Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 643 (KAR)

Sanjay Sabharwal v. State

2017-03-23

JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

body2017
JUDGMENT : John Michael Cunha, J. This appeal is filed under section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction passed by the XXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bengaluru in Spl.C.C. No.258/2004. By the impugned judgment, the appellant is convicted for the offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as ' Act-). The appellant is sentenced to simple imprisonment for 18 months and is directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for both the offences and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. The appellant was serving as an Executive Engineer, BSNL, Civil Division-II, Bengaluru. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused demanded a bribe of Rs.4,000/- from PW-4(complainant) as a motive or reward for making the payment of pending bills. The complainant was not inclined to pay the bribe amount. Hence, he approached the Inspector of CBI, Sri K.Hari Om Prakash-PW-5. He lodged the complaint as per Ex-P42 between 10.30 a.m. or 11.00 a.m. on 7.4.2004. The trap laying officer PW-5 secured two independent witnesses. Pre-trap formalities were conducted in the office of PW-5. At about 4.30 p.m., the complainant and the trap laying team proceeded to the office of the accused. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the complainant asked the shadow witness PW-1 to stay back as he apprehended that the accused may not receive the demanded money from the complainant in the presence of an outsider. The complainant PW-4 alone went to the office of the accused. According to the complainant, he offered to pay the demanded bribe of Rs.4,000/-, but the accused asked him to pay the said amount in his house saying that another bill for Rs.38,786/- was also to be passed by the accused. According to the complainant, the accused wrote the name of his apartment and his phone number on a small chit Ex- P5. The complainant returned to the office of the trap laying officer (TLO) PW-5. The proceedings of the day were recorded in a mahazar Ex-P2. The chit given by the accused was taken possession by PW-5. 3. On 8.4.2004, once again the trap formalities were conducted in the office of PW-5. The complainant returned to the office of the trap laying officer (TLO) PW-5. The proceedings of the day were recorded in a mahazar Ex-P2. The chit given by the accused was taken possession by PW-5. 3. On 8.4.2004, once again the trap formalities were conducted in the office of PW-5. At about 8.30 a.m., the complainant and the trap laying team proceeded to the residential apartment of the accused situated at Jakkur Main Road, Amruthahalli, Bengaluru. The name of the apartment was 'Shobha Windfall- . It is the case of the prosecution that before proceeding to the apartment of the accused, the complainant rang up to the mobile number given by the accused, but the phone was switched off and hence the complainant spoke to the accused through his landline number. At about 8.30 a.m., the complainant went to the apartment of the accused. The accused came down to the basement along with the complainant where the accused is stated to have received the tainted currency notes amounting to Rs.6,000/-, where after the accused went back to his apartment. The complainant came out of the apartment complex and flashed the pre-instructed signal to PW-5 and the raiding team went to the apartment of the accused situated on the 2nd floor of the apartment building. PW.5 kept on knocking the door. The accused opened the door after about five minutes. He was identified by the complainant and the hand wash of the accused was taken and it turned to ' pink colour- . The shirt pocket and the pant pocket of the accused were also subjected to chemical wash and both the solutions turned to ' pink colour-. The accused however declined to disclose the amount received by him and hence the raiding team started to search the apartment and at that time, at about 9.45. a.m. the accused informed the raiding team that he has thrown the tainted currency notes into the passage through the ventilator situated in the apartment. 4. There was no access to the said passage either from the apartment or from the basement. Hence, the maintenance staff was asked for to get hold of the said notes. But even the maintenance staff could not get into the said passage as it was too narrow. Hence, with the assistance of a boy, the said notes were recovered. 4. There was no access to the said passage either from the apartment or from the basement. Hence, the maintenance staff was asked for to get hold of the said notes. But even the maintenance staff could not get into the said passage as it was too narrow. Hence, with the assistance of a boy, the said notes were recovered. The serial numbers of the notes were found tallying with the serial numbers and denominations entered in the pre-trap mahazar Ex.P2. Thereafter, requisite trap formalities were completed. On the same day, PW.5 went to the office of the accused to seize the documents relating to the transaction, but PW.5 could not trace any documents in the office. The premises was sealed. On the next day, the seal was opened and the file relating to the pending work was seized. Further investigation was continued by PW.10. In the course of investigation, PW.10 recorded the statements of witnesses, sent the seized chit - Ex.P5 to F.S.L. for examination and report. After securing the report, charge-sheet was laid against the accused for the above offences. 5. The accused denied the charges and faced trial. In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined in all ten witnesses. PW.1 V.Shashidhar is the shadow witness. At the relevant time, he was working as Senior Vigilance Assistant in HAL. This witness has spoken about his participation in the pre-trap panchanama as well in the trap panchanama at Ex.P7. In his evidence, he has stated that on the instructions of the complainant, he did not accompany the complainant to the office of the accused on 7.4.2004 as well as to the apartment of the accused on 8.4.2004. PW.2 is the Director (Vigilance & Training) who accorded sanction for prosecution of the accused. The sanction order is marked in evidence as Ex.P21. PW.3 is the Accounts officer, Telecom Civil Division, BSNL, Bengaluru where the accused was working at the relevant point of time. This witness has narrated in detail the procedure followed in BSNL office in respect of issue of work orders and payment of the bills. PW.4 is the complainant. This witness has narrated in detail about the initial demand made by the accused and has specifically stated that he lodged the complaint as per Ex.P42. This witness has narrated in detail the procedure followed in BSNL office in respect of issue of work orders and payment of the bills. PW.4 is the complainant. This witness has narrated in detail about the initial demand made by the accused and has specifically stated that he lodged the complaint as per Ex.P42. In his evidence, he has stated that on 7.4.2004, when he approached the accused to pay the demanded sum of Rs.4,000/-, the accused asked him to come to his apartment hiking the demand to Rs.6,000/- on the ground that another bill was also pending for payment. This witness has deposed in line with the prosecution case about the pre-trap formality conducted in the office of the accused as well as about the receipt of the tainted currency notes by the accused. He has identified the chit at Ex.P5 given by the accused and has also spoken about the conversation recorded in the micro cassette and the transcription thereof at Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. PW.5 is the Inspector of C.B.I. who received the complaint at Ex.P42 and registered the F.I.R. at Ex.P43. PW.6 is the handwriting expert who examined Ex.P5 with the handwriting of the accused and issued his opinion as per Ex.P44. PW.7 is the Senior office Assistant in the office of the Executive Engineer of Telecom. Through this witness, the prosecution has marked the bill register for the period from 20.10.2003 to 14.10.2004 at Ex.P2 and the relevant entries therein. This witness has also identified Ex.P30 ' " the office copy of the letter sent to the complainant by the Accounts officer, Telecom Civil Division. He has also spoken about the dispatch register Ex.P31 relating to the period from 1.10.2003 to 9.7.2004. PW.8 M. Prabhakar is the Junior Telecom officer working in BSNL Sub-Division-IV at the relevant time. According to this witness, he made entries in the measurement book which is called as 'M- book and the same is marked as Ex.P37. The agreement executed by the complainant with BSNL is marked as Ex.P26. This witness has spoken about Ex.P23, namely, the bill form relating to the work done by the complainant pertaining to the annual repair and maintenance work of staff quarters at KB Sandra and this witness has stated that the said bill was passed for payment and the amount of the bill Ex.P23 has been paid to the complainant R. Srinivas on 31.3.2004. This witness has also deposed that the complainant has made an endorsement in Ex.P35(Ab) by acknowledging the receipt of the payment. PW.9 Sri. T.M. Talikote is the retired Executive Engineer, Civil Division-I who has been examined to speak about Ex.P35 i.e., 'M' book. After the accused was kept under suspension, this witness took up the charge of the office of the accused and during this period, he passed the bills at Ex.P23. According to this witness, after taking over the charge, he passed two running account bills as per Ex.P50 and Ex.P41. PW.10' "Deputy Superintendent of Police of CBI (ACB) Bengaluru is the subsequent Investigating officer who laid the charge-sheet against the accused. 6. The incriminating circumstances brought out in prosecution evidence were put to accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused took up the defence of total denial and did not enter into any specific defence. On hearing the Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused and on considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, the trial Court has recorded a judgment of conviction holding that the accused initially demanded a sum of Rs.4,000/- which was later hiked by another Rs.2,000/- for passing the bills relating to the contract work executed by the complainant and pursuant to the said demand, he received the bribe amount of Rs.6,000/- on 8.4.2004 at his residence and was caught red-handed. Further, the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the alleged demand was made in connection with the official favour namely for passing the running bills relating to the works executed by the complainant and thus, the Trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal inter alia contending that the conviction recorded by the court below is contrary to the evidence. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the evidence produced by the prosecution suffers from inherent contradictions and irreconcilable discrepancies. Learned counsel would submit that the theory put forward by the complainant that an additional sum of Rs.2,000/- was demanded by the accused when he had approached to pay the initial bribe of Rs.4,000/- looks highly improbable. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the evidence produced by the prosecution suffers from inherent contradictions and irreconcilable discrepancies. Learned counsel would submit that the theory put forward by the complainant that an additional sum of Rs.2,000/- was demanded by the accused when he had approached to pay the initial bribe of Rs.4,000/- looks highly improbable. It is the submission of the learned counsel that if in fact there was a demand of Rs.4,000/- by the accused, in all probability, he would have received the said amount when it was tendered to him as per the complainant on 7.4.2004. Therefore, it cannot be believed that the accused asked the complainant to come home and pay an enhanced amount of Rs.6,000/-. 8. Further the learned counsel pointed out that the panchanama prepared by the prosecution Ex.P1 does not depict the true state of facts. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the dates contained below the signatures of two of the signatories which disclose that the signatures were subscribed to the said document on 8.4.2004 even though it is the case of the prosecution that the said pan-chanama was drawn on 7.4.2004 which according to the learned counsel is a strong circumstance to show that the evidence has been got up by the prosecution to fix the accused in the alleged incident. 9. With regard to the official favour the learned counsel submitted that as on the date of the alleged trap, no bills were pending for clearance in respect of work done by the complainant. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the evidence of PW.8 wherein PW.8 has stated that the concerned entry in ' M- book would be signed first by PW.8 and thereafter by the Contractor and thereafter by the Sub-Divisional Engineer and only thereafter, the Executive Engineer will subscribe his signature. If any bill is passed for payment, the corresponding cheque would be issued by the Accounts officer. It is the submission of the learned counsel that PW.8 has categorically admitted that the bill relating to the work done by the complainant, namely, Ex.P23 has been passed for payment and the said amount of the bill Ex.P23 has been paid to the said Contractor R.Srinivas on 31.3.2004. It is the submission of the learned counsel that PW.8 has categorically admitted that the bill relating to the work done by the complainant, namely, Ex.P23 has been passed for payment and the said amount of the bill Ex.P23 has been paid to the said Contractor R.Srinivas on 31.3.2004. Relying on this evidence, learned counsel has emphatically submitted that as on the date of the alleged trap, there was no bill pending with the accused and hence, there was no occasion whatsoever for the accused to demand either Rs.4,000/- or an enhanced sum of Rs.6,000/- from the complainant as alleged. 10. Learned counsel has further referred to the evidence of PW.8 and submits that the other bills which are brought on record by the prosecution were not in the knowledge of the accused and therefore, the said bills cannot be attributed to the accused to contend that the demand was made in respect of the running bills said to be due for clearance by the accused. In this regard, learned counsel has referred to the evidence of PW.3 wherein it is elicited that 'If the seal is not initialed by the Executive Engineer it means that the bill has not come to the knowledge of the Executive Engineer.'? It is the submission of the learned counsel that the evidence of PW3 suggest that the bills relied on by the prosecution had not come to the notice of the accused, therefore, the accused cannot be connected to the said bills. These bills do not bear the signature of the accused. Therefore, no way the accused could be held to have knowledge about these bills. 11. Regarding the alleged demand made by the accused, it is the emphatic submission of the learned counsel that except the interested testimony of the complainant, no other corroborating evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution in proof of 'demand' alleged to have been made by the accused. Learned counsel would submit that the complainant himself has deposed on oath that he instructed the shadow witness not to accompany him, as a result, there is no independent witness to corroborate the testimony of PW.4 in proof of the alleged demand. Learned counsel also points out that even the micro cassette wherein the conversation of demand is alleged to have been recorded is also not produced before the Court. Learned counsel also points out that even the micro cassette wherein the conversation of demand is alleged to have been recorded is also not produced before the Court. The prosecution has produced only the transcription of conversation. On this point the learned counsel has referred to the evidence of PW.5 wherein it is elicited, 'On hearing the voice in the cassette M.O.11 and 13, I can identify the same to be the voice of the accused only. I have not taken the sample of voice of the accused in any micro cassette tape, in the same tape recorder, after the accused was taken into custody in this case.'? It is the submission of the learned counsel that the prosecution has not obtained any opinion of the FSL to establish that the conversation recorded therein pertains to the accused. To buttress this point, learned counsel also referred to the evidence of PW.10 wherein PW.10 has stated that, 'I did not take voice sample of the accused after recording telephone conversation as per Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. It is not procedural rule or mandate to obtain the voice sample. I did not send the micro cassettes as per M.O.11 and M.O.13 to the opinion of an expert." 12. With regard to the alleged receipt of the amount, the learned counsel would submit that the evidence on record clearly reveals that the complainant himself thrusted the money in the pant pocket of the accused and the accused threw it away. Under the said circumstances, merely on the ground that the hand wash of the accused turned to pink cannot be held as a circumstance against the accused to prove the receipt of the amount. Further, learned counsel submitted that even the bottles produced before the court said to contain the hand wash were empty at the time of examination of the witness. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to hold that the accused received tainted currency notes. In any event, there is no evidence to show that he has voluntarily received the money from the complainant and therefore, the finding recorded by the Trial Court in this regard being contrary to the evidence on record and cannot be sustained. 13. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to hold that the accused received tainted currency notes. In any event, there is no evidence to show that he has voluntarily received the money from the complainant and therefore, the finding recorded by the Trial Court in this regard being contrary to the evidence on record and cannot be sustained. 13. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned judgment and has refuted the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused by referring to relevant portion of the evidence which will be discussed at the appropriate stage. 14. I have bestowed my careful thought to the rival submissions and have analytically scrutinized the material on record. DEMAND:- 15. According to the prosecution, the demand for bribe was placed with the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is the best witness to speak about the demand made by the accused. In this regard, in his evidence, PW-4 has specifically stated that ' When the bill was received by the Executive Engineer he started demanding money to pass the bills. He demanded a sum of Rs.4,000/- to pass the bills. He told me that if the amount is not paid bills will be cancelled and he will not give me any contract in future-. This witness has stated that in view of the said demand, he was constrained to lodge the complaint. He has identified the said complaint Ex.P42. The demand made by the accused is reflected in Ex.P42. Further, the sequence of events narrated by PW-4 goes to show that on the date of the trap, a further demand was made for Rs.2,000/- for passing the remaining pending bills. In this regard, PW-4 has unequivocally stated before the Court that after completing the pre-trap formalities as per the instructions of the trap laying officer, he (PW-4) proceeded to the office of the accused. The further evidence of PW.4 reads as under:- "I talked with the accused inside his chamber. I told the accused that I have brought the money. Then he told that it will be received at his house and not in the chamber. He has further told that there is another bill. For that also I have to pay Rs.2,000/- and in all Rs.6,000/- to be paid to him in his house-. I told the accused that I have brought the money. Then he told that it will be received at his house and not in the chamber. He has further told that there is another bill. For that also I have to pay Rs.2,000/- and in all Rs.6,000/- to be paid to him in his house-. This witness has further deposed that he told the accused that he does not know his address and at that time, the accused gave his address in a small chit. In his evidence, PW-4 has clearly stated that he reported this matter to the TLO (trap laying officer) and handed over the chit Ex-P5 to the TLO. The panchanama prepared on 7.4.2004 Ex-P2 reflects these facts. 16. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused that PW-4 is an interested witness and therefore no credence could be given to his testimony without corroboration is not a legally sound argument. The evidence is appreciated for its quality and not for quantity. There is no rule of law that evidence of a witness cannot be relied on without corroboration. Corroboration is a rule of prudence. In the case of M.O. Shamsudhin v. State of Kerala reported in 1995 SCC (3) 351 : (1995 AIR SCW 2717), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 'As a rule of law it cannot be laid down that the evidence of every complainant in a bribery case should be corroborated in all material particulars and otherwise it cannot be acted upon.'? 17. Whether the corroboration is necessary, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. On this point, the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent has referred to a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.M. Sharma v. State of Andhra Pradesh Through Inspector of Police reported in (2010) 15 SCC 1 : ( AIR 2011 SC 608 ). The relevant portion is extracted here below:- "Further corroboration of evidence of a witness is required when his evidence is not wholly reliable. On appreciation of evidence, witnesses can be broadly categorized in three categories viz., unreliable, partly reliable and wholly reliable. In case of a partly reliable witness, the Court seeks corroboration in material particulars from other evidence. However in a case in which a witness is wholly reliable, no corroboration is necessary. On appreciation of evidence, witnesses can be broadly categorized in three categories viz., unreliable, partly reliable and wholly reliable. In case of a partly reliable witness, the Court seeks corroboration in material particulars from other evidence. However in a case in which a witness is wholly reliable, no corroboration is necessary. Seeking corroboration in all circumstance of the evidence of a witness forced to give bribe may lead to absurd result. Bribe is not taken in public view and, therefore, there may not be any person who could see the giving and taking of bribe. As in the present case, a shadow witness did accompany the contractor but the appellant did not allow him to be present in the chamber. Acceptance of this submission in abstract will encourage the bribe taker to receive illegal gratification in privacy and then insist for corroboration in case of prosecution. Law cannot countenance such a situation." 18. In this context, it is also relevant to refer to the principles laid down in the case of The State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh reported in AIR 1958 SC 500 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "Now coming to the nature of corroborating evidence that is required, it is well settled that the corroborating evidence can be even by way of circumstantial evidence. No general rule can be laid down with respect to quantum of evidence corroborating the testimony of a trap witness which again would depend upon its own facts and circumstances like the nature of the crime, the character of trap witness etc. and other general requirements necessary to sustain the conviction in that case. The Court should weigh the evidence and then see whether corroboration is necessary. Therefore as a rule of law it cannot be laid down that the evidence of every complainant in a bribery case should be corroborated in all material particulars and otherwise it cannot be acted upon." 19. In the instant case, in appreciating the evidence of PW-4, it is important to note that the testimony of PW-4 is not discredited. Though PW-4 is subjected to incisive and lengthy cross-examination, no circumstances have been brought out in the entire cross-examination to suggest that there was no demand for Rs.4,000/- or an additional demand of Rs.2,000/- by the accused. In the instant case, in appreciating the evidence of PW-4, it is important to note that the testimony of PW-4 is not discredited. Though PW-4 is subjected to incisive and lengthy cross-examination, no circumstances have been brought out in the entire cross-examination to suggest that there was no demand for Rs.4,000/- or an additional demand of Rs.2,000/- by the accused. The testimony of PW-4 finds intrinsic corroboration from the sequence of events narrated above and the contemporaneous documents that have come into existence during the trap. Firstly, as already stated above, the demand is clearly spelt out in Ex-P42 which is one of the corroborative piece of evidence with regard to the demand made by the accused. Secondly, it has been established in evidence that pursuant to the demand made by the accused, PW.4 approached PW.5, lodged the complaint, produced the currency notes of Rs.4,000/- and the said Rs.4,000/- were smeared with phenolphthalein powder to be handed over to the accused in compliance of the demand made by the accused. This is another circumstance to show that the demand made by the accused was followed up during pre-trap panchanama. 20. Another important circumstance corroborating the testimony of PW.4 is that when the complainant approached the accused on 7.4.2004 at about 5.00 p.m., the accused made a further demand of Rs.2,000/-. As already stated above, this further demand is also reflected in the panchanama drawn on 7.4.2004 at Ex-P2. No doubt, it is true that the shadow witness has not accompanied the complainant during this demand. But, as already held in the above decision, there is no requirement under the law that the ocular testimony of a witness should be corroborated only by the ocular testimony of a witness. The very production of a chit said to have been given by the accused to the complainant fully corroborates the statement of the complainant with regard to the additional demand. It is proved in evidence that the said chit Ex-P5 was in the handwriting of the accused. This is another circumstance supporting the case of the prosecution that on 7.4.2004, when the complainant approached the accused, the accused made a further demand of bribe. 21. It is proved in evidence that the said chit Ex-P5 was in the handwriting of the accused. This is another circumstance supporting the case of the prosecution that on 7.4.2004, when the complainant approached the accused, the accused made a further demand of bribe. 21. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused that the demand of additional sum of Rs.2,000/- appears to be improbable, and therefore cannot be believed, does not impress me especially in view of the circumstances discussed above. The evidence of PW-4 clearly indicates that the accused was not inclined to accept the bribe money in the office and apparently for this reason, he asked the complainant to come to his house and at that time, he hiked the demand on the pretext of passing the further bill. Therefore, there is nothing unnatural or improbable in the evidence given by the complainant regarding the additional demand made by the accused. If in fact, there was no such additional demand, the complainant would have paid the money then and there as he was ready with Rs.4,000/- and all the formalities of the trap were completed and the trap laying party was waiting for the pre-instructed signal. There was absolutely no reason for the complainant to return when all arrangement was made to trap the accused, but for the fact there was an additional demand as stated on oath by PW.4. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence in this regard nor is there any scope to contend that the non-payment of the money on 7.4.2004 is unnatural and improbable which throws doubt on the testimony of PW.4 regarding the additional demand. 22. The micro cassette produced by the prosecution is another corroborating circumstance which lends credence to the testimony of PW-4 with regard to the demand made by the accused. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the relevant portion of evidence of PW-1 to contend that in the witness box, PW-1 was not clear about the demand as he has given evasive answers to the specific questions. The evidence of PW-1 in this regard reads as under:- "The witness was given the document Ex-P3 and asked by the advocate for accused to read the said document which is in Hindi and point out and say whether there is demand for Rs.6000/- and also invitation to come to his house. The evidence of PW-1 in this regard reads as under:- "The witness was given the document Ex-P3 and asked by the advocate for accused to read the said document which is in Hindi and point out and say whether there is demand for Rs.6000/- and also invitation to come to his house. The witness reads the said document, which is in Hindi language." Placing reliance on the said portion of the evidence, the learned counsel would submit that the transcript of the recordings in the micro cassette M.Os 11 and 13 do not spell out the demand for Rs.6,000/-. In appreciating this evidence, it is relevant to note that the said conversation was recorded by the complainant. Therefore, the above questions ought to have been directed to the complainant and not to PW-1. Undisputedly, PW-1 did not accompany the complainant and was not a witness to the oral demand made by the accused. Even otherwise, the entire transcript was not put to the witness in the cross-examination. Even assuming that the argument advanced by the learned counsel that the said transcript does not reflect the conversation is true, yet it was open to the accused to play the cassette M.O.11 and M.O.13 in open Court to show that there was no such demand recorded in the said micro cassette so as to discard the said piece of evidence. That having not been done, at this stage, the appellant cannot contend that the said micro cassette does not contain the demand made by the accused. The micro cassette was very much available for examination and inspection of the accused. Therefore, merely on the basis of the answer elicited from the mouth of PW-1, it cannot be concluded that the micro cassette does not contain any such demand made by the accused. Hence, in the face of unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, I do not have any hesitation to hold that prior to lodging of the complaint, the accused demanded Rs.4,000/- for passing of the pending bills and on 7.4.2004 the accused made an additional demand of Rs.2,000/- for clearing the other pending bills. Thus the prosecution has proved the factum of demand made by the accused for Rs.4,000/- and Rs.2,000/- for passing two bills. To that extent, I do not find any error or infirmity in the findings recorded by the court below. Acceptance: 23. Thus the prosecution has proved the factum of demand made by the accused for Rs.4,000/- and Rs.2,000/- for passing two bills. To that extent, I do not find any error or infirmity in the findings recorded by the court below. Acceptance: 23. With regard to the acceptance of the bribe money, there is overwhelming evidence produced by the prosecution to establish this fact. The evidence of PW.1, PW.4, PW.5 points out that on 8.4.2004 at about 8.30 a.m., the trap party proceeded to the apartment of the accused. It has come in evidence that the complainant approached the accused and handed over the tainted currency notes to the accused and the accused received the currency notes and kept them in his pant pocket. As instructed, the complainant flashed the pre-instructed signal and the trap party went to the apartment of the accused. Accused did not open the door for about five minutes. Thereafter, the accused opened the door and the TLO, the complainant and the shadow witness along with the raiding team entered the apartment and immediately thereafter, the hand wash of the accused was taken. It is deposed consistently by the above witnesses that right hand wash of the accused turned to pink colour. Likewise, the right side pant pocket of the accused was subjected to chemical wash and even the said solution turned to pink colour. Left side shirt pocket of the accused was also washed in phenolphthalein solution and even this solution turned to pink colour and it was collected in separate bottles. It is also consistently deposed by the witnesses that the accused did not disclose about the money and hence the trap party started searching the house of the accused and at that time at about 9.45 a.m., the accused disclosed that the money has been thrown out in the passage situated in between two blocks. There is clear evidence to show that the maintenance staff was asked to pick those notes, but as the passage was narrow, the raiding team had to take the assistance of a small boy and recovered the said currency notes and on examination, the serial numbers tallied with the serial numbers of the currency notes noted in the pre-trap panchanama. There is clear evidence to show that the maintenance staff was asked to pick those notes, but as the passage was narrow, the raiding team had to take the assistance of a small boy and recovered the said currency notes and on examination, the serial numbers tallied with the serial numbers of the currency notes noted in the pre-trap panchanama. The evidence adduced by the above witnesses in proof of the acceptance of the bribe amount has remained unshattered in the cross-examination and therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to doubt or disbelieve the above evidence which conclusively establishes the factum of acceptance of bribe money by the accused. 24. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the accused has taken inconsistent defenses with regard to the money received in his apartment. It is suggested to PW.1 as under:- "I deny your suggestion that the Investigating officer and all of us joining together had thrown the said cash amount inside the said passage." Whereas in the cross-examination of PW.4 complainant, it is suggested that money was thrust into the right side pant pocket of the accused. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of PW.4 reads thus: "Incorrect to say that though the accused did not demand money I myself forcibly kept the money in the right side pant pocket of the accused." 25. If in fact the money was thrust into the pant pocket of the accused as suggested to PW.4, there was absolutely no explanation by the accused as to how his shirt pocket as well as hand wash turned to pink colour. The accused has not only failed to substantiate his defence, but the circumstances brought out in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses completely falsify the defence set up by the accused thereby establishing that the accused has received the tainted currency notes from the complainant. The finding recorded by the trial Court in this regard also does not suffer from any error or infirmity. Official Favour:- 26. Placing heavy reliance on the evidence of PW.8, learned counsel for the accused has built up an argument that as on the date of the alleged trap, no bills were pending with the accused and therefore, there was no reason or occasion for the accused to demand the alleged bribe amount from the complainant. Official Favour:- 26. Placing heavy reliance on the evidence of PW.8, learned counsel for the accused has built up an argument that as on the date of the alleged trap, no bills were pending with the accused and therefore, there was no reason or occasion for the accused to demand the alleged bribe amount from the complainant. In this regard, learned counsel for the accused has referred to para 9 of the evidence of PW.8 which reads as follows:- "I see now Ex.P23 and say that, that is the bill form relating to claim of bill relating to work done by R. Srinivas pertaining to annual repair and maintenance work of staff quarters at KB Sandra relating to the entry made in page No.10 to 19 and 24 of Ex.P37 'M' book. In the said bill Ex.P23, the first page was prepared by the staff of division office. The said bill has been passed for payment. The said amount of the bill Ex.P23 has been paid to the said contractor R. Srinivas on 31.3.2004." 27. In appreciating this contention, it is relevant to refer to the evidence of PW.3 B.R. Suresh Senior Accounts officer, BSNL who has given elaborate evidence about the procedure followed in the BSNL office for passing the bills. The relevant portion of his evidence reads as under:- "In the divisional office the receipt of the bills will be entered into a bill register. It will be placed before the executive engineer who in turn mark the bills for auditors, the auditors will scrutinize the bills with reference to the agreements, measurement book etc. After checking the accounts in the audit section it will come to Junior Account officer. They will verify the bills, documents etc., as per the procedure. Thereafter it will be placed before me. I will cross-check the bills and also the verification done by auditors and Junior Accounts officers. Thereafter once again it will be placed by me before the Executive Engineer along with the check list. Executive Engineer will go through the bills. He too will initial the check list, thereafter he will once again forward the check list to me. In our section the audit section will prepare pass order and pay orders in the bill. Thereafter it will be placed before me. I will go through once again with regard to statutory deductions like income tax, security deposits etc. He too will initial the check list, thereafter he will once again forward the check list to me. In our section the audit section will prepare pass order and pay orders in the bill. Thereafter it will be placed before me. I will go through once again with regard to statutory deductions like income tax, security deposits etc. Once again it will be placed before the executive engineer. After scrutinizing the bills then he will sign on the pass orders. Thereafter once again it will come to me. After the signatures of the executives engineer on the pass order, I will sign on the pay order. Thereafter it will go to the cash section for preparing cheque. After preparing the cheque it will be placed before me. The cheque will be signed by me and by another Asst. Engineer who is authorised by the Executive Engineer. Thereafter the cheque will be collected by the contractor from the cash section or it will be sent to them by post." 28. In his examination under section 313, Cr.P.C., specific questions were put to the accused regarding the bills in respect of which the alleged demand was made by the accused. It is pertinent to note that when the evidence of PW.3 was put to the accused stating that bill Ex.P23 for Rs.42,602/- submitted by the Contractor, namely, PW.4 R.Srinivas had been forwarded to the divisional office and at the relevant point of time, the accused was working as Executive Engineer, the accused has answered in the affirmative. Further question put to the accused which clinches the issue reads as under:- 'He has further stated that the said bill was passed by Asst. Engineer BSNL, Civil Sub-Division, Bangalore on 30.3.2004 and thereafter it was submitted to the divisional office with a covering letter dated 30.3.2004. What do you say? Ans. Yes sir. PW.3 has further stated that cheque dated 31.3.2004 Ex.24 for Rs.38,570/- was issued in favour of PW.4 Srinivas and it was signed by him (PW.3) and one Venu -2nd authorised signatory. What do you say? Ans: I do not know." 29. From the above evidence, it can be gathered that the accused has admitted that he had dealt with the bills which are subject matter of the demand. The above evidence clearly indicates that the bills were prepared and they were passed on 31.3.2004. What do you say? Ans: I do not know." 29. From the above evidence, it can be gathered that the accused has admitted that he had dealt with the bills which are subject matter of the demand. The above evidence clearly indicates that the bills were prepared and they were passed on 31.3.2004. As already stated above, the payment of the bills would be made only by way of cheques and as stated by PW.3, the said cheques were dispatched to the Contractor. In the instant case, admittedly as on the date of trap, said cheques were not dispatched to the complainant. It is evident from the cross-examination of PW.3, relevant portion of which reads as under:- "If the cheque is dated 31.3.2004 there will be an entry for having dispatched on the same day or subsequent date. Now I see the dispatching register for the period from 14.3.2001 to 31.3.2004. (It is marked as Ex.P33.) There is no entry in Ex.P33 on 31.3.2004 for having dispatched the cheque Ex.P24 to R.Srinivas." This evidence establishes that as on the said day, cheque was not dispatched or paid to the complainant. Therefore, the contention of the accused that there was no official work pending with him and the bills were cleared for payment does not hold water. In the light of this positive evidence, the contention of the appellant that there was no official favour to be done by the accused so as to make the alleged demand from the complainant cannot be accepted. The trial Court has appreciated all these aspects of the case and has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant had demanded Rs.4,000/- and Rs.2,000/- in all Rs.6,000/- from the complainant and pursuant to the said demand, accepted the bribe amount of Rs.6,000/- from the complainant on 8.4.2004. When the factum of demand and acceptance is proved, section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act comes into play. When the factum of demand and acceptance is proved, section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act comes into play. Section 20 reads as under: "When it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate." 30. In the instant case, apart from the presumption available to the prosecution, prosecution has proved that the official work was pending with the accused. The prosecution has also proved the factum of demand and acceptance and all the ingredients of the offences charged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt rendering the accused/appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) of the P.C. Act. As a result, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and the findings recorded therein. I do not find any merit or substance on the grounds urged in the appeal. 31. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the XXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bengaluru in Spl.C.C. No.258/2004 is confirmed.