Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1795 (PNJ)

Jagdish Kumar v. State of Haryana

2014-12-23

DARSHAN SINGH

body2014
Darshan Singh, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 14.05.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Kurukshetra vide which appellant Jag-dish Kumar was held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter called the Act) and the order on quantum of sentence of the even date vide which the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- in default thereof to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. The brief facts of giving rise to this prosecution are that on 19.08.1996, complainant PW-6 Kuldeep Kumar presented the application Ex. PF to PW-12 Joginder Nehra, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pehwa alleging therein that he was unemployed. He had taken a loan of ` 40,000/- for running an electric shop from Union Bank Gumthala Garu Branch. Accused-appellant Jagdish Kumar, Branch Manager demanded a sum of ` 4000/- as bribe for disbursement of the said loan amount. That earlier he got released an installment of ` 2000/- for which an iron press was given to the bank Manager as bribe. That now he could arrange only ` 3000/-. He was not willing to give bribe. On that day, he had gone to bank to receive the balance amount of the sanctioned loan, but the branch Manager told him that he should meet him at shop No. 10, Anaj Mandi, Pehwa at 5.00 p.m. He came to the Deputy Superintendent of Police Joginder Nehra with PW-7 Surat Singh and prayed for taking legal action against the branch manager. 2. After receipt of the said complaint, PW-11 Gurmeet Singh, the then Tehsildar, Pehwa was requested to join as a Magistrate in the raiding party. Gurmeet Singh, Tehsildar, Pehwa reached the office of DSP. Complainant handed over thirty currency notes of ` 100/- denomination each. The personal search of the complainant was taken as per law. Nothing was recovered. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Joginder Nehra and Gurmeet Singh, Tehsildar, Pehwa initialed the currency notes. Thereafter, the said currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. The said currency notes were handed over to the complainant for handing over the same to accused on his demand. The personal search of the complainant was taken as per law. Nothing was recovered. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Joginder Nehra and Gurmeet Singh, Tehsildar, Pehwa initialed the currency notes. Thereafter, the said currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. The said currency notes were handed over to the complainant for handing over the same to accused on his demand. Surat Singh was appointed as a shadow witness and was instructed to remain at a distance from Kuldeep Kumar and to give the signal to raiding party by touching his head with his hand after passing over of the bribe money from complainant Kuldeep Kumar to the appellant. 3. The complainant and shadow witness went to shop No. 10, Anaj Mandi, Pehwa and the remaining members of the raiding party kept waiting for the appointed signal from the shadow witness. After some time, on receipt of the appointed signal from Surat Singh, the shadow witness, the raiding party reached at the spot. The Investigating Officer offered his personal search to the accused. Thereafter, the personal search of accused was conducted. During which thirty currency notes of the denomination of ` 100/- each were recovered from the front pocket of the T-shirt of accused. The number of said currency notes tallied with the numbers of the currency notes mentioned in the memo prepared by the Investigating Officer. The said currency notes were found to have been initialled by PW-11 Gurmeet Singh, Tehsildar, Pehwa and PW-12 Jagdish Nehra, DSP. The said currency notes were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer by putting them in a sealed envelope. The seal was handed over to Gurmeet Singh, Tehsildar, Pehwa. The hand wash and the wash of T-shirt pocket of appellant were taken separately. The solution turned pink in colour. The said solution was kept in separate bottles in sealed parcels. The accused was arrested and on completion of the investigation, the report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) was presented in the Court. 4. The accused-appellant was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, vide order dated 07.08.1997 to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses. 4. The accused-appellant was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, vide order dated 07.08.1997 to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses. The report of Forensic Science Laboratory (for short F.S.L.) was also tendered in evidence by the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in this case by the D.S.P. Jagdish Nehra as per the directions of Jaswinder Singh Sandhu, the then M.L.A., Pehwa as he belongs to village Gumthala Garu. The loan of complainant was sanctioned by R.K. Baweja, the then branch manager before 31.03.1996. The complainant had given an application for release of the first installment of the loan , on that basis ` 2000/- were released vide application Ex. PR/8. Thereafter, complainant moved an application Ex. PR/5 for releasing of the second installment of` 19,400/-, which was released to him on 25.07.1996 and thereafter, no request for releasing of the remaining amount was received from the complainant. He further pleaded that many persons from village Gumthala Garu had taken loan from the bank and had mis-utilized the same. The loan applications of many persons of that village were declined. They lodged the complainant to Jaswinder Singh, MLA, who was annoyed with the appellant and threatened to teach him a lesson. Thereafter, he directed the D.S.P. concerned to involve him in some case. He further stated that in routine every branch manager and official of the bank use to visit shop No. 10 in the morning as well as in the evening in connection with the business of the bank. On 19.08.1996, the D.S.P. through some bogus person had given some money to Vinod Kumar at shop No. 10 to be handed over to him on his arrival at 5.00 p.m. But, on that day he was a little late and reached at 5.30 p.m. When he came there, the D.S.P., Pehwa along with 2-3 police officials reached at the spot and after collecting the money from Vinod Kumar tried to insert the same in his pocket forcibly. On seeing this Vinod Kumar and other shopkeepers protested against the behaviour of the DSP. But, he threatened them with dire consequences. On seeing this Vinod Kumar and other shopkeepers protested against the behaviour of the DSP. But, he threatened them with dire consequences. The appellant was taken to the office of D.S.P., where he was falsely implicated in this case. 7. In defence evidence, accused examined Vinod Kumar the shopkeeper as DW-1, Janga Ram as DW-2 and S.S. Yadav as DW-3. 8. On appreciating the evidence on record and contentions raised by the learned counsel for parties, the learned Special Judge held guilty and convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act, however, he was acquitted of the charges under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and was sentenced as mentioned in the upper part of the judgment. 9. I have heard Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Deepak Bura, learned Public Prosecutor, for the State of Haryana and have meticulously examined the record of the case. 10. Initiating the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that entire case of the prosecution is based on the statements of complainant Kuldeep Kumar PW-6, Surat Singh PW-7, the shadow witness and PW-11 Gurmeet Singh, Tehsildar, Pehwa and PW-12 Joginder Nehra, the then D.S.P., Pehwa. He contended that in order to establish the ingredients of the offence, the prosecution was require to establish the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the appellant from complainant Kuldeep Kumar. But, there is absolutely no evidence to establish the demand and acceptance of the bribe. He contended that PW-6 Kuldeep Kumar, the complainant and PW-7 Surat Singh, the shadow witness have not supported the prosecution version at all. Complainant has categorically stated that accused-appellant did not demand any bribe from him. He also admitted that his loan was already sanctioned and disbursed to him. So, there was no question of the demand of any bribe. 11. He further contended that it is an admitted fact that number of independent witnesses were present in Anaj Market, Pehwa, even in shop No. 10, where the raid was conducted. But, no such independent witness has been associated by the Investigating Officer, which renders the prosecution case doubtful. 12. 11. He further contended that it is an admitted fact that number of independent witnesses were present in Anaj Market, Pehwa, even in shop No. 10, where the raid was conducted. But, no such independent witness has been associated by the Investigating Officer, which renders the prosecution case doubtful. 12. He further contended that the learned Special Judge has also held the appellant guilty only for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act and he was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, as the demand and acceptance of bribe was not established. 13. He further contended that it is a clear case of the false implication of appellant by PW-12 D.S.P. Joginder Nehra on the instructions of Jaswinder Singh Sandhu, the then Local M.L.A., as many residents of his village Gumthala Garu were defaulter of the bank and their loan applications were declined. He contended that the defence plea raised by the accused is fully established from the testimonies of DW-1 Vinod Kumar, in whose shop the raid was conducted, DW-2 Janga Ram, resident of village Gumthala Garu and DW-3 S.S. Yadav, the manager of the bank. He contended that every branch manager of Union Bank of India use to visit shop No. 10 in the morning and in the evening in connection with the business of the bank. He contended that in order to falsely implicate the appellant, the D.S.P. through some bogus person handed over the money to Vinod Kumar shopkeeper to pass over the same to the appellant. When the appellant got late in the evening, the D.S.P. took over the said amount and forcibly tried to insert in the pocket of appellant. He resisted and raised the protest. The people present there also raised the protest, but were threatened by the D.S.P. He contended that presence of PW-11 Gurmeet Singh, Tehsildar, Pehwa is not established at the place of occurrence. So, whole version of the prosecution stands falsified. 14. He further contended that the learned trial Court has drawn the presumption under Section 20 of the Act in an illegal manner. Mere recovery of the tainted currency notes is no ground to establish the ingredients of the offence. In the absence of the evidence regarding demand and acceptance of bribe amount, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can not be raised. Mere recovery of the tainted currency notes is no ground to establish the ingredients of the offence. In the absence of the evidence regarding demand and acceptance of bribe amount, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can not be raised. He further contended that when the demand and acceptance of the bribe money is not established, no offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act is made out. To support his contentions he has relied upon cases B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., 2014 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 410 : 2014 (2) AICLR 8, Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana, 2010 (2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 553 : 2010 (3) JT 552 , C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala, 2009 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 134, V. Venkata Subbarao v. State represented by Inspector of Police, A.P. 2007 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 519, Union of India Thr. Inspector, CBI v. Purnandu Biswas, 2005 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 517, K. Subba Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2007 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 505, Rajinder Kumar Narang v. State, 2014 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 318 : 2014 (2) JCC 1085. 15. On the other hand learned State counsel contended that mere this fact that the complainant and shadow witness had turned hostile is no ground for acquittal of the accused. He contended that demand and acceptance of the bribe can also be proved by indirect/circumstantial evidence. He contended that in this case, the complainant was sanctioned the loan by the bank. He has not received the full sanctioned loan amount, for that the bribe was demanded by the appellant. There is no explanation as to why the appellant went to shop No. 10 Anaj Mandi, Pehwa. The business of bank can not be carried out from a private place. The tainted currency notes have been recovered from the possession of appellant. The defence evidence is procured one and is not reliable. There is no reason to disbelieve the consistent version of PW-11 Gurmeet Singh, Tehsildar, Pehwa and PW-12 Joginder Singh, the D.S.P., who had no animus for the false implication of appellant-a public servant at the instance of a private person. He contended that presumption under Section 20 of the Act arises against the appellant and he has failed to explain how the tainted currency notes came in his T-shirt pocket. He contended that presumption under Section 20 of the Act arises against the appellant and he has failed to explain how the tainted currency notes came in his T-shirt pocket. His hand wash and pocket wash turned pink in colour, which further establishes the demand and acceptance of the bribe. Thus, he contended that conviction of the appellant has been rightly recorded by the learned trial Court. To support his contentions, he has relied upon cases Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1980 Supreme Court 873, Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2010 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 46, B. Hanumantha Rao v. State of A.P., 1992 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 140 and case Joginder Singh Malik v. CBI, 2014 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 895. 16. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions. 17. There is absolutely no dispute with the principles of law that in order to bring home the guilt, prosecution was required to establish the demand and acceptance of the bribe by appellant Jagdish Kumar from PW-6 Kuldeep Kumar complainant and thereafter, the recovery of tainted currency notes from the possession of appellant. As per the prosecution version, the appellant has demanded bribe for disbursement of the sanctioned loan amount to the complainant. The complainant has lodged written complaint Ex. PF with PW-12 DSP, Joginder Nehra, on the basis of which the trap was arranged. PW-7 Surat Singh was appointed as a shadow witness. The tainted currency notes were passed over to the appellant and were recovered from his possession. 18. No doubt, PW-6 Kuldeep Kumar complainant and PW-7 Surat Singh, the shadow witness have not supported the prosecution version at all. PW-6 Kuldeep Kumar, complainant has stated that his loan was sanctioned in the year 1996. Accused present in the Court never demanded any illegal gratification from him for advancing the loan nor he paid any amount to him as illegal gratification. He was cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. In the cross examination, he admitted that application Ex. PF and memos Ex. PH, Ex. PJ, Ex. PK, Ex. PL and Ex. PM bears his signatures. However, he alleged that his signatures were obtained on many blank papers. 19. Similarly, PW-7 Surat Singh, the shadow witness has also not supported the prosecution case and deposed that he does not know anything about this case. PF and memos Ex. PH, Ex. PJ, Ex. PK, Ex. PL and Ex. PM bears his signatures. However, he alleged that his signatures were obtained on many blank papers. 19. Similarly, PW-7 Surat Singh, the shadow witness has also not supported the prosecution case and deposed that he does not know anything about this case. He was not associated by the police in any raid on 19.08.1996 nor anything was got recovered by the police in his presence from branch manager Jagdish Kumar. 20. So, both the complainant and shadow witness have not supported the prosecution version at all. But, I found substance in the contentions raised by learned State Counsel that mere this fact that the complainant and shadow witness have not supported the prosecution version is itself no ground for the acquittal of accused. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Administration) (Supra) has laid down as under:- "It is not necessary that the passing of money should be proved by direct evidence. It may also be proved by circumstantial evidence. The events which followed in quick succession in the present case lead to the only inference that the money was obtained by the accused from P.W. 3. Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. One of the illustrations to Section 114 of the Evidence Act is that the Court may presume that a person who is in possession of the stolen goods soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. So too, in the facts and circumstances of the present case the Court may presume that the accused who took out the currency notes from his pocket and flung them across the wall had obtained them from P.W. 3, who a few minutes earlier was shown to have been in possession of the notes. Once we arrive at the findings that the accused had obtained the money from P.W. 3, the presumption under Sec. 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is immediately attracted." 22. Once we arrive at the findings that the accused had obtained the money from P.W. 3, the presumption under Sec. 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is immediately attracted." 22. In case Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab (Supra) also this Court has laid down that it is not always essential that demand of money is to be proved by witness, but the same could also be proved from circumstances as brought on record. 23. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court also in case Thammanna v. State of Karnataka, 2002 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 385 has laid down that the accused is not entitled to acquittal on the ground that complainant turned hostile. The demand of dowry can be proved by other material placed on record. 24. In case State of U.P. v. Zakaullah, 1998 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 345, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that evidence of a trap laying officer can be acted upon even without corroboration. 25. Thus, keeping in view of the aforesaid principles of law, mere this fact that complainant Kuldeep Kumar and Surat Singh, the shadow witness have not supported the prosecution case is itself no ground to record the acquittal of appellant. It is the duty of the Court to take into consideration the entire material available on record to consider as to whether from the circumstantial evidence available on record, the demand and acceptance of bribe is established or not. 26. This fact is not disputed that the appellant was posted as branch manager Union Bank of India, Gumthala Garu branch at the relevant time. This fact is borne out from the statement of PW-9 Sunil Kumar Singal, the officer of Bank. PW-10 Ashwani Kumar Duggal was posted as an accountant in the Union Bank of India branch at Gumthala Garu at the relevant time. He has produced the photo copies of the loan file of complainant Kuldeep Kumar to the police, which are Ex. PR to Ex. PR/32 and were taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex. PS. From the cross examination of PW-10 Ashwani Kumar Duggal, it corns out that accused-appellant has joined the branch at Gumthala Garu in May 1996 and prior to him one R.K. Baweja was the branch manager. PR to Ex. PR/32 and were taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex. PS. From the cross examination of PW-10 Ashwani Kumar Duggal, it corns out that accused-appellant has joined the branch at Gumthala Garu in May 1996 and prior to him one R.K. Baweja was the branch manager. The loan application of Kuldeep Kumar was received in the bank on 13.02.1996 from District industry Centre, Kurukshetra, recommending his loan to the tune of ` 40,000/-. The complainant was released the first installment of ` 2000/- vide his application Ex. PR/8. Thereafter, he moved another application Ex. PR/5 dated 25.07.1996 and a sum of ` 19,400/- was released to him. By that time only the part of the sanctioned loan amount was disbursed to the complainant and remaining loan amount was still to be disbursed to the complainant. The appellant was the branch manager of the bank at the relevant time and had authority to disburse the loan amount. Part of the loan amount was yet to be disbursed to the complainant. It is not the case of the prosecution that the bribe was demanded only for the disbursement of the second installment of loan. Rather, the allegations are that the bribe was demanded for the disbursement of the loan amount of ` 40,000/-. Thus, as the part of the loan amount was still to be disbursed, so the allegations regarding demand for disbursement of the loan are well founded. 27. Complainant Kuldeep Kumar has moved the hand written complaint Ex. PF to PW-12 Joginder Nehra, the D.S.P. for taking legal action against the appellant for the demand of bribe. He has clearly admitted his signatures on the complaint Ex. PF. The legal machinery has set in motion only on the basis of the complaint Ex. PF moved by him. 28. The events that followed in quick succession in the present case clearly leads to the inference that the bribe was demanded by appellant. From the evidence of PW-12 Joginder Nehra corroborated by PW-11 Gurmeet Singh Tehsildar, it comes out that PW-6 Kuldeep Kumar moved an application Ex. PF to him against the appellant. He produced 30 currency notes of the denomination of ` 100 each. The number of said currency notes were mentioned in the memo of handing over the currency notes Ex. PH. The said currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder. PF to him against the appellant. He produced 30 currency notes of the denomination of ` 100 each. The number of said currency notes were mentioned in the memo of handing over the currency notes Ex. PH. The said currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder. Thereafter, the said currency notes were handed over to the complainant for handing over the same to appellant on his demand. PW-7 Surat Singh was directed to act upon as a shadow witness and to gave the signal to the police party after passing over of the bribe money. After some time PW-7 Surat Singh gave the signal to the police party, which reached at the spot i.e. shop No. 10 Anaj Mandi, Pehwa. The Investigating Officer offered his personal search to the appellant, but he refused to do so. Thereafter, the search of appellant was taken and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the left pocket of his T-shirt. The said currency notes were bearing the initials of PW-12 D.S.P. Joginder Nehra and PW-11 Gurmeet Singh, Tehsildar. The numbers of the said currency notes tallied with the numbers of the currency notes mentioned in memo Ex. PH. These currency notes were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PJ. The hand wash of the appellant and wash of pocket of his T-shirt was taken, which turned pinkish in colour. The separate sealed parcels of the said solution were prepared and sent to F.S.L. for examination along with tainted currency notes. The report of F.S.L. Ex. PU shows the presence of phenolphthalein powder on all the currency notes and the presence of sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein powder in the hand wash and T-shirt pocket wash. 29. There is another strong incriminating circumstance to show the acceptance of the bribe. In the application Ex. PF, the complainant has mentioned that appellant has given him time of 5.00 p.m. at shop No. 10 Anaj Mandi, Pehwa. Thus, even the venue of the payment of the bribe as directed by the accused has been incorporated by the complainant in the complaint Ex. PF. From the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the defence evidence, it is established that appellant has visited the said shop at the appointed time. Thus, even the venue of the payment of the bribe as directed by the accused has been incorporated by the complainant in the complaint Ex. PF. From the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the defence evidence, it is established that appellant has visited the said shop at the appointed time. The plea raised by the appellant that in routine every branch manager and other official of the bank use to visit shop No. 10 in the morning as well as in the evening hours in connection with business of the bank in Anaj Mandi, Pehwa does not appeal to the reasons. Firstly, because the appellant was posted as branch manager Union Bank of India at Gumthala Garu and not Pehwa. Secondly, the business of the bank can not be conducted in a private shop. DW-1 Vi-nod Kumar, commission agent, the proprietor of shop No. 10 has contradicted the defence plea of the appellant. He has stated that official of the bank used to conduct business of the bank in the evening hours on the working days at shop No. 11 in Anaj Mandi, Pehwa belonging to Sikandar Lai. So, as per the statement of DW-1 Vinod Kumar, the bank officials use to visit shop No. 11 belonging to Sikandar Lal for conducting the business of bank and not to his shop No. 10. Said Sikandar Lal has not been examined by the accused in his defence evidence to support this plea. 30. DW-1 Vinod Kumar is a commission agent, it is a fact of common knowledge that the businessmen generally have dealings with the banks. It may be possible that due to this reason he might have appeared as a defence witness to support the plea of accused. The statement of this witness that somebody came to him to keep the money for handing over to the appellant is not believable at all. It is not possible that DW-1 would have kept the money with him without knowing the identity of the person handing over him the money. He has further stated that he advised the said person to write his name and account number on a paper. He wrote down his name etc on the paper and wrapped the currency notes in the paper and handed over to him. That paper was very valuable piece of evidence. He has further stated that he advised the said person to write his name and account number on a paper. He wrote down his name etc on the paper and wrapped the currency notes in the paper and handed over to him. That paper was very valuable piece of evidence. But the same has not been produced in the Court, which falsifies the version of DW-1 Vinod Kumar of handing over the money to him by someone for payment to the appellant. This witness has further sated that he told the appellant about the handing over of money to him by one person and he replied that he would bring the receipt book from shop No. 11 for depositing the amount in account of the said man and to hand over the receipt to that man. It is not believable that the official record i.e. receipt books of the bank are being kept in a private shop. The further story deposed by this witness is only a projected version to put forward the defence plea of accused which is not reliable. 31. The story projected by appellant that he has been falsely implicated at the instance of Jaswinder Singh Sandhu, the then M.L.A. does not appeal to the reasons. DW-3 S.S. Yadav branch manager Union Bank of India Gumthala Garu has categorically admitted in the cross examination that he can not cite the name of any person who may have come as an customer and exerted the pressure as deposed by him in his examination in chief. He admitted that the local M.L.A. has got no official/un-official connection in day to day working of the bank. The M.L.A. can not give any direction in the working of the bank and he can not interfere in their working. He further categorically stated that they are not bound to obey orders of the M.L.A. He further deposed that he has not accepted any directions rightly or wrongly given by said M.L.A. In view of the aforesaid testimony of DW-3 S.S. Yadav, the Branch Manager, it comes out that the local M.L.A. has no authority to interfere in the day to day working of the bank. It appears that this defence plea has been put forward by the appellant only as the complainant happens to be belonging to the village of MLA just an afterthought. 32. It appears that this defence plea has been put forward by the appellant only as the complainant happens to be belonging to the village of MLA just an afterthought. 32. In case State represented by CBI Hyderabad v. G. Prent Raj, 2009 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 928, the accused has visited the hotel to accept the bribe. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that it could be comprehended why a hotel was selected for doing the official work. The accused failed to explain as to why the hotel was selected for doing the official work. In the instant case also as per the defence plea, the accused has selected shop No. 10 as a venue for acceptance of the bribe. His plea that he used to visit that shop for doing the business of the bank is not believable as it is not expected that the officials of the bank will transact the official business from the private shop. Moreover, there is a serious contradiction as to whether the business of bank was being transacted in shop No. 10 or 11. Thus, the visit of the appellant to shop No. 10 was only for the purpose of acceptance of bribe money. Even as per the allegations mentioned in the complaint Ex. PF, the appellant has directed the complainant to meet him on the day of trap at 5.00 p.m. at the said shop. 33. The tainted currency notes have been recovered from the left pocket of T-shirt of the appellant. The case of prosecution is fully corroborated from the testimonies of PW-11 Gurmeet Singh, Tehsildar exercising the powers of Executive Magistrate and PW-12 D.S.P. Joginder Nehra. They are the senior officers. There is no material on record to show that they had any animus towards the appellant for his false implication. No serious/material discrepancy could be pointed out in their testimonies on the point of trap proceedings and recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of appellant. Mere this fact that some independent person, who had assembled at the spot were not associated in the investigation, is no ground to discard their testimonies. It is not necessary that each and every person who had been spectator to such a raid/trap should be associated as a witness. It is a fact of common knowledge that the trap in bribery cases is highly secretive. It is not necessary that each and every person who had been spectator to such a raid/trap should be associated as a witness. It is a fact of common knowledge that the trap in bribery cases is highly secretive. If the secrecy is leaked out, the trap may fail. Moreover, PW-11 Gurmeet Singh was an Executive Magistrate at the relevant time and is not supposed to be under the influence of the police. He can surely be considered to be an impartial an independent witness. 34. From the statement of PW-11 Gurmeet Singh, Tehsildar and PW-12 Joginder Nehra, D.S.P., it is established that the tainted currency notes were recovered from the left pocket of the T-shirt of appellant. Putting the currency notes by the appellant in the pocket of his T-shirt clearly establishes the conscious and voluntarily acceptance of the bribe amount by appellant. It is not the case of accused that the aforesaid amount was received by him from the complainant to which he was legally entitled receive or collect. 35. In case B. Hanumantha Rao v. State of A.P. (Supra), the accused an Excise Sub Inspector has raised the plea that complainant deposited the amount with him as arrears of rental relating to sale of arrack as Bank was closed. This plea was not accepted as accused had no authority to accept the rental. The recovery of ` 50,000/- was effected from the accused in the police trap. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that demand of bribe was proved once the amount is found in possession of the accused, burden shifts from him to explain the circumstances to prove his innocence. In case State of Andhra Pardesh v. Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy, 2000 (9) Scc 752 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that when the amount is found to have been passed over to the public servant, the burden is on him to establish that it was not by way of illegal gratification. In the instant case as already discussed, it is proved that tainted currency notes have been passed over to the present appellant. The circumstances discussed above also shows that the said amount was towards the acceptance of bribe for the disbursement of the remaining loan amount. The passing over of the said money is also established. So, the accused-appellant was required to explain that the same was not by way of illegal gratification. The circumstances discussed above also shows that the said amount was towards the acceptance of bribe for the disbursement of the remaining loan amount. The passing over of the said money is also established. So, the accused-appellant was required to explain that the same was not by way of illegal gratification. But the explanation rendered by the appellant is highly unbelievable. The same seems to be an afterthought and projected one. 36. Once, all these facts are established, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act also arises against the appellant. In case Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down as under:- "The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted "as motive or reward" for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word 'gratification' need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the Court has to draw on the factual premise that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like "gratification or any valuable thing". If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word 'gratification' must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it". 37. Thus, the Court is under a legal compulsion to presume that said gratification was paid or accepted as a motive or reward to do the official act in the instant case for the disbursement of the remaining loan amount. 38. The learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. The State of Haryana has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of appellant for offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. So, in the present appeal we are only concerned with the conviction of the appellant under Section 7 of the Act. The State of Haryana has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of appellant for offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. So, in the present appeal we are only concerned with the conviction of the appellant under Section 7 of the Act. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act is clearly applicable for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. 39. Cases relied upon by the learned counsel for appellant are quite distinguishable on facts. In all the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for appellant, the principle of law laid down is that mere recovery of the tainted recovery notes will not establish the ingredients of the offence and the legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act can not be drawn in the absence of the proof of demand and acceptance of the bribe amount. But, it is well settled that the demand of bribe and acceptance can be even established from the circumstances. The circumstances discussed above clearly establishes the demand and acceptance of bribe on part of the appellant. Mere this fact that complainant Kuldeep Kumar and shadow witness Surat Singh have not supported the prosecution version is no ground to throw away the case of the prosecution when the circumstances discussed above established the demand or acceptance of bribe. The recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the appellant is established from the cogent and consistent testimonies of PW-11 Gurmeet Singh, Tehsildar and PW-12 Joginder Nehra, the DSP. The appellant has not given any explanation as to how his hand wash and pocket wash turned pink in colour. 40. Thus, keeping in view of my aforesaid discussion, there is no escape from the conclusion that appellant Joginder Kumar has accepted ` 3000/- as illegal gratification from complainant Kuldeep Kumar for disbursement of the remaining loan amount. 41. 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 stand cancelled. He shall surrender within 15 days from the date of this judgment before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, who shall send him to jail to undergo the remaining part of his sentence. Resultantly, the present appeal has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed. The accused-appellant is on bail. His bail stand cancelled. He shall surrender within 15 days from the date of this judgment before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, who shall send him to jail to undergo the remaining part of his sentence. If, he fails to surrender, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, shall take coercive steps to secure his presence and send him to jail to undergo the remaining part of the sentence.