Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22/23.02.2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned judgment') passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Kaithal (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court'), whereby, he has been convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short as the 'Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of ` 2,500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. Brief facts of the case in hand, as recorded in the opening para of the impugned judgment, are reproduced as under:- "Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 15.9.2003, when Inspector Ram Kumar was present in State Vigilance Bureau (SVB) Unit Kaithal then complainant Ram Pal son of Jasmer Singh caste Jat resident of village Kallar Majra came to his office and gave an application in writing to the effect that he was resident of village Kallar Majra and was agriculturist. He has pleaded that on Rajbaha passed by the side of his fields and there was leakage of canal water in his fields and in this regard, S.D.O. Irrigation had inspected the spot about 20-25 days ago and after the inspector, S.D.O. Gave wire and after sometime, Ramesh Kumar accused Patwari came and told him that a case of theft of canal water would be got registered against the complainant and he would also pay the fine in this regard and then the accused demanded a sum of ` 800/- from him for correction of canal girdawari, as bribe. He has reported that he was not willing to pay the said amount and he opted to get him apprehended red handed. The complainant has prayed for initiation of proceedings against the said Patwari. He has reported that he was not willing to pay the said amount and he opted to get him apprehended red handed. The complainant has prayed for initiation of proceedings against the said Patwari. On the basis of said complaint, a case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as Act) was got registered by sending constable Karam Singh to S.V.B. Ambala and thereafter, a raiding party was prepared, which consisted of the said Inspector Ram Kumar, Head Constable Ram Kumar, Constable Jai Kishan, constable Narinder Kumar and complainant Rampal and thereafter, they went to the office of the Deputy Commissioner Kaithal and on the request of Inspector Ram Kumar, Deputy Commissioner Kaithal appointed Sh. Pankaj Yadav, IAS, SDM Guhla to join the raiding party and thereafter, 8 currency notes of the denomination of ` 100/- each bearing Nos. 7HG-258076, 8 CW-366820, 5 MC-804172, 9 SR-830284, 5FE-901953, 2LB-183021, 2QL-798618, 8 DS-539766 were taken from the complainant by Inspector Ram Kumar and the same were handed over to SDM Sh. Pankaj Yadav by the Inspector. List of currency notes was prepared and thereafter, SDM affixed his initials on the currency notes and the same were smeared with phenol phathalein powder and were handed over to the complainant as per law with the direction to hand over the said currency notes on demand to Ramesh Kumar Patwari and to give signal to Head Constable Ram Kumar shadow witness. Thereafter, the raiding party reached near the office of S.D.O. Irrigation Department Cheeka and as per directions, the complainant Ram Pal and shadow witness Head Constable Ram Kumar went in the said office. Thereafter, after sometime, on receipt of signal from Head Constable Ram Kumar shadow witness, the raiding party entered the office of SDO Irrigation and apprehended accused Ramesh Kumar Patwari, who was sitting on his chair in the room. Thereafter, Inspector Ram Kumar and Sh. Pankaj Yadav, SDM disclosed their identity and the accused also disclosed his name as Ramesh Kumar Canal Patwari Cheeka son of Rh. Rati Ram caste Brahmin residing of Ward No. 1 Cheeka. Thereafter, on checking, ` 800/- were recovered from the right pocket of his pant worn by him. Upon tallying the said currency notes, the same were found to be the same notes, which were produced by the complainant to the Inspector. Rati Ram caste Brahmin residing of Ward No. 1 Cheeka. Thereafter, on checking, ` 800/- were recovered from the right pocket of his pant worn by him. Upon tallying the said currency notes, the same were found to be the same notes, which were produced by the complainant to the Inspector. Thereafter, the solution of Sodium Carbonate was prepared and when both the hands of accused Ramesh Kumar were got washed, then the said hand wash turned pinkish, which was put in a nip and was sealed. Thereafter, the pocket of the pand of the accused was also got washed in the solution of sodium carbonate and the said pocket was also turned pinkish, which was also put in a separate nip. Thereafter, the currency notes were also got washed in the solution of sodium carbonate and the said currency notes wash also turned pinkish and the same was also put in separate nip and currency notes were sealed with seal bearing impression JS and were taken into police custody vide recovery memo, which was signed by the witnesses. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared and accused was formally arrested. Seal after use was handed over to Sh. Pankaj Yadav, SDM Guhla. ......" 2. Upon completion of the investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and presented before the trial Court. The accused was charge-sheeted for the commission of offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. In order to substantiate its case against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as nine following witnesses:- Inspector Gurdeep Singh as PW 1; ASI Raj Kumar as PW 2; Lakshman Singh draftsman as PW 3; Sh. Pankaj Yadav, Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal, as PW 4; Mahabir Singh as PW 5; Constable Ramesh Chand as PW 6; Satish Kumar, Steno to Executive Engineer as PW 7; Girdhari Lal Ziledar as PW 8; Ram Pal son of Jasmer Singh, the complainant as PW 9; Head Constable Ram Kumar, shadow witness as PW 10; Sh. J.S. Cheema, Superintending Engineer, Bakhra Water Services Circle Kaithal as PW 11; and Inspector Ram Kumar, the Investigating Officer of the case, as PW 12. 4. The accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied all allegations and pleaded false implication. J.S. Cheema, Superintending Engineer, Bakhra Water Services Circle Kaithal as PW 11; and Inspector Ram Kumar, the Investigating Officer of the case, as PW 12. 4. The accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied all allegations and pleaded false implication. It was stated that he was taken by Ram Kumar, Inspector in the Police Station, Cheeka, where this false case was planted against him. In defence, he examined Naresh Kumar, Canal Patwari as DW 1; Santosh Rani, Senior Clerk as DW 2; and Kehar Singh, Ex-Sarpanch of Village Kallar Majra as DW 3. 5. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and considering material/evidence on record, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence and the term as indicated at the outset of this judgment. 6. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant which was admitted by this Court on 07.03.2006. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the instant case, the demand of illegal gratification and the acceptance thereof, which is sine qua non to constitute the offence under Section 7 of the Act, has not proved on record. The complainant did not support the case of the prosecution. It has not come in the statement of PW 10, Ram Kumar, Head Constable, the shadow witness that the appellant demanded the bribe money and on the demand so made, the bribe money was paid by the complainant. The complainant has stated while appearing before the trial Court, that it was the SDO who demanded the bribe money and not the appellant. However, the prosecution has substituted the appellant in place of the SDO, the actual culprit. The learned counsel further refers to the statements of Naresh Kumar, Canal Patwari, DW 1, and Santosh Rani, Senior Clerk, DW 2, to contend that there was no occasion with the appellant to demand illegal gratification from the complainant inasmuch as neither the land in question belonged to the complainant, nor the appellant was posted as incharge of the Halqa/village under which the land in question falls. The prosecution has further failed to prove that the tainted currency notes were accepted by the appellant in a conscious state of mind and that he had accepted the amount as illegal gratification. The prosecution has further failed to prove that the tainted currency notes were accepted by the appellant in a conscious state of mind and that he had accepted the amount as illegal gratification. It is lastly argued that as per the prosecution story, the alleged tainted notes, after being recovered from the appellant, were signed by the official witness, Pankaj Yadav, IAS. However, when these notes were produced before the trial Court as case property, the signatures were not noticed on the alleged recovered currency notes. The learned counsel cites R. Sankara Karuppasamy v. State (Madras) (Madurai Bench), 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 412; Narendra Champaklal Trivedi v. State of Gujarat (SC), 2012 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 974; Balwantsinh Dipsinh Vaghela v. State of Gujarat (Gujarat) 2012 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 511; and State of Punjab v. Kushal Singh Pathania (P & H), 2004 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 498. 8. On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. Except the fact that the complainant did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile, all the other prosecution witnesses have supported its case. The complaint, Ex. PA, is written and signed by the complainant in his own hand. The demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification by the appellant is fully proved on record. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 10. In the instant case, the complainant has admitted his signatures on the complaint, Ex. PA. Moreover, the complaint is handwritten. From the naked eye, it can ben inferred that the complaint had been written by the same person who signed it. The theory of substitution is also devoid of any merit for the reason that if the Vigilance team had substituted the SDO with the appellant, the complainant could have withdrawn himself from the trap. The complainant in his deposition has nowhere stated that he did not accompany the Vigilance team to the office of the appellant. 11. The evidence of defence witnesses only bring to light half truth. DW 1 has deposed that the land in question is owned by one Ishwar Singh and not the appellant. However, what was not controverted by the appellant is the fact that SDO had initiated certain proceedings against the complainant. 11. The evidence of defence witnesses only bring to light half truth. DW 1 has deposed that the land in question is owned by one Ishwar Singh and not the appellant. However, what was not controverted by the appellant is the fact that SDO had initiated certain proceedings against the complainant. If proceedings had been initiated against the complainant, the corollary is that the land in question was being tilted by the complainant. The least presumption that can be drawn is that the proceedings against the appellant in regard to the canal water were initiated against the complainant because he was in some way involved with illegal drawing of water, either as the tiller or as an agent of the actual owner. The actual owner of the land was never produced in the witness box by the appellant so as to conclusively prove the fact that the complainant was in no way connected with the land in question. 12. The argument regarding acceptance of tainted currency notes by the appellant as bribe money i.e. Conscious state of mind is wholly without logic. The standard for meeting the cardinal principle of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt should not be elevated to such a level that it becomes impossible for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Learned Senior counsel has put forth a very fancy argument but has not thrown light as to the manner in which such a state of mind can ever be conclusively proved. Conscious state of mind while accepting the tainted money as bribe money is such a trifle moment in the mind of the accused that it is virtually impossible to prove it by positive evidence. Some measure of presumption has to be drawn regarding the conscious state of mind and that is precisely where Section 20 of the Act comes into play. For the foregoing reasons, this argument is also repelled. 13. There is significant explanation for the absence of signatures of Shri Pankaj Yadav, though they were not signed by him. There is evidence on record that the currency notes were also washed and a separate parcel of washed notes was prepared, possibly to check whether they are the same currency notes on which the powder was smeared. There is, thus, every possibility that the ink on the currency notes was washed away. There is evidence on record that the currency notes were also washed and a separate parcel of washed notes was prepared, possibly to check whether they are the same currency notes on which the powder was smeared. There is, thus, every possibility that the ink on the currency notes was washed away. However, the currency notes were tallied and found to be the same. It is trite to observe that denomination and number of the currency notes are also taken down when the memo of currency notes to be handed over to the accused is prepared. 14. The shadow witness serves two purposes. One, he is an eyewitness to the actual act of giving and taking bribe and secondly, he is to give a signal to the raiding team to immediately rush in, so as to recover the tainted currency notes from the accused without any delay so that no reaction time is given to the accused. Keeping this in mind, the assertion of the learned Senior counsel that the shadow witness did not depose about the demand actually having been made by the accused is of no consequence. If the demand is proved from the facts which are antecedent to the actual giving of bribe, evidence regarding actual acceptance of tainted money is sufficient corroboration by the shadow witness. The shadow witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution, as also the official witness, Shri Pankaj Yadav. The case law cited by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant are distinguishable on facts. 15. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned trial Court is based on correct appreciation of the facts and evidence on record and does not suffer from perversity or illegality. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment/order of conviction and sentence is upheld. The appellant is stated to be on bail. His bail bonds stand forfeited. He be taken into custody forthwith, to undergo the remaining part of the sentence awarded to him.