JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. Heard the parties through video conferencing. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and Order of Sentence dated 05.03.2004 passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-I, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No.6A/95 (D) whereby and where under the learned court below has held the accused-appellant guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of three months and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of three months. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. alleging that the accused-appellant-who was a postman at the relevant time in Munidih Sub Post Office in the District of Dhanbad, had demanded Rs.100/- as illegal gratification for delivering a registered letter addressed to the sister of the complainant. Upon verification of the complaint, the allegation was found to be genuine and an F.I.R. was registered vide R.C. Case No.6A/95 (D) on 10.04.1995 at 10:00 hours. A trap team was constituted including the complainant, verification officer, two independent witnesses and C.B.I. Officers. On the same day, a trap was laid. The trap team reached Munidih Sub Post Office. The complainant duly followed by the shadow witness went to the Munidih Sub-Post Office. The complainant was informed that the accused-appellant has gone to deliver letters and will be back after about 1½ hours. The members of the trap team waited there. At about 04:40 p.m., the accused-appellant returned. By that time, the sub post office was closed. The complainant followed by the shadow witness approached the accused and asked to give him the registered letter addressed to his sister. The accused-appellant demanded Rs.100/- for delivering the said letter as already told by him to the complainant. The complainant replied that as told by the accused-appellant, he has brought money with him with much difficulty. The complainant followed by the shadow witness approached the accused and asked to give him the registered letter addressed to his sister. The accused-appellant demanded Rs.100/- for delivering the said letter as already told by him to the complainant. The complainant replied that as told by the accused-appellant, he has brought money with him with much difficulty. The accused-appellant commanded the complainant to give the same to him. The complainant took out the tainted notes from the pocket of his shirt and handed over the same to the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant accepted the same with his right hand and counted the said money using both his hands and kept the said money in the left side pocket of his shirt. The accused-appellant, thereafter, brought out the registered letter from his bag and asked the complainant to sign the acknowledgment slip as well as the delivery slip and the complainant signed the same. Soon after the transaction was over, the complainant as well as the shadow witness signaled to members of the trap team at which the members of the trap team reached near the accused-appellant and challenged the accused-appellant of demanding and accepting the illegal gratification from the complainant. The C.B.I. Officers namely T.J. Ghosh and A.K. Jha caught hold of the wrists of the right hand and left hand respectively of the accused-appellant. The shadow witness R.S. Singh recovered the money from the pocket of the accused-appellant. The numbers of the tainted notes were compared with the preliminary memorandum and the numbers tallied. A solution of Sodium Carbonate was prepared in a glass tumbler and the accused-appellant was asked to dip his fingers in it. The colour of the solution in both the glass tumblers turned pink. The left pocket of the shirt of the accused-appellant was washed with the Sodium Carbonate solution. The Sodium Carbonate solution also turned pink. The sanction for prosecution of the accused-appellant was obtained and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant for having committed the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. Upon receipt of the chemical examination report from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory to the effect that both phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate were detected in the contents of the exhibit sent for the chemical examination, a supplementary charge-sheet was also submitted. 4. Upon receipt of the chemical examination report from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory to the effect that both phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate were detected in the contents of the exhibit sent for the chemical examination, a supplementary charge-sheet was also submitted. Separate charges for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed against the accused-appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined nine witnesses. 5. P.W.4- Anup Kindo is the complainant. He has stated that Suman Kindo is his sister. She applied for the post of Stenographer in BHEL, Jagdishpur (U.P). The P.W.4 came to know about his sister being selected. The P.W.4 along with his sister went to Jagdishpur (U.P) for joining. From there, the P.W.4 came to know that joining letter of his sister Suman has been dispatched at her address At/Post- Munidih, District- Dhanbad. P.W.4 came back to Munidih and enquired and he came to know that the letter is with the accused-appellant. The P.W.4 asked the accused-appellant to deliver the registered letter containing the joining letter of his sister to be delivered to her. The accused-appellant replied that he wants Rs.100/- as bribe or else he will send back the letter by endorsing that the addressee is not available. The P.W.4 gave the information about this on 07.04.1995 in the C.B.I. Office. On being proved by him, the written complaint submitted by the P.W. 4 has been marked Ext.8. After submitting the application, the P.W.4 went to Munidih with the C.B.I. Officers and after making verification about the complaint, advised the complainant to demand the letter again from the accused-appellant and if the same is not delivered by the accused-appellant, the complainant would go to the C.B.I. Office again. The complainant again demanded the letter from the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant told him to fulfill his demand. This conversation was heard by the C.B.I. Officer and thereafter they went to the C.B.I. Office. Altogether 10 persons including the informant were in the C.B.I. Office and two of them were the C.B.I. Officers namely R.M. Singh and K. B. Srivastava. The witness stated that he has written the name of the two witnesses in his palm to memorize their name. Altogether 10 persons including the informant were in the C.B.I. Office and two of them were the C.B.I. Officers namely R.M. Singh and K. B. Srivastava. The witness stated that he has written the name of the two witnesses in his palm to memorize their name. All the persons present in the C.B.I office were introduced to one another and the complaint of the complainant was explained to them. He has also stated about the pre-trap preparations and preparations of pre-trap memorandum. The P.W.4 handed over currency notes to the C.B.I. Officer. Chemical was smeared upon the same and the notes were handed over to the P.W.4. The procedure of trap and the signal he has to give by scratching his head, after handing over the money upon repeated demand by the accused-appellant was explained to P.W.4. The said procedure was also explained to the shadow witness. They left the C.B.I. Office for Munidih between 2.00 to 2:30 p.m. and reached Munidih. The accused-appellant was not present in the post office at the time of arrival of the trap team at Munidih. They waited. At about 4:30 p.m., the P.W.4 met the accused-appellant. The complainant followed by the shadow witness approached the accused-appellant. The P.W.4 asked the accused-appellant to give him the registered article. On this, the accused-appellant enquired as to whether the P.W.4 has brought the thing told by the accused-appellant. The P.W.4 pleaded to hand over him the letter as he is running short of money at which the accused-appellant told that unless and until the money is given, he will not make the delivery. At this the P.W.4, told that he is having Rs.100/- and brought out money from the left pocket and handed over the same to the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant counted the money by both his hands and kept the money in the pocket of his Khaki dress. Thereafter, the accused-appellant handed over the registered letter to the P.W.4 and obtained his signature at the place of receiver. On being identified by the P.W.4, the registered letter has been marked Ext.1/51 and on being identified, the signature on the receiving paper was marked Ext.4/52. Thereafter, as told to him, the P.W.4 signaled by scratching his head. Thereafter, the accused-appellant handed over the registered letter to the P.W.4 and obtained his signature at the place of receiver. On being identified by the P.W.4, the registered letter has been marked Ext.1/51 and on being identified, the signature on the receiving paper was marked Ext.4/52. Thereafter, as told to him, the P.W.4 signaled by scratching his head. After scratching of head by P.W.4, the C.B.I. personnel reached at the spot and caught hold of the wrist of the accused-appellant and challenged him of taking the money from the P.W.4. The accused-appellant admitted taking the money. Srivastava brought out the money from the pocket of the accused-appellant and showed to the C.B.I. Officers. The number of the currency notes were compared with the number noted earlier and the numbers tallied. The currency notes were kept in an envelope. He identified the currency notes which were marked material Ext.III to III/5. After immersing the hands of the accused-appellant and the pocket in which the money was kept in water, the colour changed to pink. The water was kept in three bottles. After being sealed, the signatures of the P.W.4 and others were taken over the same. The P.W.4 identified and proved his signatures over the various documents which were marked exhibits. Thereafter, he went to his house and the C.B.I. Officer went away with the accused-appellant. The registered letter was taken by the C.B.I. and the papers were prepared in the guest house of Munidih, which were signed by the complainant and a copy was given to the accused-appellant. In his cross-examination, the P.W.4 stated that he cannot say about the exact conversation between him and the accused-appellant. In para-25, the P.W.4 deposed that his statement was recorded when the trap was conducted but again he stated that his statement was recorded at the place of occurrence. In para-28 he stated that his statement was recorded on 11.04.1995 by the C.B.I. In para-42 he stated that he does not remember whether he signed the acknowledgement of registered cover on 10th or 11th In para-44 he has stated that he does not remember whether he arranged Rs.100/- for this case. In para-50 he has stated that he saw the accused-appellant standing at about 50 ft. away from the gate but he did not see the accused-appellant having tea with anyone. All the documents were sealed in front of the P.W.4. 6. In para-50 he has stated that he saw the accused-appellant standing at about 50 ft. away from the gate but he did not see the accused-appellant having tea with anyone. All the documents were sealed in front of the P.W.4. 6. P.W.3- Kandh Bihari Srivastav is the shadow witness. He has deposed that on 10.04.1995 as per the orders of the General Manager, he went to the office of C.B.I. There he came to know that a postman is demanding Rs.100/- from the complainant for delivering a registered letter. He identified his signature in six pages of preliminary memorandum which were marked Ext. 4/24 to 4/29. He has stated about going to Munidih along with the C.B.I. Officers and others. The complainant went inside the Munidih post office. 15-20 minutes after the same, the P.W.4 came from inside the wall of the post office with a big envelope. When the P.W.3 reached near the gate of the compound wall, three officers of the C.B.I. went near the compound wall. The P.W.3 saw two officers catching hold of the hand of a person in Khaki uniform. Thereafter, the C.B.I. Officers called for the vehicle. Many people assembled there. The C.B.I. Officers and the person in Khaki uniform sat inside the vehicle. The P.W.3 and others sat in another vehicle and reached Munidih guest house. The person who was apprehended disclosed his name to be Dhaneshwar Singh. The hand of the accused-appellant was immersed in the water mixed with a white coloured powder in a glass tumbler. The colour of the water changed to pink. The solution was sealed in a bottle. Again, in another glass tumbler filled with water, a solution was prepared mixing with white powder. The left hand of the accused-appellant was immersed in the same. The colour of the water also turned pink. The same was also sealed in a bottle. Thereafter, the accused-appellant was told to bring out the money he has taken. The accused-appellant brought out the money from his right side upper pocket of his shirt. The P.W.3 was told to count the money and he found one currency note of Rs.50/- and five currency notes of Rs.10/- each was in it. The C.B.I. personnel told the P.W.3 to note down the numbers of the currency notes in a plain paper and told the P.W.3 to compare the numbers. The P.W.3 was told to count the money and he found one currency note of Rs.50/- and five currency notes of Rs.10/- each was in it. The C.B.I. personnel told the P.W.3 to note down the numbers of the currency notes in a plain paper and told the P.W.3 to compare the numbers. Thereafter, the P.W.3 deposited money with the C.B.I. Officer. Search was made in the house of the accused-appellant but nothing was seized. Thereafter, the accused-appellant was made to remove his shirt. The upper pocket in which he kept the money was washed in the solution. The colour of the solution turned pink. The P.W.3 identified his signature on material Exhibit I/2 and on the material Exhibit I. He does not remember as to on which documents he signed. At this stage, the P.W.3 was declared hostile. Though leading questions were put to him by the prosecution, he denied the trap preparations but admitted that the complainant produced a sum of Rs.100/- with five notes of Rs.10/- denomination each and one currency note of Rs.50/- denomination and smeared the same with phenolphthalein powder. In his cross-examination, the P.W.3 has stated that he was not examined by the C.B.I. Officer after the occurrence. 7. P.W.1- Vinay Bharti was the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Dhanbad in the year 1995. He has accorded sanction for prosecution of the accused-appellant. On being proved by him, the sanction order for prosecution was marked Ext.1. In his cross-examination, the P.W.1 has stated that he had no knowledge of all the information mentioned in the sanction order before according sanction. 8. P.W.-2 Dheeraj Khetrapal was the Sub Inspector of C.B.I. in the year 1995. He was also the verifying officer of the complaint of P.W.4. He has stated that on 07.04.1995, he was entrusted the verification of the complaint of the P.W.4. On 08.04.1995, he verified the complaint and submitted the report to the S.P., C.B.I. on 10.04.1995. On being proved by him, the verification report has been marked Ext.3. He has further stated that on 10.04.1995 at 12:00 noon the members of the trap team assembled. He also described about the pre-trap preparations. The P.W.4 produced Rs.100/- out of which one was currency note of denomination of Rs.50/- and five notes of denomination of Rs.10/- each. The currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. He has also stated about preparations of preliminary memorandum. He also described about the pre-trap preparations. The P.W.4 produced Rs.100/- out of which one was currency note of denomination of Rs.50/- and five notes of denomination of Rs.10/- each. The currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. He has also stated about preparations of preliminary memorandum. The preliminary memorandum has been marked Ext.5. He further stated that at about 2:00 p.m. all of them left for Munidih Post Office and reached there at about 2:45 p.m. At about 16:40 hours, the accused-appellant reached Munidih Post Office. By that time, the post office was closed. Thereafter, there was conversation between the P.W.4 and the accused-appellant after which the P.W.3 signaled upon which all the members reached near the accused-appellant. The P.W.3 disclosed that the accused-appellant has taken money from the P.W.4 and has handed over the registered letter to the P.W.4. Thereafter, Manoj Kumar Sharma (P.W.8) challenged the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant was shocked and admitted taking money. On the instructions of the P.W.8, witness R.S. Singh seized the money from the left upper chest pocket of the accused-appellant. Thereafter, two of the team members caught hold of the wrist of the accused-appellant. The numbers of the seized notes were compared with the number of notes mentioned in the preliminary memorandum and they tallied. Thereafter, Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared in a glass tumbler and one after the other; both the hands of the accused-appellant were dipped in the same upon which the colour of the solution turned pink. The inner lining of the left upper chest of the Khaki shirt of the accused-appellant was dipped in the Sodium Carbonate solution and the colour also turned pink. The house search of the accused-appellant was also made and search list was prepared. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the Investigating Officer has not recorded his statement. No further cross-examination of the P.W.2 was made. 9. P.W.5- Mithilesh Kumar Singh has stated that he was a Postal Assistant in Munidih Sub Post Office. The extract of register on being proved by him was marked material Ext.7. The delivery slip no. 4495 on being identified by him was marked Ext.9/5 and in page-6 of the same, registry number-1835 which came from Sultanpur with the address as Suman Kindo was entered. The extract of register on being proved by him was marked material Ext.7. The delivery slip no. 4495 on being identified by him was marked Ext.9/5 and in page-6 of the same, registry number-1835 which came from Sultanpur with the address as Suman Kindo was entered. The remarks of the accused-appellant were at page-4 and the said delivery slip was in the handwriting of the accused-appellant which was marked Ext.9/7. He also proved various writing on the delivery slip of the accused-appellant which were marked exhibits. The P.W.5 was at a distance of ten steps. Before being apprehended, the accused-appellant handed over the letter to an aged person. The accused-appellant was apprehended between 4.00 to 4:15 p.m. on 10.04.1995. 10. P.W.6-Bimlendu Das was the Junior Scientific Officer at the relevant time. He has proved the report furnished by him, upon chemical examination of the liquid of pink colour with white sediment. The P.W.6 upon examination found both the phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate in the contents of the said liquid. On being proved by him, the report submitted by him has been marked Ext.10. In his cross-examination, the P.W.6 has stated that he has not mentioned the amount of phenolphthalein powder in each of the paper. 11. P.W.7- Rama Shankar Singh has stated that in the year 1995, he was the Personnel Manager, Administration at Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad. On 10.04.1995, he was called to the C.B.I. Office where he reached at 11:00 a.m. along with the P.W.3. The P.W.7 and P.W.3 went to the office of M.K. Sharma (P.W.8). There, the P.W.7 went through the complaint of the P.W.4. The chemical test was demonstrated to the P.W.7 by the C.B.I. Officers by smearing the powder on his hand and washing the same with Sodium Carbonate solution and the colour turned pink. All of them went to the post office. The postman was not available there. About 1½ hour after, signal was given by the other team. Thereafter, the C.B.I. team with the P.W.7 reached the place of occurrence. Both the hands of the accused-appellant were caught by wrists. Thereafter, all of them went to Munidih Guest House of B.C.C.L. The bribe amount of Rs.100/- was recovered from the accused-appellant in the denomination of Rs.5, 10 and 50/-. The amount was recovered from the left pocket of the accused-appellant. Both the hands of the accused-appellant were caught by wrists. Thereafter, all of them went to Munidih Guest House of B.C.C.L. The bribe amount of Rs.100/- was recovered from the accused-appellant in the denomination of Rs.5, 10 and 50/-. The amount was recovered from the left pocket of the accused-appellant. The recovery of money from the pocket of the accused-appellant was made near the Sub Post Office of Munidih by the team and thereafter the team moved to B.C.C.L. Guest House. The shirt of the accused-appellant was also washed in the solution of the Sodium Carbonate the colour of which turned pink. After completion of the formalities in the Munidih Guest House, they came back to Dhanbad. The P.W.7 signed on each page of the recovery memorandum. He also signed on the preliminary memorandum to the trap and he also identified his signatures on all the six sheets. He proved his signatures on the search list, arrest memo, personal search memo of the accused-appellant. In his cross-examination he has stated that his statement was not recorded by the C.B.I. He further deposed that he signed on the preliminary memorandum after carefully reading and going through the same. On the memorandum of the recovery, the P.W.7 and P.W.3 put their signatures. The demand was never made before the P.W.7. The P.W.7 remained seated in the car along with two inspectors-A.K. Jha and T.J. Ghosh at the short distance from the place of occurrence. The car belonged to B.C.C.L which was officially provided to the P.W.7. 12. P.W.8- Manoj Kumar Sharma has stated that he was posted as Inspector of C.B.I., Dhanbad at the time of registration of this case against the accused-appellant on the basis of the written complaint by the P.W.4. Before registration of the F.I.R., the complaint was verified. On being proved by him, the F.I.R. has been marked Ext.11. The P.W.8 immediately constituted a trap-team including independent witnesses. All the members of the trap-team including the complainant assembled at the I.O. room of the C.B.I. Office. The complaint was explained to all the members of the team. The chemical reaction of the Sodium Carbonate with phenolphthalein was demonstrated. The complainant produced Rs.100/- to be tendered as bribe. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on it. All the members of the trap-team including the complainant assembled at the I.O. room of the C.B.I. Office. The complaint was explained to all the members of the team. The chemical reaction of the Sodium Carbonate with phenolphthalein was demonstrated. The complainant produced Rs.100/- to be tendered as bribe. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on it. The complainant was instructed that if the accused-appellant demands the bribe then only he will hand over the bribe money and to give signal after acceptance of the bribe money by scratching his head with the fingers of his right hand. He prepared the preliminary memorandum in which the number of the general currency notes over which phenolphthalein was smeared, were mentioned with their denominations. He also proved the preliminary memorandum in six pages signed by all the persons including the P.W.7. The trap-team departed for Munidih at about 2:00 p.m. and all the team members assembled near the post office. The P.W.4 and P.W.3 proceeded towards the post office. It was found that the accused-appellant has gone to distribute the postal articles. About 1½ hours thereafter, the accused-appellant postman returned and entered the post office premises. Immediately, thereafter the P.W.4 and P.W.3 entered inside the post office and the complainant talked about the delivery of the registered letter to him. During the course of conversation, the accused-appellant demanded Rs.100/- as bribe. The P.W.4 brought out the money from his pocket and handed over the same to the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant took the said money with his right hand and counted the same by using both hands. He counted the money and thereafter he kept the said money in the left pocket of his Khaki shirt. Thereafter, the accused-appellant brought out the registered postal envelope and told the P.W.4 to sign on the AD Slip. The P.W.4- complainant signed the AD Slip. The accused-appellant put the AD Slip in his bag. Thereafter, the accused-appellant brought out the bunch of daily slips and told the complainant to sign on the relevant places. The P.W.4 signed the same. Thereafter, the accused-appellant handed over the postal letter to the P.W.4. After completion of this, the P.W.4 and P.W.3 signaled by scratching their head with their right hand on which the P.W.8 and other officers of C.B.I. and the other independent witnesses and the P.W.6 reached at the place of occurrence. The P.W.4 signed the same. Thereafter, the accused-appellant handed over the postal letter to the P.W.4. After completion of this, the P.W.4 and P.W.3 signaled by scratching their head with their right hand on which the P.W.8 and other officers of C.B.I. and the other independent witnesses and the P.W.6 reached at the place of occurrence. The P.W.8 challenged the accused-appellant after disclosing his identity. The accused-appellant became nervous and his face became pale. Thereafter on the direction of the P.W.8, T.J. Ghosh and A. K. Jha caught hold respectively the right and left hand of the accused-appellant. The P.W.3 disclosed where the accused-appellant has kept the money. The P.W.8 seized the bribe money from the left pocket of the accused-appellant. The numbers of the seized currency notes were compared with the number of the notes mentioned in the preliminary memorandum and the numbers tallied. The P.W.8 identified the seized notes and the envelope in which the same were kept after seizure. Thereafter, a solution of Sodium Carbonate and water was prepared in two separate glass tumblers and one by one the fingers of left and right hand of the accused-appellant were dipped in the water and after dipping of the fingers, the colour of the solution of the tumblers changed to pink. The said solution was put in a bottle and sealed. The accused-appellant was told to remove his shirt and the inner lining of the pocket of his shirt was washed in another glass tumbler and the colour changed to pink also. The same was also put in a bottle and sealed. The AD Slip and delivery slip connected with the letter were also seized. The C.B.I. team reached the C.B.I. Office along with the accused-appellant and the P.W.8 took up the investigation of the case. The P.W.8 recorded the statement of the witnesses and after obtaining the sanction for prosecution, submitted his charge-sheet. In his cross-examination, the P.W.8 has stated that he did not make any local person present at the place of occurrence an independent witness. About one hour was consumed for completing all the procedures. For some time, crowd assembled at the place of occurrence. The glass tumblers were not seized. In his cross-examination, the P.W.8 has stated that he did not make any local person present at the place of occurrence an independent witness. About one hour was consumed for completing all the procedures. For some time, crowd assembled at the place of occurrence. The glass tumblers were not seized. It is pertinent to mention here that though the P.W.8 was the I.O. as well he stated about the role played by the P.W.3 who was declared hostile on certain point yet in his cross-examination no question was put to him regarding the portion of his testimony in which he has stated about the role played by the P.W.3 as well as P.W.6 during the trap of the accused-appellant. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of the P.W.8 either to demolish or discredit his testimony. 13. P.W.9- Suman Kindo @ Suman Tirkey has stated about her appointment in BHEL, Jagdishpur. She went to Jagdishpur along with the P.W.4. She joined there on 5th April. When her brother went to the post office and asked about the delivery of the letter, the postman demanded money. Hence, the P.W.4 instituted the case with C.B.I. The C.B.I. recorded her statement. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she did not receive the appointment letter and she has not seen the occurrence. 14. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding the circumstances appearing in evidence against him. The accused-appellant denied all the questions relating to circumstances appearing in evidence against him and stated that he is innocent. 15. The learned trial court after considering the evidence in the record observed that all the witnesses of the prosecution, on the matter of trap have supported the case of the prosecution and have deposed about the recovery of the tainted bribe money from the possession of the accused-appellant and held that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the charges for the offence punishable under Section 7 as well as under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as already indicated above. 16. Mr. 16. Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha- learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence in the record in its proper perspective and has miserably failed to establish the factum of demand of bribe amount in question. It is next submitted that the learned court below failed to take note of the fact that the P.W.3 who is stated to be an independent shadow witness by the prosecution, has not supported the case of the prosecution on vital aspects and even has been declared hostile. Similarly, the P.W.7 being the other independent witness, has also departed from the prosecution case on material aspects which casts a doubt on the prosecution case. It is next submitted that the learned court below failed to take note of the contradictions in the evidence put forth by the witnesses of the prosecution. It is also submitted that even the P.W.2 who is an officer of C.B.I., has categorically stated that his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was not recorded by the I.O. of the case. Similarly, the P.W.7 has also stated that his statement has not been recorded by the I.O. Hence, it is submitted that their testimonies ought not to be considered as they have deposed about the occurrence without any check and hindrance as has been envisaged by law under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha next submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish the factum of demand of bribe by the accused-appellant and the non-examination of the independent witnesses who assembled at the place of occurrence, has caused prejudice to the accused-appellant. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kewal Swaroop Gandotra Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir reported in 1994 SCC (Cri.) 163 where the offences involved were punishable under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, (The Old Act, the provisions of which are not in pari materia with the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as in the 1947 Act a discretion is given to court to reduce the minimum sentence prescribed unlike the new Act) the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the facts of that case reduced the sentence to two months, it is submitted by Mr. Sinha, that in this case, as the occurrence took place in the year 1995, so in case the conviction of the accused-appellant is uphold by this court, the sentence imposed upon him be reduced. It is lastly submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of Sentence be set aside and the accused-appellant be acquitted at least by giving him the benefit of doubt. 18. Mr. Rohit Sinha-learned counsel for the C.B.I. on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and order of conviction and submitted that the witnesses of the prosecution have amply proved the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. It is next submitted that as the I.O. being the P.W.8, has categorically stated in para-24 of his deposition that he has recorded the statements of all the witnesses of the prosecution obviously thereby meaning that he recorded the statements of the P.W.2 and P.W.7 as well and as there is absolutely no cross-examination of the P.W.8 in respect of his statements in his examination in chief that he recorded the statement of all the witnesses of the prosecution, hence, no adverse inference be drawn regarding the testimony of the P.W.2 and P.W.7 vis-à-vis their deposition that their statements were not recorded by the CBI, more so because the copy of their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. by the I.O. were supplied to the accused-appellant in compliance of the requirement of section 207 of the Cr.P.C. before commencement of the trial. Mr. Rohit Sinha next submitted that as P.W.2 has not been cross-examined in any manner regarding his testimony made in his examination-in-chief, hence, the deposition of the P.W.2 as made in his examination-in-chief has remained unchallenged and thus intact. It is next submitted that similarly, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of any of the prosecution witnesses to discredit or demolish their testimonies and there is no material in the record to disbelieve any of the prosecution witness except the P.W.3 on a certain aspect for the limited purposes of which he has been declared hostile and except the P.W.3 as the testimony of the other witness has remained unimpeachable, hence, it is submitted that the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant is proper and the same ought not be set aside and this appeal, being without any merit be dismissed. 19. 19. Having heard the rival submissions made at the bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, this court is of the considered view that so far as the contention of the accused-appellant regarding the testimony of the P.W.2 and P.W.7 that their statements were not recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that when a witness is examined in court, whose statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it is found that the prejudice had been caused to the accused, then the evidence of said witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tilkeshwar Singh and others Vs. The State of Bihar reported in AIR 1956 SC 238 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while discussing the pari materia provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 held in paragraph -5 as under: “5.* * * * * * * * * * The recording of joint statement of the examination of P. Ws. 4, 7 and 12 is clearly in contravention of S. 161 (S), and must be disapproved. But the question is whether that renders the testimony of P. Ws. 4, 7 and 12 in court inadmissible. Sections 161(3) does not say so, and indeed, seeing that the police are not bound to make a record of the statement of witnesses in which case there is admittedly no bar to the reception of their testimony, it would be anomalous if we were to hold that their evidence is inadmissible, because the statements were also reduced to writing but not in the manner provided in the section'. The Indian Evidence Act contains elaborate provisions as to who are competent witnesses and on what matters their evidence is inadmissible. And on these provisions, P. Ws. 4, 7 and 12 are neither incompetent witnesses, nor is their evidence as to the incidents to which they deposed inadmissible. The Indian Evidence Act contains elaborate provisions as to who are competent witnesses and on what matters their evidence is inadmissible. And on these provisions, P. Ws. 4, 7 and 12 are neither incompetent witnesses, nor is their evidence as to the incidents to which they deposed inadmissible. In 'Zahiruddin v. Emperor', AIR 1947 PC 75 , (A) it was held by the Privy Council that the failure to comply with the provisions of S. 162(1) might greatly impair the value of the evidence of the witness, but that would not affect its admissibility. On the same reasoning, it will follow that the evidence of P. Ws. 4, 7 and 12 is not inadmissible for the reason that their statements had been recorded by P. W. 18 jointly and not separately as required by S. 161 (3). (Emphasis Supplied) 20. But it is not the case where the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not been recorded absolutely rather the P.W.8 who is the I.O. has categorically stated in para-24 of his deposition that he recorded the deposition of all the witnesses that means the statement of the P.W.2 and P.W.7 also. It is pertinent to mention here that no question was put to the P.W.8 regarding the recording of the statements of the P.W.2 or P.W.7 by him in his cross-examination nor even any suggestion was given to him that the statements of the P.W.2 or P.W.7 were not recorded by the P.W.8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of U.P. vs. Satish reported in (2005) 3 SCC 114 in a case where there was a delay in recording the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses by the I.O. reiterated the settled principle of law in para-18 of the said judgment that unless the I.O. of the case has categorically asked as to why there was delay in examination of the witnesses, the defence cannot gain advantage therefrom and as has been held in para-20 of that judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that it is to be noted that the explanation when offered by the I.O. on being questioned about the delayed examinations by the accused has to be tested by the court on the touchstone of credibility. Hence, in view of this settled principle of law, this Court is of the considered view that mere statement by the P.W.2 and P.W.7 that their statements were not recorded by the I.O. in the absence of any question being put to the P.W.8 regarding the same by the defence, their testimony cannot be discarded in toto. More so because no question has been put to the P.W.2 in his cross examination and it is not disputed that the copies of the statements of the P.W.2 and the P.W.7 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., have been supplied with under Section 207 Cr.P.C to the accused-appellant. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice has been caused to the accused-appellant by the P.W.2 and P.W.7 having stated that their testimonies were not recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 21. So far as the contention of the appellant regarding the independent witnesses having not supported the case of the prosecution on some material aspects as well as non-examination of other witnesses who assembled at the place of occurrence is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that it is not frequently that a police officer, himself being a Government servant, would resort to perjury and concoct evidence in order to rope in an innocent Government servant and in the event of the Government servant concerned refusing to accept the currency notes offered by the complainant, it would not be reasonable to expect the police officer to go to the length of concocting a false seizure memo for prosecuting and humiliating him merely in order to save the face of the complainant, thereby compromising his own conscience, as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of U.P. vs. Dr. G. K. Ghosh reported in AIR 1984 SC 1453 para-11 of which reads as under:- 11. “It is now time to deal with the criticism urged as a matter of course in the context of the police officer leading the raiding party namely that he is an interested witness. This is true, but only to an extent a very limited extent. “It is now time to deal with the criticism urged as a matter of course in the context of the police officer leading the raiding party namely that he is an interested witness. This is true, but only to an extent a very limited extent. He is interested in the success of the trap to ensure that a citizen, who complains of harassment by a Government officer making a demand for illegal gratification is protected and the role of his department in the protection of such citizen is vindicated. Perhaps it can be contended that he is interested in the success of the trap so that his ego is satisfied or that he earns a feather in his cap. At the same it must be realised that it is not frequently that a police officer, himself being a Government servant, would resort to perjury and concoct evidence in order to rope in an innocent Government servant. In the event of the Government servant concerned refusing to accept the currency notes offered by the complainant, it would not be reasonable to expect the police officer to go to the length of concocting a false seizure memo for prosecuting and humiliating him merely in order to save the face of the complainant, thereby compromising his own conscience. The Court may therefore, depending on the circumstances of a case, feel safe in accepting the prosecution version on the basis of the oral evidence of the complainant and the police officers even if the trap witnesses turn hostile or are found not to be independent. When therefore besides such evidence there is circumstantial evidence which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and not consistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding the prosecution case.” 22. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of V. Sejappa v. State By Police Commisioner, Lokayukta, Chitradurga reported in (2016) 12 SCC 150 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law regarding the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as under in para-18:- 18. “It is well settled that the initial burden of proving that the accused accepted or obtained the amount other than legal remuneration is upon the prosecution. “It is well settled that the initial burden of proving that the accused accepted or obtained the amount other than legal remuneration is upon the prosecution. It is only when this initial burden regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is successfully discharged by the prosecution, then the burden of proving the defence shifts upon the accused and a presumption would arise under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the case at hand, all that is established by the prosecution was the recovery of money from the appellant and mere recovery of money was not enough to draw the presumption under Section 20 of the Act.” 23. It is also a settled principle of law that when the witnesses are examined after a long time from the date of occurrence as in this case when the occurrence took place in the year 1995 and the P.W.1 was examined on 13.11.2000 whereas the P.W.9 was examined on 24.11.2003. Such witnesses cannot recollect and narrate the entire conversation with the photographic memory with standing hiatus of passage of time as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vinod Kumar Garg Vs. State (Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi) reported in (2020) 2 SCC 88 para-14 of which reads as under:- 14. “The contradictions that have crept in the testimonies of Nand Lal (PW 2) and Hemant Kumar (PW 3) noticed above and on the question of the total amount demanded or whether Nand Lal (PW 2) had earlier paid Rs 500 are immaterial and inconsequential as it is indisputable that the bribe was demanded and taken by the appellant on 3-8-1994 at about 10.30 a.m. The variations as highlighted lose significance in view of the proven facts on the recovery of bribe money from the pant pocket of the appellant, on which depositions of Nand Lal (PW 2), Hemant Kumar (PW 3) and Rohtash Singh (PW 5) are identical and not at variance. The money recovered was the currency notes that were treated and noted in the pre-raid proceedings vide Ext. PW 2/G. The aspect of demand and payment of the bribe has been examined and dealt with above. The contradictions as pointed out to us and noted are insignificant when juxtaposed with the vivid and eloquent narration of incriminating facts proved and established beyond doubt and debate. PW 2/G. The aspect of demand and payment of the bribe has been examined and dealt with above. The contradictions as pointed out to us and noted are insignificant when juxtaposed with the vivid and eloquent narration of incriminating facts proved and established beyond doubt and debate. It would be sound to be cognitive of the time gap between the date of occurrence, 3-8-1994, and the dates when the testimony of Nand Lal (PW 2) was recorded, 9-7-1999 and 14-9-1999, and that Hemant Kumar's (PW 3) testimony was recorded on 18-12-2000 and 30-1-2001. Given the time gap of five to six years, minor contradictions on some details are bound to occur and are natural. The witnesses are not required to recollect and narrate the entire version with photographic memory notwithstanding the hiatus and passage of time. Picayune variations do not in any way negate and contradict the main and core incriminatory evidence of the demand of bribe, reason why the bribe was demanded and the actual taking of the bribe that was paid, which are the ingredients of the offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, that as noticed above and hereinafter, have been proved and established beyond reasonable doubt. Documents prepared contemporaneously noticed above affirm the primary and ocular evidence. We, therefore, find no good ground and reason to upset and set aside the findings recorded by the trial court that have been upheld by the High Court. Relevant in this context would be to refer to the judgment of this Court in State of U.P. v. G.K. Ghosh wherein it was held that in a case involving an offence of demanding and accepting illegal gratification, depending on the circumstances of the case, it may be safe to accept the prosecution version on the basis of the oral evidence of the complainant and the official witnesses even if the trap witnesses turn hostile or are found not to be independent. When besides such evidence, there is circumstantial evidence which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding the conviction. (Emphasis Supplied) 24. Having carefully going through the record as already discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the testimony of the complainant- P.W.4 and the P.W.8 has not been demolished in any manner. (Emphasis Supplied) 24. Having carefully going through the record as already discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the testimony of the complainant- P.W.4 and the P.W.8 has not been demolished in any manner. Their testimonies are corroborated by the testimonies of the P.W.3 and P.W.7 being the trap witnesses as also the testimony of the P.W.2 who is a trap witness as well as a witness of verification and the complaint and there is no dispute regarding the sanction for prosecution which has been proved by the P.W.1 and the chemical examination report of the Sodium Carbonate and phenolphthalein about which the P.W.6 has deposed. Except a single question as to whether the statement of the P.W.2 was recorded by CBI no other question was put to the P.W.2 in his cross examination. Similarly there is no cross-examination of the other witnesses on the materials aspects of their testimonies put forth by them in their examination in chief. It is a settled principle of law that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue and without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmibai (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Anr. vs. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Ors. reported in AIR 2013 (SC) 1204 in para-31 in this respect held as under :- 31. “Furthermore, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the settled legal proposition, that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Such a law has been advanced in view of the statutory provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which enable the opposite party to cross-examine a witness as regards information tendered in evidence by him during his initial examination in chief, and the scope of this provision stands enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned, inter-alia, in order to test his veracity. Thereafter, the unchallenged part of his evidence is to be relied upon, for the reason that it is impossible for the witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as regards the same, in the absence of questions put to him with respect to the circumstances which indicate that the version of events provided by him, is not fit to be believed, and the witness himself, is unworthy of credit. Thus, if a party intends to impeach a witness, he must provide adequate opportunity to the witness in the witness box, to give a full and proper explanation. The same is essential to ensure fair play and fairness in dealing with witnesses. (See: Khem Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 226 : (1993 AIR SCW 3675); State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh (dead) & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1328 : (1998 AIR SCW 1200); Rajinder Pershad (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Darshana Devi (Smt.), AIR 2001 SC 3207 : (2001 AIR SCW 3042); and Sunil Kumar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2005 SC 1096 ) : (2005 AIR SCW 589).”(Emphasis given) Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the evidence in the record put forth by the prosecution, is sufficient to establish the following ingredients for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 being (i) Demand of Bribe. (ii) Acceptance of Bribe. (iii) Recovery of Bribe amount. Accordingly the accused-appellant has rightly been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 25. (ii) Acceptance of Bribe. (iii) Recovery of Bribe amount. Accordingly the accused-appellant has rightly been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 25. Thus, this Court does not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 26. So far as the sentence is concerned in the case of Kewal Swaroop Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir (supra), the conviction was under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 where discretion was vested upon the court to reduce the minimum sentence prescribed. But in this case in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 no such discretion has been vested in the Court. It is a settled principle of law that where the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year, the sentence cannot be reduced to less than the minimum prescribed by the legislature as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gurjant Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2015) 8 SCC 650 . 27. Perusal of the record reveals that the accused-appellant has been sentenced for the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 7 as well as Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the sentence imposed upon the accused-appellant is proper. Because of the facts of the case as well as law discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant is proper. 28. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of Sentence dated 05.03.2004 passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum- Additional Sessions Judge-I, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No.6A/95 (D) is upheld and this appeal being without any merit is dismissed. 29. The accused-appellant- Dhaneshwar Singh is on bail. His bail is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the learned court below within four weeks from the date of this judgment to serve out the sentence failing which the trial court is directed to take all coercive steps against him for undergoing the sentence. 30. 29. The accused-appellant- Dhaneshwar Singh is on bail. His bail is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the learned court below within four weeks from the date of this judgment to serve out the sentence failing which the trial court is directed to take all coercive steps against him for undergoing the sentence. 30. Let the lower court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned court below forthwith.