JUDGMENT Jaya Roy, J. – Heard the counsel of the appellant and counsel appearing for the C.B.I. The Counsel appearing for the appellant has filed written notes of the argument on behalf of the appellant which is kept on the record. 2. The appellant has filed this appeal for setting aside the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.04.2007 passed by the 7th Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in R.C. No. 18(A)/98(R) whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one and half year under Section 7 of the P. C. Act, 1988 and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of which he is to undergo S.I. For 15 days and further convicted for the offence under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the P. C. Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two and half years and also pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine, the appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one months and both the sentences will run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in short is that the informant Sawlat Fahad was working as Mazdoor category-I in C.C.L., Barkakana Central Workshop. His father Late Ziaur Rahman was Mining Sardar in Dhori Khas Colliery of C.C.L. who died on 1.12.95 due to heart failure. It is further alleged that the paper of pension and P.F. was sent by the officers of Dhori Khas Colliery to C.M.P.F. Office, Ranchi for further processing. It is further alleged that the complainant enquired about his work and came to know about the concerned documents that those are with Sri Kameshwar Prasad Sinha (the appellant), U.D.C. When the complainant met with Sri Kameshwar Prasad Sinha (the appellant) then he demanded Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) for processing the paper for payment of P.F. and pension of his late father. The complainant did not want to pay the bribe to Kameshwar Prasad Sinha. Hence, he contacted an employee of C.M.P.F. who was known to him and with his help the mother of the complainant got payment of P.F. after sometime but the payment of pension remained pending. The complainant did not want to pay the bribe to Kameshwar Prasad Sinha. Hence, he contacted an employee of C.M.P.F. who was known to him and with his help the mother of the complainant got payment of P.F. after sometime but the payment of pension remained pending. It is further alleged that on 26.11.98, the complainant met with Kameshwar Prasad Sinha (the appellant) at 11.00 A.M. then Sri Kameshwar Prasad Sinha told that due his Pairwi, he had prepared the papers of his Late father in respect of P.F. but unless he will not pay Rs. 1000/- as bribe, he (Mr. K.P. Sinha) will not process the paper regarding pension. The complainant told him that he is a poor person and he is not in position to pay the amount. On this, Sri Kameshwar Prasad Sinha told the informant that this time he will not process the paper relating to pension without taking money. On several requests, Sri K.P. Sinha asked the informant to pay him Rs.800/- as soon as possible. The complainant did not want to pay the bribe to K.P. Sinha, as such he gave a written complaint to S.P., C.B.I. for taking action. After receipt of the complaint, Sri S.N. Khan, Inspector was directed to verify the allegations and submit his report. After submission of verification report, this case was registered as R.C. Case No. 18(A)/98(R) under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and the investigation was taken up. During investigation, it was decided to catch the accused K.P. Sinha red handed while demanding and accepting the illegal gratification from the complainant Sawlat Fahad. A trap team headed by Sri D.B. Singh, Dy. S.P. was constituted. Sri S.N. Khan, Inspector, Sri S.N. Choudhary, Inspector, Sri Sujeet Kumar Jha, Sri Shailesh Kumar and Krishna Paswan all constables were member of the trap team. Two independent witness Sri Shailendra Singh, Senior Fire Officer C.C.L. Headquarter and Sri Patrick Bilung, U.D.C, Vigilance department, C.C.L. and Sri Sawlat Fahad (complainant) were also associated with the trap team. All the members of the trap team both the witnesses and the complainant assembled in the office room of Sri D.B. Singh, Dy. S.P., C.B.I. Ranchi at about 1.45. P.M. on 26.11.98. The complainant was allowed to keep the tainted money of Rs. 800/- with him. All the members of the trap team both the witnesses and the complainant assembled in the office room of Sri D.B. Singh, Dy. S.P., C.B.I. Ranchi at about 1.45. P.M. on 26.11.98. The complainant was allowed to keep the tainted money of Rs. 800/- with him. Thereafter, the entire Pre-trap proceeding was explained to them and the entire procedure of Pre-trap Proceeding was done in their presence. The Pre-trap memorandum was prepared and the same was read over and explained to all the persons and all the persons put their signature on the Pre-trap memorandum. Thereafter, the entire team proceeded to the appellant accused and found that he was siting in the hall. There was three entrance doors fully open towards south from the Corridor and the accused appellant was clearly visible from the Corridor. The member of C.B.I. teem and the witnesses took the suitable position according to the direction given to them. The complainant Sri Sawlat Fahad along with the witness Sri Shailendra Singh entered into the said hall. In the meanwhile the other witnesses Sri Patrick Bilung, Sri D.B. Singh, Sri S.N. Khan & Sri S.N. Chaudhary, took suitable position near the entrance door on the Corridor. Thereafter, the complainant contacted Sri Kameshwar Prasad Sinha at about 4.00 P.M. who was sitting on the said table. Sri Shailendra Singh witness had accompanied the complainant, also stood beside the table Sri Kameshwar Prasad Sinha did not pay any attention towards Sri Shailendra Singh nor made any quarry. After exchange of pleasantries, Sri Kameshwar Prasad Sinha asked the complainant Sawlat Fahad “Kaya Rupeeya Lay Aaya Hoo”. The complainant Sawlat Fahad replied “Haa Mai Aapene Phuphere Bhai Se Mang Kar Eight Hundred Rupeeya Lay Aaya Hoon”. Thereafter, Sri Kameshwar Prasad Sinha extended his hand towards the complainant and said “Lau Rupeeya Doo”. On this, Sri Sawlat Fahad took out the tainted G.C. Notes from his upper left chest pocket of his wearing shirt and gave the same in the extended hand of Sri Kameshwar Prasad Sinha. Sri Kameshwar Prasad Sinha counted the tainted G.C. Notes with the help of both the hands and kept the same in the left side pocket of his wearing fullpant. Sri Kameshwar Prasad Sinha counted the tainted G.C. Notes with the help of both the hands and kept the same in the left side pocket of his wearing fullpant. Thereafter, Sri Kameshwar Prasad Sinha told the complainant that now he shall do the family pension papers relating to his late father completed and send the concerned colliery authorities and process the same at the earliest. The transaction and the conversation was clearly seen and heard by Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh. The transaction were also seen by other witnesses Sri Patrick Bilung, Sri D.B. Singh, Sri S.N. Khan and Sri S.N. Choudhary. The complainant gave the pre fixed signal. Immediately after getting the signal, Sri D.B. Singh and the other witnesses Sri Patrick Bilung, Sri S.N. Khan, Sri S.N. Choudhary and other team members rushed inside the said hall. Sri D.B. Singh after disclosing his identity and identify of the team members and witnesses, challenged the accused Sri Kameshwar Prasad Sinha for having demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.800/- from the complainant Sawlat Fahad. Sri Kamehshwar Prasad Sinha became nervous and could not render any explanation. Thereafter, he was arrested at about 4.15 P.M. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted and accordingly cognizance of the offence under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act 1988 was taken on 24.5.2000. The charges under aforesaid Sections were framed against the accused Kameshwar Prasad Sinha on 23.7.03. 4. The defence of the accused appellant person is total denial of the charges. Further defence of the accused appellant is that the family pension of late father of Sri Sawlat Fahad was defective and Regional Commissioner had returned the file to Project Officer for rectification one and half years ago and the said file was not with him at the relevant time. 5. The prosecution has examined altogether 15 witnesses. P.W.1 Shakti Nath Singh, P.W.2 Bharat Pandey, P.W.3 Panchanan Saw, P.W.4 Mikues Toppo, P.W.5 Sohail Akhtar, P.W.6 Shailendra Singh, P.W.7 Patrick Bilung, P.W.8 Sawlat Fahad (complainant), P.W.9 Shivraj Kumar Sinha, P.W.10 Bimelendu Das, P.W.11 Hamid Sujjad, P.W.12 S.N. Khan, P.W.13 D.B. Singh, P.W.14 R.K. Saran and P.W.15 Raghunandan Rao. The defence did not want to examine any defence witness. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sanction order is not proper. The defence did not want to examine any defence witness. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sanction order is not proper. Sanctioning authority has failed to take into consideration the relevant materials for arriving at a satisfaction that the appellant has prima facie committed the offence. The sanctioning authority has not at all discussed the materials upon which his satisfaction was based. It is further contended that the sanctioning authority, who was examined as P.W.15 has stated at Para-11 of his evidence that the accused appellant was not the dealing assistant of the file. To support his contention, he has cited that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Karnataka vs. Ameerjan reported in (2007) 11 SCC-273 in which it is held that the sanction order must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the allegation against the accused appellant is concocted and false. The appellant was not the custodian of the file regarding pension of the father of the complainant and the same was also not recovered from his possession. It is also submitted that as per defence Ext.no.C the file was received by the Deputy Personnel Officer of Dhori Khas Colliery on 23.7.1997. the date of occurrence is 26.11.1998. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish that after 23.7.1997 the file was received at the C.M.P.F. Office or by the appellant himself. Therefore, accused appellant had no occasion to demand any illegal gratification for processing the family pension file of the father of the complainant. It is also argued that the recovery of the papers was made from Dhori Khas Colliery which is also come in the evidence of the P.W.3 and 4. Furthermore, the reason for non processing of family pension of the father of the complainant is admitted by the complainant himself at para-15 as the said witness (complainant) has admitted that the application was incomplete. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the demand, acceptance and recovery. Furthermore, G.C. Notes recovered from the accused appellant were never sent for the Chemical examination. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the demand, acceptance and recovery. Furthermore, G.C. Notes recovered from the accused appellant were never sent for the Chemical examination. He has also submitted that no independent witness put any signature on the G.C. Notes which were recovered from the possession of the accused appellant as alleged by the prosecution. 9. Counsel of the appellant has also argued that no independent witnesses was examined on behalf the prosecution despite the fact that the alleged place of occurrence was a public office as several other persons were present there. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. Mr. Mokhtar Khan has submitted that there is no illegality in the sanction order. He has further contended that the sanctioning authority (P.W.15) Provident Fund Commissioner has been examined by the prosecution and the Stenographer (P.W.1) who typed the sanction order has also been examined. Both the witnesses have been examined and P.W.15 has very specifically stated that he examined and perused all the necessary papers and after being satisfied, gave dictation to the Stenographer Shakti Nath Singh who thereafter typed the same. P.W.15 after found correct, he put his signature. P.W.1 Shakti Nath Singh has also admitted the aforesaid fact in his evidence. 11. Mr. Khan has further contended P.W.6 and 7 who are the independent witness and employee of the C.C.L. have also stated about the demand, acceptance and recovery, therefore, it cannot be said that the accused appellant has not demanded and accepted any money and nothing has been recovered from his possession. 12. Mr. Khan has submitted that in respect of the independent witness that witness cannot loose the status of independent witness simply because he went with the police party. In this regard Mr. Khan has cited a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of U.P. Vs. 12. Mr. Khan has submitted that in respect of the independent witness that witness cannot loose the status of independent witness simply because he went with the police party. In this regard Mr. Khan has cited a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of U.P. Vs. Zakaullah reported in (1998) 1 Supreme Court Cases-557 in which it has held:- “B. Criminal procedure Code, 1973-S.100(4)-Independent witness Meaning of-Mere acquaintance with police officers would not make a witness non-independent-Every citizen is presumed to be independent until proved to be dependent on police for any purpose whatsoever-Merely because the witness was complainant in another bribery case or that he was a witness in two other cases through not yet examined in those case would not render him a non-independent witness-Similarly, mere fact that one of the witnesses was driver of the vehicle in which raiding officials went to the place would not result in his losing the status of independent witness- C. Criminal Trial-Witnesses-Police officials-Bribery case-Testimony of DSP who conducted the trap-Held, can be acted on even without corroboration-Merely because he is interested in the success of the trap it cannot be said that he has any animosity against the delinquent officer-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, S. 5(2)-Penal Code, 1860, S. 161. The DSP who arranged the trap hand no interest against the respondent. But the verve shown by him to bring his trap to a success is no ground to think that he had any animosity against the delinquent officer. The evidence of such a witness can be acted on even without the help of any corroboration.” 13. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, first point to be consider that as to whether the accused appellant was in possession of the family pension papers of the father of the complainant and he was the dealing assistant or not. From the evidence of the P.W.2 Bharat Pandey who is Junior Stenographer of the C.M.P.F., I find he has very specifically stated that he had received total thirty sheet of papers of the father of the complainant regarding the family pension of Dhori Khas Colliery. The entry has been marked as Exhibit-2. All the said papers were received by the accused appellant who was dealing assistant and his signature has been marked as Exhibit-3. The entry has been marked as Exhibit-2. All the said papers were received by the accused appellant who was dealing assistant and his signature has been marked as Exhibit-3. This witness has also stated that though he has given thirty sheets of the family pension and other papers of the father of the complainant to the accused appellant Kameshwar Prasad Sinha but only nine sheets remained in the custody of the accused appellant and he removed the remaining sheets. The another witness P.W.3 Panchanand Sao who is a dispatch clerk of Dhori Khas Colliery has also supported the aforesaid fact. Thus, it is very clear the file of Family pension of late father of the complainant was endorsed to the accused appellant Kameshwar Prasad Sinha for processing and settlement. Therefore, the argument advance by the counsel by the appellant that accused appellant was not in possession of the family pension paper of the deceased father of the complainant or he was not in charge of the same, is not tenable at all. 14. Scrutinizing the evidence of the P.W.6 Shailendra Singh and P.W.7 Patrick Bilung who are the two independent witnesses, I find that the P.W.6 has very specifically stated that when the complainant contacted Kameshwar prasad Sinha, the accused appellant and asked about the pension papers, the accused appellant asked the complainant whether you have brought the rupees, on which the complainant told him “I have brought rupees 800/- from my cousin according to your direction”. The accused appellant extended his hand and the complainant paid the rupees 800/- to him who after accepting, counted the G.C. Notes with the help of both the hands and kept in the left side pocket of his paint and told the complainant “Go pension paper of your father will be processed”. Thereafter, the complainant gave the prefixed signal. On getting the signal, all the members of the trap team arrived there and D.B. Singh (P.W.12) after disclosing his identity, challenged the accused appellant for demanding and accepting the illegal gratification from the complainant. Thereafter, when D.B. Singh asked to produce the bribe amount, the accused appellant brought out the rupees from his pocket and gave the said rupees to Patric Bilung (P.W.7). P.W.6 has further submitted that he and P.W.7 compared the number of the G.C. Notes with the number noted in the pre trap memorandum and the recovered notes tallied in-toto. Thereafter, when D.B. Singh asked to produce the bribe amount, the accused appellant brought out the rupees from his pocket and gave the said rupees to Patric Bilung (P.W.7). P.W.6 has further submitted that he and P.W.7 compared the number of the G.C. Notes with the number noted in the pre trap memorandum and the recovered notes tallied in-toto. The P.W.7 has also stated about the demand, acceptance and recovery very specifically in his evidence. Both the witnesses stand firm in their cross examination. I further find the complainant (P.W.8) has also proved his case. 15. From the evidence of I.O., I find both the independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case before him. Furthermore, the verification officer P.W.12 M.S. Khan has also stated in his evidence that he according to the direction, verified the written complaint alleging demand of illegal gratification on interrogating the complainant. After verification, he found the complaint as genuine and submitted his report which is Exhibit-18. He has also identified the verification report. Thus, from the evidence of the witnesses I find the independent witnesses have proved the demand, acceptance and recovery, the other witnesses have also supported the prosecution case. P.W.13 who is the trap laying officer has also supported the post trap proceeding and recovery of bribe amount and procedure of hand wash of the accused appellant and also identified the material exhibits of this case. P.W.14 who is the investigating officer has also supported the prosecution case. He has further stated at para-4 of his evidence that the accused appellant was examined and interrogated by him and stated before him that the sum of Rs. 800/- was accepted by him from complainant not as illegal gratification but in order to arrange stay of surviving wife of the deceased Ziaur Rahman at Dhori Khas Colliery so that family pension paper brought prepared. The accused also stated that he accepted the money in order to help her because of Pairwi of two staffs of his own office namely Sajjad (P.W.11) and Sohail (P.W.5). The I.O. has further submitted that to verify the submission of the accused appellant, he examined both the aforesaid persons but they stated that they never approached the accused appellant neither they know the complainant. The I.O. has further submitted that to verify the submission of the accused appellant, he examined both the aforesaid persons but they stated that they never approached the accused appellant neither they know the complainant. The said P.W.5 and P.W.11 have also denied the aforesaid statement of the accused appellant and they have stated they never recommended for the settlement of the family pension of the complainant and they did not even know the complainant. The accused appellant has also not examined any defence witness to support his aforesaid plea. 16. Considering and scrutinizing the evidence of the witnesses and the materials on record as discussed above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. The prosecution has able to establish that the appellant had demanded illegal gratification, accepted the money and the said tainted money was recovered from his possession. Accordingly conviction is confirmed. 17. Coming to the point of sentence as the occurrence took place nearly fifteen years back and the appellant has suffered since long and already lost his service, considering all these aspects while maintaining the conviction, I modify the sentence awarded to the appellant to the simple imprisonment for the period of six months for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act (which is the minimum sentence for the offence) instead of R.I. for one and half years and a period of simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act (which is the minimum sentence for the offence) instead of R.I. for two and half years. The amount of fine will remain same as awarded by the trial court and in case of default in payment of fine the appellant will further undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. All the sentences will run concurrently. 18. The appeal is dismissed with the modification of the sentence as stated above. As the appellant is on bail, his bail bond is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the court below forthwith to serve the sentences, failing which the court below shall take all possible steps for his arrest.