ORDER : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1998, dated 31.01.2007. By the impugned judgment the High Court has confirmed the conviction as imposed by the Trial Court but modified the order of sentence. 2. The facts in brief are that the complainant (PW-1), in connection with a land dispute, had approached the appellant for issuance of a copy of Mutation. The appellant, in turn, convinced PW-1 that a copy of the Jamabandi would be sufficient for his purposes and demanded the payment of a sum of Rs.600/- in return for the issuance of the said Jamabandi. PW-1 agreed to pay a sum of Rs.550/-. On 06.02.1995, PW-1 paid the appellant a sum of Rs.350/-. Thereafter, on 07.02.1995, PW-1 filed a written complaint before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance on the basis of which FIR No. 22/95 was registered with Police Station, Vigilance Organisation, Jammu. 3. A trap party was formed including two independent witnesses and pre-trap proceedings, including smearing two currency notes with phenolphthalein powder, were completed. The trap party then proceeded to Akhnoor and PW-1 and the shadow witness went into the Patwarkhana. PW-1 paid the remaining amount to the appellant. On the shadow witness signal, the trap party entered the Patwarkhana and recovered the said amount from the appellant. The hands and pant of the appellant were washed with sodium carbonate solution and the sample was seized. 4. Subsequently, the investigation was completed and on sanction being received from the State Government the charge sheet was filed before the Trial Court. The charges were framed under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 (for short, "the Act") and Section 161 of the Ranbir Penal Code (for short, "the RPC") to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. Consequently, the case was committed to trial. 5. While the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and produced 12 documents, the defense examined 1 witness. The appellant was examined under Section 342 of the Jammu & Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (for short, "the J&K Code") wherein he stated that the prosecution's allegations against him were false. 6. Consequently, the case was committed to trial. 5. While the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and produced 12 documents, the defense examined 1 witness. The appellant was examined under Section 342 of the Jammu & Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (for short, "the J&K Code") wherein he stated that the prosecution's allegations against him were false. 6. The Trial Court considered the evidence on record as also the arguments of the parties and noted that all of the prosecution witnesses had stated in their testimonies that the sodium carbonate solution turned pink when the appellant's hands and pant were washed with the same and that there was no reason to disbelieve them. The Trial Court further noticed that there was ample evidence that the tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the appellant and that the non-examination of one witness would not discredit the entire case of the prosecution. Therefore, the Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 14.07.1998, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 5(2) of the Act and rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 161 of the RPC. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, the appellant/accused approached the High Court on the ground that the Trial Court had failed to correctly appreciate the evidence on record. 8. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and noticed that the prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and rejected the appellant's contention that there were several contradictions in the prosecution case that discredit the entire case. Therefore, the High Court confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. However, in light of the nature of the act committed and the fact that the appellant was a first time offender, the High Court reduced the sentence imposed by the Trial Court to imprisonment for six months. 9. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the appellant is before us in this appeal. 10. We have heard Shri S.K. Ambardar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ashok Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent-State. 11. 9. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the appellant is before us in this appeal. 10. We have heard Shri S.K. Ambardar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ashok Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent-State. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt since no independent witnesses were present when the trap was laid and the appellant's pant, which was a key piece of evidence, was not presented before the Trial Court. 12. After carefully perusing the material available on record, including the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below as well as the submissions made before us, the appellant case fails to convince us. The record shows that two independent witnesses (PW-2 and one Bansi Lal) were present at the time of the trap being laid. The prosecution evidence is consistent and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Further, since it has been proved that the appellant hands turned pink when the sodium carbonate solution were applied to them, the non-production of the appellant's pant will not disprove the case of the prosecution. 13. In light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and order passed by the High Court does not suffer any infirmity whatsoever and does not require our interference. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Ordered accordingly.