JUDGMENT : Heard the parties through Video Conferencing. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 10.12.2019 and order of sentence dated 13.12.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, A.C.B., West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Vigilance Special case no. 09 of 2014 whereby and whereunder, the learned court below has held the appellant-convict – Sonelal Das guilty for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section-13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section-13(2) read with Section-13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine, the appellant-convict was to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months but by observing that the offence punishable under Section-13 (2) read with Section-13 (1) (d) is serious offence than the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the trial court did not award any separate sentence for the offence punishable under Section7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant- Jitendra Choubey (P.W.3) submitted a complaint to the Anti-corruption Bureau that his construction company namely Balaji construction company was allotted repair work of Zila school, Chaibasa in the financial year 2013-14 and the said work was done by his company but for payment of the bill of that work, the appellant-convict, who was the Executive Engineer in P.W.D Building Construction, Division was demanding bribe of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The complaint was verified by Jitendra Dubey (P.W.5), an Inspector of Police posted in Anti Corruption Bureau by reaching Chaibasa on 26.03.2014 but the verification was done on 27.03.2014. For the purpose of verification, P.W.5 posed as a Musni (clerk) of the P.W.3 and went to the residential office of the appellant-convict, wherein the appellant-convict demanded bribe of Rs. 1,50,000/- and told that unless the said amount is given to him, the appellant-convict will not give the cheque of 6-7 lakhs rupees. Upon beseeched by P.W.3 the appellant-convict, agreed to receive Rs. 80,000/- as bribe for releasing the cheque payable to the P.W.3. Upon such verification, P.W.5 was satisfied about the genuineness of the complaint and submitted verification report to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi. Upon beseeched by P.W.3 the appellant-convict, agreed to receive Rs. 80,000/- as bribe for releasing the cheque payable to the P.W.3. Upon such verification, P.W.5 was satisfied about the genuineness of the complaint and submitted verification report to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi. Basing upon the same, F.I.R. of this case has been registered. P.W.8 was entrusted the investigation of the case. A trap team was constituted. Trap was laid on 28.03.2014 and the appellant-convict was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 80,000/-. His hands were washed in sodium carbonate solution and colour of the solution turned pink and same was sent for chemical examination. The sanction for prosecution was obtained. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant-convict for having committed offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section-13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Separate charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section-13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed against the appellant-accused. The appellant-convict pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution has altogether examined nine witnesses while the appellant-convict examined himself under Section 315 Code of Criminal Procedure as D.W.1. Out of the nine witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.3- Jitendra Choubey is the complainant of this case. He has deposed that on 26.03.14 he submitted a written application addressed to the Superintendent of Police, A.C.B. at Adrey House, in Ranchi alleging demand of bribe by the appellant-convict. The P.W.5 accompanied the P.W.3 for verification. During the course of verification on being beseeched by the P.W.3, the appellant-convict agreed to settle for a bribe of Rs. 80,000/- and agreed to release the cheque upon receiving the said Rs. 80,000/- as bribe. The conversation between the P.W.3 and the appellant-convict during the verification was heard by the P.W.5 and the P.W.5 submitted the verification report. A trap team was constituted. He has described in detail about the pre-trap preparations. On 28.03.2014, the P.W.3 contacted the appellant-convict over the phone and the appellant-convict invited him to the Building Construction Department at Chaibasa in the evening. At about 5.30 - 6.00 PM, the PW3 went to the Building Construction Department at Chaibasa. A trap team was constituted. He has described in detail about the pre-trap preparations. On 28.03.2014, the P.W.3 contacted the appellant-convict over the phone and the appellant-convict invited him to the Building Construction Department at Chaibasa in the evening. At about 5.30 - 6.00 PM, the PW3 went to the Building Construction Department at Chaibasa. He was instructed and cautioned by the A.C.B. officers that the P.W.3 will only hand-over the bribe amount, if the same is demanded by the appellant-convict and he was also told about the signal of raising his hands after the appellant-convict receives the money. The P.W.3 entered inside and he ( From the deposition, it appears that ‘he’in this sentence means the appellant-convict but it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-convict that ‘he’ herein may mean any person other than the appellant-convict also) asked whether the P.W.3 has brought money for release of the cheque. The P.W.3 answered that he has brought money. Thereafter, the P.W.3 enquired as to whether the cheque has been prepared then he said that he will get the cheque prepared after receiving the money. Thereafter, the P.W.3 gave Rs. 80,000/- in the hand of the appellant-convict. The appellant-convict kept Rs. 80,000/- in his pocket and told that he will prepare the cheque. Thereafter, the appellant-convict commanded his Cashier to bring the cheque. P.W.3 came out and signaled to the members of the trap team. They came and caught hold of the hands the appellant-convict. The P.W.3 was standing outside the gate. Thereafter, the search of the appellant-convict was made. Rs. 80,000/- was recovered from his pocket. Thereafter, members of the trap team got the hand of the appellant-convict washed in water. The color turned pink. Thereafter, the papers regarding the seizure were prepared and other formalities were completed. Many persons assembled there. The signatures of some independent witnesses were obtained on papers. The appellant-convict was arrested and he was taken to his residence from where Rs. 3,19,300/- kept in a briefcase was seized. P.W.3 identified the appellant-convict, who was in attendance in court on the date of the examination of P.W.3 in the court. In his cross-examination, P.W.3 has stated that his brother is an Advocate, who was sitting in the Court at the time of the examination of P.W.3. 3,19,300/- kept in a briefcase was seized. P.W.3 identified the appellant-convict, who was in attendance in court on the date of the examination of P.W.3 in the court. In his cross-examination, P.W.3 has stated that his brother is an Advocate, who was sitting in the Court at the time of the examination of P.W.3. His brother is also in politics and he has further stated that the final bill has been prepared by the department in relation of this work. It is pertinent to mention here that no question was put to the P.W.3 in his cross-examination regarding the demand, acceptance or recovery of the bribe money from the appellant-convict. 5. P.W. 1- Kanhaiya Prasad Singh is an Inspector of police with A.C.B. In his deposition, he has stated that on 27.03.2014, at about 5.30 -5.45 p.m., a trap team was constituted. He has also stated about the complaint made by P.W.3 and its verification by P.W.5 and also, the registration of the FIR. P.W.1 has also deposed about the pre-trap preparations. P.W.1 further stated that on 28.03.2014, all the members of the trap team left for Chaibasa in a Government vehicle and reached the bus stand at 3.00 PM and contacted P.W.3. The P.W.3 informed that the appellant-convict invited him at 18.00 hours. The P.W.3 entered the official chamber of the appellant-convict. P.W.3 came out and gave predetermined signal of rubbing his face with his hands at which, the P.W.5 entered inside the chamber of the appellant-convict and caught hold of his right hand and P.W.1 caught hold of his left hand and disclosed their identity. All the members of the trap team reached there. In presence of independent witnesses, who were present in the office premises, the search of the body of the appellant-convict was made and from his right fist, total 160 notes of Rs. 500/- denominations each were recovered. The numbers of the notes were compared with the number of notes mentioned in the G.C. note memorandum. The I.O. of the case prepared seizure list. Both of the hands of the appellant-convict were washed and the color of the solution turned light pink. The solution was kept in two separate bottles and sealed. From a briefcase kept in the almirah in the bedroom of the appellant-convict at his residence, total Rs. 3,19,345/- were recovered, for which, the appellant-convict could not give any explanation. Both of the hands of the appellant-convict were washed and the color of the solution turned light pink. The solution was kept in two separate bottles and sealed. From a briefcase kept in the almirah in the bedroom of the appellant-convict at his residence, total Rs. 3,19,345/- were recovered, for which, the appellant-convict could not give any explanation. P.W.1 claimed to identify the appellant-convict, who was represented on the date of examination of P.W.1 in court. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that only P.W.3 entered inside and others remained outside. After sometime, P.W.3 signaled then, P.W.1 and others entered inside and at that time, the appellant-convict was counting the money by using both his hands. 6. P.W.4- Barnabas Tirkey is the DSP of police posed in ACB. He has stated that on 27.03.2014, P.W.3 submitted a written application. A trap team was constituted and pre-trap preparations were made. On 28.03.2014, the trap team went to Chaibasa and met P.W.3. P.W.3 intimated that the appellant-convict invited him to his official chamber at Building Construction Department, Chaibasa. At 6.00 p.m. the P.W.4 and other members of the trap team took their position and waited for the signal. The complainant gave Rs. 80,000/-. P.W.5 caught hold of the right hand and the P.W.1 caught hold of the left hand of the appellant-convict while he was counting of the notes in the office. In the presence of the Magistrate and witnesses, the fingers of the appellant-convict were washed in sodium carbonate solution, due to which, the colour of the solution turned pink. Rs. 80,000/- was recovered from the appellant-convict and seizure list was prepared. Thereafter, the house of the appellant-convict was searched and from a briefcase about Rs. 3,00,000/- was seized. In his cross-examination, P.W.4 stated that all the notes were taken by the appellant-convict and kept in his pocket, covered with white paper. At the time of arrest, the appellant-convict was counting the notes and was sitting on a chair. When the appellant-convict was arrested, in the adjacent office, two to three employees were present. 7. P.W.5- Jitendra Dubey, is the verification officer of this case. He was also a member of the trap team. P.W. 5 has stated that on 26.03.2014, he was posted in Vigilance Burearu, Ranchi and on that day, P.W.3 submitted a complaint. He has described in details about the complaint made by P.W.3. 7. P.W.5- Jitendra Dubey, is the verification officer of this case. He was also a member of the trap team. P.W. 5 has stated that on 26.03.2014, he was posted in Vigilance Burearu, Ranchi and on that day, P.W.3 submitted a complaint. He has described in details about the complaint made by P.W.3. He has also proved the relevant documents. On 27.03.2014, he enquired about the complaint of P.W.3 at Chaisbasa. He posed as Munsi of P.W.3 at the time of the verification of the complaint and went to the residential office of the appellant-convict. On being enquired by the P.W.3, the appellant-convict told that P.W.3 has to pay Rs. 1,50,000/-. Upon the P.W.3 beseeching, the appellant-convict agreed to take the bribe amount of Rs. 80,000/- for releasing the cheque. After finding the complaint to be true, the appellant-convict submitted his report, upon which the FIR of the case was lodged. P.W.5 stated in detail about the pre-trap preparations made. Further he stated that on 28.03.2014 along with the members of the trap team, they went to Chaibasa. P.W.3 talked the appellant-convict over mobile phone. The appellant-convict had called the P.W.3 between 5-6 PM at his office. At about 5-5.30 P.M., P.W.3 went to the office of the Building Construction Department at Chaibasa. P.W.5 followed him maintaining some distance. P.W.3 entered into the office of the appellant-convict and about 10-15 minutes thereafter, P.W.3 came out and gave signal. After receiving the signal, P.W.5 rushed to the office of the appellant-convict and after disclosing his identity, caught hold of the right hand of the appellant-convict. In the meanwhile, P.W.1 came hurriedly and caught hold of the left hand of the appellant-convict. Thereafter, all the members of the trap team as well as the Magistrate reached there. Seeing the assembly of people, the nearby persons also assembled there. Out of which, two persons volunteered to be the witnesses and in their presence, the search of the appellant-convict was made and from his hands, currency notes of Rs. 500/- denominations each was recovered. P.W.5 also stated about the number of notes being compared and tallying with the numbers of notes mentioned in the G.C. notes memorandum and the fingers of both hands of the appellant-convict being washed in sodium carbonate solution and color of the solution turned pink. He also stated about the post-trap formalities carried out. 500/- denominations each was recovered. P.W.5 also stated about the number of notes being compared and tallying with the numbers of notes mentioned in the G.C. notes memorandum and the fingers of both hands of the appellant-convict being washed in sodium carbonate solution and color of the solution turned pink. He also stated about the post-trap formalities carried out. P.W.5 has further stated that the search of the official residence of the appellant-convict was carried out and Rs. 3,19,340/- kept in a briefcase was seized. In his cross-examination, P.W.5 has stated that for the first time, he went to Chaibasa on 26.03.2014 in connection with this case. In the first application submitted by P.W.3, no date has been mentioned. It takes three and half hours to cover the distance between Ranchi and Chaibasa. He reached Chaibasa on 26.03.2014 in his own Scorpio vehicle and returned to Ranchi on 27.03.2014 at 14.30 hours. It is pertinent to mention here that no question regarding the demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe money by the appellant-convict was asked in the cross-examination of P.W.5. 8. P.W.8- Sakal Dev Ram is the I.O. of the case. On 27.03.2014, P.W.3 submitted a written application about the demand of bribe of Rs. 1,50,000/- by the appellant-convict. The same was verified by P.W.5. P.W.8 further stated about the registration of the FIR and investigation of the case being entrusted to him. He has also sated about the constitution of the trap team and the pre-trap preparation. P.W.8 was also a member of the trap team. On 28.03.2014, the trap team reached Chaibasa. P.W.3 contacted the appellant-convict. The appellant-convict stated that he will receive the bribe amount in the evening at his office at Building Construction Division, Chaibasa. The members of the trap team reached the place of occurrence. The P.W.3 entered inside the office of the appellant-convict and on being demanded by the appellant-convict, the P.W.3 handed over him the notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder worth Rs. 80,000/-. While the appellant-convict was counting these notes, P.W.3 signaled to the shadow witness. The members of the trap team apprehended the appellant-convict while counting the notes. The fingers of the appellant-convict were washed in sodium carbonate solution and the colour of the solution turned pink. The solution in respect of washing of fingers of each hand, were kept in two separate bottles and sealed. The members of the trap team apprehended the appellant-convict while counting the notes. The fingers of the appellant-convict were washed in sodium carbonate solution and the colour of the solution turned pink. The solution in respect of washing of fingers of each hand, were kept in two separate bottles and sealed. Thereafter, the search of the appellant-convict was made and from his hand, Rs. 80/- (appears to be a typographical error as the same should have been Rs. 80,000/-) were seized. All the notes were of Rs. 500/- denominations. The numbers of seized notes were compared with the number of notes mentioned in the G.C. notes memorandum and they tallied. He also stated about the post-trap formalities including the execution of the document and proving the same. Further he stated that upon search being made at the residence of the appellant-convict, Rs. 3,19,340/- kept in a brief case was seized. P.W.8 has described the place of occurrence in detail with its boundaries and also stated in detail about the post-trap formalities including the execution of documents and signing the same by the witnesses. In his cross-examination, P.W.8 has stated that in this case, the amount demanded by the appellant-convict is different from the seized amount. It is pertinent to mention here that in the cross-examination of the P.W.8, no question of demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted bribe money from the appellant-convict was asked. 9. P.W.9- Ajit Kujur, is the Marketing Officer and he has stated that on 26.03.2019, he was directed to report at A.C.B., Ranchi. On 27.03.2014, he has stated about the constitution of the trap team and pre-trap preparations in detail. P.W.9 further stated that in capacity of Special Magistrate, he accompanied the trap team on 28.03.2014 to Chaibasa. P.W.3 went to hand over the bribe amount and after handing over money, gave pre-determined signal. P.W.9 along with the other members of the trap team entered inside the office and saw the police officers were catching hold of the hands of the appellant–convict. The bribe amount was seized from the appellant-convict. The number of notes tallied with the number of notes mentioned in the G.C. note memorandum. P.W.9 also stated about the hands of the appellant–convict being washed and the color of the solution changing to pink. The bribe amount was seized from the appellant-convict. The number of notes tallied with the number of notes mentioned in the G.C. note memorandum. P.W.9 also stated about the hands of the appellant–convict being washed and the color of the solution changing to pink. From the residence of the appellant-convict, recovery of a cheque drawn in favour of M/s Balaji Construction Company, the photocopy of the bill regarding construction of Zila school, Chaibasa and Rs. 3,19,340/- cash kept in a VIP briefcase were made. In his cross-examination, he stated that though the demanded sum was of Rs. 1,50,000/- but the seized amount was Rs. 80,000/- He further stated that the I.O. recorded his statement in this case. 10. P.W.2- Sanjay Kumar Yadav, was the in-charge Cashier of the Building Construction Division, Chaibasa on 28.03.2014. He deposed that at about 6.00 PM, the appellant-convict was in the room of P.W.2 and at that time, 4-5 person entered inside and caught hold of the appellant-convict and on enquiry, it was known that the vigilance raid was being made. The Anti-Corruption Bureau officers were asking for money and one of them commanded P.W.2 to open the Almirah but nothing was there in the Almirah. By the time P.W.2 turned around, he found that money was kept on the table. Thereafter, the vigilance personnel counted money. At this stage P.W. 2 turned hostile and even though he was put leading questions by the prosecution, still he did not support the case of the prosecution. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that the cheque of M/s Balaji construction came after being passed by the treasury on 29.03.2014 and the same was handed over to the P.W.3 by them on 29.03.2014. 11. P.W. 6 Shantanudev Burman @ Mona Burman has identified the signature on the G.C. notes memorandum and search-cum-seizure memo in three sheets as well as on the arrest memo, which were marked as exhibits. Thereafter, he could not identify the appellant-convict present at the time of his examination in court. He stated that he had not read the contents of any paper and his signature was obtained by the police personnel by the side of the road. Nothing was seized in his presence. 12. P.W.7 – Trishanu Roy has also identified his signature on G.C. notes memorandum, search-cum-seizure list in three pages as well as on the arrest memo. He stated that he had not read the contents of any paper and his signature was obtained by the police personnel by the side of the road. Nothing was seized in his presence. 12. P.W.7 – Trishanu Roy has also identified his signature on G.C. notes memorandum, search-cum-seizure list in three pages as well as on the arrest memo. In his cross-examination, he has stated that nothing has been seized in his presence and police obtained his signature on the papers and he does not know, what was written in those documents. 13. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the appellant-convict under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded regarding the circumstances appearing in evidence against him. The appellant-convict stated that his hand was never washed and the money recovered from his residence was private loan taken by him from two persons and the P.W.3 never came to him. He pleaded his innocence and answered the material questions in negative and further stated that as P.W.3 wanted to take five works, out of the twenty work items and submitted tender in four works, out of which, only one work was allotted to him, as per the rules and three works were not allotted to the P.W.3 hence, in association with his brother, the P.W.3 has falsely implicated the appellant-convict in this case. 14. In his deposition, as D.W.1 upon his examination under Section 315 Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant-convict stated that P.W.3 and his brother wanted to take five works, out of twenty works. The payment was made under the signature of DW1 for the work in respect of which, this case has been instituted. The D.W.1 signed the said cheque before being arrested. P.W.3 never came to the appellant-convict for his arrear bills before. The statement of the P.W.5 was recorded before the Presiding Officer namely Ashok Kumar Sinha and P.W.5 stated that the brother of P.W.3 went with P.W.5 for verification. In his cross-examination, D.W.1 stated that he was an Executive Engineer, Building Construction Division, from 23.05.2012 to 28.03.2014. It is further submitted that the documents which were produced at the time of his examination as D.W.1, was not handed over by him to the I.O. of the case. He admitted that the members of the trap team seized the cheque no. 171989 and photocopy of Form –IV from his residence. It is further submitted that the documents which were produced at the time of his examination as D.W.1, was not handed over by him to the I.O. of the case. He admitted that the members of the trap team seized the cheque no. 171989 and photocopy of Form –IV from his residence. 15. Learned court below after taking into consideration, the evidence in the record, held that the evidence in the record, is sufficient to establish the ingredients under Section7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section-13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and convicted and sentenced him as already indicated above. 16. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned court below failed to appreciate the facts of the case- both on facts as well as on law and failed to consider the defence case that being aggrieved by the non-allotment of the rest of the works out of four tenders submitted by him, he has falsely foisted this case against the appellant-convict. It is next submitted by Mr. Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant that learned court below failed to consider that there is anomaly in the testimony of the prosecution witness as to when the P.W.3 first approached the A.C.B. at Ranchi as the complaint submitted by him does not bear any date. Moreover, while some of the prosecution witnesses has stated that he first approached the A.C.B. office on 26.03.2014, while others have stated that he approached office of ACB on 27.03.2014 and this raises a suspicion about the manner of report being submitted and if verification of the complaint of P.W.3 was done on 27.03.2014, then it remains inexplicable as to how on 26.03.2014, the P.W.9 was intimated to report on 27.03.2014. Mr. Tewari next submits that there is no cogent evidence in the record regarding demand of money and the P.W.3 who is the sole witness examined on behalf of the prosecution on the point of demand has only stated “ he asked him as to whether P.W.3 has brought money” and in the absence of any direct evidence that the appellant-convict asked from the P.W.3 as to whether he has brought the money, it cannot be said that the essential ingredients of the demand of bribe amount by the appellant-convict has been proved. Mr. Mr. Tewari next submits that the recovery of the alleged money is doubtful as though P.W.3 has stated that money was recovered from the pocket of the appellant-convict while one of the witnesses of the prosecution has stated that the same has been recovered from the fist of the appellant-convict while the others have stated that the same has been recovered from the hands of the appellant-convict and it also casts a shadow of doubt regarding the veracity of the contention of the prosecution regarding recovery of the amount. Mr. Tewari further submitted that P.W.8 being a trap witness himself and his becoming the I.O. of the case has prejudiced the appellant-convict and in support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Hari Dev vs. State of Delhi (1971 Cr. Law Journal 1665 Delhi) wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has observed that if an officer is involved in a trap, then it would be safe to hand over the investigation to another officer. Mr. Tewari further submitted that learned court below failed to consider that the complainant was in inimical terms with the appellant-convict. It is next submitted that because of the weak nature of the evidence put forth by the prosecution against the appellant-convict the evidence in the record, is insufficient to establish three essential ingredients- demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe by the appellant-convict, to bring home the charges under Section 7 as well as Section-13 (2) read with Section-13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, therefore the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the appellant-convict be acquitted by giving him at least the benefit of doubt. 17. Mr. 17. Mr. T. N. Verma, learned counsel for the A.C.B. defended the impugned judgment and submitted that P.W.3- the complainant, P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.8 and P.W.9 have deposed in detail about the demand of the bribe amount by the appellant-convict, acceptance of the bribe amount by him as well as recovery of the tainted bribe amount from the appellant-convict and as no question was put to any of the material witnesses regarding their testimonies so far as the said three essential ingredients under Section 7 as well as Section-13 (2) read with Section-13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 of demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe amount, hence, their testimonies as far as these three essential ingredients are concerned, has remained unchallenged hence the same are to be believed. It is then submitted that these evidence in record, are sufficient to establish the said essential ingredients to bring home the charge under sections 7 as well as Section-13 (2) read with Section-13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and the learned court below having rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant –convict for the said offences, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 18. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of U.P. vs. Zakaullah reported in (1998) 1 SCC 557 where in the facts of that case, as the complainant’s evidence was jettisoned by the court below on the mere ground that since he had grouse against the delinquent public servant he might have falsely implicated the public servant, that such a premise is fraught with 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 A.C.B. is reflective of 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. The very fact that the complainant lodged a complaint with A.C.B. is reflective of 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph 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. In this backdrop the contention of the appellant-convict that the trial court erred in not considering the inimical terms between the P.W.3 and the appellant-convict, particularly in the absence of any evidence in record regarding any prior enmity between the two is without any merit. So far as the evidence of the members of the trap team are concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by 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 that the police officer dealing with the trap team is interested in 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 citizens is vindicated. It may 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 but it must be realized 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 extent 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 to be not independent. 19. Now coming to the facts of the case, as already indicated above, there is absolutely no cross-examination of the material witnesses of the prosecution being the P.W.3, P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W. 8 and P.W.9 regarding their testimonies in their examination-in-chief in respect of essential ingredients for offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 i.e. the demand of the bribe amount by the appellant-convict, the acceptance of the bribe amount by him and the recovery of the tainted bribe amount from his custody. It is a settled principle of law that if a party wishes to raise any doubt regarding 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Laxmibai v. Bhagwantbuva reported in (2013) 4 SCC 97 in paragraph 40 has held as under :- “40. 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. 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 Section146 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 H.P., State of U.P. v. Nahar, Rajinder Pershad v. Darshana and Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan.)”. 20. After carefully, going through the evidence in the record, I find that nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of the prosecution- witness, the appellant-convict to discard or disbelieve their testimony, so far as the testimonies of P.W.1, P.W3, P.W4, P.W5, P.W8 and P.W9 are concerned. Their testimonies are sufficient to establish the essential ingredients of acceptance, demand and recovery of the bribe amount which gives rise to the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 that the appellant-convict has accepted the said bribe amount as a motive or reward for performing a public duty improperly and dishonestly. The sanction of prosecution has been marked as exhibit 12 and the chemical examination report of the solution which were kept in bottle and sealed after the fingers of the appellant-convict were washed, therein shows presence of sodium carbonate as well as Phenolphthalein which also corroborates the fact that the appellant-accused handled the tainted notes. It is pertinent to mention that it is a settled principle of law that if the witnesses are examined after the considerable period of time, after the date of the occurrence, they cannot reproduce the exact incidence with photographic memory. The discrepancy in some minor aspect is common in any testimony of the witnesses. It is pertinent to mention that it is a settled principle of law that if the witnesses are examined after the considerable period of time, after the date of the occurrence, they cannot reproduce the exact incidence with photographic memory. The discrepancy in some minor aspect is common in any testimony of the witnesses. It is a settled principle of law that falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' is not a sound rule for the reason that hardly any one comes across witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration or embellishment as has been held by Hon’be Supreme Court of India in the case of Sohrab vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1972 SC 2020 . The contradictions pointed out by the learned counsels for the appellant are puerile in nature and when juxtaposed with the vivid and eloquent narration of incriminating facts the P.W.3, P.W1, P.W4, P.W5, P.W8 and P.W9, they pale into insignificance. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant regarding the Investigating Officer being one of the trap witnesses is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that he was first the Investigating Officer and then a witness in this case. Recently, a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mukesh Singh vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) reported in 2020 (9) JT 1 has overruled the earlier judgment passed in Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab reported in (2018) 17 SCC 627 and held that in a case relating to the offences under N.D.P.S. Act, if the complainant becomes the I.O. of the case, on that ground itself, the trial will not vitiate hence, in the absence of any specific prejudice put forth by the appellant –convict by P.W.8 becoming the I.O. of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the same is not a ground to give any benefit to the appellant-convict. Hence, this court is of the considered view that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, hence the conviction of the appellant-convict for the said offences is proper. Hence, this court is of the considered view that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, hence the conviction of the appellant-convict for the said offences is proper. Thus there is no justification to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction dated 10.12.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, ACB, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Vigilance Special case no. 09 of 2014, accordingly the said judgment of conviction is confirmed. 21. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that rampant corruption is seen in every walk of our life. People, particularly those holding high office, are frequently seen accepting illegal gratification. In such serious cases showing mercy to such corrupt official may send wrong signals. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Narendra Champaklal Trivedi v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 7 SCC 80 has observed thus in paragraph -30 “Xxxxxxxxxxx It should be paramountly borne in mind that corruption at any level does not deserve either sympathy or leniency. In fact, reduction of the sentence would be adding a premium. The law does not so countenance and, rightly so, because corruption corrodes the spine of a nation and in the ultimate eventuality makes the economy sterile.” Thus in this backdrop, considering the huge amount of bribe taken by the appellant–convict, the sentence also appears to be proper. Accordingly, the order of sentence dated 13.12.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, A.C.B., West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Vigilance Special case no. 09 of 2014 is also confirmed. Thus this appeal being without any merit is dismissed. 22. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant-convict is in judicial custody. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the learned trial court is directed to release the seized tainted money to the complainant after keeping the copies of the same. 23. Let a copy the Judgment be sent to learned trial court forthwith. 24. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the I.A. No. 4537 of 2020 is dismissed being infructuous.