JUDGMENT : Heard the parties through Video Conferencing. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner- XVIII-cum- Spl. Judge, C.B.I. (other than AHD) Ranchi in R. C. case No. 8(A) / 2009 (R) whereby and where under, the learned court below has held the appellant- convict guilty for having committed the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years each for the said two offences. For the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 learned trial court has imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in case of default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and in respect of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 imposed of fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant-P.W.8 submitted a written complaint to the C.B.I. officers at Daltonganj, who were deputed on the directions of the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., A.C.B., Ranchi upon getting information of demand of bribe by the appellant-convict. In his complaint, P.W.8 has alleged that the complainant submitted an application for Kisan Credit Card Loan in Vananchal Gramin Bank, Pandu Branch in the district of Palamau which was endorsed by the Block Development Officer, Pandu and when P.W.8 went to the bank on 22.07.2009, the appellant-convict who was the Cashier of the bank, demanded bribe amount of Rs. 3,000/- and told that, otherwise the loan will not be sanctioned. The appellant-convict told P.W.8 to come with Rs. 3,000/- on 24.07.2009 and then only, his work would be done. P.W.8 was in need of Rs. 25,000/- badly for cultivation and as he did not want to pay the bribe amount, he approached the C.B.I.. The said application of the complainant was sent by FAX to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Ranchi and he directed Mr. R. K. Prasad, Inspector, C.B.I., A.C.B., Ranchi to verify and report. Mr. R. K. Prasad, who was at Palamau along with the team at that time, verified the complaint and submitted his report, basing upon which, FIR of this case was registered. R. K. Prasad, Inspector, C.B.I., A.C.B., Ranchi to verify and report. Mr. R. K. Prasad, who was at Palamau along with the team at that time, verified the complaint and submitted his report, basing upon which, FIR of this case was registered. The trap team was constituted by arranging two independent witnesses from the local Post Office. A trap was laid. The appellant-convict was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe. His right hand was washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonate and the colour of solution turned to pink. The sanction for the prosecution of the appellant-convict was obtained and after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant-convict for having committed 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. Separate charges for the said two offences were framed against the appellant-convict on 11.02.2011. The appellant-convict pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined ten witnesses besides proving the documents and one witness was examined from the side of the defence. Out of the ten witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.8 is the complainant. He was first examined in the court on 22.09.2016, but his examination- in-chief was deferred on 22.09.2016 and his further examination- in-chief was recorded on 14.12.2016. The cross-examination of P.W.8 was recorded on 07.02.2017 and on 28.03.2017. P.W.8 stated about meeting the appellant-convict Cashier of Gramin Bank, Pandu Branch on 22.07.2009 in connection with the KCC loan of Rs. 25,000/- and the appellant-convict told him that the loan would be given to him if he pays Rs. 3,000/- and further told the P.W.8 to come with money on 24.07.2009. The P.W.8 did not intend to give the bribe, hence, he went to C.B.I. office on 23.07.2009 and met the Superintendent of Police. On 23.07.2009 the C.B.I. Inspector met him and he submitted his written complaint. The C.B.I. Inspector told P.W.8 to meet him in the hotel at 6.00 hours on 24.07.2009. P.W.8 described in detail about the pre-trap preparations. P.W.8 further stated that the trap team including two independent witnesses reached near the house of the appellant-convict situated near Vananchal Gramin Bank at 9.15 AM. The P.W.8 along with the independent witness- P.W.7 entered inside the house of the appellant-convict and met the appellant-convict. P.W.8 described in detail about the pre-trap preparations. P.W.8 further stated that the trap team including two independent witnesses reached near the house of the appellant-convict situated near Vananchal Gramin Bank at 9.15 AM. The P.W.8 along with the independent witness- P.W.7 entered inside the house of the appellant-convict and met the appellant-convict. Thereafter P.W.8 discussed with the appellant-convict for sanction of his KCC loan. P.W.7 was with him at that time. P.W.8 brought out money from his pocket and gave it to the appellant-convict in his right hand. The appellant-convict took it in his right hand and kept on the table and told that the work of the P.W.8 would be done. After giving money P.W.8 came out of the house of the appellant-convict and signaled by scratching his head. After that, the C.B.I. officers entered inside the house of the appellant-convict and challenged the appellant-convict by telling that he has received the bribe of Rs. 3,000/- and caught hold of the hands of the appellant-convict. The bribe amount was seized from the table. The numbers of the notes were compared. Fingers of the hand of the appellant-convict were washed with milky-white solution. The colour turned to pink. The same was kept in a bottle and sealed. In his cross-examination, P.W.8 has stated that the KCC loan is sanctioned by the Branch Manager. He did not meet the appellant-convict on 22.07.2009. He denied the suggestion that upon the appellant-convict going to the other room, P.W.8 kept the money on the table. He further submitted that T. Vardhan Saheb came first. He was followed by P.W.7. One Tiwari Jee of Basdiha was in the house of the appellant-convict; before PW8 entering the house of the appellant-convict. He denied the suggestion that the appellant-convict did not demand any money from him. 5. P.W.7- Ashwani Kumar Ambastha is one of the independent witnesses. He was the shadow witness in the trap. He has stated that he was a Postal Assistant. On 24.07.2009, he and the P.W.5 met the C.B.I. Inspector- P.W.9- Rajesh Singh Solanki and other officers. He has stated about the pre-trap preparations in details. P.W.7 further stated that he and P.W.8 reached near the house of the appellant-convict. P.W.8 called the appellant-convict by his name. P.W.8 introduced P.W.7 to be his cousin brother and he also told the appellant-convict that P.W.7 also wants KCC loan. He has stated about the pre-trap preparations in details. P.W.7 further stated that he and P.W.8 reached near the house of the appellant-convict. P.W.8 called the appellant-convict by his name. P.W.8 introduced P.W.7 to be his cousin brother and he also told the appellant-convict that P.W.7 also wants KCC loan. The appellant-convict demanded money at which, P.W.8 handed over the notes smeared with phenolphthalein to the appellant-convict. The appellant-convict took the same by his right hand and kept the same on the table. P.W.8 signaled and all the members of trap team, arrived there and P.W.9 challenged the appellant-convict of accepting the bribe. The C.B.I. officers caught hold of the hands of the appellant-convict and his hands were washed with the Sodium Carbonate solution. P.W.7 has also stated about the post trap memorandum in details. In his cross-examination, P.W.7 stated that it is false to say that P.W.8 finding the house of the appellant-convict open, first kept the money and thereafter called the appellant-convict. It is pertinent to mention here that no question regarding the demand of bribe money by the appellant-convict, acceptance of bribe money by him and recovery of tainted bribe money from the appellant-convict was asked to P.W.7 in his cross-examination. It is also pertinent to mention here that nothing has been asked to P.W.7 to suggest that any Tiwari Jee, whom the appellant-convict projected to be a witness, was present at the time of P.W.8 entering inside the house of the appellant-convict. 6. P.W.5- Ramesh Kumar Sharan is the other independent witness. He was a Public Relation Inspector, Head Post office, Daltonganj on the date of the occurrence. It is pertinent to mention here that the examination-in-chief of the P.W.5 was recorded on three dates being 27.03.2014, 23.04.2014 and 02.02.2015 and his cross-examination started on 02.02.2015 which continued and concluded on 13.07.2015. P.W.5 stated that he reported before the C.B.I. officer on 24.07.2009 at 6.00 hours at Swikriti hotel in room no. 303 along with P.W.7. He has stated about the pre-trap preparations in detail. P.W.7 and P.W.8 went to the appellant–convict. P.W.8 enquired from the appellant –convict as to whether the appellant –convict has done work relating to his KCC loan, at which the appellant–convict enquired whether P.W.8 has brought Rs. 3,000/-. The P.W.8 replied in affirmative. The appellant–convict enquired about the P.W.7. He has stated about the pre-trap preparations in detail. P.W.7 and P.W.8 went to the appellant–convict. P.W.8 enquired from the appellant –convict as to whether the appellant –convict has done work relating to his KCC loan, at which the appellant–convict enquired whether P.W.8 has brought Rs. 3,000/-. The P.W.8 replied in affirmative. The appellant–convict enquired about the P.W.7. P.W.8 informed the appellant–convict that P.W.7 is the cousin brother of P.W.8 and P.W. 7 also wants loan. Thereafter, the appellant –convict told P.W.5 to sit down, at which, the P.W.8 gave Rs. 3,000/- to the appellant –convict and came outside and signaled. Thereafter, the C.B.I. officer and P.W.5 went inside and C.B.I. officers disclosed their identity and challenged the appellant –convict by telling that the appellant–convict has taken Rs. 3,000/- for sanctioning the KCC loan of P.W.8. Thereafter, the fingers of right hand of the appellant–convict were dipped in milky-white solution kept in a glass, the colour of which turned to pink. On being asked, the appellant–convict disclosed that he has kept the bribe amount on the table. P.W. 5 has also stated in detail about the post-trap formalities and he identified the appellant –convict, who was present in the court on the date of his examination. In his cross-examination, he has stated that except P.W.7 and P.W.8, all other persons were outside the house of the appellant –convict and only after receiving the signal, they went inside and he has neither seen nor heard the occurrence before receiving the signal. 7. P.W.9- Rajesh Singh Solanki is the part Investigating Officer of the case. He stated that on 23.07.2019, the Superintendent of Police informed him that P.W.8 has complained over phone that the appellant –convict was demanding bribe of Rs. 3,000/- and instructed P.W.9 to go with the team to Daltonganj. P.W. 9 along with five others proceeded to Daltonganj and stayed in hotel Swikriti. P.W. 9 requested the two independent witnesses from the Department of Post. P.W.8 met P.W.9 and submitted his complaint. The P.W.9 proved the said complaint in Court. The complaint was sent by FAX to the C.B.I. office, Ranchi. The Superintendent of Police, directed Mr. R.K. Prasad for verification. Mr. Prasad enquired from P.W.8 and submitted his verification report, which was also sent to the C.B.I. office by FAX. Thereafter, the F.I.R. of the case was registered. P.W.9 has stated in details about the pre-trap preparations. The complaint was sent by FAX to the C.B.I. office, Ranchi. The Superintendent of Police, directed Mr. R.K. Prasad for verification. Mr. Prasad enquired from P.W.8 and submitted his verification report, which was also sent to the C.B.I. office by FAX. Thereafter, the F.I.R. of the case was registered. P.W.9 has stated in details about the pre-trap preparations. He has further stated that at about 9.15 hours, the trap team including the two independent witnesses reached outside the house of the appellant-convict and at about 9.20 hours, the complainant and the independent witness-P.W.7 entered the house of the appellant-convict. After sometime, P.W. 8 gave the pre-determined signal. Thereafter the members of the trap team entered inside the house of the appellant-convict and by disclosing their identity, challenged the appellant-convict of having accepted Rs. 3,000/-, by which, the face of the appellant-convict became pale. The appellant-convict was arrested. On being enquired, the appellant-convict disclosed that bribe amount is on the table. The right hand of the appellant-convict was dipped in Sodium Carbonate solution. The colour turned to pink. The same was kept in a bottle and sealed. Thereafter, the independent witness-P.W.5 recovered the bribe amount from the table. They were Rs. 3,000/- in all. The numbers of the notes were tallied with the numbers of notes mentioned in the pre-trap memorandum. The same was kept in an envelope and sealed. P.W.9 also stated about the post-trap formalities in detail. In his cross-examination, P.W.9 has stated that the Verification Officer did not go to the place of occurrence for verification. P.W.9 was the team leader of this case. 8. P.W.10- Tathagat Vardhan is the Dy. S.P., who became Investigating officer of the case on 29.07.2009. He received the investigation from P.W.9. He has proved the documents and further stated that after investigation, finding the allegations to be true, he submitted charge-sheet on 31.08.2009. In his cross-examination, P.W.10 has stated that he did not accompany the trap team of this case, hence, he does not have any personal knowledge about the case. 9. P.W.1- Tanay Kumar Mukhopadhyay has stated that he has accorded the sanction for prosecution of the appellant-convict. 10. P.W.2- Gopal Mishra has stated that the appellant-convict was working as a Cashier in his bank on the date of occurrence. He has proved the seized documents relating to KCC loan. 9. P.W.1- Tanay Kumar Mukhopadhyay has stated that he has accorded the sanction for prosecution of the appellant-convict. 10. P.W.2- Gopal Mishra has stated that the appellant-convict was working as a Cashier in his bank on the date of occurrence. He has proved the seized documents relating to KCC loan. He stated that several documents including the control card and KCC were seized from the house of the appellant-convict by P.W.9. He identified the loan application of the P.W.8 which was sanctioned by P.W.2 on 24.07.2009. He also proved the related documents and identified the appellant-convict in Court. The appellant-convict was not authorized to keep the documents which were seized from his house. In his cross-examination, he stated that the appellant-convict was not authorized to sanction the KCC loan. 11. P.W.3- H.U. Khan stated that on 25.08.2009, he was the Regional Manager of Region-III of Vananchal Gramin Bank, Daltonganj. He has proved the Exhibit 15 in which, the work profile of the Clerk-cum-Cashier was mentioned. In his cross-examination, he has stated that there is provision in the Rule and Circular that the Branch Manager or the bank management by verbal orders or by office orders can take work from others. 12. P.W.4- Baijayanta Mukhopadhyay stated that he was working as Junior Scientific Officer (Chemistry). He proved the chemical analysis report of the solution which was sent for chemical examination. He stated that by chemical analysis, Phenolphthalein, Sodium Carbonate and water were detected in the bottle sent for examination. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not test for presence of any human tissue in the said solution. 13. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the appellant-convict under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding the circumstances appearing in evidence against him were recorded wherein the appellant-convict admitted that he was posted as Clerk-Cum-Cashier in Vananchal Gramin Bank on 24.07.2009 and denied all the material questions put to him but he admitted that his hands and fingers were washed and colour of the solution turned to pink. He also admitted that he had put signature over post trap memorandum after going through its contents and copy of the post trap memorandum was supplied to him. He pleaded his innocence. He further explained that as there was quarrel with the complaint over certain issues hence, the complainant has falsely implicated him in this case to wreak vengeance. 14. He also admitted that he had put signature over post trap memorandum after going through its contents and copy of the post trap memorandum was supplied to him. He pleaded his innocence. He further explained that as there was quarrel with the complaint over certain issues hence, the complainant has falsely implicated him in this case to wreak vengeance. 14. D.W.1- Surendra Tiwari stated that on 24.07.2009, he was sitting in the house of the appellant–convict. The appellant–convict was putting on his clothes after taking his bath. Then, one person came from outside and called the appellant–convict. The appellant–convict told him to come inside. That person came inside and kept one paper and money near the newspaper on the table and then he went outside. About a minute or half thereafter, 3-4 persons came and in the meanwhile, the appellant–convict also came out after putting on his clothes. Those 3-4 persons challenged the appellant–convict by saying that he has taken bribe, which was denied by the appellant–convict. Then they made the appellant–convict count money kept on the table and told that money has been accepted as bribe by the appellant–convict. D.W.1 also told the C.B.I. personnel that the appellant–convict has not taken any bribe but the C.B.I. personnel told D.W.1 to go away. In his cross-examination, D.W.1 has stated that he did not intimate either to police or to C.B.I. in writing or verbally earlier about the facts he deposed in the Court. 15. Learned court below taking into consideration, the evidence in the record held that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing 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 and convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as already indicated above. 16. Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha- learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below failed to take into consideration that the appellant-convict had no power to sanction KCC Loan, hence, the occasion of demanding the bribe does not arise. It is next submitted that there is non-application of mind in grant of sanction for prosecution of the appellant-convict. 16. Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha- learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below failed to take into consideration that the appellant-convict had no power to sanction KCC Loan, hence, the occasion of demanding the bribe does not arise. It is next submitted that there is non-application of mind in grant of sanction for prosecution of the appellant-convict. It is further submitted that the Special Judge failed to take into consideration that the appellant became the victim of evil desire hatched by the complainant because of the quarrel that took place with him to wreck vengeance and for which he has lodged this case. It is next submitted by Mr. Sinha that the learned Special Judge failed to consider the applicability of the Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in its proper perspective and could not appreciate the evidence in the record properly. It is further submitted that the pre-trap memorandum categorically shows that the P.W.10 was not the member of the trap team but still the P.W.8 having stated that he was the first person to enter inside the house of the appellant-convict followed by others makes the testimony of the P.W.8 untrustworthy. Mr. Sinha assails the testimony of the P.W.8. by drawing the attention of this Court towards the deposition of the P.W.8 wherein he has categorically stated that he has not specifically mentioned about the specific demand of money by the appellant- convict. It is also submitted that non-examination of R. K. Prasad- the verifying officer in the case as witness in the case has prejudiced the defence. Mr. Sinha also stated that though in his examination-in-chief, the P.W.8 has stated that he met the appellant-convict on 22.07.2009 but in his cross-examination he has stated that he did not meet him. It is also submitted that though P.W.8 stated that he met the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau at Ranchi on 23.07.2009 but the same is contradicted by the testimony of the P.W.9 as per whose testimony there was no scope of the P.W.8 to meet the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau at Ranchi on 23.07.2009. It is also submitted that though P.W.8 stated that he met the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau at Ranchi on 23.07.2009 but the same is contradicted by the testimony of the P.W.9 as per whose testimony there was no scope of the P.W.8 to meet the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau at Ranchi on 23.07.2009. It is then submitted that after examination-in-chief of P.W.8 on 22.09.2016 without assigning any reason, his further examination-in-chief was deferred for a period of over two months and the same has been done for the purpose of coaching the P.W.8 by the prosecution as he departed from the prosecution case. Hence, it is submitted that the testimony of the P.W.8 is not credit worthy. It is also submitted by Mr. Sinha that the P.W.8 admitted that the D.W.1 was present at the time of occurrence, so that enhances the credibility of the D.W.1 and the D.W.1 has categorically stated that the appellant-convict was framed in this case and he neither demanded nor accepted the money. It is submitted that thus the evidence in record is insufficient to establish the two essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant-convict. Hence, it is submitted that because of the absence of the said two essential ingredients, the appellant-convict be acquitted at least by giving him the benefit of doubt. 17. Mr. B. K. Prasad- learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. on the other hand defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the two independent witnesses including the shadow witness- P.W.7 has stated about the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vividly and nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to discredit or disbelieve their testimony and there is no cross-examination of the P.W.8, 7 and 5 who are the material witnesses of the case, regarding their testimonies about said three essential ingredients of the offences about which they have deposed in their examination-in-chief being the demand of bribe, acceptance of bribe and recovery of the bribe from the appellant-convict. Their testimony is corroborated by the chemical analysis report about the solution which was sealed after washing the fingers of the right hand of the appellant-convict and nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of the P.W.1 to challenge his testimony regarding the sanction of prosecution of the appellant-convict. Mr. Prasad further submits that Section 19 (3)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which reads as under:- (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),— (a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby; (Emphasis Supplied) envisages that judgment of conviction and sentence ought not to be altered by a court in an appeal on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required under Section 19 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; unless in the opinion of the court, a failure of justice has in fact, been occasioned to the appellant-convict and in this case as no failure of justice has been occasioned to the appellant-convict as admittedly the appellant-convict is a public servant, hence, it is submitted that the findings of the trial court ought not to be interfered with on the ground of any shortcomings in the sanction for prosecution. It is further submitted by Mr. Prasad that the evidence put forth by the prosecution witnesses are trustworthy and reliable and they have proved each of the said essential ingredients of the offence punishable both under Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, it is submitted that the learned court below having rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant-convict, this appeal, being without any merit be dismissed. 18. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after carefully going through the record, it is found that in the cross-examination of the P.W.7- who is a shadow witness of the case and also an independent witness, nothing has been elicited to discredit or disbelieve his testimony. Same is the case with the deposition of the P.W.5. 18. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after carefully going through the record, it is found that in the cross-examination of the P.W.7- who is a shadow witness of the case and also an independent witness, nothing has been elicited to discredit or disbelieve his testimony. Same is the case with the deposition of the P.W.5. P.W.7 has categorically stated about the all the essential ingredients of 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. There is absolutely no cross-examination of the P.W.7 regarding the demand of bribe money by the appellant-convict, acceptance of bribe money by him and recovery of the bribe money from the appellant-convict about which P.W.7 has categorically stated in his 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. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Laxmibai (Dead) Through LRS. and Another Vs. Bhagwantbhuva (Dead) Through LRS and Others 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 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 H.P. [1994 Supp (1) SCC 7 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 212 : AIR 1994 SC 226 ] , State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh [ (1998) 3 SCC 561 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 850 : AIR 1998 SC 1328 ] , Rajinder Pershad v. Darshana Devi [ (2001) 7 SCC 69 : AIR 2001 SC 3207 ] and Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan [ (2005) 9 SCC 283 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1230 : AIR 2005 SC 1096 ].)” (Emphasis Supplied) 19. It is true that the P.W.8 has made some departure from his cross-examination but it is also to be kept in mind that the P.W.8 was examined in this case almost after seven years after the date of occurrence and when a witness is examined after so long time, it is impossible for him to repeat the occurrence with photographic memory. Further that cannot be a ground to reject his deposition entirely even though it is perfectly sound in respect of the main prosecution case as in our system of law, the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not followed. Further that cannot be a ground to reject his deposition entirely even though it is perfectly sound in respect of the main prosecution case as in our system of law, the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not followed. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttaranchal, (2013) 4 SCC 713 held as under in paragraph-22 in this respect as under: “22.Xxxxxxxxxxxx secondly, and more importantly even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the depositions of PW 2 and PW 3 were incorrect in regard to the relationship between PW 2 and the deceased and in regard to PW 2 living in the house of the deceased as a tenant at the time of occurrence, we fail to see how that can be the ground to reject their deposition entirely even though it is perfectly sound in respect of the main prosecution case. In our system of law, the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not followed.” 20 So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the non-examination of R. K. Prasad- admittedly the verifying officer is concerned, R. K. Prasad did not go to the place of occurrence for verification. He was just any other trap witness. It is a settled principle of law that if already overwhelming evidence is available and examination of other witnesses would only be a repetition or duplication of the evidence already adduced, non-examination of such other witnesses may not be material. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this respect has held as under in the case of Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, (2001) 6 SCC 145 by interalia observing thus in paragraph -19: “19. Xxxxxx On the other hand if already overwhelming evidence is available and examination of other witnesses would only be a repetition or duplication of the evidence already adduced, non-examination of such other witnesses may not be material. In such a case the court ought to scrutinise the worth of the evidence adduced. The court of facts must ask itself — whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary to examine such other witness, and if so, whether such witness was available to be examined and yet was being withheld from the court. In such a case the court ought to scrutinise the worth of the evidence adduced. The court of facts must ask itself — whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary to examine such other witness, and if so, whether such witness was available to be examined and yet was being withheld from the court. If the answer be positive then only a question of drawing an adverse inference may arise. If the witnesses already examined are reliable and the testimony coming from their mouth is unimpeachable the court can safely act upon it, uninfluenced by the factum of non-examination of other witnesses. It is also a settled principle of law that if the accused do not voice his concern or raise any apprehension regarding the non-examination of any material witness in the cross-examination of the I.O. he cannot advance an argument stating that since the most material witness was withheld by the prosecution therefore, adverse inference should be drawn against them as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dahari v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 256 , at page 261 paragraph -13 of which reads as under : “13. So far as the non-production of Ashok, the most material witness to the case is concerned, it is evident from the record that during the cross-examination of Sarvdev Singh, IO (PW 4), none of the said accused voiced their concerns or raised any apprehension regarding the non-examination of Ashok. He was (sic not) the only competent witness who would have been fully capable of explaining correctly, the factual situation. In such a situation, the appellants cannot be permitted to advance an argument stating that since the most material witness was withheld by the prosecution therefore, adverse inference should be drawn against them.” It is again a settled principle of law that the evidence is not to be counted and it is to be weighed, if there is trustworthy evidence in the record regarding the offence, the same cannot be discarded merely because one of the witnesses was not examined and it not a rule of law that each of the witness cited in the charge-sheet is to be examined. Under such circumstances, as the evidence in the record regarding the essential ingredients of the offence punishable both under Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 being the demand of bribe money by the appellant-convict, acceptance of bribe money by him and recovery of the bribe money from the appellant-convict in the absence of any specific prejudice having been caused to the appellant-convict, being overwhelming coming through the mouth of the P.W.7- the independent witness whose testimony is unimpeachable and trustworthy and whose testimony is corroborated by the P.W.8 and P.W.5, this Court is of the considered view that examination of R.K. Prasad in this case as a witness of the prosecution would have been a repetition and his non-examination will not be fatal for the case of the prosecution in view of otherwise cogent evidence in the record. 21. So far as the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is concerned, as already discussed above, since the prosecution has through the witnesses being the P.W.7, 8, 5 and 9 has categorically brought on record the evidence to establish the demand of bribe money, acceptance of bribe money and recovery of the bribe money which was handled by the appellant-convict so, the same is sufficient to draw the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in this respect, learned court below has not committed any error. 22. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-convict that after examination-in-chief of P.W.8 on 22.09.2016 without assigning any reason, his further examination-in-chief was deferred for a period of over two months, is concerned that as is evident from the record the deposition of several material witnesses of this case were recorded over a period of several days. If a witness is to be coached there is no requirement for adjourning the case for over two months as a day or two will suffice for the purpose. If a witness is to be coached there is no requirement for adjourning the case for over two months as a day or two will suffice for the purpose. It is a common practice in the trial courts in this part of the country to continue recording the deposition of the witnesses over a period of several days depending upon the work on the board of the court and availability and convenience of the parties and the lawyer as well as the witness to be examined and also holidays of the Court. Perusal of the record reveals that no protest was ever made by the accused at the time of the deferring of the examination-in-chief of P.W.8 on 22.09.2016. Under such circumstances this court is of the considered view that such deferred examination of the P.W.8 will be of not much consequence in the facts of this case. 23. So far as the testimony of the D.W.1 is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that the same is contradictory to the stand taken by the appellant-convict in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the appellant-convict took the ground of inimical terms of him with the P.W.8 being the reason of his false implication in the case. Had it been a fact, it is highly unlikely that the appellant-convict could have allowed the P.W.8 to enter inside his house in his absence in the room, as was stated by D.W.1. Further, no question was asked to the P.W.7 or any other witnesses examined before him about the presence of the D.W.1 in the house of the appellant-convict. So, it is apparent that this defence is an afterthought of the appellant-convict to make out a case for him. Thus the testimony of D.W.1 will not be of any help to the appellant-convict. Under such circumstances, 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 against the appellant-convict. Hence, the learned court below has rightly convicted the appellant-convict for the said two offences, the conviction of the appellant-convict by the judgment of conviction dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner- XVIII-cum- Spl. Hence, the learned court below has rightly convicted the appellant-convict for the said two offences, the conviction of the appellant-convict by the judgment of conviction dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner- XVIII-cum- Spl. Judge, C.B.I. (other than AHD) Ranchi in R. C. case No. 8(A) / 2009 (R) for the offence punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is confirmed. 24. 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.” Hence, keeping in view the amount of bribe, the sentence of two years with fine and default clause, appears to be proper. Accordingly, the sentence of the appellant-convict passed by the order of sentence dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner- XVIII-cum-Spl. Judge, C.B.I. (other than AHD) Ranchi in R. C. case No. 8(A) / 2009 (R) is also confirmed. 25. Thus, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed. 26. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant-Vijay Kumar is on bail. In view of dismissal of this appeal, the bail of the appellant is cancelled and he is directed to surrender in the trial court within six weeks from the date of this order to undergo the sentence failing which the trial court is directed to take all coercive steps for his apprehension for undergoing the remaining sentence. 27. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court records be sent to the learned court below forthwith.