Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 202 (MP)

SURENDRA s/o VASUDEV TRIVEDI v. STATE OF M. P.

2012-02-14

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA, S.R.WAGHMARE

body2012
JUDGMENT : A. K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12-9-2001 passed by learned Special Judge (First Additional Sessions Judge), Ujjain in Special Case No. 1171999 convicting the appellant under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and sentencing him to R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default further R.I. for 6 months under section 7 of the Act and R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act, in default further R.I. for 12 months, the appellant has knocked the doors of this Court by preferring this appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. 5,000/- under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act, in default further R.I. for 12 months, the appellant has knocked the doors of this Court by preferring this appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Certain admitted facts as borne out from the impugned judgment are as under :- (i) The services of appellant were deputed on 28-9-1994 on the post of Building Officer to the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain vide order Ex.D-13; (ii) on 30-9-1994 he was relieved from his parent department M. P. Housing Board where he was serving on the post of Building Officer; (iii) on 1-10-1994 he joined his services as Building Officer in the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain vide report Ex.P-30; (iv) the then Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation Pramod Kumar Gupta vide order Ex.P-31 dated 26-10-1994 authorised the appellant to take necessary action against the persons who have built the construction without permission, to accord permission to construct the house and building; and to take necessary action against the buildings which have become hazardous; (v) the appellant in the capacity of the Building Officer issued notice (Ex.P-1) under his signature on 24-10-1998 to complainant Mohanlal Jhangiyani (PW-1); (vi) the official residence of the appellant is on the rear side of the Grand Hotel; (vii) the complainant Mohanlal Jhangiyani rubbed his left hand on his head and gave signal to the members of the trap party, as a result of which Head Constable Vijay Barche (PW-9) and other constables caught the hands of the appellant from the wrist and thereafter the trap party arrived and they carried the appellant to his drawing room; (viii) when the constables were catching hold the hands of the appellant he was trying to get them released but on account of the tight grip of the constables he was unable to get his hands released; (ix) the Head Constable Nirpatlal Choudhary (PW-2) and other constables caught hold the appellant nearby the gate and wire-fencing of his official residence; (x) the appellant was arrested and arrest memo (Ex.P-14) was prepared; and (xi) when the appellant was arrested along with the other belongings of him, a piece of blue print article "Y" was seized and on that piece of blue print complainant Mohanlal Jhangiyani (PW-1) and independent Panch witness Vinod Rathore (PW-4) put their signature. 3. 3. In brief the case of the prosecution is that complainant Mohanlal (PW-1) on 4-12-1998 submitted a written complaint (Ex.P-2) to Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt at Ujjain stating therein that the shopping complex, which was being constructed by him at 63, Sainath Nagar, Ujjain by showing it to be illegal construction, on 24-10-1998 the appellant issued a show cause notice (Ex.P-1) to him. Eventually, complainant 3-4 days before submitting a complaint (Ex.P-2) met the appellant and at that juncture, he (appellant) made demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 1.00 Lac (Rupees One Lac). The authenticity of the complaint (Ex.P-2) was examined by Inspector Ajeet Kumar Maseeh and in order to test its hallmark the Inspector handed over a tape recorder to the complainant with a direction to record the conversation of illegal gratification and a Panchnama (Ex.P-3) was also prepared in that regard on 4-12-1998. After tape-recording the conversation of bribe which was affirmed in the office of the Special Police Establishment by playing the tape-recorder in the office by Inspector Maseeh, a Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-17) was registered on the basis of which the FIR (Ex.P-25) was registered by Special Police Establishment and it was sent to Bhopal. 4. Two Gazetted Officers were summoned in the Lokayukt Office and in their presence a transcript of the tape-recorded conversation (Ex.P-4) was prepared. On submitting currency notes of Rs. 25,000/- by the complainant the Peon of the office applied phenolphthalein powder on them and the treated currency notes were kept in the pocket of the complainant and the other necessary formalities were performed in presence of Panch-witnesses Executive Engineer Vinod Rathore (PW-4) and Food Officer P. N. Malviya (not examined) and a pre-trap Panchnama (Ex.P-5) in that regard was prepared on 4-12-1998. The members of the trap party along with the complainant proceeded towards the official residence of the appellant which was behind the Grand Hotel where the complainant was sent and who interacted with the appellant nearby the gate of his official residence. However, the complainant without giving any signal to the members of the trap party came back and told that appellant is insisting to give Rs. 50.000/- towards illegal gratification and has called him on the next day (i.e. 5-12-1998). 5. Further the case of prosecution is that on 5-12-1998 the complainant Mohanlal anyhow arranged a sum of Rs. However, the complainant without giving any signal to the members of the trap party came back and told that appellant is insisting to give Rs. 50.000/- towards illegal gratification and has called him on the next day (i.e. 5-12-1998). 5. Further the case of prosecution is that on 5-12-1998 the complainant Mohanlal anyhow arranged a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and arrived in the office of the Lokayukt along with that additional amount of Rs. 20,000/- and submitted the said additional amount in the office on which the phenolphthalein powder was applied and these treated currency notes were kept in the pocket of complainant and after completing all the necessary formalities a supplementary pre-trap Panchnama (Ex.P-6) was prepared at 12.30 p.m. y sci 6. The trap party thereafter proceeded to trap the appellant. After the arrival nearby the house of appellant the members of the trap party took their convenient position around the official residence of the appellant. The complainant was sent to offer the bribe, as a result of which he (complainant) went inside the official residence of the appellant and handed over the bribe money of Rs. 45,000/- to him which the appellant kept beneath the cushion of his Sofa set. The appellant also came out along with the complainant to see him off. At that juncture, the complainant gave signal to the members of the trap party as a result of which the constables rushed and caught hold of the hands of the appellant from wrist and other members of the trap party also arrived there. 7. Thereafter, the hands of the appellant were washed in the solution of the Sodium Carbonate and result was found to be positive since the colour of the solution changed to pink. On giving information by complainant as well as by the appellant Panch-witness Vinod Rathore (PW-4) picked up the treated currency notes which were kept beneath the cushion and their numbers were tallied with the pre-trap Panchnama and supplementary Panchnama and the numbers were found to be the same. Thereafter, the members of the trap party performed other necessary formalities and a post trap Panchnama (Ex.P-7) was also prepared. The tinted hand wash of the appellant, complainant and the Panch-witness was sent for chemical analysis and the report was received which was favourable to the prosecution. 8. Thereafter, the members of the trap party performed other necessary formalities and a post trap Panchnama (Ex.P-7) was also prepared. The tinted hand wash of the appellant, complainant and the Panch-witness was sent for chemical analysis and the report was received which was favourable to the prosecution. 8. After the investigation was over and after receiving the necessary sanction order to prosecute the appellant a charge-sheet was submitted before the learned Special Judge who framed the charges under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act, which the appellant denied and requested for the trial. 9. In order to bring home the charges the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and placed Ex.P-1 to P-31 (C) the documents on record. 10. The defence of the appellant is that Seema Narula and Mohanlal Jhangiyani (complainant) on the basis of forged registry raised illegal construction and in order to conceal their illegal activities, on the instructions of the officers of the Municipal Corporation the Lokayukt officers were pressurised in order to implicate the appellant falsely and a conspiracy has been made against him by all these persons. In support of his defence he examined Subodh Munshi who is the record keeper of Sub-Registrar office, Ujjain and who has deposed that the sale deed which was executed in favour of complainant was impounded by the Sub-Registrar and the same has been sent to the office of Collector to assess the market value. 11. The learned Special Judge on the basis of the evidence placed on record and by marshalling the evidence of the prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis to each other and by taking into account the defence which the accused/appellant has taken, has arrived at a conclusion that the charges framed against the appellant under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act are proved and eventually convicted him and passed the sentence which we have mentioned hereinabove. 12. In this manner this appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing his judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 13. During the pendency of this appeal an application under section 391, Criminal Procedure Code (I. A. No. 4123/2010) has been filed by the appellant seeking permission to adduce additional evidence. 12. In this manner this appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing his judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 13. During the pendency of this appeal an application under section 391, Criminal Procedure Code (I. A. No. 4123/2010) has been filed by the appellant seeking permission to adduce additional evidence. In the said application it has been contended that the malicious thought of the complainant (PW-1) is apparent from the fact that Plot No. 63, Sainath Nagar Colony, Ujjain which was in the ownership and possession of Seema Binocha, was taken by the complainant without her consent and knowledge and when the said fact came to her knowledge she has filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge, First Class, Ujjain against complainant Mohanlal Jhangiyani (PW-1) and one Govind and the civil suit is in respect of the same land on which the alleged illegal construction of shopping complex has been made and for which the show cause notice (Ex.P-1) has been issued to the complainant. Not only this, Seema has also lodged a private complaint under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code against complainant Mohanlal (PW-1). The copies of the plaint and the private complaint are Annexure P-1 and P-2 respectively annexed to the application. Hence, it has been prayed that by allowing this application the case be remanded back to the learned Special Judge by providing opportunity to the appellant to adduce additional evidence in this regard. 14. Vehemently it has been contended by Shri Vyas, learned senior counsel for the appellant that because the complainant was not having any document of title and he was also not possessing the property in question and further because he is not the owner of the building in question, therefore, there was no occasion for the complainant to meet with the appellant and hence it cannot be said that appellant was having any motive to make demand of bribe or to accept the same for the simple reason that he was fully aware that the complainant has nothing to do with the alleged illegal construction of the marketing complex. By inviting our attention to the affidavit of Seema (Ex.D-1) dated 19-6-1996 it has been submitted that indeed she is the owner of the land in question upon which the alleged illegal construction of the shopping complex has been made. By inviting our attention to the affidavit of Seema (Ex.D-1) dated 19-6-1996 it has been submitted that indeed she is the owner of the land in question upon which the alleged illegal construction of the shopping complex has been made. Learned counsel has also invited our attention to the indemnity bond dated 19-6-1996 (Ex.D-2) of said Seema and also the certified copy of the agreement of sale dated 16-1-1998 (Ex.D-3) executed between said Seema and the complainant Mohanlal Jhangiyani and submitted that because the complainant was not having any interest in the property in question and these facts were well in the knowledge of the appellant, therefore, there was no occasion for him to make any demand of bribe and to accept the same because the complainant has nothing to do with the property in question. 15. It has also been put forth by learned senior counsel for the appellant that the motive part, looking to the evidence placed on record, should be applied in negative manner for the simple reason that because the complainant was having some interest in the shopping complex and because the appellant gave show cause notice (Ex.P-1) dated 24-10-1998 to him in respect to the illegal construction, therefore, the appellant has been falsely roped. By inviting our attention to the testimony of the complainant as well as the evidence of the Panch witnesses it has been contended that when appellant was caught by the constables, instead of asking where the bribe money has been kept by the appellant, it was asked to the complainant and therefore, this proposition cannot be ruled out that secretly in absence of the knowledge of the appellant the bribe money was kept beneath the cushion of the Sofa set by the complainant so that appellant may be falsely roped. Further it has been contended by learned senior counsel that complainant also shook his hand with the appellant. 16. By inviting our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court Panalal Damodar Rathi vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1191 it has been contended that the status of the complainant is that of an accomplice and unless his testimony is corroborated on material particulars it should not be relied upon. According to learned senior counsel, the evidence of the complainant is to be visualised from different angle also because he is not an ordinary person but is a lawyer. According to learned senior counsel, the evidence of the complainant is to be visualised from different angle also because he is not an ordinary person but is a lawyer. Further the contention of learned senior counsel is that since in the present case the evidence of complainant has not been corroborated by any independent witness, therefore, it would be hazardous to place reliance on his testimony. By taking the aid of the decision of the Supreme Court Smt Meena Balwant Hemke vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 3377 it has been contended that the investigating agency did not send any surveillance witness to watch over the activities of the appellant and the complainant and to overhear that what actually transpired between them at the time of the transfer of the bribe money which was quite necessary. According to learned senior counsel, in the case of Smt. Meena Balwant (supra) the bribe money was lying on the office table of the accused and in the present case also the same was lying on the Sofa set which was lying in the drawing room of the appellant. Learned senior counsel further submits that in the present case demand of bribe and its acceptance has not been proved either from the testimony of the complainant or from the testimony of independent Panch witness Vinod Rathore (PW-4) and therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court Subash Parbat Sonvane vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 2169 since the demand of bribe and its acceptance is not proved, learned Trial Court illegally convicted the appellant for the charges punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act. 17. By taking the aid of Single Bench decision of this Court Bimal Kumar Gupta vs. Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, 2001 (1) JLJ 267 it has been contended that because the police party did not give its own search the planting of bribe money cannot be ruled out. 18. Lastly it has been submitted by learned senior counsel that the trap party proceeded on 4-12-1998 to trap the appellant but it was not successful because as per the case of prosecution the appellant was not willing to accept a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and was insisting to give Rs. 18. Lastly it has been submitted by learned senior counsel that the trap party proceeded on 4-12-1998 to trap the appellant but it was not successful because as per the case of prosecution the appellant was not willing to accept a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and was insisting to give Rs. 50,000/- and therefore, according to the prosecution, the complainant was asked to bring further more money and he was directed to keep the shirt in which the treated currency notes of Rs. 25,000/- were kept safely in his house and should not come in contact with the treated currency notes and on the next day he should come along with more money but no such Panchnama in that regard was prepared and hence, it raises a heavy doubt on the authenticity and the hallmark of the prosecution case. Learned senior counsel also contended that if the demand of alleged bribe was Rs. 1.00 Lac, in absence of any evidence that it was settled to Rs. 50,000/- and further if it was settled for Rs. 50, 000/- why the complainant was sent along with Rs. 45,000/- only to give the bribe, hence, this basic infirmity somersault the entire case of the prosecution. On these premised submissions, it has been argued by learned senior counsel that the charges are not proved against the appellant and therefore, by allowing this appeal the impugned judgment be set aside and the appellant be acquitted from all the charges. 19. On the other hand, Shri Soni, learned senior counsel/ Public Prosecutor for the respondent argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that the appellant was having a motive to make demand of bribe because he gave notice (Ex.P-1) dated 24-10-1998 to the complainant in respect to the illegal construction of shopping complex made by him. 19. On the other hand, Shri Soni, learned senior counsel/ Public Prosecutor for the respondent argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that the appellant was having a motive to make demand of bribe because he gave notice (Ex.P-1) dated 24-10-1998 to the complainant in respect to the illegal construction of shopping complex made by him. By inviting our attention to the testimony of Saifuddin Sabir (PW-7) who is the Office Superintendent of the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and Snehlata Sharma (PW-8), Upper Division Clerk of the said Corporation it has been contended by him that the appellant was fully authorised to take all actions against the illegal construction; the construction which has been made without obtaining necessary sanction and to take action against the buildings which have become hazardous and because appellant was fully authorised to take action and to issue show cause notice (Ex.P-1) to complainant it is proved that there was a motive for the appellant to make demand of bribe. By inviting our attention to the testimony of complainant Mohanlal Jhangiyani (PW-1) and that of the independent Panch witness Vinod Rathore (PW-4) it has been contended that there is overwhelming evidence of these two witnesses that appellant made demand of bribe and also accepted the same. It has also been argued by learned senior counsel for the respondent that evidence of these two witnesses has been further corroborated by constable Nirpatlal Choudhary (PW-2) and Vijay Barche (PW-9) and therefore, for no rhyme or reason it should be held that appellant did not make demand of bribe and accepted the same. Learned senior counsel for the respondent further submits that since the bribe money was recovered from the possession of the appellant, therefore, the statutory presumption envisaged under section 20 of the Act is triggered and set in motion and it shall be presumed in absence of any satisfactory application given by the appellant that he made demand of bribe and accepted the same. Hence, it is prayed that this appeal be dismissed. 20. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 21. Hence, it is prayed that this appeal be dismissed. 20. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 21. The case of the prosecution runs around the testimony of the complainant Mohanlal Jhangiyani (PW-1), independent Panch-witness Vinod Rathore (PW-4), Head Constable Nirpatlal Choudhary (PW-2), Head Constable Vijay Barche (PW-9) and Investigating Officer - Inspector Ajeet Kumar Maseeh (PW-5) and also Saifuddin Sabir (PW-7) and Snehlata Sharma (PW-8), who are the employees of the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain. Some important documents which throw sufficient light to the controversy and are very much material in order to hold whether the appellant has committed any offence or not are the complaint (Ex.P-2) dated 4-12-1998 made by the complainant; show cause notice (Ex.P-1) issued by the appellant in the capacity of the Building Officer to the complainant; pre-trap and supplementary pre-trap Panchnamas, Ex.P-5 and P-6 respectively and also Japti Panchnamas (Ex.P-9 and P-10). We shall also examine the impact of Ex.D-1 and D-2 on the merit of the case which are placed reliance by learned senior counsel for the appellant. 22. Complainant Mohanlal Jhangiyani (PW-1) has categorically stated that his nephew received show cause notice (Ex.P-1) under the signature of the appellant indicating therein that the shopping complex which has been constructed by him is contrary to the Municipal Rules and comes within the definition of illegal construction and hence directed the complainant to come along with the relevant document of title etc. in the office. At that juncture, appellant was serving on the post of Building Officer in the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain. On receiving the notice complainant went to the office of appellant and showed him the documents of title as well as sanctioned map etc. but appellant told that he will see these papers later on and further told that such type of show cause notice are oftenly issued. Further he has stated that somewhere at the end of month of November, 1998 appellant asked complainant to meet him at his residence along with all documents as a result of which on 29-11-1998 between 7 to 7.30 p.m. he went to his official residence where he showed all the documents of the shopping complex to him. Further he has stated that somewhere at the end of month of November, 1998 appellant asked complainant to meet him at his residence along with all documents as a result of which on 29-11-1998 between 7 to 7.30 p.m. he went to his official residence where he showed all the documents of the shopping complex to him. After perusing those papers appellant told that his map has not been sanctioned and the complainant has built up the shopping complex in residential area and therefore, the shopping complex which has been constructed is to be dismantled. Resultantly, this witness reacted in negative manner and was defending his case. At that juncture, appellant told that some way out will be taken out and for that the complainant is required to pay some expenses and when the complainant asked the details of the expenses, the appellant told that if a sum of Rs. One Lac is paid to him, the map of the complainant will be sanctioned. At that juncture, the complainant told that he will think over and will meet again. Specifically complainant is saying that because he was not keen enough to give any bribe to the appellant, hence, on 4-12-1998 he went to the Lokayukt office at Ujjain and submitted a written report (Ex.P-2) which is written and signed by him. 23. The said complaint was handed over to Inspector Maseeh and thereafter said Inspector handed over a tape recorder to complainant (PW-1) to tape record the conversation of bribe which will take place between appellant and this witness. Necessary Panchnama etc. in this regard was also prepared. Thereafter, this witness did go to the official residence of the appellant and tape recorded the conversation which took place between him and appellant regarding the bribe. Thereafter, the tape recorder was handed over in the office of the Lokayukt. 24. True, there is evidence of this witness that he recorded the conversation which took place between him and appellant with regard to the bribe but since it is not proved that the voice containing in cassette of the tape recorder is of appellant and the complainant by any scientific means and is tallying with admitted voice of appellant and complainant, no reliance can be placed on said electronic evidence. Apart from this, there is no evidence of the complainant that the cassette was empty and it is also not proved that after handing over the tape recorder along with the cassette whether the cassette was sealed or not and hence for these additional grounds also the electronic evidence cannot be accepted. 25. It has been further stated by the complainant that on 4-12-1998 two Gazetted Officers were summoned and to whom Inspector Maseeh read over the complaint (Ex.P-2) and after hearing the contents thereof the Gazetted Officers P. N. Malviya (not examined) and Vinod Rathore (PW-4) interacted with this witness and inquired whether such a written complaint has been written and given by him and whether it is correct. The answer in affirmative was given by this witness. Thereafter, this witness handed over Rs. 25,000/- in the office of the Lokayukt and on submitting the currency notes, Peon Mangilal applied phenolphthalein powder on them and also kept those treated currency notes in the left pocket of his shirt. Thereafter, Inspector Maseeh explained about the chemical test of phenolphthalein powder. A pre-demonstration of the change of colour in the solution of the Sodium Carbonate was also made in the Lokayukt office. The fingers of the hands of Gazetted Officers P. N. Malviya and Vinod Rathore (PW-4) were dipped but the colour of the Sodium Carbonate did not change because these officers did not come in contact with the phenolphthalein powder and when the fingers of the hands of the Peon Mangilal, who applied phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes, were dipped in the solution of Sodium Carbonate, its colour changed to pink. The tinted hand wash of Mangilal was collected in a bottle which was sealed. 26. A pre-trap Panchnama was also prepared and this witness was directed not to shake hands with the appellant and before handing over the treated currency notes to the appellant he would not touch the treated currency notes. Further he was explained that after the transaction of bribe takes place he would rub his left hand on his head which would be a signal to the members of the trap party that transaction of bribe has taken place. Further he was explained that after the transaction of bribe takes place he would rub his left hand on his head which would be a signal to the members of the trap party that transaction of bribe has taken place. Further this witness says that on 4-12-1998 at 7.45 p.m. the trap party proceeded to the official residence of the appellant and prior to it, the hands of the complainant as well as that of Panch witnesses were properly washed and Panchnama in that regard was also prepared. According to this witness, nearby official residence of the appellant, the members of the trap party took their convenient position and this witness was sent to give the bribe. The appellant was found standing nearby the gate of his official residence. This witness told that he has brought Rs. 25,000/- but appellant firmly denied to accept the said amount and said Rs. 25,000/- would not be sufficient and directed to bring Rs. 50,000/- because he needs this much of amount and gave a day's time to him to manage and arrange the said amount, as a result of which the complainant came back from the residence of the appellant and did not give any signal to the members of the trap party because the transaction of bribe did not take place. 27. Further this witness says that he narrated the entire conversation which took place between him and appellant to the investigating officers including Inspector Maseeh that appellant is not accepting the amount of Rs. 25,000/- and is insisting to bring Rs. 50,000/-. In very specific words the complainant is saying that appellant is a corrupt officer and he will accept the bribe and the complainant will arrange the money from anywhere. The investigating officers directed the complainant that the shirt which he is wearing should be hanged and he should not come with the contact either with the shirt or with the treated currency notes and further directed to make necessary arrangement of the balance amount and further directed to come on next day with the balance amount. 28. It is pertinent to mention here that in a trap case, the bribe amount is to be arranged by the complainant himself and it is never being arranged by the officers of the Lokayukt office. Since the amount was quite huge as the appellant was insisting for Rs. 28. It is pertinent to mention here that in a trap case, the bribe amount is to be arranged by the complainant himself and it is never being arranged by the officers of the Lokayukt office. Since the amount was quite huge as the appellant was insisting for Rs. 50,000/-, therefore, the complainant took a day's time more to arrange the additional amount by saying that since the appellant is a corrupt officer, anyhow, he will arrange this amount. 29. We do not find any merit in the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that if the demand was Rs. 1.00 Lac then how it was reduced to Rs. 50,000/- and ultimately why the complainant arranged Rs. 45,000/- only. Since the amount was quite huge it can be inferred that some settlement must have been arrived between appellant and complainant when he handed over the treated currency notes of Rs. 45,000/-. It has come in his testimony that appellant told that the balance amount of Rs. 45,000/- would be paid after his map is sanctioned. True, there are certain omissions and contradictions in the statement of the complainant because according to him, appellant after receiving the treated currency notes in his hands kept on the Sofa set on which he was sitting while in his case diary statement (Ex.D-9) he has said that beneath the cushion of the Sofa set appellant kept the treated currency notes. According to us, this infirmity and contradiction is very minor and by such infirmity and minor contradiction the case of the prosecution would not become doubtful from any angle. 30. According to this witness, he kept said shirt in the almirah and did not touch the treated currency notes and by arranging a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (200 currency notes having denomination of Rs. 100/- each) again he arrived at the office of the Lokayukt. The phenolphthalein powder was applied on those currency notes. The Gazetted Officers P. N. Malviya and Vinod Rathore (PW-4) were also sitting in the office of the Lokayukt. A supplementary Panchnama was also prepared. 20,000/- (200 currency notes having denomination of Rs. 100/- each) again he arrived at the office of the Lokayukt. The phenolphthalein powder was applied on those currency notes. The Gazetted Officers P. N. Malviya and Vinod Rathore (PW-4) were also sitting in the office of the Lokayukt. A supplementary Panchnama was also prepared. From the office of the Lokayukt this witness gave a ring at the official residence of the appellant where he was told by the wife of the appellant that he (appellant) would be available in the evening, as a result of which the members of the trap party were waiting in the Lokayukt office. At 6.30 p.m. the members of the trap party proceeded at the official residence of the appellant. The complainant was sent to the residence of appellant and he was reminded of the directions given to him earlier and it was directed to abide those directions. Thereafter, this witness went inside the official residence of appellant where appellant received and asked him to sit in the drawing room. This witness told that he has brought the money with him and thereafter he handed over the entire treated currency notes of Rs. 45,000/- in the hands of the appellant. These currency notes were kept by the appellant on the Sofa set where he was sitting and thereafter, appellant interacted with him that now his map will be sanctioned. In reply appellant told that now his work will be done but he is required to submit a new map, further this witness says that certain clarifications were sought by this witness that which type of the map should be given. Thereafter, appellant took out a blue print which was kept in one file and after tearing a piece of paper of blue print he drew some lines by drawing a map. The said piece of paper was kept by the appellant in his pocket and further told that if this type of map is given to him it shall be sanctioned. Further the appellant told that after the map is sanctioned the balance amount of Rs. 45,000/- be also paid to him. 31. The said piece of paper was kept by the appellant in his pocket and further told that if this type of map is given to him it shall be sanctioned. Further the appellant told that after the map is sanctioned the balance amount of Rs. 45,000/- be also paid to him. 31. We do not find any merit in the contention of learned senior counsel for the appellant that after obtaining the money the appellant drew some lines by snatching a blue print paper from a file and directed complainant to prepare a fresh map which shall be sanctioned, is an omission and this has not been so stated in his case diary statement (Ex.D-9) for the simple reason because after the trap was over and when the search of the appellant was made a piece of blue print paper was also found from his possession. True, if this piece of paper (blue print) would have been subjected to phenolphthalein powder test the result which would have come could throw some light on the case but according to us, at the time when it was seized from the possession of the appellant, it was not told by the complainant that on this piece of paper appellant drew some drawing and therefore, the said paper was not subjected to phenolphthalein powder test. Apart from this, if this piece of paper would have been subjected to phenolphthalein powder test, at the most it would have been an additional corroborative piece of evidence and nothing more. 32. The question which hinges is that on account of aforesaid infirmity why the main testimony of the complainant in which specifically he has stated that appellant made demand of bribe and accepted the same and kept the treated currency notes (bribe money) on the Sofa set on which he was sitting, should be somersaulted. For no rhyme or reason we should disbelieve the positive testimony of the complainant in respect to motive part, demand of bribe made by the appellant and its acceptance. 33. By further scrutinising the testimony of the complainant we find that the appellant came out to see off the complainant upto the gate of his official residence. Thereafter, this witness gave signal to the members of the trap party as a result of which two constables arrived there and they caught hold the hands of the appellant. 33. By further scrutinising the testimony of the complainant we find that the appellant came out to see off the complainant upto the gate of his official residence. Thereafter, this witness gave signal to the members of the trap party as a result of which two constables arrived there and they caught hold the hands of the appellant. Thereafter, other members of the trap party also arrived there. The constables brought the appellant in the same posture (by catching hold his hands from the wrist) in his drawing room. True, when the appellant was caught nearby the gate of his residence, the complainant told that the bribe amount is kept inside the room but in the same breath again he has stated that appellant told that he has kept the bribe money inside the room. Thereafter, a solution of the Sodium Carbonate was prepared in which the fingers of the hands of the appellant were dipped and the colour of the solution changed to pink. 34. This witness further says that before collecting the treated currency notes which were lying on the Sofa set by the Panch witness Vinod Rathore his hands were subjected to phenolphthalein powder test but the colour of the solution did not change. Thereafter, the treated currency notes were picked up by the Panch witness from the Sofa set. They were counted and found to be Rs. 45,000/-. Their numbers were also tallied with the pre-trap Panchnama which were found to be the same and hence, it is proved that the currency notes which were recovered from the possession of the appellant are the same currency notes which were handed over by the complainant in the office of the Lokayukt and on which the phenolphthalein powder was applied. Thereafter, again the fingers of the hands of Panch- witness Vinod Rathore (PW-4) were dipped in fresh prepared solution of Sodium Carbonate and this time colour of the solution changed to pink. Similarly, the same chemical test was conducted on the complainant also and the result of the chemical test was found to be positive. 35. Only at this juncture we would like to X-ray the testimony of Saifuddin Sabir (PW-7) who is the Office Superintendent of the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and this witness came along with the original record pertaining to the appellant. 35. Only at this juncture we would like to X-ray the testimony of Saifuddin Sabir (PW-7) who is the Office Superintendent of the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and this witness came along with the original record pertaining to the appellant. According to this witness, at the relevant point of time appellant was serving on the post of Building Officer in the Municipal Corporation. In very specific terms this witness has stated in para-8 of his testimony that Pramod Kumar Gupta was serving on the post of Commissioner, Municipal Corporation and the Commissioner, vide order dated 26-10-1994 authorised appellant to proceed in accordance with law in respect to the construction of the building; the construction which is made without obtaining the requisite sanction and to pass necessary orders in respect to the hazardous buildings etc. The original order in that regard dated 26-10-1994 which is Ex.P-31 was also brought by this witness and its copy is Ex.P-31 (c). Snehlata Sharma is the UDC of Municipal Corporation and she has stated that the notice (Ex.P-1) was issued under the signature of appellant. Hence, it is proved that the appellant was fully authorised to take action against the illegal construction etc. This fact has also been admitted by the appellant in his statement recorded under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. Further the appellant has admitted while giving answer to question No. 14 that show cause notice (Ex.P-1) was issued under his signature. Hence, we do not have any scintilla of doubt in our mind to hold that appellant was fully authorised to take action against the alleged illegal construction. 36. From the aforesaid analysis of the evidence of the complainant as well as from the statements of Saifuddin Sabir (PW-7) and Snehlata Sharma (PW-8) and from the documentary evidence Ex.P-1 and P-31 it is proved that appellant was having a motive to make demand of bribe from the complainant, because, against the norms of the Municipal laws as well as contrary to the sanctioned map of the shopping complex allegedly made by the complainant. 37. 37. From the testimony of the complainant as well as from the bare perusal of complaint (Ex.P-2) it is proved that appellant made demand of bribe and because he accepted the amount of bribe from the appellant and the factum of acceptance is proved from the oral testimony of the complainant as well as from the phenolphthalein powder test it is emphatically proved that appellant accepted the bribe amount from the complainant. 38. The evidence of demand of bribe and its acceptance by appellant has been corroborated by evidence of Panch witness Vinod Rathore (PW-4) also. The motive part is also corroborated from his testimony, because, in very specific words this witness is saying that when he was sitting in the office of the Lokayukt he was introduced with the complainant. After reading the complaint of the complainant (Ex.P-2) he interacted with the complainant why the appellant is making demand of bribe, in reply complainant told that matter pertains to shopping complex and in order to sanction the map the bribe is being demanded by the appellant. Thereafter, further this witness asked whether the averments made in the application are true, the complainant gave answer in affirmative. This Panch witness has also stated that on 4-12-1998 when complainant went along with bribe money of Rs. 25,000/- it was not accepted by the appellant and he told complainant to arrange Rs. 25,000/- more and again on the next day the members of the trap party assembled where the complainant brought an additional amount of Rs. 20,000/-. This witness also says that on those currency notes also the phenolphthalein powder was applied by the employee of the Lokayukt office. 39. It appears from para-19 of the testimony of Panch witness that on account of long duration of more than 2½ years, he did not remember exactly that whether he asked to the appellant where he has kept the bribe money, as a result of which learned Public Prosecutor sought permission from the Court to ask leading question which was allowed and thereafter to refresh his memory post-trap Panchnama (Ex.P-7) was shown by reading the relevant portion. The Panch witness thereafter gained his memory and said that on being asked from the appellant where the bribe money is kept he told that same is kept beneath the cushion. The Panch witness thereafter gained his memory and said that on being asked from the appellant where the bribe money is kept he told that same is kept beneath the cushion. Further clarification is given by this independent witness that particular portion which was marked "F" to "F" by the Court on the Panchnama (Ex.P-7) the witness says that he did not remember and that is why he gave statement in para-19 that he (Panch-witness) did not ask from the appellant where the bribe money is kept. However, when his memory was refreshed by showing Ex.P-7 to him, he regained the memory and told that on being asked by him, appellant told that the bribe money is kept beneath his cushion. According to us, to refresh the memory of a witness it is permissible under the law to confront the document so as to regain the memory This witness has categorically stated that he picked up the currency notes from the Sofa set which was lying in the drawing room of the appellant. He has also deposed in affirmative about the phenolphthalein powder test etc. Thus, the testimony of complainant is also corroborated on material particulars from the testimony of independent Panch witness. Not only this, the evidence of complainant is further corroborated by the evidence of Head Constable Nirpatlal Choudhary (PW-2) and Vijay Barche (PW-9). 40. It is pertinent to mention here that from the circumstances also it is gathered that appellant made demand of bribe from the complainant and also accepted the same because repeatedly he was calling the complainant at his official residence. The matter should be visualised from this angle that appellant who was holding a very responsible post of Building Officer in the Municipal Corporation and was also authorised to sanction maps of building etc. and to take necessary action against the persons who have made illegal construction including demolition of the structure etc. The matter should be visualised from this angle that appellant who was holding a very responsible post of Building Officer in the Municipal Corporation and was also authorised to sanction maps of building etc. and to take necessary action against the persons who have made illegal construction including demolition of the structure etc. and if such a responsible officer who had given a show cause notice to a builder (complainant) against the illegal construction of shopping complex, why he will call the complainant at his official residence repeatedly and therefore, it can be gathered that in order to satisfy the lust of his lure appellant called the complainant at his residence and asked him to pay the amount of bribe and indeed he accepted the same and said bribe money was also recovered from his possession. The same situation arose in State represented by CBI, Hyderabad vs. G. Prem Raj, (2010) 1 SCC 398 wherein the Apex Court held that because the accused of that case met the complainant in a hotel where the transaction of bribe book place and there was no occasion for him to meet him at the hotel, this circumstance indicates that the accused made demand of bribe and also accepted the same. This decision is fully applicable in the present case. 41. It is always not necessary to corroborate the evidence of the accomplice by direct evidence. Indeed, it can be corroborated by circumstantial evidence also. There cannot be any general rule with respect to the quantum of evidence corroborating the testimony of the complainant and it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Once it is proved from the evidence of the prosecution that there was a motive for the accused to make demand of bribe and he also demanded the same as well as accepted the bribe amount and further when the bribe amount is recovered from his possession, according to section 20 of the Act, the statutory presumption will come into play and it shall be presumed that the accused has made demand of bribe and has also accepted the same unless satisfactory explanation is given by the accused. In this regard it will be profitable to place reliance on three decisions of Supreme Court, they are; Girja Prasad (dead) by LRs vs. State of M. P. (2007) 7 SCC 625 , State of Maharashtra vs. Rashid B. Mulani, 2006 (1) SCC 407 , and M. O. Shamsudhin vs. State of Kerala, (1995) 3 SCC 351 . 42. In the present case, no satisfactory explanation has been given by the appellant that how and in what manner he received the bribe money which was recovered from his possession. True, if in this regard satisfactory explanation is given or we may say that probable defence is proved by leading cogent evidence, it should be accepted and the standard of proof of preponderance and probability of the defence adduced by the accused should not be compared with the prosecution because the prosecution is obliged to prove its case beyond doubt. However, in the present case the defence is also not probable. Indeed, the defence which the appellant has taken is self-contradictory. The defence of the complainant is that he has nothing to do with the shopping complex because he is not the owner of the same and in this regard our attention was drawn by learned senior counsel to Ex.D-1, D-2 and Ex.D-3 and argued that Seema Binocha (after her marriage her name is changed to Smt. Seema Narula) is the owner of the property in question. Had it been so, why complainant was worried not to get the structure of the shopping complex dismantled. This indicates that complainant was having interest in the building in question. Contrary to this defence an altogether second defence has been taken by the complainant and it was also so argued by learned senior counsel for the appellant that complainant was having some interest in the building in question and that is why he was worried because show cause notice (Ex.P-1) was issued to him by the appellant. According to us, the aforesaid self-contradictory defence cannot co-exist at one point of time and therefore, the self-contradictory defence which has been taken by the appellant is not probable. According to us, the aforesaid self-contradictory defence cannot co-exist at one point of time and therefore, the self-contradictory defence which has been taken by the appellant is not probable. Apart from this, on bare perusal of Ex.P-3 this Court finds that said Smt. Seema entered into an agreement with the complainant and it was agreed by her to sell the land in question to him upon which later on the complainant has built up a huge shopping complex. On bare perusal of the said agreement of sale dated 16-1-1998 it is gathered that possession of the land was also delivered to complainant. The entire sale consideration Rs. 50,000/- was also received by said Smt. Seema and therefore, it cannot be said that complainant was not having any interest in the suit property. 43. The interim application (I.A. No. 4123/2010) filed under section 391, Criminal Procedure Code to adduce additional evidence is mala fide and cannot be allowed for the simple reason that by this application certain documents have been filed by appellant that some civil suit for declaration and injunction in respect to the land on which shopping complex has been constructed has been filed by said Seema arraying the complainant as defendant No. 2. Certified copy of the plaint has also been filed and similarly a private complaint has also been filed by her against the complainant and one Govind. Even if such an action is being taken by said Seema it would not weaken the case of the prosecution because we are not deciding the title of the land and the civil dispute is also not being decided by us. Similarly, even if some private complaint under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code has been filed by said Seema against complainant Mohanlal Jhangiyani, because we are also not deciding the merits of that private complainant, therefore, it has nothing to do with this appeal. Eventually, this application is hereby dismissed. 44. True, when the trap was unsuccessful on 4-12-1998 because appellant did not accept the bribe money of Rs. 25,000/- and was insisting to bring more amount towards the bribe, the complainant went to his home and as per the direction of the investigating officer he kept his shirt and treated currency notes intact without touching them and in that regard no Panchnama was prepared. 25,000/- and was insisting to bring more amount towards the bribe, the complainant went to his home and as per the direction of the investigating officer he kept his shirt and treated currency notes intact without touching them and in that regard no Panchnama was prepared. Indeed, it should have prepared but on account of this slackness or irregularity in the investigation, the entire case cannot be said to be concocted looking to the positive evidence of the complainant, independent Panch witness Vinod Rathore (PW-4) and also the other members of the trap party and also the circumstances which we have mentioned hereinabove. 45. The decision of Panalal Damodar Rathi (supra) is not applicable in the present case because in that case there was no corroboration of the testimony of the complainant (accomplice) on material particulars but in the present case there is overwhelming material corroboration. The decision of Supreme Court Subash Parbat Sonvane (supra) is also not applicable because in that case the accused did not accept the bribe money but in the present case there is positive evidence that appellant accepted the bribe money and he called the complainant at his residence. The decision of Meena Balwant Hemke (supra) is also not applicable because the incident of that case had occurred in the office premises and there was evidence that the money was tried to be trusted by the complainant and in such a situation it was lying on the table and in that context the Supreme Court held that what actually transpired between the complainant and the accused when the money was transferred, is wanting in that case. However, in the present case there is no such situation. The decision of single Bench of this Court Bimal Kumar Gupta (supra) lays down that because the police persons did not give their own search, the planting of notes cannot be ruled out. In that case, on the basis of evidence placed on record it was held that secretly the money was kept in the almirah but in the present case, the situation is not like that. Therefore, single Bench decision of this Court Bimal Kumar Gupta (supra) is not applicable. 46. In that case, on the basis of evidence placed on record it was held that secretly the money was kept in the almirah but in the present case, the situation is not like that. Therefore, single Bench decision of this Court Bimal Kumar Gupta (supra) is not applicable. 46. We have gone through the reasonings assigned by learned Trial Court convicting the appellant and we find those reasonings to be quite cogent and based upon correct appreciation of evidence and there is no scope to deviate from those reasonings and hence we hereby extend our stamp of approval to those reasonings. 47. So far as the sentence part is concerned, according to us, adequate sentence has been passed because the appellant was holding a highly responsible post of Building Officer in the Municipal Corporation; his powers were quite wide and he was authorised to dismantle even a huge building or any building which has been constructed unauthorisedly or against the Municipal laws. Further he was authorised to sanction the building map etc. Looking to the seriousness of the offence and the amount of bribe which we can think over that in the year 1998 (i.e. 14 years ago) what should be the value of Rs. 1,00,000/-which was demanded and which was settled down to Rs. 90,000/- and Rs. 45,000/- in cash was given on the date of trap, therefore, a person holding such a responsible post makes demand of such a huge amount towards bribe adequate punishment should be given. According to us, the efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant does his duty honestly and faithfully and therefore, in the present case no further leniency can be adopted. 48. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled only when he offers his arrest before learned Special Judge only 2nd April, 2012 failing which the learned Special Judge shall issue perpetual arrest warrant against him and after his arrest would send him to Jail to undergo the sentence and shall also take action against his sureties. The Principal Registrar of this Bench is hereby directed to send the record posthaste so as to reach the Special Court much prior to 2-4-2012.