Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1687 (PNJ)

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Punjab

2014-12-04

DARSHAN SINGH

body2014
Darshan Singh, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 07.12.2000, vide which the appellant-accused Rajesh Kumar, the Revenue Patwari has been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'Act') and the order of sentence of even date vide which he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ` 5000/- in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused-appellant was posted as a Revenue Patwari in village Kahlwan vide posting order dated 17.08.1992 Ex. PC. Complainant Surjit Singh is an agriculturist of that village and was jointly owning the land with his father. He had also been taking land of others on lease for the purpose of cultivation. He had been obtaining the certified copies of the jamabandi of his land from the accused. He was to purchase a truck for which he was in need of the certified copy of the jamabandi and for obtaining the same he gave the application mark 'A' to the Naib Tehsildar on 14.06.1995, which was marked to the present accused. The complainant met the accused and requested him to supply the copy of the requisite jamabandi, but he refused to do unless he was paid an illegal gratification of ` 5000/- on the plea that he was a big landlord. Complainant requested the accused, but the accused-appellant remained adamant for payment of the illegal gratification. The complainant promised to pay the amount on 15.06.1995, on the plea that he was not having that much amount with him at that time. Thereafter, complainant Surjit Singh PW-2 approached Harish Kumar, DSP, Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar and made his statement Ex. PD before him. Complainant offered 50 currency notes of the denomination of ` 100/- each before the DSP, who smeared the same with phenolphthalein powder (for short 'PP Powder') and noted down the numbers thereof in the memo Ex. PF. The said currency notes were handed over to the complainant. The DSP, gave demonstration to him as to how the colour of solution of sodium carbonate turns pink after coming into contact with the said 'PP powder'. These facts were reduced into writing vide memo Ex. PE. PF. The said currency notes were handed over to the complainant. The DSP, gave demonstration to him as to how the colour of solution of sodium carbonate turns pink after coming into contact with the said 'PP powder'. These facts were reduced into writing vide memo Ex. PE. The complainant was directed to approach the accused in grain market Kartarpur and to hand over the said currency notes to him on demand. Pawan Kumar, who was accompanying the complainant was deputed as a shadow witness and was directed to watch all the proceedings and to give the signal to the DSP at the appropriate time. Soma Nath was also joined in the raiding party as an official witness. Harish Kumar, DSP, made his endorsement Ex. PD/3 on the statement of the complainant and sent the same to the police station, on the basis of which F.I.R. Ex. PD/4 was registered. 2. The trap was laid as planned. The complainant went to the accused standing near Peepal tree in grain market Kartarpur. Accused demanded bribe from the complainant. The complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to the accused, which he put in the pocket of his trouser. Pawan Kumar, the shadow witness gave the signal to the police party, who along with the members of the raiding party reached at the spot. The accused was apprehended. Hand wash of the accused was taken in the solution of the sodium carbonate, which turned to pink. The said solution was kept in a nip, which was further kept in a sealed parcel and was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PF. Thereafter, the search of the accused was taken and tainted currency notes were recovered from the left side pocket of his trouser. The numbers thereof tallied with the numbers entered in the memo Ex. PD. The said currency notes were also taken into possession. The trouser of the accused was got removed and pocket thereof was washed in the solution of the sodium carbonate, which also turned pink in colour. The said solution was also put in a nip and kept in a sealed parcel, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PH. The investigating officer prepared the site plan of the occurrence. The nip parcels containing solution were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh. The said solution was also put in a nip and kept in a sealed parcel, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PH. The investigating officer prepared the site plan of the occurrence. The nip parcels containing solution were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh. After completing the formalities of investigation and obtaining the requisite sanction for the prosecution of the appellant, the report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure was presented in the Court. 3. After compliance of the provisions of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Special Judge, Jalandhar charge sheeted the accused-appellant for offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and also tendered in evidence the report of Forensic Science Laboratory Punjab, Chandigarh Ex. PR. 5. When examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, accused pleaded that complainant Surjit Singh was known to him for the last 7-8 years. He had become his Dharmbhai (spiritual brother). He and his family members used to attend his family functions. The complainant was so thick with him that he even went to Malout to attend the Jagrata in the house of his uncle Kewal Krishan. He further pleaded that complainant and his brothers had purchased the land from one Nirmal Singh and made an application for demarcation of the land on 02.06.1995. The appellant accompanied by Parveen Kumar Chibber, Kanungo conducted the demarcation of land. The complainant and his brother were found in possession of 12 Marlas of land in excess, which was given to the other party i.e. Ravinder Singh and others. The complainant took ill of that and was annoyed with the accused. As a result of which, he has been falsely implicated in this case. He also pleaded that on 15.06.1995, the complainant came to the Patwarkhana and obtained copy of jamabandi from Pardeep Kumar Patwari as well as from him of village Kahlwan. The complainant asked the appellant to take him on scooter on the G.T. Road on the ground that he was not having any conveyance. The appellant acceded to his request having old acquaintance with him and took him on his scooter to G.T. Road Kartarpur. The complainant asked the appellant to take him on scooter on the G.T. Road on the ground that he was not having any conveyance. The appellant acceded to his request having old acquaintance with him and took him on his scooter to G.T. Road Kartarpur. When, they reached in front of Police Station Kartarpur, the complainant tried to put forcibly the money in his pocket while sitting on the pillion seat of his scooter, to which he resisted with force on which the money as well as both of them fell on the ground. He raised alarm for the false implication for the amount while he was apprehended by the vigilance officials and he pleaded his false implication. 6. In defence, the accused examined as many as nine witnesses. 7. On appreciating the evidence available on record and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, learned Special Judge, held guilty and convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Act and he was awarded the sentence as mentioned in the upper part of the judgment. 8. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have meticulously examined the record of the case. 10. Initiating the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that as per the tenor of the F.I.R., the complainant has tried to show that he was stranger to the appellant. But, in fact, he was very thick to the appellant. They were the Dharambhai (spiritual brothers) of each other. The complainant had been attending the family functions of the appellant and was well acquainted with him for the last 7-8 years prior to the occurrence. It shows that the complainant had misrepresented the officials of the vigilance department in order to falsely implicate the accused. 11. He further contended that as per the case of the prosecution, the complainant was in need of the copy of the jamabandi for purchase of the truck. He contended that the copy of jamabandi is not a document of title and is not needed for the mortgage of the property. There is no evidence as to whether the complainant had applied for the grant of loan and to which bank the loan was applied. He contended that the copy of jamabandi is not a document of title and is not needed for the mortgage of the property. There is no evidence as to whether the complainant had applied for the grant of loan and to which bank the loan was applied. The copy of the jamabandi was already obtained by the complainant. There is also no evidence that the complainant had ever purchased any truck. So, a false need has been projected by the complainant just to involve the appellant. 12. He further contended that no record has been taken into possession by the investigating officer to show that any copy of jamabandi was supplied to the accused. 13. He further contended that the prosecution witnesses are also discrepant about the mode of conveyance. PW-6 Som Nath, the alleged independent witness has not supported the prosecution version. He has stated that he was made to sit in a shop of the commission agent. PW-3 Pawan Kumar, the shadow witness was an employee of the complainant. So, there is no independent corroboration to the prosecution version. He further contended that as per the prosecution story, the currency notes were recovered from the left pocket of the trouser of the accused, which is also improbable that if the money is accepted by the right hand it can not be put in the left pocket. 14. He further contended that DW-1 Pardeep Kumar, Patwari has deposed that two copies of jamabandies were already supplied to the complainant. So, there can be no question of demand of bribe. 15. He further contended that infact, the complainant was annoyed with the accused as he had got conducted the demarcation of his land. The appellant accompanied DW Parveen Kumar Chibber for the purpose of demarcation and in the said demarcation 12 marlas of land was found in possession of the complainant in excess, which was delivered to the other party i.e. Ravinder Singh and others. Learned counsel contended that as the complainant has treated the appellant as his Dharambhai (spiritual brother), he expected that the appellant will favour him in the demarcation. When the demarcation report was given against him, he was enraged and lodged the false complaint. 16. He further contended that the trap was alleged to be laid in the grain market, a public place, but no independent witness has been associated. When the demarcation report was given against him, he was enraged and lodged the false complaint. 16. He further contended that the trap was alleged to be laid in the grain market, a public place, but no independent witness has been associated. The venue of proceedings is also stated to be the shop of a commission agent. His particulars have also not been disclosed nor he has been joined as a witness. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. To support his contentions, he has relied upon State of Punjab v. Vinod Kumar, CRM-A-123-MA-2011, decided on 11, March, 2013, Dr. Narpinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Crl. Appeal No. 1921-SB of 2007, decided on 02, March, 2013, Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005 (4) R.C.R. (criminal) 310, Amrit Lal v. State of Punjab, 2006 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 796, Anand Parkash v. State of Haryana, 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 335, State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal, 2009 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 812 (SC), Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana, 2010 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 553. 17. On the other hand learned State Counsel contended that from the statement of complainant Surjit Singh and PW-3 Pawan Kumar, the shadow witness, it is established that the accused-appellant has demanded and accepted the bribe for supplying the copy of jamabandi. He further contended that the tainted currency notes of ` 5000/- have been recovered from the possession of the accused, which is also established from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. He contended that the defence plea raised by the accused that complainant was annoyed on account of the demarcation is not substantiated at all. The appellant has not carried out any demarcation of the land. Moreover, in the demarcation report, it is nowhere mentioned that the excess land was found in possession of the complainant. The appellant was not competent to carry out the demarcation. He further contended that the plea raised by the appellant that money was forcibly thrusted in his pocket and they fell down from the scooter is also not substantiated as there is no evidence to show that the appellant or the complainant had suffered any injury as a result of fall from the scooter. He further contended that the plea raised by the appellant that money was forcibly thrusted in his pocket and they fell down from the scooter is also not substantiated as there is no evidence to show that the appellant or the complainant had suffered any injury as a result of fall from the scooter. He further contended that presumption of Section 20 of the Act also arises against the appellant and his conviction by the learned Special Judge is well founded. To support his contentions he has relied upon Ram Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl. Appeal No. 571 of 1991, decided on 12.07.1995 (S.C.), Billa Nagul Sharief v. State of A.P., Crl. Appeal No. 1165 of 2010, decided on 06.07.2010 (SC), T. Shankar Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Crl. Appeal No. 909 of 1997, decided on 12.1.2004 (S.C.). 18. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions. 19. In order to establish the ingredients of offence for which the appellant has been charged, the prosecution was required to establish the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused from the complainant and further that he obtained the pecuniary advantage of ` 5000/- by abusing his position as a Revenue Patwari, a Public Servant for supply of copy of the jamabandi to the complainant and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the appellant. 20. In order to discharge its onus, prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimonies of PW-2 complainant Surjit Singh, PW-3 Pawan Kumar, the shadow witness, PW-6 Som Nath Clerk and PW-7 Harish Kumar, the then DSP, Vigilance, the Trap Laying Officer. 21. PW-2 Surjit Singh (complainant) while stepping into the witness box has fully supported the prosecution version to reproduce his testimony will virtually amount to the repetition of the facts referred above. He specifically deposed about the demand of ` 5000/- bribe by the appellant for supplying the copy of jamabandi. He further deposed about the report lodged by him with vigilance department. Then, he narrated in detail the manner in which trap was laid, the demand of bribe raised by accused at the time of trap, acceptance of bribe money of ` 5000/- by him and then the recovery of tainted currency notes from left pocket of pant. PW-3 Pawan Kumar has fully corroborated the version of the complainant. Then, he narrated in detail the manner in which trap was laid, the demand of bribe raised by accused at the time of trap, acceptance of bribe money of ` 5000/- by him and then the recovery of tainted currency notes from left pocket of pant. PW-3 Pawan Kumar has fully corroborated the version of the complainant. He also deposed that he and Surjit Singh went on foot to the grain market at about 12.00 p.m. They reached near the Patwari underneath the Peepal tree. Patwari Rajesh Kumar accused was present there. He demanded his fees and Surjit Singh paid the money to him. Patwari Rajesh Kumar gave him the Fard Jamabandi after receiving the amount. He gave signal to the Vigilance Officer, DSP, Inspector and public witness reached there. The search of the accused was taken. ` 5000/- were recovered from the left pocket of the accused. Their numbers were tallied with the numbers already recorded. Thereafter, he also deposed about the hand wash and pocket wash of the accused. PW-6 Som Nath Clerk who was also associated as a witness in the trap has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution version, however, in the cross examination he has also corroborated the prosecution version on certain material aspects. Then, there is the statement of PW-7 Harish Kumar, the then, DSP, Vigilance, who had laid the trap. He also deposed in detail about the entire proceedings of the trial, apprehension of the accused and recovery of the tainted currency notes from his possession. 22. No doubt from certain admissions in the cross examination of the complainant and the defence evidence adduced by the appellant, it comes out that the complainant was well acquainted with the appellant. He along with his family members even attended some family functions of the complainant. But that is not a ground to discard the prosecution version regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the appellant from the complainant. It is a fact of common knowledge that a revenue Patwari enjoys a very important position in the villages. Every agriculturist has to approach the village Patwari for one purpose or the other. The report of the village Patwari is required in order to obtain various Government facilities. So, every inhabitant of the village tries to maintain the good relations with the Patwari. Every agriculturist has to approach the village Patwari for one purpose or the other. The report of the village Patwari is required in order to obtain various Government facilities. So, every inhabitant of the village tries to maintain the good relations with the Patwari. So, if the complainant and his family members had previously attended some family functions of the appellant that is no ground to improbalise the prosecution version. It was not necessary for the complainant to mention in his statement Ex. PD to the Vigilance Officer that he was having acquaintance with the accused-appellant and has been attended his family functions. These facts were not required to be incorporated in the said statement for the purpose of this case. So, there is nothing to presume that the complainant has tried to project himself as a stranger to the appellant. The appellant was posted as a Revenue Patwari in the village. The complainant is an agriculturist, so it is presumed that they were well known to each other. But, mere acquaintance of the appellant with the complainant can not negate the positive evidence brought on record by the prosecution regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant. 23. The complainant has categorically stated that he needed the copy of jamabandi for the purchase of a truck. He has moved the application mark 'A' to the Naib Tehsildar, Kartarpur for the supply of copy of jamabandi and the Naib Tehsildar has given direction to Halka Patwari, Kahlwan to prepare and supply the copy thereof. It is a lapse on the part of the investigating officer that he has not collected the evidence as to whether the complainant has applied for grant of loan for the purchase of truck to any bank or not. It is well settled principle of law by this time, that the lapses and defects in the investigation are no ground to base the acquittal, if the case of the prosecution is otherwise proved from the evidence on record. To prove this view reference can be made to case Ganga Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2013 (5) R.C.R. (Criminal) 774. 24. To prove this view reference can be made to case Ganga Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2013 (5) R.C.R. (Criminal) 774. 24. I did not find any substance in the plea of learned counsel for the appellant that as the Jamabandi is not a document of title, so the same is not required for creating mortgage of the land, because the copy of jamabandi is very essential to mention the description of the land i.e. Khasra number, Killa number etc. It is also required to show the ownership and possession of the person mortgaging the land. In the absence of the copy of jamabandi the preparation of the draft of the mortgage deed is not possible. So, it can not be stated that the complainant has projected false need of jamabandi just to concoct the story to implicate the appellant. 25. No doubt the complainant has admitted in the cross examination that he has not purchased the truck till his statement was recorded in the Court. It may be due to various reasons. It may be possible that later on he might have dropped the idea to purchase the truck. So, merely on this ground it can not be presumed that the complainant was not in need of the copy of the jamabandi and the story to this effect has only been put forward by the complainant just to implicate the accused. 26. There is no dispute that the accused-appellant has supplied the copy of jamabandi on the date of trap to the complainant which is Ex. PK/1. Even in his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has admitted that he has supplied the copy of jamabandi to the complainant of the land of village Kahlwan. So, when the factum regarding supply of the copy of jamabandi is not disputed, the non seizure of the record/register of the Patwarkhana by the investigating officer is of no consequence. 27. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any material contradiction on the point of the demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe money in statements of the prosecution witnesses. The minor contradictions about the mode of conveyance used by the members of the trap party are immaterial and can not adversely affect the veracity of the prosecution witnesses. The minor contradictions about the mode of conveyance used by the members of the trap party are immaterial and can not adversely affect the veracity of the prosecution witnesses. No doubt PW-3, Pawan Kumar the shadow witness has admitted in the cross examination that he has been doing the work of the boring of the tubewell and he also performed such duty for 7-8 times for the complainant and is known to him for the last 8-10 years. Merely on this ground that PW-3 Pawan Kumar was known to the complainant and had been providing him his professional services is no ground to consider him as an interested witness. Nothing could be elicited from the cross examination of this witness, which could show that he has any animus either to depose in favour of the complainant or to falsely implicate the appellant. Thus, there is no ground to render the testimony of PW-3 Pawan Kumar unreliable. 28. PW-6 Som Nath Clerk was associated in the trap as a witness. But, he has not supported the prosecution version and deposed that he was made to sit in the shop of the commission agent for 2-2 = hours and had not gone with the DSP to the Patwarkhana. This witness was cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. In the cross examination he has admitted that the DSP, has got prepared a solution and the colour of that solution turned pink when the hands of the accused were washed in the same. He also admitted the preparing of the sealed parcels of the said solution. He further categorically deposed that when the search of the accused was taken 50 currency notes of denomination of ` 100/- were recovered from the left side pocket of the trouser of the accused. He further admitted that he compared the numbers of those currency notes with the numbers mentioned in the memo and those tallied with each other. He admitted that those currency notes were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PH, which was signed by him and other witnesses. He also admitted that the pocket of the trouser of the accused was washed in the solution and the colour of that solution also turned from white to pink. He also admitted that the sealed parcel of said solution was prepared. PH, which was signed by him and other witnesses. He also admitted that the pocket of the trouser of the accused was washed in the solution and the colour of that solution also turned from white to pink. He also admitted that the sealed parcel of said solution was prepared. He further admitted that Surjit Singh-complainant produced before the DSP one jamabandi which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PK. Thus, PW-6 Som Nath has also corroborated the prosecution version on material facts i.e. apprehension of the accused, his hand wash and pocket wash, the recovery of tainted currency notes from the left pocket of his trouser and the copy of jamabandi having been produced by the complainant before the investigating officer. It is also the settled principle of law by this time that the testimony of a hostile witness is not completely effaced or washed of from the record. That part of the statement of a hostile witness which corroborates the testimony of other witnesses can be taken into consideration. To support this view reference can be made to case Paulmeli and another v. State of Tamil Nadu through Inspector of Police, 2014 (4) R.C.R. (criminal) 335. 29. Testimonies of the complainant and shadow witness are fully corroborated from the statement of PW-7 Harish Kumar, the then DSP, who had laid the trap and caught the appellant red-handed and effected the recovery of the tainted currency notes from his possession. Thus, from the statement of complainant Surjit Singh corroborated from the statement of PW-3 Pawan Kumar, the shadow witness, it is established that the appellant has demanded and accepted a bribe of ` 5000/- for supplying copy of jamabandi to the complainant. The statements of complainant, PW-3 Pawan Kumar, the shadow witness, PW-6 Som Nath and PW-7 Harish Kumar, the then, DSP, further establish the recovery of said tainted currency notes from the possession of the appellant. 30. This oral evidence is also corroborated from the scientific evidence. The hand wash and the wash of the left pocket of the trouser of the appellant was taken by the investigating officer, which were kept in the sealed parcels and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh. The report of the Laboratory is Ex. PR, which shows that the sodium carbonate and 'PP' powder was found in said parcels. The hand wash and the wash of the left pocket of the trouser of the appellant was taken by the investigating officer, which were kept in the sealed parcels and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh. The report of the Laboratory is Ex. PR, which shows that the sodium carbonate and 'PP' powder was found in said parcels. This scientific evidence clearly establishes that the appellant has handled the currency notes smeared with 'PP' powder and has kept the same in left pocket of his trouser. Once, all these facts are established, the accused-appellant was required to show as to how the tainted currency notes came into his possession which sometime ago in possession of the complainant and how the solution in which his hand and pocket were washed turned pink. To support this view reference can be made to case Harcharan Singh Bhalla v. State of Punjab and another, 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 296. 31. Once it is established that the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe money, the statutory presumption provided under Section 20 of the Act becomes applicable and the Court is under legal compulsion to presume that such gratification was paid and accepted as a motive or reward for doing the official work. This view is fully supported from the consistent rule of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra 2000 (4) R.C.R. Criminal 705; State of A.P. v. Vasudeva Rao, 2003 (4) R.C.R. Criminal 917 SC and Krishna Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2009 (2) R.C.R. Criminal 538 (SC). Due to the application of statutory presumption against the accused the burden had shifted upon him to establish as to how and under that circumstances the tainted currency notes came in his pocket which were sometime before in the possession of the complainant. 32. In order to dislodge the prosecution case and rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, the accused has taken the plea that the complainant and his brother have purchased the land. They sought the demarcation of the said land which was conducted on 02.06.1995 by Parveen Kumar Chibber, DW-6. 32. In order to dislodge the prosecution case and rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, the accused has taken the plea that the complainant and his brother have purchased the land. They sought the demarcation of the said land which was conducted on 02.06.1995 by Parveen Kumar Chibber, DW-6. He also went to the spot being the Halka Patwari for the purpose of demarcation and on measurement, the complainant and his brother were found in possession of 12 Marlas of land in excess and the said land went to Ravinder Singh and others. Complainant took ill of it and was upset and annoyed with him that he has lost 12 Marlas of land due to the measurements made by him. Complainant wanted undue favour from him, but he did not oblige him and he has threatened him in the presence of defence witnesses. He has also alleged that on 15.06.1995, the complainant came to the Patwarkhana for receiving the copy of the jamabandi. After that he requested him to take him to G.T. Road Kartarpur on his scooter, as he was not having any conveyance. When they reached in front of police station Kartarpur, the complainant tried to put money forcibly in his pocket while sitting on the pillion of his scooter. He resisted the same with force and they both fell on the ground and money also fell on the ground. In the meanwhile two constables of the vigilance department reached at the spot and caught him from his arms. 33. In defence evidence, appellant has examined Pardeep Kumar Patwari as DW-1. He has deposed about the supply of the copy of jamabandi to the complainant on 15.06.1995 and also that he had seen the complainant and accused coming out of their office. DW-2 Pargat Singh Patwari has also deposed about the supply of the copies of jamabandies to the complainant. He further deposed that Surjit Singh had asked the accused to leave him up to G.T. Road on his scooter. Then, the accused took him on his scooter. DW-3 Gurmail Singh has deposed about the demarcation of the land held on 02.06.1995 in which 10-12 Marlas of land was found to have been encroached by complainant Surjit Singh. The possession thereof was taken by Ravinder Singh and boundary wall was constructed. Then, the accused took him on his scooter. DW-3 Gurmail Singh has deposed about the demarcation of the land held on 02.06.1995 in which 10-12 Marlas of land was found to have been encroached by complainant Surjit Singh. The possession thereof was taken by Ravinder Singh and boundary wall was constructed. He further deposed that Surjit Singh told Rajesh Kumar that he was his 'Bhaiband' and he had given his land to Ravinder Singh. DW-4 Harinder Singh has supported the plea of the accused with respect to the thrusting of the money in the pocket by the complainant. As a result of which the falling of complainant and the accused as well as the money on the ground and the apprehension of the appellant by the vigilance officials. DW-5 Madhu Bala is a formal witness and has produced the record regarding the application for demarcation. DW-6 Parveen Kumar has carried out the demarcation proceedings and proved his report Ex. DE. DW-7 Tarlochan Singh is the Lambardar of the village and was present at the time of demarcation. He has stated that after demarcation Surjit Singh told the accused as to how he has reduced his land by 12 Marlas in demarcation. DW-8 Ravinder Singh has stated that 10-12 Marlas excess land found in possession of Surjit Singh was transferred to them and after the completion of the demarcation proceedings Surjit Singh rebuked the accused by saying that he was his own man and inspite of that on his application he found his land to be in excess. DW-9 Kuldeep Singh is the uncle of the appellant and has deposed about the attending of the Jagrata by the complainant held at his house. 34. Firstly, I take up the plea of the appellant regarding the demarcation. It is an admitted fact that as per the rules, the Revenue Patwari is not competent to carry out the demarcation proceedings. It is only Revenue Official of the rank of Kanungo and above who is competent to carry out the demarcation of the land. In the instant case also PW-6 Pawan Kumar Chibber, Kanungo Halka Kahlwan has carried out the demarcation proceedings and has prepared his report Ex. DE. The Halka Patwari generally remains present at the time of demarcation alongwith record to assist the revenue officer conducting the demarcation. In the demarcation report Ex. In the instant case also PW-6 Pawan Kumar Chibber, Kanungo Halka Kahlwan has carried out the demarcation proceedings and has prepared his report Ex. DE. The Halka Patwari generally remains present at the time of demarcation alongwith record to assist the revenue officer conducting the demarcation. In the demarcation report Ex. DE, there is no specific finding that complainant was found in possession of 12 Marlas of land in excess. In the demarcation report simply this fact is mentioned that the points were fixed and no dispute has taken place at the spot. So, the demarcation report Ex. DE does not show any cause of annoyance of the complainant. It is also nowhere, mentioned in the demarcation report Ex. DE, that the possession of any excess land was transferred to Ravinder Singh and others. The revenue officer is also not competent to transfer the possession of the land from one party to the other. Moreover, the testimonies of the defence witnesses on the point of annoyance are also discrepant. 35. The plea raised by the accused that the complainant tried to forcibly thrust the money in his pocket and both of them fell down along with money due to this resistance has also no legs to stand. If a person falls from the moving scooter, he will certainly suffer some injuries, on his person and there is every likelihood of some damage to the wearing clothes. But in the instant case, there is absolutely no evidence on record to establish that either the accused or the complainant suffered any injury on their person or damage to their clothes. There is also no material on the file to show that any damage was caused to the scooter as a result of that fall. So, this plea has just been coined by the appellant as an afterthought to made out the recovery of the tainted currency notes from his possession. 36. So, the aforesaid plea raised by the accused-appellant which is not substantiated is not sufficient to rebut the cogent, consistent and reliable evidence of the prosecution. Hence the presumption under Section 20 of the Act arises against him. 37. Cases relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant are quite distinguishable on facts. 36. So, the aforesaid plea raised by the accused-appellant which is not substantiated is not sufficient to rebut the cogent, consistent and reliable evidence of the prosecution. Hence the presumption under Section 20 of the Act arises against him. 37. Cases relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant are quite distinguishable on facts. In case State of Punjab v. Vinod Kumar (Supra), the appeal was against acquittal and the recovery of the currency notes were effected from the drawer of the accused and not from his person. Moreover, the criteria to upset the finding of acquittal, in an appeal against acquittal are entirely different. In case of Dr. Narpinder Singh v. State of Punjab (Supra), the complainant and shadow witness were hostile. In case of Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab (Supra), this Court has laid down that mere recovery of the tainted currency notes is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence is not reliable. In that case it was alleged that the demand of bribe was raised for sanctioning the mutation, but, infact, it was found that the mutation was already sanctioned four months back. In case of Amrit Lal v. State of Punjab (Supra), the statement of the complainant was not corroborated from any source and the recovery witness was not examined, whereas in the instant case, the statement of the complainant is fully corroborated from the testimonies of the shadow witness, the investigating officer and to some extent from the statement of PW-6 Som Nath. In case of Anand Parkash v. State of Haryana (Supra) also the recovery was effected from the Almirah of the accused and not from his person and there was no witness to the demand of bribe except the complainant. Whereas, in this case the statement of the complainant on the point of demand of bribe is also corroborated from the testimony of PW-3 Parveen Kumar, the shadow witness. In State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal (Supra) one of the complainant was hostile. The independent witness also did not support the prosecution case. In case Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana (Supra), the complainant as well as the shadow witness turned hostile. So, none of the cases referred above is applicable to the facts of the case. 38. In State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal (Supra) one of the complainant was hostile. The independent witness also did not support the prosecution case. In case Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana (Supra), the complainant as well as the shadow witness turned hostile. So, none of the cases referred above is applicable to the facts of the case. 38. Thus, keeping in view of my aforesaid discussion from the evidence brought on record, the prosecution has been able to establish Beyond shadow of reasonable doubt that accused-appellant demanded and accepted the bribe of ` 5000/- from the complainant for the supply of the copy of jamabandi. The said tainted currency notes were recovered from his possession. Thus, he has abused his position as a public servant to have the pecuniary advantage. 39. Consequently, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court and the same is hereby confirmed. Resultantly, the present appeal has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed. The accused-appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled. He shall surrender within 15 days from the date of this judgment before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, who shall send him to jail to undergo the remaining part of his sentence. If, he fails to surrender, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, shall take coercive steps to secure his presence and send him to jail to undergo the remaining part of the sentence.