JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. 1. Heard the parties through video conferencing. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of conviction dated 05.09.2008 and Order of sentence dated 08.09.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge –VIII-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I, Dhanbad in R.C. Case No.7A/98D by which the appellant has been held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months and it was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant-accused- Sujeet Kumar Mukharjee demanded illegal gratification of Rs.200/- for handling and expediting the order of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad regarding payment of gratuity amount of the deceased father of the complainant in favour of his mother. The complainant made a complaint with the C.B.I. Sri. D. Murmoo verified the matter and submitted his verification report confirming the allegation made by the complainant. The appellant-accused – Sujeet Kumar Mukharjee on the date of occurrence was posted as Stenographer in the office of Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad and was attached to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad. The appellant-accused was also in-charge of the Upper Division Clerk of Sri P.M. Srivastava, Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad. A trap team was constituted. The trap was laid on 15.07.1998. The appellant-accused was caught red handed by the trap team upon demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs.200/- from the complainant in his office chamber. The said bribe amount was also recovered from the appellant-accused. A trap team was constituted. The trap was laid on 15.07.1998. The appellant-accused was caught red handed by the trap team upon demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs.200/- from the complainant in his office chamber. The said bribe amount was also recovered from the appellant-accused. The conversation between the complainant and the appellant-accused including the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the appellant-accused was heard and seen by the independent witnesses and the appellant-accused after accepting the bribe amount by his right hand counted the same using both his hands and kept the same in his right pant pocket. Both his hands and inner lining of the pocket of the appellant-accused were washed with sodium carbonate solution and colour of the solution turned pink. The same were sent for chemical examination and upon receipt of the sanction for prosecution and completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant-accused for having committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Charges for the said offences were framed against the appellant-accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined nine witnesses while two witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence. 5. P.W.1 -Sohrab Ali is the complainant himself. He has stated that his father was working as Surface Trammer in BNR Kustore Colliery and after death of his father, P.W.1 was appointed as a General Mazdoor. His father did not submit Form-F regarding the nominee for the retirement benefits and gratuity. After death of his father, the gratuity amount was deposited by BCCL in the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner. P.W.1 being authorized by his mother submitted application for release of the gratuity amount. The case was closed on 03.06.1998 but the order of the case was not received by the P.W.1. On 13.07.1998 the P.W.1 went to the office of A.L.C and met the appellant-accused who was the Steno of A.L.C. The appellant-accused told him that if Rs.200/- cash is given to him, he will hand over the copy of the order to the complainant or else it will be sent by post. P.W.1 did not want to pay the bribe of Rs.200/- hence, on 14.07.1998 P.W.1 submitted a written complaint to S.P. C.B.I. which has been marked as Ext.1. P.W.1 did not want to pay the bribe of Rs.200/- hence, on 14.07.1998 P.W.1 submitted a written complaint to S.P. C.B.I. which has been marked as Ext.1. P.W.5 verified his complaint and upon verification P.W.5 found the application to be true. P.W.9 told the complainant to come with Rs.200/- on 15.07.1998 and the complainant reached the C.B.I. office. P.W.1 has also stated about the pre trap preparation. The currency note given by the P.W.1 was smeared with powder and was given back to the P.W.1 and he kept the same in his left pocket. He was instructed, only if the appellant-accused demands the said money then he will hand over the money and will give signal by scratching his head. P.W.1 went to A.L.C. office along with trap team. P.W.1 followed by P.W.2 went to the appellant-accused. The appellant-accused asked P.W.1 as to whether he has brought money. P.W.1 stated that he has brought money. The appellant-accused told P.W.1 to give it quickly as somebody may see it. P.W.1 handed over the money. Appellant-accused counted the money and kept the same in the pocket of his pant. After receiving the money the appellant-accused handed over the order in 3-4 copies to P.W.1. Upon obtaining the order, the complainant scratched his head. On P.W.1 signaling, other members of the trap team reached there. P.Ws.9 and 5 caught hold of the wrist of the appellant-accused and disclosed their identity. They told the appellant-accused that the appellant-accused has been arrested. The appellant-accused started sweating. Thereafter, upon called the A.L.C. -P.M. Srivastava came and in presence of Mr. Srivastava, the hands of the appellant-accused was washed one by one. The colour of water turned pink, the same was poured in bottles and sealed. The bribe amount was brought out from the pant pocket of the appellant-accused and kept in an envelope. The number of seized notes were verified and sealed in an envelope in presence of P.W.1 and theP.W.1 identified notes worth Rs.200/- which were marked material Ext.1 and 1/1. The appellant-accused was made to remove his pants and the same was also washed in water and the colour of water turned pink. The said water was preserved in a bottle and sealed. Thereafter, in the office chamber of A.L.C., recovery memorandum was prepared. Everybody signed the same. The appellant-accused was made to remove his pants and the same was also washed in water and the colour of water turned pink. The said water was preserved in a bottle and sealed. Thereafter, in the office chamber of A.L.C., recovery memorandum was prepared. Everybody signed the same. C.B.I. also seized the order which was given by the appellant-accused to P.W.1 On the date of examination-in-chief, on 29.07.2003 at the request of the Junior Counsel though the P.W.1 waited for 45 minutes yet no one turned up for his cross-examination hence, he was discharged but later on he was recalled and cross-examined on 01.12.2003. In his cross-examination, he has stated, on being confronted with the order of A.L.C., P.W.1 that the same is dated 15.07.1998, the true copies of the said order was handed to P.W.1. He has stated that prior to 15.07.1998, there is no instance of any order of A.L.C. being handed over to him by anybody. He went to the office of A.L.C. on all the three days 13th, 14th and 15th and met the appellant-accused. On 14.07.1998 the conversation between P.W.1 and the appellant-accused took place in presence of P.W.5. C.B.I. officers met the appellant-accused, counted the notes after recovery of the same and after that their hands were washed. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no cross-examination of P.W.1 on the point of demand and acceptance of the bribe amount. 6. P.W.2 -Sachinath Thakur is the shadow witness. He has stated that on 15.07.1998 he was included in the trap team of the C.B.I. He has stated about the pre trap preparation made in the C.B.I. office. Then they went to A.L.C. office. P.W.2 followed P.W.1. Upon reaching the A.L.C. office, the appellant-accused enquired about the money from P.W.1 -Ashraf Ali and thereafter P.W.1 handed over the money. On giving signal by P.W.2, other members of the team came there and charged the appellant-accused after disclosing their identity. The appellant-accused become nervous. P.W.4 bought out the money from the pocket of the appellant-accused. Both the hands of the appellant-accused were washed and the solution become pink. The seized notes were compared with the number of the notes noted earlier. The memorandum of recovery was prepared in the C.B.I. office. P.W.2 also signed the memorandum of recovery. The appellant-accused become nervous. P.W.4 bought out the money from the pocket of the appellant-accused. Both the hands of the appellant-accused were washed and the solution become pink. The seized notes were compared with the number of the notes noted earlier. The memorandum of recovery was prepared in the C.B.I. office. P.W.2 also signed the memorandum of recovery. P.W.2 referred to the P.W.1 as Ashraf Ali but in paragraph no.7 he has stated that other name of Ashraf Ali was Sohrab Ali. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 has stated the cash which was shown to him in court was first seen by him in C.B.I. office and thereafter he saw the same after recovery. The appellant-accused was not made to count the money. He heard the appellant-accused talking to Sohrab Ali but he has not heard the appellant-accused talking to Ashraf Ali. He has not seen the person namely Ashraf Ali giving money to the appellant-accused. 7. P.W.3 –V.S.S. Shrivastava is the Regional Labour Commissioner. He has accorded the sanction for prosecution of the appellant-accused. On being proved by him, the sanction for prosecution has been marked Ext.4. The defence declined to cross-examine the P.W.3. 8. P.W.4 –Rishikesh Yadav is the other trap witness. He has stated that on 15.07.1998, he came to C.B.I. office and met P.W.1 and the P.W.9 and P.W.1 told him about the complaint against the appellant-accused. PW.4 went through complaint of the P.W.1. He has stated about the pre trap formalities in detail. He stated that P.W.1 who gave the currency note which was smeared with powder and was given back to P.W.1. One preliminary memorandum was prepared which was signed by P.W.4. Thereafter, they went to R.L.C. office. P.Ws.1 and 2 were sent inside and others were watching from a distance. P.W.1 talked with the appellant-accused for some time and after that he gave Rs.200/- which the appellant-accused took by his right hand and kept in the right pocket of his pant. P.Ws.1 and 2 signaled as was instructed to them. P.W.4 and others went inside. P.W.9 challenged the appellant-accused by saying that he received the money from P.W.1. P.W.9 also disclosed his identity and informed that appellant-accused has been arrested. Two inspectors caught hold of the hand of the appellant-accused. P.W.4 was told to search the pocket of the appellant-accused. P.Ws.1 and 2 signaled as was instructed to them. P.W.4 and others went inside. P.W.9 challenged the appellant-accused by saying that he received the money from P.W.1. P.W.9 also disclosed his identity and informed that appellant-accused has been arrested. Two inspectors caught hold of the hand of the appellant-accused. P.W.4 was told to search the pocket of the appellant-accused. After search the P.W.4 recovered two notes of Rs.100 denomination each from the pocket of the appellant-accused and numbers of the notes tallied. P.W.4 identified the tainted notes. The hand of the appellant-accused was washed in separate glass tumblers. The colour of the water turned pink. The same were transferred to two bottles and sealed. The appellant-accused was given a lungi and he was made to remove his pant. The pocket of the pant was washed in the white solution. The colour of the solution turned red. A memorandum of 10 pages was prepared. P.W.4 signed each of the pages of the memorandum. In his cross-examination, P.W.4 stated that he has recovered money during the trap. They were standing 12-13 feet away from the place of occurrence. P.W.1 and 2 together went to the appellant-accused. 9. P.W.5 –Dasrath Murmu was the verifying officer of the complaint as well as the member of the trap team. He has stated that on 14.07.1998 he went through the complaint of P.W.1 and he has narrated in detail about the contents of the same. P.W.5 went with P.W.1 to the office of R.L.C., Dhanbad. During the course of verification, P.W.5 found that the appellant-accused demanded Rs.200/- as bribe for doing the work of P.W.1. On being proved by him, the verification report was marked Ext.5. The appellant-accused told P.W.1 to come on 15.07.1998 with money. Accordingly, P.W.1 went to C.B.I. office with two notes of 100 rupees denominations each. P.W.5 has also described the pre trap formalities in detail and also stated about the preparation of pre trap memorandum which was signed by the P.W.5 also. On the date of trap, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the hall. P.W.4 was in the backside. After going there the appellant-accused demanded money from P.W.1. P.W.1 took out the money from his pocket and handed over Rs. 200/- to the appellant-accused. The appellant-accused put the said notes in the right side pocket of his pant. Then P.W.1 came out and signaled. P.W.4 was in the backside. After going there the appellant-accused demanded money from P.W.1. P.W.1 took out the money from his pocket and handed over Rs. 200/- to the appellant-accused. The appellant-accused put the said notes in the right side pocket of his pant. Then P.W.1 came out and signaled. P.Ws.5, 6 and other members of the team entered into the hall. P.W.5 and Bashudeo Paswan immediately caught hold the left and right hand respectively of the appellant-accused. Thereafter, P.W.4 seized two notes of Rs.100/- denomination from the pocket of appellant-accused. Each of the 100 rupees notes was the same note which was produced by P.W.1 at the time of preparation of pre trap memorandum. Both hands of the appellant-accused were washed in sodium carbonate solution of milky white colour. The colour of the solution turned pink. The solution was kept separately in bottles. The pocket of the pant of the appellant-accused was also washed and the colour of the solution turned pink. A post trap memorandum was also prepared. In his cross-examination, P.W.5 has stated that P.W.5 was present at the time of conversation between P.W.1 and appellant-accused during the time of verification. 10. P.W.6 – Ajay Kumar Prasad was a Stenographer in the office of Regional Labour Commissioner in the year 1998. He has stated that the appellant-accused was working at the relevant time as Steno of Sri P.N. Srivastav, Assistant Labour Commissioner. He was declared hostile and denied that he stated before the I.O. that he identified the shorthand note book of the appellant-accused. In his cross-examination, he has stated that in the year 1998, the P.W.6 and the appellant-accused were working in one office under the same A.L.C. 11. P.W.7 –Prabhat Mann Shrivastava has stated that on 15.07.1998 he was working as A.L.C. in the office of R.L.C, Dhanbad. The appellant-accused was working with the P.W.7 as U.D.C.–cum-Steno. On being identified by him, the note sheet of the file relating to the mother of the complainant-P.W.1 was marked Exhibit-9. The appellant-accused typed the final order of that file on 15.07.1998. On 15.07.1998, when the P.W.7 was working in his office chamber between 11:00 to 11:30 A.M., the C.B.I. officers entered inside the chamber and informed the P.W.7 that they have arrested the appellant-accused for receiving Rs.200/- as bribe. After coming out, the P.W.7 saw that two persons were holding both hands of the appellant-accused. On 15.07.1998, when the P.W.7 was working in his office chamber between 11:00 to 11:30 A.M., the C.B.I. officers entered inside the chamber and informed the P.W.7 that they have arrested the appellant-accused for receiving Rs.200/- as bribe. After coming out, the P.W.7 saw that two persons were holding both hands of the appellant-accused. Two persons dipped the hand of the appellant-accused in glass tumblers and the colour of the water turned pink. P.W.7 was shown Rs.200/- and was told that the same has been recovered from the appellant-accused. The pant pocket of the appellant-accused was also washed. The colour became pink. P.W.7 identified his signature on all the 10 pages of the recovery memorandum but he did not support the prosecution case on the point of recovery of the bribe amount in front of him. To a court’s question, the P.W.7 answered that he signed upon the memorandum of recovery after going through the same and finding the contents of the same to be true. P.W.7 further stated that he stated before the C.B.I. that in front of him, the P.W.4 took out Rs.200/- from the right pant pocket of the appellant-accused and the statement which has been mentioned in the diary of the C.B.I. is true. In his cross-examination, the P.W.7 on being confronted by the defence identified the letter written by him to the R.L.C. on the date of occurrence which was marked –P. P.W.7 cannot say whether the practice of sending the copy of the order to the concerned parties through registered post has ever been breached or not. The recovery memorandum was prepared in the office of the P.W.7. A preliminary memorandum was also shown to the P.W.7. He signed the recovery memorandum after reading the same. 12. P.W.8 –Jagnarayan Das has stated that he was an Office Superintendent in the office of R.L.C. The attendance register was seized from him on that day. On being identified by him, the same has been marked as Material Exhibit –II. He also identified the signature of the appellant-accused on the attendance register, made by the appellant-accused on 13th, 14th & 15th of July, 1998 which were marked Exhibit-2/107 to 2/109. In his cross-examination, the P.W.8 has stated that after the signature of the A.L.C., the file was to be dispatched to section and from there, letter was to be dispatched to the concerned person. 13. In his cross-examination, the P.W.8 has stated that after the signature of the A.L.C., the file was to be dispatched to section and from there, letter was to be dispatched to the concerned person. 13. P.W.9 –Tapan Jyoti Ghosh is the I.O. of the case. He was also a member of the trap team. He has stated that as per the order of the S.P., C.B.I., P.W.9 registered this case. He identified the F.I.R. A trap team was constituted of which P.W.9 was also a member. On 15.07.1998 the members of the trap team assembled in the C.B.I. office for carrying out the pre-trap formalities. P.W.1 was also present. P.W.9 has described about the pre-trap formalities in detail. P.W.1 produced Rs.200/- in front of everybody. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the notes and the numbers of the notes were noted down. A preliminary memorandum was prepared mentioning all the proceedings. The denominations of the general currency notes were also mentioned in the said preliminary memorandum. They reached the office of the Regional Labour Commissioner. P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the office table of the appellant-accused where the appellant-accused was sitting. The pre-fixed signal was received from the P.W.2 after sometime and the P.W.9 entered inside the hall. The appellant-accused was challenged for having received bribe amount of Rs.200/- from the P.W.1 and he was arrested there. P.W.2 disclosed that the appellant accused has put the money in the right side pocket of his pant. On being told by the P.W.9, the P.W.4 recovered Rs.200/- from the right pocket of the appellant-accused. The denominations and number of each note tallied with the denominations and numbers mentioned in the preliminary memorandum. The said seized money was sealed in an envelope. He identified the currency notes. Both the hands of the appellant-accused was washed one by one with sodium carbonate solution. The colour of both the solutions turned pink. The solutions were kept in two separate bottles and sealed. The inner lining of the right pant pocket of the appellant-accused was also washed with sodium carbonate solution and the colour of the same also turned pink. The pant of the appellant-accused was also seized. After arresting the accused, arrest memo was prepared. On being proved by him, the memo of recovery has been marked Exhibit -15. The inner lining of the right pant pocket of the appellant-accused was also washed with sodium carbonate solution and the colour of the same also turned pink. The pant of the appellant-accused was also seized. After arresting the accused, arrest memo was prepared. On being proved by him, the memo of recovery has been marked Exhibit -15. A copy of the memo of recovery was also given to the appellant-accused and the appellant-accused put his signature acknowledging receipt of the said memo of recovery which on being proved by the P.W.9 has been marked as Exhibit -16. P.W.9 during the course of investigation seized the documents including the concerned file. During the course of investigation, the P.W.9 who is also the I.O. of the case recorded the statement of the witnesses, sent the bottles containing the sodium carbonate solution for chemical examination to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta. He obtained the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta and also obtained the sanction for prosecution of the appellant-accused and thereafter submitted charge sheet. In his cross-examination, the P.W.9 stated that he has mentioned about the pre-trap formalities in detail in the pre-trap memorandum. He took the format of the personal search memo and arrest memo from the C.B.I. office as a routine procedure. 14. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant-accused was recorded regarding the circumstances appearing in evidence against him in which he denied the allegations made against him and also stated that he has no knowledge about such allegations but he admitted his signature on Exhibit -15 and stated that the said Exhibit -15 was prepared by the C.B.I. Officers in the C.B.I. office and the appellant-accused does not know what was written in Exhibit -15 but C.B.I. people obtained his signature there. In his defence he has stated that there was lot of commotion and arguments regarding handing over of the gratuity order by hand delivery to the P.W.1 as there is no such provision of hand delivery of the order and at this, the P.W.1 went away threatening the appellant-accused and the appellant-accused did not handover the copy of the order to the P.W.1, hence the P.W.1 has falsely implicated the appellant-accused in this case. 15. In his defence, the appellant-accused examined two witnesses. 16. 15. In his defence, the appellant-accused examined two witnesses. 16. D.W.1 – Aalok Das is an Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C.) of office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner. He produced the photocopy of the letter dated 16th July, 1998 written by the P.W.7 which was marked –Q/1 for identification. He also produced and proved the FOC file which was marked Exhibit –B. Another payment of gratuity file was marked Exhibit –C and the annual confidential report of the appellant-accused from 1992-1998 and 2002 -2003 was marked –Q/2. In his cross-examination the D.W.1 has stated that he has no knowledge about the documents produced by him. 17. D.W.2 –Sisir Kumar Pal has stated that in the year 1997-98, the P.W.7 was working as Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) in the office of Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner. He proved the daily diary which was marked Exhibit –D. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has no personal knowledge about what has been written in that daily diary. 18. The learned court below, after taking into consideration the evidence in the record came to a conclusion that the prosecution has fully proved and established the charges levelled against the appellant-accused person and convicted and sentenced him as already indicated above. 19. It is submitted by Mr. B.M. Tripathi, leaned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-accused that the impugned order and sentenced passed by the learned trial court is bad in law and is not sustainable. It is next submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-accused that the trial court has not properly securitized the statement of witnesses and has given finding contrary to the material in record by ignoring the material contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses. It is next submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-accused that the trial court has not properly securitized the statement of witnesses and has given finding contrary to the material in record by ignoring the material contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses. It is next submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-accused that the prosecution has failed to prove the chemical examination report and the testimony of P.W.2 creates doubt as he has all along in his testimony stated that one Ashraf Ali has paid the bribe to the appellant-accused and in his testimony though before concluding his examination-in-chief, he has also stated that Ashraf Ali is also known as Sohrab Ali who is the complainant of the case but he could not stand scrutiny of the cross-examination and from which it is apparent that the appellant-accused has not deposed in connection with this case but he has deposed in connection with some other cases relating to Ashraf Ali. Hence, it is submitted that as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the appellant-accused be acquitted at least by giving him the benefit of doubt. 20. Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel for the C.B.I. on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and submitted that all prosecution witnesses have stated different parts of the prosecution case in their testimonies and nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.Ws.1, 5 and 9 and the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 9 has been corroborated by the independent witnesses being the shadow witness P.W.2 and the trap witness being P.W.4. Hence, it is submitted that there is ample evidence in the record to establish both the charges of which the appellant-accused has been held guilty, convicted and the sentence is also appropriate. Hence, it is submitted that the conviction of the appellant-accused be confirmed and this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 21. Hence, it is submitted that there is ample evidence in the record to establish both the charges of which the appellant-accused has been held guilty, convicted and the sentence is also appropriate. Hence, it is submitted that the conviction of the appellant-accused be confirmed and this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 21. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the record, it is crystal clear that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of U.P. vs. Zakaullah reported in (1998) 1 SCC 557 wherein in the facts of that case where the complainant’s evidence was jettisoned on the mere ground that since he had a grouse against the delinquent public servant he might falsely have implicated the public servant, that such a premise is fraught with the consequence that no bribe giver can get away from such stigma in any graft case. The very fact that the complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau is reflective of his grievance. Such a handicap in his evidence may require the court to scrutinize it with greater care, but it does not call for outright rejection of his evidence at the threshold. In the case of Hazari Lal vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in (1980) 2 SCC 390 which was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.10 of State of U.P. vs. Zakaullah (supra) it was observed that every citizen of India must be presumed to be an independent person until it is proved that he was a dependent on police or other officials for any purpose whatsoever. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph no.11 and 12 of State of U.P. vs. Zakaullah (supra) relying upon the judgment in the case of Prakash Chand vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in (1979) 3 SCC 90 and Hazari Lal vs. State (Delhi Administration) (supra) has held that officer who arranges the trap makes arrangement to smear phenolphthalein power in currency notes in order to satisfy himself that the public servant had in fact received the bribe and not that the currency notes were just thrust into the pocket of any unwilling officer. Such a test is conducted for his conscientious satisfaction that he was proceeding against a real bribe taker and that an officer with integrity is not harassed unnecessarily. Regarding not sending the solution collected in a phial during the trap for chemical examination, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph no.13 of State of U.P. vs. Zakaullah (supra) has observed that the solution in a trap case is also viewed not because there is any such direction by the statuary provision but for the satisfaction of the officer that the suspected public servant would have clearly handled the bribe money if there is no material discrepancy in the evidence regarding preparation of recovery-memo, the reliability of the trap cannot be stated to be impaired for not sending the solution collected in a phial during the trap for chemical examination. It is pertinent to mention here that this is not a case where the sodium carbonate solution was not given for chemical examination rather in this case the sodium carbonate solution having trace of phenolphthalein was sent for chemical examination and the chemical examination report was on the record but it has not been marked Exhibit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhupinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1988 SC 1011 has held in paragraph no.13 that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as regards the value to be attached to the report of the chemical examiner. Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the report of scientific experts may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings of the court. The chemical examiner does not as a rule give an opinion as to the cause of death but merely gives report of the chemical examination of the substance sent to him. The report by itself is not crucial. It is a piece of evidence. The only protection to it is that it does not require any formal proof. So in this case at best it was an oversight on the part of the trial court for marking of the chemical examination report as an Exhibit. The report by itself is not crucial. It is a piece of evidence. The only protection to it is that it does not require any formal proof. So in this case at best it was an oversight on the part of the trial court for marking of the chemical examination report as an Exhibit. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the contention of the appellant-accused that the chemical examination report has not been proved in this case is a quail statement for setting aside the conviction of the appellant-accused as made by the trial court. 22. So far as the discrepancy of the evidence is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of U.P. vs. Dr. O.K. Ghosh reported in AIR 1984 SC 1453 that the police officer dealing with the trap team is interested in success of the trap to ensure that citizen who complains of harassment by the Government Officer making a demand of illegal gratification is protected and the role of his department in the protection of such citizen is vindicated. It may be contended that such police officer is interested in the success of the trap so that his ego is satisfied or that he earns a feather in his cap but it must be realized that is it 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 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 extent of concocting a false seizure memo for prosecuting and humiliating him merely in order to save the face of the complaint thereby compromising his own conscience. The court may therefore depending on the circumstances of a case feels safe in accepting the prosecution version on the basis of the oral evidence of the complaint and the police officers even if the trap witnesses turn hostile or are found not to be independent. The court may therefore depending on the circumstances of a case feels safe in accepting the prosecution version on the basis of the oral evidence of the complaint 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 inconsistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding the prosecution case. It is also a settled principle of law that if the witness are examined after so long time after the occurrence, such witnesses are not expected to recollect and narrate the entire version with photographic memory notwithstanding the hiatus and passage of time as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vinod Kumar Garg vs. State (Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi) reported in (2020) 2 SCC 88 paragraph no.14 of which reads as under :- “14. The contradiction that have crept in the testimonies of Nand Lal (PW2) and Hemant Kumar (PW3) noticed above and on the question of the total amount demanded or whether Nand Lal (PW2) 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 (PW2), Hemant Kumar (PW3) and Rohtash Singh (PW5) 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.PW2/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 (PW2) was recorded, 9-7-1999 and 14-9-1999, and that Hemant Kumar’s (PW3) testimony was recorded on 18-12-2000 and 30-01-2001. Given the time gap of five to six years, minor contradictions on some details are bound to occur and are natural. 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 complaint 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.” 23. After going through the evidence in record, this Court is of the considered view that in the absence of any cross-examination regarding the material parts of the testimonies of P.Ws. 1 and 9 regarding the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 7 and Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.1988 that is demand of bribe, acceptance of bribe by the appellant-accused and recovery of bribe money from him, the same remains unchallenged and is to be treated as true. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses are corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses being P.Ws.4, 2 and 5. Though P.W.7 was declared hostile on the point of recovery but after being put leading questions, he also admitted that he stated before C.B.I. about the recovery of the bribe money from the appellant-accused. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses are corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses being P.Ws.4, 2 and 5. Though P.W.7 was declared hostile on the point of recovery but after being put leading questions, he also admitted that he stated before C.B.I. about the recovery of the bribe money from the appellant-accused. So the testimony of P.W.7 in support of the portion of the case of the prosecution also cannot be discarded. The oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses is supported by the documentary evidence being the pre trap memorandum, recovery memorandum and also the material exhibits being the currency notes, the pant of the appellant-accused. There are evidence to establish that the appellant-accused was the steno on the date of occurrence and he prepared the order on the same day obviously upon the complainant approaching with a bribe amount of Rs.200/- to be paid to him a day before as per the verification process of the complaint which is also corroborated by the oral testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W. 5. The testimonies of the defence witnesses have no way established any fact to discredit the evidence put forth by the prosecution, as mentioned above to cast any doubt upon the charges, which have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence in record is sufficient to establish the charges of the offence punishable under Section 7 and Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the conviction of the appellant-accused is confirmed. 24. So far as the sentence of the appellant-accused is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that undue sympathy to imposed inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system by undermining the public confidence in the efficacy of law. To award the lesser punishment for the convict would be to render the judicial system of the country suspect. Sentence imposed by the court should be commensurate with seriousness of the offence and should have a deterring effect on the wrong doers. To award the lesser punishment for the convict would be to render the judicial system of the country suspect. Sentence imposed by the court should be commensurate with seriousness of the offence and should have a deterring effect on the wrong doers. Corruption by public servant has become gigantic problem and for that reason in the year 2014 the minimum sentence for the offence punishable under Section 7 has by amendment been enhanced to be not less than three years and for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) is not less than four years. The Prevention of Corruption Act intends to make effective provision for prevention of bribe and corruption rampant among the public servants. The efficacy in public servants would improve and purpose of enactment of the Prevention of Corruption Act can only be achieved when the public servant does his duty truthfully and honestly and for that a deterrent punishment is required. Under such circumstances, the sentence of three years each with fine, with default clause as imposed by the learned trial court is proper and also does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed. 25. Perusal of record reveals that the appellant-accused-Sujeet Kumar Mukharjee is on bail. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, bail granted to the appellant-accused- Sujeet Kumar Mukharjee is cancelled. The appellant-accused- Sujeet Kumar Mukharjee is directed to surrender before the learned court below within six weeks from the date of this judgment failing which, the learned trial court will take coercive steps for apprehension of the appellant-accused for undergoing the sentence. 26. Let the Lower Court Records along with a copy of this Judgment be sent to the court below forthwith.