Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 110 (MP)

Rajesh Khatik S/o Late Mannulal v. State of M. P.

2017-01-19

RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY, S.C.SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29-11-2014 passed by Special Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Dewas in Special S. T. No. 7/2013, whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellant under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and under section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default clause. 2. Brief facts are that on 10-5-2013 at about 11.00 A.M. complainant Hukum Patidar (PW-3) gave a written complaint to the then SP, Lokayukt, Ujjain to the effect that his Eicher truck bearing Registration No. MP-41-GA-0447 turned upside down at Dewas bus stand and on the basis of the same a case was registered at P.S. Kotwali, Dewas and in order to take the custody of the same, an application was filed by the complainant in the Court. In order to produce the case diary in the Court appellant demanded Rs. 5,000/- as bribe. The complainant did not want to give bribe on the contrary he wanted appellant to be caught red-handed while accepting the bribe. On that complaint SP, Lokayukt verified the fact of allegation of the complainant, a conversation, which took place between the complainant and the appellant was recorded. The memory card on which the alleged conversation was recorded was kept by the Investigating Officer with him. Thereafter, the transcript of the alleged conversation was made, the same was read out to the witnesses and then it was signed by the concerning witnesses. Then, the Investigating Officer informed the SP, Lokayukta about the genuineness of the complaint and on the basis of the same, a letter was written to the Addl. Collector, Ujjain to send two independent witnesses i.e. Dr. Ravindra Bharadwaj and Dr. Pradeep Lakhre (PW-2) were sent. The said witnesses were introduced to the complainant. The contents of the complaint were read out to the complainant and the same were accepted by him. Then the contents of the memory card were played, in which the voice of the complainant and appellant was identified by the complainant. Three CDs of conversation as recorded in the memory card were also made. The contents of the complaint were read out to the complainant and the same were accepted by him. Then the contents of the memory card were played, in which the voice of the complainant and appellant was identified by the complainant. Three CDs of conversation as recorded in the memory card were also made. On the FIR Crime No. 20/2013 for an offence under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act was registered and for further registration it was sent to Bhopal. At Bhopal Crime No. 122/2013 for an offences under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act was registered. Then Inspector Basant Shrivastava asked the complainant to produce the currency notes which he intends to give as bribe and on the basis of that two notes of Rs. 1,000/- each and six notes of Rs. 500/- each were produced. Serial numbers of the currency notes were recorded and print-out of the same was also taken out. Thereafter, at the direction of Basant Shrivastava phenolphthalein powder was applied on the said currency notes by Constable Shriram Maske. A search of clothes of complainant was made and it was made sure that except bribe amount nothing remains in the possession of the complainant. Then, powder treated notes were kept in the left pocket of the shirt of the complainant by Shriram Maske. Complainant was explained by Basant Shrivastava that he should not touch the treated notes before handing over the appellant and the same should be given only when it is demanded by the appellant. He should also see as to where the treated notes are kept by the appellant. Complainant should also not shake his hand after parting with the bribe amount. A signal should also be made by him that he has handed over the amount. 3. Thereafter, complainant was explained about the procedure of phenolphthalein powder. Formalities of applying the powder and solution turning pink was followed. Necessary samples were also seized. Then, a trap party was formed and left for the spot at 14.30 and reached at 15.30. Complainant was sent to P.S. Kotwali, Dewas and was explained as to what is to be done by him, Constable who were supposed to catch hold the hands of the appellant were also asked to follow the complainant and as to where they have to stand. Complainant was sent to P.S. Kotwali, Dewas and was explained as to what is to be done by him, Constable who were supposed to catch hold the hands of the appellant were also asked to follow the complainant and as to where they have to stand. After some time complainant came and informed that appellant is not present in the Police Station. Then, complainant gave a call to the appellant on his mobile and complainant was asked to come and wait at Nema Kulfi. After waiting for sometime appellant came at Nema Kulfi, complainant and appellant had some conversation and then after sometime complainant came out and gave the signal as explained. After receiving the necessary signal, trap party went inside and appellant was introduced with the raiding party. 4. Thereafter, the hands of the appellant were dipped in the solution of the sodium carbonate and the solution turned pink. The samples of the solution were seized in a bottle. Bribe amount was seized from the possession of the appellant. Numbers of the currency notes were matched with the list which was made earlier. Said notes were also seized. Pant of appellant from where the currency notes were seized was also recovered, shirt of the complainant in which bribe amount was kept was also seized. Spot map was drawn, arrest memo of the appellant was made, articles were sent to the FSL department, sanction to prosecute the appellant was procured, statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing all the necessary and mandatory formalities, a charge-sheet was filed by the respondent. 5. The appellant denied the charges framed by the trial Court for offences under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and took the defence that complainant filed this complaint because he was annoyed with the appellant before the trap. Sub-Inspector Jabbar Khan (DW-1) had sent case diary before the Court and Court also ordered regarding custody of truck before the trap. He received the order for producing the case diary in Court on the eve of 9-5-2013 and he handed over the case diary on 10-5-2013 to S.I. Jabbar Khan at 11.00 A.M. The complainant knew that but still he called him at the Ice-cream shop and deliberately put tainted notes into his pocket and made a false case against him in connivance with the Officers of SPE Lokayukt, Ujjain. He also produced Jabbar Khan (DW-1), Jaya Tomar (DW-2) and Jitendra Sharma (DW-3) in his defence in this regard. But after trial the trial Court found appellant guilty under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and convicted him as aforesaid. Being aggrieved the appellant has filed this appeal. 6. Point of determination in this appeal is whether the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court against appellant under sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act are liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memo of appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned trial Court has erred in not appreciating the fact that there was no occasion for the appellant to demand money from the complainant because the case of the prosecution is that appellant demanded money from the complainant on the pretext of producing case diary in the Court so that complainant can take his vehicle on Supurdginama. While from the statement of complainant Hukum Singh (PW-3) and his father Pooran Singh (PW-7), Jabbar Khan (DW-1) and Jaya (DW-2) it is established in the case that when appellant came to know the fact that Court has called the case diary the same was sent by the appellant through Jabbar Khan (DW-1) at 11.00 A.M. before appellant was trapped in regard to the Supurdginama of said vehicle. So there was no reason for the appellant to demand money and also there was no occasion for the complainant to pay the bribe amount. 8. He further submitted that complainant Hukum Singh Patidar (PW-3) turned hostile and did not supported the prosecution story in this regard. He clearly denied from the fact that complainant demanded bribe from him. There is no other witnesses of the fact that appellant demanded bribe from the complainant. Even complainant Hukum Singh Patidar admitted that he himself forcibly put the money into the pocket of the appellant’s trouser. Written complaint was also made by him at the instance of Investigating Officer Basant Shrivastava (PW-8). Although, in the case a transcript of recorded conversation has been produced by the prosecution but bare perusal of the same also does not show even once that appellant demanded bribe. On the contrary, it was complainant, who was trying to put the words into the mouth of the appellant. Although, in the case a transcript of recorded conversation has been produced by the prosecution but bare perusal of the same also does not show even once that appellant demanded bribe. On the contrary, it was complainant, who was trying to put the words into the mouth of the appellant. This shows that appellant never intended to demand any money from the complainant. Even otherwise before relying on the alleged conversation, which was recorded by the respondent in memory card, it was the duty of the prosecution to fulfil the mandatory conditions of section 65-B of the Evidence Act but in the case prosecution has not complied with the mandatory provisions of section 65-B of the Evidence Act. So there is no evidence against the appellant that he demanded bribe from the complainant. But no heed was paid by the trial Court towards this fact. Prosecution has miserably failed to prove any demand of bribe amount at the end of the appellant. If the same is not proved then the recovery has no value in the eyes of the law. The trial Court committed mistake in holding that appellant demanded money from the complainant for a work to be done. 9. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Subash Parbat Sonvane vs. State of Gujarat, 2002 (2) GLH 654 , wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that an act of obtaining demand on the part of the accused would be primary requisite merely acceptance of money but there was no evidence of demand, offence under section 13(1)(d) of the Act is not made out and the Apex Court judgment passed in the case of Krishan Chander vs. State of Delhi, AIR 2016 SC 298 , wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that demand and acceptance of - Is sine qua non for constituting offence under sections 7 and 13(1)(d). The Hon’ble Apex Court judgment passed in the case of V. Venkata Subbarao vs. State of A.P. (2006) 13 SCC 305, wherein Apex Court held that Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - S. 20 - Presumption under, regarding acceptance of illegal gratification - Raising of - Prerequisite for - Held, the said presumption cannot be raised when demand by accused is not proved. The Apex Court judgment passed in Satvir Singh vs. State of Delhi through CBI, AIR 2014 SC 3798 , wherein Apex Court held that Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), sections 7, 13, 20 - Illegal gratification - Presumption - Appellant, Inspector, Customs allegedly demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 2 Lakhs from complainant - Non-examination of brother of complainant who was present at time when complainant had telephonic conversation with appellant - There is no case of illegal gratification either demanded by appellant or paid to him by complainant - Presumption under section 20, not attracted - Therefore, question of onus of proof to disprove the presumption does not arise at all on part of appellant and also Apex Court judgment passed in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxmanrao Wankhede, (2009) 15 SCC 200 wherein Apex Court held that Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - section 20 and sections 7 and 13(1)(d) - Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration - Burden of proof - Held, demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the Act. 10. On the contrary learned counsel for the State submitted that the factum of demand and acceptance of bribe is proved by other evidence also and in this regard he also placed reliance on the Apex Court’s judgment passed in Hazari Lal vs. State of Delhi, 1980 Cri. L.J. 564 in which Hon’ble Apex Court held that where the evidence of the Police Officer who laid the trap is found entirely trustworthy, there is no need to seek any corroboration. Recovery of money from accused - not sufficient to prove acceptance of bribe - recovery of money coupled with other circumstances leading to circumstances that accused received gratification - presumption under section 4(1) can be drawn and he also placed reliance on the Apex Court’s judgment passed in Nayankumar Shivappa Waghmare vs. State of Maharashtra, 2015 Cri. Recovery of money from accused - not sufficient to prove acceptance of bribe - recovery of money coupled with other circumstances leading to circumstances that accused received gratification - presumption under section 4(1) can be drawn and he also placed reliance on the Apex Court’s judgment passed in Nayankumar Shivappa Waghmare vs. State of Maharashtra, 2015 Cri. L.J. 3422, wherein it has been held that demand and acceptance - proved by raising presumption against accused alleged to have been demanded for clearing GPF and pension papers - payment of bribe money and its recovery by trap proved - but demand denied by complainant in cross-examination - nothing however on record to explain why complainant filed complaint when there was no demand and papers were being cleared on the date - clear case where presumption under section 20 applies and Hon’ble Apex Court judgment passed in the case of M. Narsinga Rao vs. State of A.P. AIR 2001 SC 318 wherein it held that acceptance of gratification - presumption- is compulsory and not discretionary - prosecution proved that accused received gratification from complainant - in circumstances Court can draw legal presumption that said gratification was accepted as reward for doing public duty. 11. It is clear from the above pronouncements of the Apex Court that for proving offence under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act both demand and acceptance need to be proved. But it can also be proved by the circumstantial evidence in the case where complainant turned hostile, or also by other oral documentary and circumstantial evidence and whether demand and acceptance is proved or not is a matter of fact, which has to be decided by evaluating the evidence produced before the Court in the case. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment passed in Maharashtra Rajya vs. Mohd. Yakub, AIR 1980 SC 1111 , held that at the outset, it may be noted that the Evidence Act does not insist on absolute proof for the simple reason that perfect proof in this imperfect world is seldom to be found. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment passed in Maharashtra Rajya vs. Mohd. Yakub, AIR 1980 SC 1111 , held that at the outset, it may be noted that the Evidence Act does not insist on absolute proof for the simple reason that perfect proof in this imperfect world is seldom to be found. That is why under section 3 of the Evidence Act, a fact is said to be ‘proved’ when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. This definition of ‘proof’ does not draw any distinction between circumstantial and other evidence. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Subramanyam Swami vs. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64 , held that “Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. That is to say, in a situation where to constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it. 13. Although, in the case complainant Hukum Singh (PW-3) turned hostile and deposed in his statement that appellant did not demand bribe from him and he himself put the notes in accused pocket and he also stated that he made a written complaint Ex.P/3 at the instance of Basant Shrivastava (PW-8), but even then the part of his statement which support the prosecution story can be relied on. In the case of State of U.P. vs. Ramesh Prasad Misra, (1996) 10 SCC 360 , it was held by the Supreme Court that: “It is equally settled law that the evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused, but it can be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted.” 14. In the case of C. Muniappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567 , the Supreme Court has similarly held that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence. 15. So the evidence of the hostile witness cannot be rejected merely because he has been declared hostile, and that the evidence of such a person does not become effaced from the record. The relevant portions of the evidence of a hostile witness can still be made use of in appropriate situations, at least to corroborate the evidence of other independent witnesses in material particulars, as held by the Apex Court. 16. Hukum Singh (PW-3) also deposed that on 8-6-2013 his truck bearing Registration No. MP-41-GA-0447 turned upside down at Dewas, which was being driven by him at the time of accident. After accident the truck was seized by the Police. His father, who owned the said truck, has filed an application to get custody of the said truck before the Court. Case diary of that crime was with appellant (Rajesh). He was willing to pay fine but truck was not released but Court called case diary. He talked with the appellant. The appellant told that it will take Rs. 5,000/- towards fine and other expenses to get the vehicle released from the Court. His father asked why he would take Rs. 5,000/- to get the truck released when all the papers were complete. His father took him to Lokayukta office Ujjain. Where he gave information orally. The officer of the Lokayukta office Ujjain told him to give the complaint in writing. On which he filed written report Ex.P/3. After filing complaint they called Panch witnesses and took Rs. 5,000/- to get the truck released when all the papers were complete. His father took him to Lokayukta office Ujjain. Where he gave information orally. The officer of the Lokayukta office Ujjain told him to give the complaint in writing. On which he filed written report Ex.P/3. After filing complaint they called Panch witnesses and took Rs. 5,000/- from him and put the powder on these notes and told him to give these notes to the appellant at Dewas. Thereafter, along with the team of Lokayukta, he along with his father came to Dewas, where his brother informed him on phone that though the challan has not been filed as yet, but the truck is going to be released at around 3.30 PM today. He phoned and asked appellant to come at Nema Kulfi shop. Even complainant Hukum Singh (PW-3), also admitted in his statement that who gave application Ex.P/3 to the Lokayukta office Ujjain mentioning that appellant was demanded Rs. 5,000/- to produce case diary before the Court. He talked with the appellant on mobile phone from Office of Lokayukta that talk was also recorded by him. 17. Although, Hukum Singh (PW-3) stated that he made a written complaint Ex.P/3 at the instance of Basant Shrivastava (PW-8) but he also deposed that appellant told him that it will take Rs. 5,000/- as fine and other expenses to get the vehicle released from the Court. His father asked why he would take Rs. 5,000/- to get the truck released when all the papers were complete. He took him to Lokayukta office Ujjain where he gave information orally. The Officer of Lokayukta office Ujjain told him to give complaint in writing of which he filed report Ex.P/3, it shows that he himself voluntarily filed report Ex.P/3 which is also proved by Basant Shrivastava (PW-8) in it clearly mentioned that appellant demanded money to produce case diary in the Court. 18. Had appellant not demanded bribe from Hukum Singh (PW-3) why he would lodge report Ex.P/3 against the appellant with S.P. Lokayukta Ujjain. Hukum Singh admitted that he talked with the appellant on mobile from office of Lokayukta that conversation was recorded by him. He also admitted to have signed Ex.P/4. 18. Had appellant not demanded bribe from Hukum Singh (PW-3) why he would lodge report Ex.P/3 against the appellant with S.P. Lokayukta Ujjain. Hukum Singh admitted that he talked with the appellant on mobile from office of Lokayukta that conversation was recorded by him. He also admitted to have signed Ex.P/4. Although, from the script it does not appear that appellant demanded any bribe from Hukum Singh but that transcript clearly show that complainant offered to give him money in return for getting job done. From that conversation appellant, who is Police Officer, should have got clear indication that complainant offering him a bribe. Even then he did not explicitly decline to it. On the contrary after the conversation he went to Kulfi shop on complainant’s request as he admitted in his examination under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code while it is not the defence of appellant that he had any previous relation or friendship with the complainant. 19. Although, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecution has not complied with the mandatory provisions of section 65-B of Evidence Act to prove the conversation but his argument has no force. Ashok Khatri (PW-4) clearly deposed that on 10-5-2013 he made a transcript Ex.D/4 and also made three CDs of conversation recorded in memory card Article A and prosecution also filed certificate Ex.P/73 in this regard, which is proved by Basant Shrivastava (PW-8). 20. Hukum Singh (PW-3) also deposed that appellant told him that it will take Rs. 5,000/- as fine and other expenses to get the vehicle released from the Court but it appears from the Ex.P/1 to P/33 and Ex.D/1 to D/2 that the offence was registered against the complainant under sections 279, 337 of Indian Penal Code in which maximum fine prescribed is Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively. While appellant told Hukum Singh that it will get Rs. 5,000/- to release the vehicle from the Court. All circumstances show that appellant demanded bribe from the complainant. 21. Likewise Hukum Singh (PW-3) deposed that at the Kulfi shop he himself put the tainted money in the pocket of appellant and appellant also took that defence and also produced Jitendra Sharma (DW-3) on that point. But statement of Jitendra Sharma (DW-3) appears to be afterthought because appellant did not give any suggestion to Hukum Singh (PW-3). Dr. 21. Likewise Hukum Singh (PW-3) deposed that at the Kulfi shop he himself put the tainted money in the pocket of appellant and appellant also took that defence and also produced Jitendra Sharma (DW-3) on that point. But statement of Jitendra Sharma (DW-3) appears to be afterthought because appellant did not give any suggestion to Hukum Singh (PW-3). Dr. Pradeep Lakhre (PW-2), Halke Prasad (PW-5), Basant Shrivastava (PW-8), stated that Jitendra Sharma (DW-3) was present at the time of trap on the spot. On the contrary from the statement of independent witnesses Pradeep Lakhre (PW-2), Halke Prasad (PW-5) and Basant Shrivastava (PW-8) it is clearly proved that when members of trap party at Kulfi shop got his hands dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of solution turned pink. If appellant had not taken tainted money in his hands from Hukum Singh and Hukum Singh had himself put that tainted money directly in the pocket of appellant then why would solution turn pink. 22. Although, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that complainant Hukum Singh himself admitted that he had shaken hands with the appellant so only on the basis of the fact that solution turned pink it cannot be assumed that appellant took money in his hands from Hukum Singh. But this contention has also no force because Hukum Singh deposed in Para 11 of his statement that he had shaken hands before putting tainted money in his pocket. No public servant would allow anybody to put anything in his pocket, specially to a person who is an accused in the crime, which is being investigated by him. So otherwise also this defence is not tenable. 23. Although, it appeared from the statement of Hukum Singh (PW-3), Pooran Singh (PW-7), Jabbar Khan (DW-1) and Jaya (DW-2) that before the trap the case diary of Crime No. 581/2013 registered at P.S. Dewas against the accused/appellant had been put before the Court. But bribe can be taken even after completion of the task. 23. Although, it appeared from the statement of Hukum Singh (PW-3), Pooran Singh (PW-7), Jabbar Khan (DW-1) and Jaya (DW-2) that before the trap the case diary of Crime No. 581/2013 registered at P.S. Dewas against the accused/appellant had been put before the Court. But bribe can be taken even after completion of the task. Even otherwise Hukum Singh (PW-3) deposed in his statement that when he reached at Dewas his brother informed on phone that though charge-sheet has not been filed yet but the truck is going to be released at 3.30 P.M. He asked the complainant to come at Nema Kulfi shop and offered money for producing case diary, it shows that even after filing of case diary before the Court task of filing charge-sheet before the Court was still pending with the applicant. So the defence of the appellant that at the time of trap there was no reason for him to demand money from the complainant does stand. 24. From a part of the statement of complainant Hukum Singh (PW-3) which is also corroborated from the evidence of other independent witnesses Pradeep Lakhre (PW-2), Ashok Khatri (PW-4) and Basant Shrivastava (PW-8) in material particulars and other circumstantial evidence as discussed above. It is proved that appellant demanded bribe from complainant Hukum Singh (PW-3) and from the statement of Hukum Singh (PW-3) Pradeep Lakhre (PW-2), Halke Prasad (PW-5), Basant Shrivastava (PW-8) it is also clearly proved that the raiding party reached the spot and proceeded for laying of trap, the complainant went to the appellant and handed over the bribe money. On receiving the signal, raiding party arrived at the spot and recovered the tainted currency notes from the pocket of his trouser. The solution of sodium carbonate was prepared with which hands of appellant were washed and solution turned pink. Same test was repeated with the currency notes and pocket of the trouser and each time sodium solution turned pink. The wash exhibits were sent for FSL report. The testimonies of Pradeep Lakhre (PW-2), Halke Prasad (PW-5), Basant Shrivastava (PW-8) also clearly prove the recovery of currency notes from the possession of the appellant. The FSL report of hand wash, trouser wash and note wash clearly indicates the recovery of bribe money. The ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses has been duly corroborated by the documentary evidence. 25. The testimonies of Pradeep Lakhre (PW-2), Halke Prasad (PW-5), Basant Shrivastava (PW-8) also clearly prove the recovery of currency notes from the possession of the appellant. The FSL report of hand wash, trouser wash and note wash clearly indicates the recovery of bribe money. The ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses has been duly corroborated by the documentary evidence. 25. So far as the proposition of law laid down in judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the basic ingredients i.e. demand of bribe, its acceptance and recovery of currency notes, required for holding the appellant guilty under sections 7 and 13 of the Act, stand duly proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant are based on the facts of the individual cases. 26. The explanation given by the appellant as regards to the recovery that complainant Hukumchand put the tainted notes in his pocket does not appear to be correct. On the contrary there are adequate circumstances which establish the ingredients of the offences in respect of which he was charged. 27. Therefore, from the above facts, legitimately a presumption can be drawn that the accused-appellant had received or accepted the said currency notes on his own volition. The factum of presumption and the testimony of prosecution witness go long way to show that the prosecution has been able to prove demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount. Hence, we are inclined to hold that the learned trial Judge has appositely concluded that the charges levelled against the accused have duly been proven by the prosecution. 28. So in the considered opinion of this Court the trial Court has not committed any mistake to convict the appellant under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and stand duly proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. 29. As far as sentence is concerned the learned Judge has sentenced appellant under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and under section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default clause which also cannot be said to be in excess so that also is hereby affirmed. 30. 2,000/- and under section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default clause which also cannot be said to be in excess so that also is hereby affirmed. 30. In the ultimate analysis we find no merit in the appeal and consequently the same stands dismissed. As the appellant is on bail his bail bonds stands forfeited and he be taken into custody to suffer the remaining Jail sentence. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.