Judgment : By Court - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 22.09.2001 and sentence dated 24.09.2001, passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No.5(A)/92(D) whereby the appellant has been held guilty for offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under Section 7 of the P.C. Act and R.I. for three years under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the appellant was working as Leave Clerk at Basudeopur Colliery, Sijua under BCCL, Dhanbad at the relevant point of occurrence. It is disclosed that Mithu Pasi, one of the employee of said concern, had requested the appellant for payment of his L.L.T.C. claim whereafater the appellant demanded Rs.500/as gratification for obliging said Mithu Pasi. Thereafter Mithu Pasi went to the Office of the S.P., C.B.I., Dhanbad on 20.05.1992 and reported the matter that illegal gratification has been demanded from him by the appellant. In order to verify the information one of the officer of C.B.I., namely Tapan Jyoti Ghose (PW6) was appointed who went to Basudeopur Colliery to verify the information and he has submitted his verification report on 20.05.1992. Thereafter, on the basis of complaint lodged by Mithu Pasi, case No. R.C. 5(A)/92(D) was instituted. On 21.05.1992 the complainant again went to the office of C.B.I. where other officials were also present. Pretrap memorandum was prepared, currency notes denomination of 100/each, five in numbers, were produced by the complainant on which naphthalene powder was sprinkled and handed over back to the complainant to give the same to the appellant on demand. All the officers were directed not to keep money with them and demonstration was shown to the extent that after touching naphthalene powder when the hands were deeped into a solution of Sodium Carbonate, the colour of that solution turned pink. That demonstrated pink solution was sealed in a bottle and sealed in an envelop which was duly signed by the witness present in the office. Thereafter a team of C.B.I., with shadow witness PW2 Shiv Kumar Ram and the complainant, went to the office of the appellant. That demonstrated pink solution was sealed in a bottle and sealed in an envelop which was duly signed by the witness present in the office. Thereafter a team of C.B.I., with shadow witness PW2 Shiv Kumar Ram and the complainant, went to the office of the appellant. The complainant Mithu Pasi entered the office of appellant, wished the appellant Nanhku Ram who asked him whether he has brought money. The informant replied in positive and after demand handed over said 500/rupees to appellant Nanhku Ram. Shiv Kumar Ram PW2 then signaled after which other officials of the C.B.I. assembled near the place but by that time the appellant came out of his office and he was talking to the complainant by standing at the portico. In the meantime, he was apprehended and brought to the office of agent of the BCCL. Since the agent was not present, other higher officials of BCCL were informed and after their arrival the matter was brought to the notice of those officials and in their presence the appellant was asked to produce the money which he had taken from complainant. Thereafter the appellant took out said sum of Rs.500/from his left pocket. Thereafter solution of Sodium Carbonate, kept in three glasses, were brought in the office and hands of appellant were directed to be deeped after which colour of that solution turned to pink. In the third glass the pocket in which money was kept by the appellant was also washed whereafter colour of solution kept in third glass also turned pink. Formalities with regard to seizure of currenciy notes recovered from possession of accused/appellant and seizure of those solutions were made in presence of witnesses. The accused/appellant was then formally arrested and other formalities with regard to arrest have also been done. 3. The C.B.I. officers, after completion of investigation, submitted chargesheet and lastly the appellant was put on trial when he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution has examined altogether 9 witnesses including the complainant and the trial Court, on the basis of documents and evidences available on record, held the appellant guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid an hence this appeal. 4. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the evidence of witnesses are not consistent and suffers with contradiction on material points. 4. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the evidence of witnesses are not consistent and suffers with contradiction on material points. The complainant PW7 in his deposition in Court has stated that he informed the matter to B.K. Birdi (PW9). He did not admit that PW6 ever accompanied him to Basudeopur Colliery for any verification of the occurrence which he had reported to C.B.I. If the statement of complainant is taken to be true, then there will be no verification by any officer of the C.B.I. and if there was no verification, there was no occasion to arrange trap to catch the appellant redhanded. Learned counsel has further submitted that PW8, who happens to be officer of the BCCL, has stated that when he was informed that one of the employee of BCCL has been apprehended with the charge of receiving illegal gratification, he was surprised. Introduction of accused/appellant was given to this witnesses because the accused was not known to him from before. This witness has stated that each hand of the accused were caught by two different persons. The appellant was asked to take out money from the left pocket of his Kurta and for that the person who was holding his left hand relaxed him to that extent and then the accused/appellant took out the money from his pocket and produced the same before the officers present. It is argued that hands of the appellant was not treated with the solution of Sodium Carbonate before he was asked to take out money from his pocket. This create a doubt and give force to a suggestion that money might have been thrusted in his pocket by someone to implicate him in a case. If the appellant had taken money prior to that, it was expected that his hands must have been smeared with naphthalene powder and therefore to make it sure that he had taken bribe his hands were required to be deeped into solution of Sodium Carbonate. Since this exercise was not done before recovery of the money, the case of prosecution becomes doubtful. It can well be said that money had been planted in order to implicate him in this case. Since this exercise was not done before recovery of the money, the case of prosecution becomes doubtful. It can well be said that money had been planted in order to implicate him in this case. It is pointed out that it was not the case of the prosecution that as soon as the appellant took the bribe money in his office, he was immediately apprehended rather the prosecution has described the place of occurrence at three places i.e. first the office of the appellant, second the portico situated in front of the office where he was caught and the third the office of the agent where bribe money alleged to have been recovered. No cogent explanation has been extended by the prosecution as to why all the formalities were not done in the office of the appellant itself where he had taken bribe money. By extending above argument it is contended that the impugned judgment is not sustainable and the learned trial Court has failed to visualise these aspects of the prosecution case and held the appellant guilty in a routine manner placing full reliance on the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed the argument and submitted that it is a full proved case. The appellant had demanded illegal gratification against payment of L.L.T.C. to the complainant. This information was brought to the notice of C.B.I. sleuths by the complainant. PW6 who happens to be Officer of the rank of A.S.I. had verified the information and submitted his report. Pretrap arrangement was done and memorandum was prepared. The currency notes which were likely to be given to the appellant were sprinkled with naphthalene powder and number of currency notes were recorded. The complainant with shadow witness had gone to the place of occurrence. The conversation which had taken place between the accused/appellant and the complainant was well within the hearing of shadow witness PW2 and after transaction of bribe money, PW2 had signaled whereafter other officials of C.B.I. assembled but by that time the accused/appellant had come out of his office and was talking to someone by standing in the portico and from there he was apprehended and brought to the office of higher officials of BCCL. In presence of witnesses and officials of BCCL, the bribe money was recovered, other formalities with regard to seizure etc. In presence of witnesses and officials of BCCL, the bribe money was recovered, other formalities with regard to seizure etc. were completed. It is submitted that all the witnesses have categorically and consistently supported the prosecution case. Minor contradictions appearing in the statement of complainant and some of the witnesses are of less importance in a case of corruption. The evidence of PW2, PW5, PW6, PW7 and PW9 are consistent eliminating all sorts of doubt and contradictions. Learned counsel has referred to judgment reported in East Criminal Cases (Cr) 2007 (3) 28 Sk. Mohammad Nizamuddin Vrs. State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. and 2012 (7) SCC 80 and submitted presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act can well be drawn in the circumstances and evidence available on record. 6. I have gone through the impugned judgment, evidences and documents available on record. There are series of documents which have been marked exhibit and therefore, I do not need it to mention specifically in this order. Learned Special Judge has already referred and discussed those documents while discussing the deposition of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution. PW1 Chandrabali Yadav happens to be a formal witness who has proved the sanction order for prosecution of the appellant. Shiv Kumar Ram PW2 is shadow witness who had accompanied the complainant up to the office of appellant. He has stated that on 21.05.1992 he along with complainant and other officials of C.B.I. had gone to Basudeopur Colliery. The complainant went to the office of accused/appellant Nanhaku Ram and wished him. Thereafter Nanhaku Ram (appellant) demanded Rs.500/. Then the complainant handed over said sum of Rs.500/to the accused/appellant to which he kept in left pocket of his Kurta. Seeing the transaction complete this witness signaled to other officials of C.B.I. who immediately assembled and challenged the appellant that he had taken bribe and apprehended him. This witness has further stated that bribe money which the appellant had kept in the pocket of his Kurta was recovered in his presence and also in presence of other witnesses. Hands of accused/appellant were washed in two different glasses of liquid and after that colour of liquid turned pink. The pocket of Kurta in which money was kept was also washed in the liquid of third glass after which colour of that liquid also turned pink. Seizure list was duly prepared. Hands of accused/appellant were washed in two different glasses of liquid and after that colour of liquid turned pink. The pocket of Kurta in which money was kept was also washed in the liquid of third glass after which colour of that liquid also turned pink. Seizure list was duly prepared. The glasses in which hands of accused were deeped were seized and other formalities were done. The glasses in which hands of the appellant and cloth from which money was recovered were deeped, were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination and the test was found positive that the liquid were containing naphthalene powder and sodium carbonate. This witness has proved the report submitted by him. Shiv Pujan Singh PW4, Manoranjan Chandra (PW5), Tapan Jyoti Ghose (PW6) are the officials of C.B.I. and they were members in the raiding party and each of them supported the prosecution case. Mithu Pasi PW7 has stated that a sum of Rs.500/was demanded by the appellant as illegal gratification against payment of his L.L.T.C. claim. He had reported the matter to C.B.I. on 20.05.1992. He has proved his signature appearing on the complaint which has been marked Exhibit5. He further supports pretrap and posttrap arrangements and formalities performed by C.B.I. officials in his presence. He has clearly stated that the accused had demanded money from him after which he had handed over five notes of 100 each to which the accused kept in his pocket. After the accused was apprehended, money was recovered from his pocket. The number of notes were verified. Both the hands of appellant and pocket in which money was kept were washed by solution of Sodium Carbonate and after that colour of that solution turned pink and those solutions were properly seized in presence of witnesses. 7. PW8 who happens to be official of BCCL has also supported that recovery of Rs.500/from possession of accused was made in his presence by C.B.I. officials and formalities with regard to seizure were made. PW9 happens to be the I.O. (B.I. Birdi) and he too has supported the entire episode and investigation done by him. 8. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the defence has no leg to stand because no suggestion was given to any of the witness that bribe money recovered from the pocket of accused/appellant was planted by anyone at any point of time. 8. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the defence has no leg to stand because no suggestion was given to any of the witness that bribe money recovered from the pocket of accused/appellant was planted by anyone at any point of time. No material witnesses were given suggestion that money was thrusted into pocket of accused/appellant after he was apprehended. The appellant has also not taken this plea in course of trial. In his examination recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he has not stated that he has been falsely implicated and the money which is alleged to have been recovered was thrusted in his pocket after he was apprehended by C.B.I. officials. There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case for any reason. No material available on record shows that complainant was having any grudge with the appellant from before. The complainant has expressed his ignorance about the verification done by PW6 in course of his deposition in the Court but the facts and evidence of this witness remain intact to the effect that he had made a complaint to C.B.I. officials on 20.05.1992 that illegal gratification was demanded from him by the appellant against payment of L.L.T.C. claim. He has proved his signature appearing on the complaint made by him. The statement of PW7 is consistent on all other aspects of the prosecution case that illegal gratification was demanded by the appellant for which a trap was arranged of which the complainant was also part and everything was done in his presence. The bribe money paid by him was recovered from possession of the appellant. Since the evidence of complainant on all these points is consistent, I do not feel that such minor contradiction in his statement and that too when his examination in Court was done after 8 years from the date of incident is fatal to the prosecution and such minor contradiction is always expected from the mouth of a witness who has been examined in Court after such a long delay. 9. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal and therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 22.09.2001 and sentence dated 24.09.2001, passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No.5(A)/92(D) stands upheld. 9. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal and therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 22.09.2001 and sentence dated 24.09.2001, passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No.5(A)/92(D) stands upheld. The bail bond of the appellant is hereby cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the convicting/successor Court within a month to serve out the sentence. In case the convict fails to appear before the Court to serve out the sentence, the convicting/successor Court shall be at liberty to secure his attendance after issuing process in accordance with law. 10. This appeal stands dismissed.