the offence charged under Section 7 of the Act. However, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the subject in case under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the accused is always free to give a reasonable explanation of the money which have been recovered from his pocket and in case such an explanation is reasonable and plausible the presumption would go away but the onus is there on the accused to show that the money had a reason to be with him and that he had not taken that money as illegal gratification. We have seen in the present case that it is an admitted case of the accused that the money was recovered from his pocket. However, the defence which he takes is that Rs. 500/- was given to him by the complainant as this amount was to be deposited in his account (which the complainant had in that Bank) as he had expressed his inability to come to the bank the next day. 22. Much emphasis has been given by the learned Senior Advocate Sri S.K. Agarwal that the trial court has committed a grave error in not accepting the defence of the accused regarding his explanation of the recovery of Rs. 500/- from his left trousers pocket. The defence was that the complainant (P.W. 1) already had an account in Punjab National Bank at its Race Course Branch, Dehradun and on 31.12.1991 at about 4:00 P.M. Since the cash counter had already been closed, he had asked the Branch Manager/Appellant to deposit the same in his account and he had signed the credit slip voucher and given it to the accountant, and the money to the appellant/accused, which was later recovered from the appellant. According to the defence, this was a reasonable and plausible explanation which has been discarded. 23. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has further argued that though there is a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused, but inspite of Section 20 if the accused can give reasonable and plausible explanation for that money being in his possession, that presumption cannot be read against the accused. The cases relied upon by the appellant are – (1) Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 486 and (2) T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. (2006) 1 SCC 401. 24. In Punjabrao case (supra) the accused, who was a “Patwari” was alleged to have taken an illegal gratification of Rs. 100/- and charged with Sections 161 and 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947). 24. In Punjabrao case (supra) the accused, who was a “Patwari” was alleged to have taken an illegal gratification of Rs. 100/- and charged with Sections 161 and 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947). The defence taken by the accused, in the said case, with regard to the money being in possession was that the aforesaid amount was not taken by him in pursuance to any demand by him as any illegal gratification but was a loan amount which the accused/appellant was collecting from different “Rayats” due to the Government and, therefore, he has not committed any offence either under Section 161 or under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. This explanation was found to be probable and reasonable by the trial court but not by the High Court. The Hon’ble Apex reversed the finding of the High Court and held that the findings of the trial court were reasoned as the explanation given by the accused was probable and reasonable. 25. The facts of T. Subramanian case (supra) were that the appellant was working as an Executive Officer of Sri Swarnathaneswar Temple, Chithaimoor, Tamil Nadu, and the complainant in the said case had approached the accused for securing a “patta” in his favour in respect of the land which was in occupation of the complainant. The appellant demanded Rs. 450/- to help P.W. 1 (i.e. the complainant). Subsequently, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 100/- to the appellant, who told that he would make arrangements for transfer of “patta” only if he paid the balance amount. Thereafter, the complainant met the accused and paid him Rs. 250/-as demanded by him. Since the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe, he gave a complaint to the Inspector, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thanjavur, and consequently a trap team was laid and the appellant was caught receiving Rs.200/-from the complainant. 26. The defence taken by the accused/appellant was that the complainant had paid the said amount as due by one Thyagaraja (P.W. 6 in that case) to the temple by way of lease arrears. Again this explanation was held to be reasonable and plausible by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 27. 26. The defence taken by the accused/appellant was that the complainant had paid the said amount as due by one Thyagaraja (P.W. 6 in that case) to the temple by way of lease arrears. Again this explanation was held to be reasonable and plausible by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 27. In both these cases, we find that the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that the situation was such that the explanation given by the accused for the amount of money being in his possession seems to be just, proper and reasonable. Unfortunately, in the present case, the explanation given for the money being in possession of the accused is neither reasonable nor probable for the following reasons : We have already seen that the main defence of the accused has been that whereas the complainant wanted a loan of Rs. 20,000/- to be sanctioned, but what was actually sanctioned was a loan of Rs. 10,000/-. Consequently, he had a grudge against the Bank Manager i.e. the accused/appellant. We have also seen that the complainant had been repeatedly harassed by the appellant inasmuch as he had been pursuing for a loan for a considerable period and, for one reason or the other, the accused had been delaying the matter. So much so that he had falsely stated that the earlier form deposited by the complainant was lost. This form was actually never lost. Therefore, the relationships between the accused and the complainant were far from cordial. This being the situation, it is not plausible that the complainant will give the Branch Manager Rs. 500/- to deposit in his account. Moreover, in any case, for the Branch Manager to accept money with the promise to deposit in the account of the customer seems to be unreasonable, particularly in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the accused is the “Bank Manager” and not a cashier or a clerk. Moreover, if he had asked the complainant to deposit the voucher with the Accountant, he could very well have asked the complainant to deposit the amount also with the Accountant. Further this defence gets totally demolished in view of the statements given by P.W.10 Sri Raj Veer Sharma to whom the accused had stated the voucher was given. P.W.10 categorically denies that such a signed voucher was given to him by the complainant on 31.12.1991. Further this defence gets totally demolished in view of the statements given by P.W.10 Sri Raj Veer Sharma to whom the accused had stated the voucher was given. P.W.10 categorically denies that such a signed voucher was given to him by the complainant on 31.12.1991. Moreover, he further states that such a voucher was signed by P.W. 1 and given to him much earlier to 31.12.1991 at the time when documents were being signed and formalities of loan was being completed. Therefore, the defence taken by the appellant is totally unreasonable and has been rightly discarded. All this is assuming for the sake of argument that the complainant had a bank account in that Bank although what was the number of that bank account and whether that was in operation has nowhere come on record. But as it has already been stated all this even assuming the fact that there was a Bank Account in operation. 28. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced both under Section 7 as well as under Section 13(2) for having committed an offence under Section 13(1)(d). Since there is a conviction and sentence both under Sections 7 as well as Section 13(2), we shall have to examine the nature of the offence as alleged to have been committed by the appellant and as to whether he is liable to be convicted under both these provisions. 29. The essential difference between Section 7 and Section 13 (2) is that whereas every acceptance of illegal gratification, whether preceded by a demand or not is covered by Section 7, acceptance of illegal gratification in pursuance of a “demand” by a public servant is covered under Section 13 (1) (d). Undoubtedly, there has been an acceptance of illegal gratification in the present case. Therefore, there is no room for any doubt that an offence under Section 7 has been committed. On the other hand, in order that a charge under Section 13(1)(d) is also established, it has to be proved that that acceptance of illegal gratification was indeed preceded by a demand. The sequence of events, the statement given in the trial court by P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 leave no room for any doubt that there was a demand by the appellant. The sequence of events, the statement given in the trial court by P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 leave no room for any doubt that there was a demand by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced both under Section 7 as well as under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 30. The accused/appellant was charged under Section 7 as also for an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Act. One of the important provisions of the Act is Section 20 which castes a presumption of having taken the illegal gratification. Section 20 of the Act reads as under : “20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration. – (1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. (2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under section 12 or under clause (b) of section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give the gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a movie or reward such as is mentioned in section 7, or as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no interference of corruption may fairly be drawn.” 31. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision though a presumption under Section 20 is drawn against the accused regarding a crime under Section 7 of the Act, there is no such presumption for an offence under Section 13 (1)(d). Inter alia, the presumption is under Section 13(1)(a) and (b) but not under Section 13(1)(d). Regardless of it, though no benefit can be given to the accused/appellant for the simple reason that the ingredients of Section 13 (1)(d) are clearly made out against the accused/appellant. 32. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State represented by Inspector of Police, Pudukottai, T.N. Vs. A. Parthiban reported in (2006) 11 SCC 473 has pointed out the essential difference between Section 7 and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act, which reads as follows : “8. Every acceptance of illegal gratification whether preceded by a demand or not, would be covered by Section 7 of the Act. But if the acceptance of an illegal gratification is in pursuance of a demand by the public servant, then it would also fall under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act. The act alleged against the respondent, of demanding and receiving illegal gratification constitutes an offence both under Section 7 and under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act. The offence being a single transaction, but falling under two different sections, the offender cannot be liable for double penalty. But the High Court committed an error in holding that a single act of receiving an illegal gratification, where there was demand and acceptance, cannot be an offence both under Section 7 and under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act. As the offence is one which falls under two different sections providing different punishments, the offender should not be punished with a more severe punishment than the court could award to the person for any one of the two offences. In this case, minimum punishment under Section 7 is six months and the minimum punishment under Section 13 (1) (d) is one year. In this case, minimum punishment under Section 7 is six months and the minimum punishment under Section 13 (1) (d) is one year. If an offence falls under both Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) and the court wants to award only the minimum punishment, then the punishment would be one year.” 33. As we have already noticed the essential difference between Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) would be the demand by the accused. The defence has heavily relied that apart from the statement of P.W. 1 i.e. the complainant/decoy there is no clear evidence of demand being made by the accused/appellant, as the statement of P.W.3 is not clear on this aspect. He does not see any transaction being made though he sees certain gestures being made by the accused demanding something. However, once the sequence of events are examined in its totality, along with the background of the case, there is absolutely no room for doubt that an offence under Section 1(1)(d) is made out. The reasons are as follows During the pre trap proceedings the number and particulars of the tainted money of Rs. 500/-, three notes of 100 rupee denomination and four notes of 50 rupee denomination, were noted down. The decoy goes to the bank along with P.W. 3 when this tainted money was given by the complainant to the accused. From the statement of all witnesses including P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W. 3, from the time the decoy enters the bank premises till the time he the accused is finally caught by the trap team, the accused/appellant and the decoy meet each other only on two occasions. Firstly, they meet inside the cabin in presence of P.W. 5. From all accounts, no transaction takes place at this juncture. Therefore, one and the only conclusion can be derived that this transaction took place near the toilet i.e. the second meeting place between the decoy and the accused on 31.12.1991. Further, it is not the case of the accused/appellant that the money has not been recovered from him. He has clearly admitted, firstly before the trap party and secondly when the charges were being framed and thirdly in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that money of the same denominations and number which were noted during the pre trap proceedings were recovered from his possession i.e. from his left pocket trousers. He has clearly admitted, firstly before the trap party and secondly when the charges were being framed and thirdly in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that money of the same denominations and number which were noted during the pre trap proceedings were recovered from his possession i.e. from his left pocket trousers. Therefore, one and only one conclusion would be that this money was recovered in pursuance of a demand made by the accused which is evident from the entire sequence of events and the statements of witnesses. Therefore, the accused/appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced both under Section 7 as well as under Section 13 (1) (d) which is punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, the conviction is upheld. 34. Heard the counsels on the quantum of sentence as well. 35. The minimum sentence has been awarded to the accused/appellant both under Section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act, which is six months and one year respectively along with a fine of ‘ 1,500/- and ‘ 2,500/- respectively. The sentence is just and proper. The conviction and sentence are upheld. 36. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 37. Conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the accused appellant, namely, A.K. Goel is affirmed. 38. The appellant is on bail, his bail is cancelled. The appellant is directed to surrender within two weeks from today. 39. Lower court record be sent back to make the accused appellant serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court.