Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1796 (PNJ)

Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2014-12-23

DARSHAN SINGH

body2014
Darshan Singh, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 17.12.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Amritsar vide which the accused-appellant Narinder Singh has been held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (herein-after called the Act) and the order on quantum of sentence of the even date, vide which the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ` 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ` 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month, for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act. The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The facts giving rise to this prosecution are that PW 2 complainant Jai Gobind Khurana reported to PW 9 Inspector Pinder Singh at the Office of Vigilance Bureau, Amritsar on 05.12.1992 and made his statement Ex. PD to the effect that he is working as an approved contractor of P.W.D. (B & R), Amritsar. During the year 1989-90, he had taken contract of construction of culverts from link road of village Gazal to Bhangala, District Amritsar. The work was carried out by him under the supervision of the accused Narinder Singh who was working as Junior Engineer. The complainant was also allotted another work for the construction of link road from Amritsar, Bhikhiwind, Khemkaran Road (ABK Road) to Khem Karan. The said work was carried out in the year 1990 under the supervision of the accused. The complainant has not received the payment for the works carried out and he entered into correspondence with the concerned officers. On 04.12.1992, complainant Jai Gobind along with Manohar Lal, contractor, met the accused at his house at Tarn Taran and requested him for the release of the payment for the work done by him. Accused told that he would complete all the formalities himself with regard to the payments after getting the same completed from the concerned officer and the payments shall be released to him. Accused told that he would complete all the formalities himself with regard to the payments after getting the same completed from the concerned officer and the payments shall be released to him. Accused demanded a sum of` 500/- as bribe for doing the job. The complainant and Manohar Lal made requests to the accused but he was adamant to his demand of ` 500/- as bribe. The complainant made an excuse that he was not having money with him at that time and made a false promise to pay the bribe. The accused told him that he had to go to Valtoha on 05.12.1992 and asked the complainant to bring the bribe amount at Valtoha. 2. The complainant produced five currency notes of the denomination of ` 100/- each before Inspector Pinder Singh. PW 1 Hardip Singh was associated in the raiding party. Inspector Pinder Singh put his initials on the currency notes and smeared the said currency notes with phenolphthalein powder. The tainted currency notes were handed over to the complainant with a direction to hand over the same to the accused on demand and not to shake hands with him. PW 1 Hardip Singh was deputed as a shadow witness and was instructed to accompany the complainant and overhear the conversation between the complainant and the accused and to have a watch on the passing over of the bribe money. He was instructed to flash a signal to the raiding party by putting his hand over his head after passing of bribe money. Gurdev Singh, Executive Magistrate was also joined in the raiding party. The raiding party left for Valtoha. On reaching the Chowk at Valtoha, the complainant and shadow witness were sent to the accused, while the remaining members of the raiding party took the scattered position. On receipt of the settled signal from the shadow witness, the trap laying officer along with the members of the raiding party went near the accused. The accused had put his right hand in the right pocket of his pant. Inspector Pinder Singh introduced himself to the accused. The accused was overpowered with the help of the officials. In the meanwhile, the accused took out his right hand from the pocket and through the tainted currency notes on the ground. 3. The tainted currency notes were recovered vide recovery memo Ex. PD and their serial numbers were tallied. Inspector Pinder Singh introduced himself to the accused. The accused was overpowered with the help of the officials. In the meanwhile, the accused took out his right hand from the pocket and through the tainted currency notes on the ground. 3. The tainted currency notes were recovered vide recovery memo Ex. PD and their serial numbers were tallied. Solution of the sodium carbonate was prepared and the hands of the accused were washed in that solution. The colour of the solution was turned into pink. Thereafter, the solution was poured in a nip and it was sealed with the seal bearing impression 'PS'. The pant of the accused was also taken off and on washing its pocket in a separately prepared sodium carbonate solution, the solution turned into pink colour. That pink solution was also put in another nip and sealed with the seal bearing impression 'PS'. Pant of the accused was taken into possession and converted into a parcel. Personal search of the accused was also conducted. Rough site plan of the spot Ex. PH was prepared. After completing the investigation the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court. 4. After compliance of the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. the appellant was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide order dated 29.01.1994, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as eleven witness. 6. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused pleaded false implication and further pleaded that there was no motive on his part to demand or accept any illegal gratification as he had already prepared the bill of the complainant amounting to ` 2326.80 long ago on 26.4.1989 for construction of the link road Gazal to Bhangala and submitted the same to the S.D.E. Incharge. The another bill for repair of link road from ABK road to Khemkaran town was more than ` 4000/- and same was to be prepared by the S.D.E. as per Rule 10.14, Item-4 of B & R Manual. He had also mentioned in M.B. No. 39874 that the work was not according to WBM specification. The another bill for repair of link road from ABK road to Khemkaran town was more than ` 4000/- and same was to be prepared by the S.D.E. as per Rule 10.14, Item-4 of B & R Manual. He had also mentioned in M.B. No. 39874 that the work was not according to WBM specification. On the day of occurrence, Jai Gobind Khurana and Hardip Singh PWs were sitting at tea shop of Amarjit Singh son of Santa Singh near Valtoha Chowk and when he reached the said shop Jai Gobind Khurana shook hands with him and thereafter Jai Gobind Khurana tried to thrust the money into right pocket of his pant. He did not allow for the same and as a result of which the amount fell down on the ground. He raised alarm and many persons including Balwinder Singh, whose Khokha was nearby the spot, gathered at the spot. 7. In his defence evidence, the accused examined as many as four witnesses. 8. On appreciating the evidence on record and contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, the appellant was held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Act and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment as mentioned in the upper part of the judgment. 9. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence the present appeal has been preferred. 10. I have heard Mr. Puneet Bali, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Hittan Nehra, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Shivali, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State of Punjab and have meticulous examined the record of the case. 11. Initiating the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution was required to establish the demand and acceptance of bribe and recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the appellant. The prosecution has relied upon the statement of PW 2 Jai Gobind Khurana the complainant, PW 1 Hardip Singh the shadow witness, PW 7 Gurdev Singh the witness of trap and PW 9 Inspector Pinder Singh the Investigating Officer of the case. 12. He contended that demand of bribe is not established at all. There is only the solitary statement of PW 2 Jai Gobind Khurana which is not corroborated from any source. 12. He contended that demand of bribe is not established at all. There is only the solitary statement of PW 2 Jai Gobind Khurana which is not corroborated from any source. As per the prosecution case DW 1 Manohar Lal had also accompanied the complainant to the house of the appellant on 04.12.1992 when the bribe was demanded but DW 1 Manohar Lal has categorically stated that no demand of bribe was raised by the appellant from the complainant in his presence. PW 1 Hardip Singh the shadow witness has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case, rather he stated that the complainant tried to put the currency notes in the pocket of the accused but he refused to accept the same and the currency notes had fallen on the ground. Thus, even at the time of trap the demand of bribe is not established. 13. On the point of acceptance of bribe there was the statement of PW 1 Hardip Singh, the shadow witness and PW 2 complainant Jai Gobind Khurana. PW 1 Hardip Singh has categorically deposed that the accused has refused to accept the tainted currency notes and complainant has forcibly tried to put the currency notes in his pocket. The statement of complainant without any independent corroboration cannot be relied upon. 14. The recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused is also not established. The presence of PW 7 Gurdev Singh at the place of occurrence is extremely doubtful. In fact he kept remained sitting in Police Station, Valtoha. PW 7 has stated that the complainant and shadow witness were directed to go to the office of the accused. In fact there is no office of accused at the place of occurrence. PW 7 Gurdev Singh has stated that the distance between parking of the jeep and offence of the accused was 40/50 yards but the Investigating Officer has stated that the office of the accused was at Patti and not at Valtoha. PW 7 Gurdev Singh has stated that he did not see any shop in the Chowk but from the statements of other witnesses, it comes out that there was a complete market having 20 to 25 shops. PW 7 Gurdev Singh does not know whether there is any bus stand or Chowk at the site in question. PW 7 Gurdev Singh has stated that he did not see any shop in the Chowk but from the statements of other witnesses, it comes out that there was a complete market having 20 to 25 shops. PW 7 Gurdev Singh does not know whether there is any bus stand or Chowk at the site in question. He could not tell any direction from the road to the Chowk. The aforesaid circumstances show that in fact he was not present at the spot and his signatures have been obtained later on. 15. He further contended that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He pointed out that according to complainant, Hardip was running a cycle stand but he has stated that he was running a tea stall out of office of Vigilance Bureau. As per the case of the prosecution, PW 7 Gurdev Singh, Naib Tehsildar, was joined from Tehsil Office, whereas, 05.12.1992 was Saturday and the Tehsil Office was closed on that day. He was earlier known to the Investigating Officer, so, it appears that he was called from his residence by Inspector Pinder Singh. The complainant and Hardip Singh had stated that they sit in tea shop and waited for the accused whereas DW 3 and DW 4 Balwinder Singh and Amarjit Singh have narrated a different version. He further contended that the complainant has stated that he never worked under the supervision of the accused but his version is falsified from the F.I.R. itself. The complainant has also given the wrong statement that DW 1 Manohar Lal was not his colleague, whereas, Manohar Lal stated that he has been working with him and had supplied the construction material to him. Inspector Pinder Singh and Gurdev Singh, Naib Tehsildar are discrepant about the parking place and position of their jeep. He further contended that PW 1 has stated that the writing work was done at Police Station Valtoha, whereas, PW 7 stated that no writing work was done in the Police Station. PW 2 complainant Jai Gobind Khurana says that there was shops and a bus stand at the place of occurrence but PW 7 Gurdev Singh stated that he does not know whether there was bus stand near the Chowk and he also did not see any shop in the Chowk. PW 2 complainant Jai Gobind Khurana says that there was shops and a bus stand at the place of occurrence but PW 7 Gurdev Singh stated that he does not know whether there was bus stand near the Chowk and he also did not see any shop in the Chowk. He further contended that in his statement the complainant has mentioned the date of demand of bribe as 4.12.1989 instead of 4.12.1992 and the date of laying of trap as 5.12.1989 instead of 5.12.1992, which shows that the story regarding the demand of bribe has been concocted by the complainant. 16. He further contended that moreover in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance of bribe, mere recovery of the tainted currency notes cannot constitute the ingredients of the offence. To support his contention, he has placed reliance upon Rakesh Kapoor v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2013 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 211, Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana, 2010 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 553, Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. and another, 2011 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 208, State of Kerala and another v. C.P. Rao, 2011 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 688 : 2011 (4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 183 : (2011) 6 Supreme Court Cases 450 and Charanjit Lal v. State of Haryana CRA-S-2041-SB of 2003 decided on 06.08.2014 by this Court. 17. He further contended that when the demand and acceptance is not established, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act shall not be applicable. Moreover, the explanation of the accused to rebut the presumption should be considered by the Court. To support his contentions, he relied upon Narendra Champaklal Trivedi v. State of Gujrat, (2012) 7 SCC 80 . 18. He further contended that there was no motive for the demand of bribe as the bill of the complainant for construction of road from Gazal to Bhangala was already prepared by the accused long ago. The second bill was more than the financial competency of the complainant and was not competent to prepare the said bill as per Rule 10.14 Item No. 1 of B & R Manual. He further contended that moreover, the work performed by the complainant was not as per specification and the accused has noted down his objection in the Measurement Book. 19. He further contended that the presence of number of independent witnesses is established at the spot but none of them was associated. He further contended that moreover, the work performed by the complainant was not as per specification and the accused has noted down his objection in the Measurement Book. 19. He further contended that the presence of number of independent witnesses is established at the spot but none of them was associated. Thus, in the absence of independent corroboration, the testimonies of the official witnesses cannot be relied upon. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory has not been produced in evidence by the prosecution. There is no evidence to establish that the appellant has handled the currency notes. 21. He further contended that the learned trial Court has not discussed the testimonies of the defence witnesses. He contended that the testimonies of the defence witnesses also carries the same evidentiary value as that of the prosecution witnesses. To support his contention he has placed reliance upon State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, 2002 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 443 and Munshi Prasad and others v. State of Bihar, 2001 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 415. He contended that the testimonies of the defence witnesses have totally belied the prosecution case and establishes the false implication of the appellant. 22. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that mere this fact that PW 1 Hardip Singh, the shadow witness, has turned hostile, is no ground to reject the prosecution case. She contended that the demand of bribe is fully established from the statement of PW 2 complainant Jai Gobind Khurana. His testimony is also corroborated from the incriminating material available on record. The complainant was carrying out the work under the supervision of the present appellant. His payment was not being released. She further contended that the acceptance of the bribe is also established from the statement of PW 2 Jai Gobind Khurana and the attending circumstances available on record. The recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused is fully established from the testimonies of complainant Jai Gobind Khurana, Gurdev Singh Naib Tehsildar, the independent witness of trap and PW 7 Inspector Pinder Singh, the trap laying officer. She further contended that as the demand and acceptance of bribe is established, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act arises against the appellant and his conviction has been rightly recorded by the learned trial Court. 23. She further contended that as the demand and acceptance of bribe is established, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act arises against the appellant and his conviction has been rightly recorded by the learned trial Court. 23. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions. There is no dispute with the proposition of law that in order to bring home the guilt for the offence of bribe, the prosecution is required to establish the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused and thereafter, the recovery of the tainted currency notes from him. 24. As per the prosecution version, the accused appellant has demanded a bribe of ` 500/- from PW 2 complainant Jai Gobind Khurana, an approved contractor of the PW D (B & R), Amritsar for releasing the payments of the works carried out by him. At the relevant time the appellant was working as Junior Engineer and the work allotted to the complainant was being carried out under his supervision. PW 2 Jai Gobind who was not willing to pay the bribe and lodged the report Ex. PD with PW 9 Inspector Binder Singh, Vigilance Bureau, Amritsar. Accordingly, the trap was laid and appellant was apprehended. The tainted currency notes were recovered from his possession. 25. No doubt PW 1 Hardip Singh, the shadow witness, has not supported the prosecution version with respect to the demand of bribe by the appellant at the time of trap, rather he stated that the appellant has refused to accept the currency notes but the complainant took the accused aside and tried to put the currency notes in his pocket and the currency notes were fallen on the ground. Though he has supported the prosecution version about his joining in the trap, the pre-trap proceedings, the meeting of the appellant with the complainant at the venue of the acceptance of the bribe. 26. It is further the settled proposition of law that accused does not deserve acquittal simply on the ground that the complainant or the shadow witness has not supported the prosecution version. It is not necessary that the demand and acceptance of the bribe must be proved by the direct evidence. The same can be established from the circumstantial evidence available on record. 27. It is not necessary that the demand and acceptance of the bribe must be proved by the direct evidence. The same can be established from the circumstantial evidence available on record. 27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1980 Supreme Court 873 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 PW 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 PW 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 PW 3, the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is immediately attracted." 28. In case Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2010 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 46 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. 29. 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. 30. 29. 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. 30. 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 without corroboration. 31. In case titled T. Shankar Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2004 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 784, the trap witness has turned hostile. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Court may convict the accused on the basis of evidence of complainant and official witnesses and other circumstantial evidence. 32. Thus, in view of the aforesaid ratio of law, mere this fact that PW 1 Hardip Singh, the shadow witness has turned hostile and Manohar Lal, the witness of initial demand of bribe, has sided with the accused and appeared in the defence evidence, is no ground to record the acquittal of the accused. The Court is duty bound to take into consideration the entire evidence/material available on record to find out as to whether the prosecution has been able to make out the ingredients of the offence or not. 33. It is settled proposition of law that the testimony of a hostile witness is not totally washed out from record and that part of his statement, which corroborates the prosecution version, can still be taken into consideration. In the instant case though PW 1 Hardip Singh has turned hostile but he still supports the prosecution version on certain material aspects of the case. He has stated that on 05.12.1992 Jai Gobind Khurana, the complainant came to the Vigilance Office, Court Complex, Amritsar and told that accused Narinder Singh has demanded ` 500/- from him as illegal gratification but he does not want to pay the same. He further deposed that thereafter, the Inspector Vigilance had put the phenolphthalein powder on the said notes. He was also searched but nothing was recovered from him. Memo Ex. PA was prepared. Thereafter, the Inspector has entrusted the tainted notes to Har Gobind Khurana (Jai Gobind Khurana) and directed him not to shake hands with the accused. He further deposed that thereafter, the Inspector Vigilance had put the phenolphthalein powder on the said notes. He was also searched but nothing was recovered from him. Memo Ex. PA was prepared. Thereafter, the Inspector has entrusted the tainted notes to Har Gobind Khurana (Jai Gobind Khurana) and directed him not to shake hands with the accused. He further deposed that PW 2 Gurdev Singh, Naib Tehsildar, was joined as official witness and, thereafter, police party had gone to Valtoha. The memo regarding entrustment of ` 500/- Ex. PB was prepared and number of the currency notes were noted thereon. He further deposed about the arrival of the accused at 04:00 p.m. and his meeting with the complainant. Though thereafter, he has not supported the prosecution case. Thus, from his statement, it comes out that on 05.12.1992, the complainant, lodged the report with PW 9 Inspector Pinder Pal alleging therein that the appellant has demanded a bribe of ` 500/- from him. He also supported the prosecution version about the entire pre-trap proceedings, the joining of PW 7 Gurdev Singh Naib Tehsildar as an official witness in the trap, the proceeding of the raiding party to the place settled for payment of the bribe, the arrival of the accused at the place and his meeting with the complainant. So, virtually he has corroborated the prosecution version on various material aspects of the case. 34. Complainant Jai Gobind Khurana has appeared in the witness box as PW 2. He has fully supported the prosecution version. He deposed in detail about the works carried out by him under supervision of the appellant and the fact that the payment was not released to him for the aforesaid works. He also deposed that on 04.12.1989, he along with Manohar Lal had gone to the house of accused in Tarn Taran for payment. The accused demanded` 500/- from him as illegal gratification in order to clear the said bills/payments. He also deposed that accused asked him to come to Valtoha on 05.12.1989 that he will clear the bills. Thereafter, he deposed about his reporting to the Vigilance Office on 05.12.1989 and making the statement Ex. PD on the basis of which the machinery of law was set into motion. He further deposed about the pretrap proceedings conducted by PW 9 Inspector Pinder Singh. Thereafter, he deposed about his reporting to the Vigilance Office on 05.12.1989 and making the statement Ex. PD on the basis of which the machinery of law was set into motion. He further deposed about the pretrap proceedings conducted by PW 9 Inspector Pinder Singh. The joining of PW 7 Gurdev Singh in the raiding party and thereafter, their departure to the venue for payment of the bribe i.e. Valtoha. He further categorically deposed that it was about 02:30 p.m. the accused met him and asked whether he has arranged for the money which was settled a day earlier. If he had brought the same he should deliver to him. This talk took place in the presence of Hardip Singh. Thereafter, he deposed that he handed over the currency notes to the accused. He took the same and put the same in the right pocket of his blue jean pant. On receiving the signal the police party arrived at the spot. Two constables secured the arms of the accused. He was taken to PW 7 Gurdev Singh the Magistrate. The Magistrate directed the accused to take of his hands from the pocket of the pants. When the accused took out the hands from his pocket, he threw the notes on the ground. Thereafter, he deposed about the post-trap proceedings. Thus, the complainant had categorically deposed about the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the appellant. 35. There appears to be some mistake in the statement of PW 2 Jai Gobind Khurana with respect to the date of demand of bribe and trap. In the statement of this witness, the date of the first demand has been mentioned as 04.12.1989 and date of trap has been mentioned as 05.12.1989. There is sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence on record to establish that the relevant year was 1992 and not 1989. The statement of the complainant Ex. PD is dated 05.12.1992. All the memos with respect to the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings are of 05.12.1992. So, this mistake in his statement cannot grant any benefit to the appellant and does not at all render the case of the prosecution doubtful with respect to the demand and acceptance of the bribe. 36. The statement of the complainant Ex. PD is dated 05.12.1992. All the memos with respect to the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings are of 05.12.1992. So, this mistake in his statement cannot grant any benefit to the appellant and does not at all render the case of the prosecution doubtful with respect to the demand and acceptance of the bribe. 36. The recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the appellant is also established from the testimonies of PW 2 complainant Jai Gonind Khurana, PW 7 Gurdev Singh Naib Tehsildar, the independent trap witness and PW 9 Pinder Singh, the trap laying officer. 37. The testimony of PW 1 Hardip Singh shadow witness that the complainant took the accused aside and tried to put some currency notes in his pocket but he refused to accept it and the notes fall on the ground, stands falsified from other consistent, cogent and reliable oral as well as other evidence on record. It shows that PW 1 Hardip Singh has projected this version only to lend support to the defence plea of the accused, obviously in connivance with him. PW 2 Jai Gobind Khurana has categorically stated that after accepting the tainted currency notes, the appellant put the same in the right pocket of his pants. PW 7 Gurdev Singh Naib Tehsildar also deposed that the accused took out the currency notes of ` 500/- from one of his pocket and threw them on the ground. PW 9 Inspector Pinder Singh deposed that accused and complainant had some talk between them and the shadow witness gave the secret signal to them. They raided the accused while the accused was standing there with his hands in the pocket. They informed him, while he was taking out his right hand from the pocket of the pant the currency notes fell down on the ground from his pocket. So, as per the consistent testimonies of these witnesses the currency notes had fallen on the ground when the accused took out the right hand from the pocket of his pants, it may intentional or deliberate act on his part to throw away the bribe money but that will not advance the case of the appellant and will not create any dent in the case of the prosecution with respect to the acceptance of the bribe money. In case Rup Singh v. State of Punjab, 1991 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 103 : AIR 1991 (SC) 1125 , the accused had thrown the currency notes and were recovered from the adjoining house but he had failed to explain the presence of phenolphthalein powder at his hand and any conspiracy against him. His conviction was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 38. In the instant case, the accused was made to wash his hands in solution of the sodium carbonate. His pants was got removed and the right pocket of his pant was also washed separately in the solution of the sodium carbonate. On both the occasions, the said solution turned pink in colour. 39. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory has not been produced in evidence by the prosecution. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh is available in the record of learned trial Court i.e. the file containing miscellaneous papers at page No. 31. This report has been prepared by Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh and is countersigned by the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh. As per Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is a valid evidence and can be taken into consideration even without examining the author thereof. This report has been countersigned by the Director, Forensic Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh. Hence, the same can be taken into consideration in support of the other evidence. The above-said report shows that the hand wash and pocket wash of the appellant gave the positive test in the solution of sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein powder. 40. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence, both oral as well as the documentary, it is established that the appellant after accepting the tainted currency notes of ` 500/- from the complainant put those in the right pocket of his pant and when he was trapped on the pretext of taking out his right hand from the pocket, he threw the said currency notes on the ground which were lifted from the spot by the Investigating Officer. The numbers of the currency notes, so recovered, tallied with the numbers of the currency notes mentioned in the memo prepared by Inspector Pinder Singh in the pre-trap proceedings. Those, notes were also having his initials. The numbers of the currency notes, so recovered, tallied with the numbers of the currency notes mentioned in the memo prepared by Inspector Pinder Singh in the pre-trap proceedings. Those, notes were also having his initials. The appellant has not been able to give any satisfactory explanation about the presence of phenolphthalein powder in his hand wash and the pocket wash. If the version of PW 1 Hardip Singh is believed, there was no question of the presence of phenolphthalein powder in the pocket wash of the pant of the appellant. 41. I do not find any substance in the plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the accused has no motive or occasion for the demand of bribe. It has been pleaded that the bill regarding construction of the road from Gazal to Bhangala was already prepared by the accused long ago amounting to ` 2360.80 and as per the statement of DW 2 Harjinder Singh and Rule 10.14 Item No. 1, B & R Manual, the appellant was not competent to prepare the bill with respect to special repair of ABK road as it exceeded ` 4000/-. It emerges from the statement of complainant Ex. PD that accused has raised the demand of bribe by representing that he will got the bill prepared and will got the formalities completed from the concerned officer. Meaning thereby, the accused has represented the complainant to exercise his official influence in getting the payment of bill released to him. There is no material on record to show that at the time of reporting the matter to the Vigilance Bureau the complainant had knowledge that the bill with regard to his previous work has already been cleared. It appears that the appellant has kept that fact as a closely guarded secret to extract the bribe money from the complainant. This fact is not disputed that the appellant was concerned with the second work and the work was being carried out under his supervision. So, mere this fact that he himself was not competent to clear the bill is no ground to presume that the appellant had no motive or occasion to demand the bribe. This fact is not disputed that the appellant was concerned with the second work and the work was being carried out under his supervision. So, mere this fact that he himself was not competent to clear the bill is no ground to presume that the appellant had no motive or occasion to demand the bribe. This Court in case Pargat Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 711 has laid down that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove whether or not the public servant was capable of doing or intending to do such an act. Similarly, in case Harcharan Singh Bhalla v. State of Punjab, 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 296 this Court has laid down that if a public servant demands and accepts the illegal gratification, he will be guilty of the offence of corruption even though the work for which he accepted the gratification did not fall with his purview. The demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant is also established from the conversation of the appellant and the complainant at the time of trap as the accused has asked him that he arranged the money which was settled a day earlier and if he had brought the same, he should deliver the same to him. Thereafter, the tainted currency notes were handed over by the complainant to the appellant. 42. There is no denial to the effect that the place of occurrence was a public place and the presence of the independent witnesses is natural. The corruption cases are on some different footings. In such cases, the raiding party is already constituted. The trap has also to be kept a secret otherwise it may result in failure of trap. So, the fact that independent whiteness available at the spot were not associated in the trap proceedings by the Investigating Officer, is no ground to discard the prosecution case. PW 7 Gurdev Singh Naib Tehsildar a responsible Revenue Officer exercising the power of the Executive Magistrate was associated in the trap. There is no material on record to establish that he has any enmity or motive for the false implication of the appellant. By virtue of his position it cannot be expected that he was under the influence of the Police Officer of the rank of an Inspector. There is no material on record to establish that he has any enmity or motive for the false implication of the appellant. By virtue of his position it cannot be expected that he was under the influence of the Police Officer of the rank of an Inspector. There is no substance in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the presence of PW 7 Gurdev Singh at the place of occurrence is doubtful. He has not been cross examined by the learned defence counsel as to since when he was posted at Amritsar and whether the place of occurrence falls within his jurisdiction or not. In the absence of this evidence, the failure of knowledge of this witness qua the surroundings of the spot is immaterial. Even though the date of trap was Saturday the availability of PW 7 Gurdav Singh in his office cannot be stated to be an improbability. The discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the statements of the witnesses are mostly with respect to the statements of PW 1 Hardip Singh and DW 1 Manohar Lal qua the other prosecution witnesses, who have already sided with the accused and will certainly give the discrepant version to the prosecution case in order to grant benefit to the accused. The other discrepancies in the testimonies of the trap witnesses are minor in nature. These type of discrepancies are bound to occur even in the statement of the truthful witnesses with the lapse of time. The trap in this case was laid on 05.12.1992. The statement of complainant PW 2 Jai Gobind Khurana has been recorded on 16.04.1994. The statement of PW 7 Gurdev Singh has been recorded on 15.11.1999 and statement of PW 9 Pinder Singh, trap laying officer has been recorded on 21.03.2001, which shows that their statements have been recorded after number of years. 43. There is absolutely no dispute with the proposition of law that the testimonies of the defence witnesses also carries the same evidentiary value as that of prosecution witnesses but in the instant case the testimony of the defence witnesses does not inspire any confidence. 43. There is absolutely no dispute with the proposition of law that the testimonies of the defence witnesses also carries the same evidentiary value as that of prosecution witnesses but in the instant case the testimony of the defence witnesses does not inspire any confidence. DW 1 Manohar Lal is himself a contractor and he will certainly be under the influence of the officers of the PW D due to that reason he might have preferred to support the defence plea rather than to support the prosecution version as he will not be gaining anything by supporting the prosecution version rather will earn the wrath of the officers of PW D department with whom he has to daily deal with being a contractor. DW 3 Balvinder Singh and DW 4 Amarjit Singh are the shopkeepers at Bus Stand Valtoha. Their statements are also not sufficient to dislodge the consistent, cogent and reliable oral as well as documentary evidence of the prosecution. The accused has fixed the venue situated at Valtoha for acceptance of bribe. In the statement Ex. PD it has been mentioned that he was to visit that place, meaning thereby he had been visiting that place and may be acquainted with the aforesaid witnesses and they had come forward to project his afterthought defence version. 44. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence, it is established that the appellant has demanded and accepted a bribe of ` 500/- from the complainant in order to clear the pending bills. The tainted currency notes were also recovered from his possession. Once the aforesaid ingredients are established, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act comes into action to draw the presumption that the acceptance was as a motive or reward for doing or for bearing to do an official act. To support this view, reliance can be placed upon Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, 2000 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 705 (SC). 45. Cases relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant are quite distinguishable in facts. In case Rajesh Kapoor v. State of Himachal Pradesh (supra) the work was already completed and the statement of the complainant with respect to demand was not reliable for want of corroboration. In case of Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana (supra), both the complainant and shadow witnesses were hostile. The complainant has rather stated that money was paid without any demand. In case of Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana (supra), both the complainant and shadow witnesses were hostile. The complainant has rather stated that money was paid without any demand. In case Narendra Champaklal Trivedi v. State of Gujarat (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that explanation of the accused to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the Act should be considered by the Court but at the same time in this very authority it has been laid down that such presumption can be dislodged by accused by bringing on record some evidence either direct of circumstantial. In case T. Shankar Prashad v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) also the Apex Court has laid down that the presumption under Section 20 can be rebutted by positive proof and not merely by explanation. In case Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. and another (supra) an appeal against the order passed by the Single Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court allowing the examination of a Court witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed. In case State of Kerala and another v. C.P. Roi (supra) the complainant was not examined. In case Charanjit Lal v. State of Haryana (supra) both the complainant and shadow witness did not support the prosecution case. So these authorities are not helpful to the appellant. 46. Thus, in view of my aforesaid discussion from the evidence on record, it is established that the accused appellant had demanded and accepted a bribe of ` 500/- from complainant Jai Gobind Khurana for clearing his pending bills. The tainted notes were recovered from his possession. So, I do not find any legal infirmity in the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court. 47. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded for the reduction in the sentence. I find substance in this plea. The bribe amount in this case is ` 500/-. The present case was registered on 05.12.1992. The trial Court decided the case on 17.12.2004 i.e. after more than 12 years. Thereafter, the appeal against conviction remains pending. In this manner, the appellant has faced the agony of this litigation for the last more than 22 years. There is no material on record to show that appellant is a previous convict. So, in my opinion, the appellant deserves leniency in the matter of sentence. Thereafter, the appeal against conviction remains pending. In this manner, the appellant has faced the agony of this litigation for the last more than 22 years. There is no material on record to show that appellant is a previous convict. So, in my opinion, the appellant deserves leniency in the matter of sentence. Consequently, the order on the quantum of sentence requires to be modified. 48. Thus, keeping in view my aforesaid discussion the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Act is hereby confirmed. However, the order on the quantum of sentence is hereby modified and the appellant is sentenced as under:- Under Section Rigouous imprisonment Fine In default of payment of fine further imprisonment 7 of the Act 6 month 1000/- R.I. for one month 13(2) of the Act 1 year 1000/- R.I. for the one month With this modification in the matter of sentence, the present appeal has no merits and 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, Amritsar, who shall send him to jail to undergo the remaining part of his sentence. If, he fails to surrender, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, shall take coercive steps to secure his presence and send him to jail to undergo the remaining part of the sentence.