JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. 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 30.06.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge II-cum-Special Judge Anti Corruption Bureau, Cyber Cases and Electricity Act, Dhanbad in Special (Vigilance) Case No. 14-08 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) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months and further sentenced the appellant-convict to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant-PW-5 Roshan Lal Agarwal submitted a complaint to the S.P. Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi mentioning therein that on 16.07.2008 he requested the appellant-convict who was the In-charge Assistant Statistics Officer, in the office of Registrar of Births and Death, Dhanbad to prepare a birth certificate of his son. The appellant-convict demanded Rs. 1,000/- as bribe. The complainant was not desirous of paying any bribe, hence, he gave Rs. 200/- with his application to the appellant-convict at which the appellant-convict told PW-5 that when the PW-5 will give the remaining Rs. 800/- then the appellant-convict would get the birth certificate. The complaint of the PW-5 was verified by the PW-1 Mithilesh Kumar Singh and PW-1 found the same to be true. On the basis of the report submitted by the PW-1, this case has been registered. A trap was successfully conducted on 23.07.2008. The appellant-convict was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 800/-. Investigation of the case was entrusted to the PW-2 Birsa Ram Khalko. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was submitted against the appellant-convict. The appellant-convict was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 800/-. Investigation of the case was entrusted to the PW-2 Birsa Ram Khalko. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was submitted against the appellant-convict. Separate charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed against the appellant-convict to which he pleaded not guilty and thus was put to trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined seven witnesses while no witness was examined on behalf of the defence. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-5 Roshan Lal Agarwal stated that on 16.07.2008 he submitted an application to the appellant-convict for the issuance of birth certificate of his son at which the appellant-convict told him that Rs. 1,000/- would be required. The PW-5 was not intending to pay the bribe but he paid Rs. 200/- at which the appellant-convict received the application for the birth certificate. The appellant-convict told the PW-5 to give Rs. 800/- and only then the birth certificate would be prepared. On 17.07.2008, the PW-5 went to the office of Vigilance Bureau at Ranchi and met the S.P. After submission of the complaint by the PW-5, the case was handed over to the PW-1 Police Inspector for verification. On 21.07.2008 between 12:30 to 1:00 p.m. the PW-1 accompanied the PW-5 to the office of the Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad. During the course of verification, in presence of the PW-1, the appellant-convict told that Rs. 800/- would be required and he would give the birth certificate. 10-12 persons were there who were demanding their birth certificates. Out of whom from 2-3 persons, the appellant-convict took money. The PW-1 submitted his verification report to the Vigilance Bureau. On 22.07.2008, a trap team was constituted. The PW-5 stated in detail about the pre-trap preparations. On 23.07.2008, the members of the trap team went from Ranchi to Dhanbad at 7:00 hours. They reached near Dhanbad Municipal Corporation Office at about 1:00 hour in the day. The PW-1 and the PW-5 went to the office of the appellant-convict and discussed with the appellant-convict about the birth certificate. In the process, the PW-5 handed over Rs. 800/- smeared with powder consisting eight notes of Rs. They reached near Dhanbad Municipal Corporation Office at about 1:00 hour in the day. The PW-1 and the PW-5 went to the office of the appellant-convict and discussed with the appellant-convict about the birth certificate. In the process, the PW-5 handed over Rs. 800/- smeared with powder consisting eight notes of Rs. 100/- denomination each to the appellant-convict. Thereafter, the PW-5 gave the pre-fixed signal by wiping his face then all the members of the raiding team came running and two members of the raiding team caught hold of the hands of the appellant-convict. The search of the appellant-convict was made. From his left hand Rs. 800/- was found. Thereafter, the pocket of the appellant-convict was searched from which Rs. 41,000/- was found. The left hand of the appellant-convict was washed with Sodium Carbonate solution and the colour of the solution turned pink. Thereafter, the right hand of the appellant-convict was also washed in the solution and the colour also turned pink. The post-trap documents were prepared. The PW-5 identified the appellant-convict in Court. In his cross-examination, the PW-5 has stated that till the date of his examination in court, he has instituted cases relating to C.B.I. and Vigilance against 20-25 persons. He has further stated that his son was born in a hospital. He did not hand over any document of identification of his son to the appellant-convict for preparing the birth certificate. He did not remember whether he told the entire facts to the police or not. He did not have any document to show that he submitted an application for the birth certificate of his son. It is pertinent to mention here that no question was put to the PW-5 in his cross-examination regarding the demand, acceptance or recovery of the bribe money from the appellant-convict. 5. PW-1 Mithilesh Kumar Singh has deposed about the complaint made by the PW-5. He verified the complaint by going to the Office of Municipal Corporation on 21.07.2008. At the time of verification, he found the appellant-convict was receiving bribe money from 2-3 persons openly. After the complainant- PW-5 talked to the appellant-convict, the appellant-convict demanded Rs. 800/-. The PW-1 after verification submitted his verification report. The PW-2 was handed over the investigation of the case. A raiding team was constituted. He has also stated in detail about the pre-trap preparations made including the preparation of G.C. Note memorandum. After the complainant- PW-5 talked to the appellant-convict, the appellant-convict demanded Rs. 800/-. The PW-1 after verification submitted his verification report. The PW-2 was handed over the investigation of the case. A raiding team was constituted. He has also stated in detail about the pre-trap preparations made including the preparation of G.C. Note memorandum. On 22.07.2008, the raiding team members proceeded to Dhanbad and on 23.07.2008 they reached Dhanbad in the morning. They reached the office of the appellant-convict. The PW-1 and PW-5 went to the appellant-convict. PW-5 handed over Rs. 800/- to the appellant-convict and upon signal other members reached near the appellant-convict. Constable-Dinesh Kumar Singh caught hold of the right hand of the appellant-convict and Constable-Ramdeep Singh caught hold of the left hand of the appellant-convict. In presence of two independent witnesses and the Special Magistrate, the tainted G.C. notes were recovered from the right hand of the appellant-convict. The number of the G.C. notes tallied with the numbers of notes mentioned in the G.C. Note memorandum. The right hand of the appellant-convict was dipped into the Sodium Carbonate Solution which turned to pink and the same was kept in bottle and sealed. The PW-1 further stated that upon search Rs. 41,000/- consisting of all Rs. 500/- denomination notes were seized from the pocket of the appellant-convict and the seizure list was prepared. The appellant-convict was arrested in presence of witness of his office. The PW-1 has proved the documents which were marked exhibits. In his cross-examination, the PW-1 has stated that he cannot say the boundary of the office of the Municipal Corporation of Dhanbad. He cannot say how many employees were there in that office at the time of trap. He cannot say the procedure for issuance of birth certificate. 6. PW-2 Birsha Ram Khalko is the I.O. of the case. He has stated about the entrustment of the investigation to him. He has deposed in detail about the pre-trap preparations. The PW-2 further stated that the appellant-convict was arrested with tainted general currency notes of Rs. 800/- consisting of notes of Rs. 100/- denomination each and also Rs. 41,000/- having been recovered from the pant pocket of the appellant-convict. He has also stated about the hand of the appellant-convict being dipped in Sodium Carbonate solution and the colour of the same turning pink. 800/- consisting of notes of Rs. 100/- denomination each and also Rs. 41,000/- having been recovered from the pant pocket of the appellant-convict. He has also stated about the hand of the appellant-convict being dipped in Sodium Carbonate solution and the colour of the same turning pink. The PW-2 sent the seized solution in which the hand of the appellant-convict was washed, for chemical examination to the S.F.S.L. Ranchi. After completion of the investigation, the PW-2 submitted charge-sheet. He also identified the appellant-convict who was present in the court. The PW-2 also proved the documents which were marked exhibits. In his cross-examination, the PW-2 has stated that on a letter being written by him to the Administrator of the Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad seeking information about any complaint against the appellant-convict and the reply was given to him that there is no complaint against the appellant-convict. The PW-2 further stated that during the investigation, he found that Rs. 41,000/- which were recovered from the appellant-convict, was given to him by his relative. 7. PW-3 Barnabas Purti has stated about the PW-5 submitting the complaint against the appellant-convict. He deposed in detail about the complaint of the PW-5 submitted to the A.C.B. After verification, the complaint of PW-5 was found to be true. The case was registered and the investigation was entrusted to the PW-2. A trap team was constituted of which the PW-3 was also a member and for trap they went to the office of Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad and there the appellant-convict was arrested while accepting the bribe. The money was compared with the G.C. Note memorandum and documents were prepared regarding the G.C. notes which were signed by the PW-3. In his cross-examination, the PW-3 has stated that the members of the raiding team reached the Office of Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad at about 11:00 am on 22.07.2008. He could not say the boundary of the office of Municipal Corporation. Rs. 800/- was seized from the right hand of the appellant-convict while he was taking the bribe. 8. PW-4 Keshav Kumar Choudhary has stated about the complaint submitted by PW-5 and the verification of the same by the PW-1. A trap team was constituted of which the PW-4 was also a member. He stated about the prep-trap preparations. They left for Dhanbad at 7:00 hours and reached at 1:00 pm in the office of Dhanbad Municipal Corporation. 8. PW-4 Keshav Kumar Choudhary has stated about the complaint submitted by PW-5 and the verification of the same by the PW-1. A trap team was constituted of which the PW-4 was also a member. He stated about the prep-trap preparations. They left for Dhanbad at 7:00 hours and reached at 1:00 pm in the office of Dhanbad Municipal Corporation. PW-5 and PW-1 went inside the office of the appellant-convict. After ten minutes, they received the information that the bribe amount has been taken by the appellant-convict. They assembled in the verandah of the office and in presence of two witnesses the seizure list of the appellant-convict was made. From his hand, eight notes of Rs. 100/- denomination each was seized. The hand of the appellant-convict was washed with the solution of Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate. The colour of the solution turned to red/pink. The PW-4 prepared the seizure list which was marked Ext.6. From the appellant-convict apart from Rs. 800, Rs. 41,000/- was also seized. The appellant-convict was arrested and was taken to Ranchi. The PW-4 could not identify the appellant-convict who was present in the court. On this point, the PW-4 was declared hostile. On being put leading questions by the prosecution, the PW-4 stated that the appellant-convict was arrested in front of him. In his cross-examination, the PW-4 stated that they left Ranchi for Dhanbad by the Government vehicle on 7:00 hours in the morning. 9. PW-6 Ramdeep Singh is a retired police officer. He stated that he was a member of the trap-team. They reached the Office of Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad at about 1:00 p.m. Thereafter, upon demanding the money by the appellant-convict, as the pre-fixed signal was given, the PW-6 caught the left hand and Dinesh Kumar caught hold of the right hand of the appellant-convict. Prior to that, upon the appellant-convict demanding money, the PW-5 gave Rs. 800/- to him. Upon catching hold of the hand of the appellant-convict, the other members of the trap team came and search of the appellant-convict was made in presence of two independent witnesses. In his hand eight notes of Rs. 100/- denomination each in total Rs. 800/- was found. From the pocket of the appellant-convict some money was also seized. The notes were seized. The numbers of the seized notes were compared with the G.C. Note memorandum and the numbers were found to be correct. In his hand eight notes of Rs. 100/- denomination each in total Rs. 800/- was found. From the pocket of the appellant-convict some money was also seized. The notes were seized. The numbers of the seized notes were compared with the G.C. Note memorandum and the numbers were found to be correct. Thereafter, the fingers of the hand of the appellant-convict were dipped in Sodium Carbonate solution and the colour of the solution turned pink. All the recovered notes were seized in presence of the Magistrate and the seizure list was prepared. Apart from the Magistrate, the PW-6 also signed on the seizure list. The PW-6 identified the appellant-convict who was present in Court on the date of examination of PW-6 in Court. In his cross-examination, the PW-6 stated that all the material exhibits were not available in the court on the date of his examination. It is true that he did not go to the office of the appellant-convict with the PW-5 to give money. One second after receiving the signal from the PW-5, he reached the appellant-convict. He was at a distance of 5-10 feet from the appellant-convict. He was examined by the Investigating Officer. 10. PW-7 Bharat Thakur has proved the sanction for prosecution of the appellant-convict and the same has been marked Ext.10. 11. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the appellant-convict under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded regarding the circumstances appearing in evidence against him. The appellant-convict admitted that on 16.07.2008, he was the In-charge Assistant Statistical Officer of Dhanbad Municipal Corporation but he denied Rs. 200/- being given to him by the PW-5 or that he was demanding Rs. 800/- more. He also denied all the other material questions put to him. He pleaded his innocence. 12. Learned court below after taking into consideration the evidence in the record held that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish both the charges for the offence punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted and sentenced the appellant-convict as already indicated above. 13. Mr. 12. Learned court below after taking into consideration the evidence in the record held that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish both the charges for the offence punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted and sentenced the appellant-convict as already indicated above. 13. Mr. Shailesh learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial court proceeded on a note by toeing the line of the prosecution that all the statements of the witnesses of the prosecution were gospel truth and it could not properly appreciate the evidence in the record and could not appreciate the arguments advanced by the appellant-convict. It is next submitted that the trial court has failed to consider the fact that the prosecution could not prove the basis of the case, which is the alleged application submitted by the PW-5 for preparation of the birth certificate of his 13 years old son. It is then submitted that there is absolutely lack of evidence in the matter of demand of bribe money by the appellant-convict and the PW-1 only casually stated at paragraph-1 of his deposition that on the date of his deposition he saw the appellant-convict taking bribe money from the people who were approaching him for preparation of birth certificates though not a single of such person was examined as a witness in this case. It is then submitted by Mr. Shailesh that no single independent witness has been examined in this case by the prosecution and even the Special Magistrate namely Vidya Kant Pathak has not been examined. It is next submitted that the sanction for prosecution has not been validly exhibited. It is further submitted by Mr. Shailesh that as the PW-4, one of the officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau, himself has been declared hostile on the point of identification of the appellant-convict, hence, the false implication of the appellant-convict cannot be ruled out. In support of his contention regarding the settled principle of law that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, Mr. Shailesh relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rakesh Kapoor vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2012) 13 SCC 552 and requested that paragraphs-21 and 22 of the said judgment be quoted in this judgment, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under:- “21. In Para 25, this Court quoted the decision rendered in C.M. Girish Babu vs. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1 and held that: “25.......mere recovery of money from the accused by itself is not enough in absence of substantive evidence for demand and acceptance.” In the same para [Banarsi Dass Case (2010) 4 SCC 450 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 864] SCC p. 457, para-25), a reference was also made to Suraj Mal vs. State (Delhi Administration) 1979 (4) SCC 725 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 159 (SCC p. 727, para-2) wherein this Court took the view that mere recovery of tainted money from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. This Court further held that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. After underlying the above principles, and noting that two prosecution witnesses turned hostile, while giving the benefit of doubt on technical ground to the accused, this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and acquitted the accused of both the charges i.e. under Section 161 IPC and under Section 5(2) of the 1947 Act. 22. In the case on hand, though the prosecution relied heavily on the evidence of PW-1, the complainant that the demand was made to him over mobile phone, admittedly the call details have not been summoned. No doubt, the statement of PW-1, according to the prosecution is corroborated by Ashwani Bhatia (PW-3) who stated that he overheard PW-1 saying that he had brought the money, when the latter went to the office of the appellant in the evening of 5.5.2003. Interestingly, the IO who was examined as PW-18 has mentioned that PW-1 received the demand from the accused over landline and, hence, he could not secure those call details. Interestingly, the IO who was examined as PW-18 has mentioned that PW-1 received the demand from the accused over landline and, hence, he could not secure those call details. Whatever may be the reason, the fact remains that except the oral testimony of PWs. 1 and 3, there is no other proof in respect of the demand of bribe money and the IO could not collect the call details as stated by PW-1 from the department concerned. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is right in contending that there is no material/evidence for the demand of bribe. In the light of the categorical enunciation in Banarsi Dass (2010) 4 SCC 450 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 864, in the absence of the demand and acceptance, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. In addition to the same, in the case on hand, even the official witness, Shri Madan Singh, who helped in the search of the accused Municipal Commissioner, was examined as PW-14 but did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile.” 14. Mr. Shailesh next relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Neeraj Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand through Vigilance, 2020 SCC Online Jhr. 699 wherein in the facts of that case where there was no evidence in the record that the appellant-convict ever demanded any bribe amount and as the PW-2 of that case who was the complainant, was not a trustworthy witness for the reasons assigned in that judgment, this Court acquitted the appellant-convict of that case for the offence punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by giving the benefit of doubt. It is then submitted that there is also contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses as the PW-1 has stated that they left for Dhanbad in the night of 22.07.2008 whereas other witnesses have stated that they left for Dhanbad in the morning at 7:00 hours on 23.07.2008 and there is other contradiction in the witnesses of the prosecution. It is then submitted that there is also contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses as the PW-1 has stated that they left for Dhanbad in the night of 22.07.2008 whereas other witnesses have stated that they left for Dhanbad in the morning at 7:00 hours on 23.07.2008 and there is other contradiction in the witnesses of the prosecution. It is next submitted that the testimony of the PW-6 that he is a witness of demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe money by the appellant-convict cannot be believed as no other witness has stated that the PW-6 has also heard the conversation between the appellant-convict and the PW-5 and particularly in view of para-10 of the deposition of the PW-2, wherein he has stated that 10-15 minutes after the PW-5 and the PW-1 were sent to the office of the appellant-convict, the PW-5 gave the pre-fixed signal at which other members of the trap team entered the office room, the testimony of PW-6 regarding the demand of the bribe money do not inspire confidence. It is then submitted that the PW-5 has not stated that he handed over the money to the appellant-convict upon being demanded by the appellant-convict and the PW-1 has also not stated so. It is further submitted that keeping in view the statement of the PW-1 and 2, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the appellant-convict be acquitted at least by giving him the benefit of doubt. 15. Mr. T. N. Verma learned counsel appearing for A.C.B. on the other hand defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the PW-6 Ramdeep Singh who is a member of the trap team has categorically stated about the three 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 that is (i) demand of money, (ii) acceptance of money and (iii) recovery of money and his testimony has not been demolished in any manner in his cross-examination and his testimony appears to be trustworthy and his testimony is corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses being the PWs. 5 and 1 as well as the other prosecution witnesses being the PWs. 2, 3 and 4 also. 5 and 1 as well as the other prosecution witnesses being the PWs. 2, 3 and 4 also. It is further submitted that since the PW-5 has categorically stated about the demand of the bribe money by the appellant-convict at the time of verification of his complaint as also on the day when he first approached the appellant-convict at the time of submission of the birth certificate and further the PW-5 has stated that in the process of discussion about the birth certificate he gave the money to the appellant-convict, so it is crystal clear that the PW-5 gave the said money upon being demanded by the appellant-convict. It is then submitted that the minor contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses particularly when they were examined about four years after the date of the occurrence, are of no consequence. Hence, it is submitted that since the PWs. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 being the members of the trap team and they on material particulars have proved the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and there is no reason why their evidence can be disbelieved. It is further submitted by Mr. Verma that there is no hard and fast rule that independent witnesses has to be examined in each and every case and the quality of the evidence is what matters and not the quantity of the evidence. Hence, it is submitted by Mr. Verma that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the charges for both the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond reasonable doubt. 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. 16. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is crystal clear that the PW-6 is a trap witness and it is evident from the evidence in record, which has remained intact, that he was at a distance of 5-10 feet from the appellant-convict at the time of acceptance of bribe and he reached the appellant-convict within one second of the appellant-convict accepting the bribe. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to discredit or disbelieve his testimony though he has stated in para-10 of his cross-examination that he did not enter inside the office of the appellant-convict but the fact remains that as he was at a distance of 5-10 feet which is the distance from which a normal person can hear the conversation between the two persons at a normal pitch, even remaining outside a room, through the door or window. The defence obviously did not take the risk of cross-examining him as to whether the appellant-convict was visible to him from where PW-6 was standing. It is pertinent to be kept in mind that the PW-6 retired from service by the time he deposed in Court. Though the learned counsel for the appellant-convict insisted that it must be mentioned in this judgment that in view of the testimonies of PW-2 in paragraphs 2 and 10 and PW-1 in paragraph 2, the testimony of PW-6 that he heard the demand of bribe is not to be believed, but this Court does not find any merit in such submission as what all PW-1 and 2 have stated in those paragraphs of their deposition is that only PW-5 and 1 together entered into the office of the appellant-convict while other members of the trap-team were outside. The said fact was also stated by PW-6 also but the PW-6 in his cross-examination stated that he was at a distance of 5-10 feet from the appellant-convict at the time of occurrence of handing over the bribe by PW-5 to the appellant-convict, meaning thereby the PW-6 was outside the room but at a distance of 5-10 feet. This Court is of the considered opinion that the testimony of PW-6 is reliable and trustworthy. The PW-6 has stated about all the essential ingredients being demand of bribe by the appellant-convict, acceptance of the same by him and recovery of bribe money from him to bring home the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The PW-6 has stated about all the essential ingredients being demand of bribe by the appellant-convict, acceptance of the same by him and recovery of bribe money from him to bring home the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Evidence of the said three essential ingredients has also come through the PW-5 who has categorically stated about the acceptance of bribe by the appellant-convict and though he has not specifically stated that upon being demanded by the appellant-convict on 23.07.2008 specifically before handing over the said tainted bribe money to the appellant-convict but in para-2 he has categorically stated that the appellant-convict on 16.07.2008 told him that if the PW-5 pays the further sum of Rs. 800/- then only the birth certificate of his son would be prepared and the appellant-convict reiterated the same at the time of verification of his complaint by the PW-1. When these portions of the testimony of PW-5 is read in conjunction with the testimony about the date of occurrence on 23.07.2008 wherein he has stated that the notes smeared with powder, Rs. 800/- was given by him to the appellant-convict after discussing about the birth certificate leads the same to the irresistible conclusion that the said money was handed over by the PW-5 to the appellant-convict obviously on demand. There is absolutely no material to disbelieve the acceptance of bribe amount by the appellant-convict. 17. The ingredients of acceptance and recovery of bribe amount has also been corroborated by the PW-1 and his testimony in this respect has also remained unchallenged as there is no cross-examination of the PW-1 in this respect to discredit his testimony. The PWs. 2, 3 and 4 have also stated about the ingredients of recovery of tainted money from the appellant-convict. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law relating to the presumption as envisaged under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the manner of rebuttal of the same in the case of Gurjant Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 8 SCC 650 para-13 and 14 of which reads as under:- “13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law relating to the presumption as envisaged under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the manner of rebuttal of the same in the case of Gurjant Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 8 SCC 650 para-13 and 14 of which reads as under:- “13. In Narendra Champaklal Trivedi vs. State of Gujarat, (2012) 7 SCC 80 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 963 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 343, this Court, in almost similar facts, has observed as under: (SCC p. 88, para-22) “22. In the case at hand, the money was recovered from the pockets of the appellant-accused. A presumption under Section 20 of the Act becomes obligatory. It is a presumption of law and casts an obligation on the court to apply it in every case brought under Section 7 of the Act. The said presumption is a rebuttable one. In the present case, the explanation offered by the appellant-accused has not been accepted and rightly so. There is no evidence on the base of which it can be said that the presumption has been rebutted.” 14. In Mukut Bihari vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 11 SCC 642 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 1089 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 136, referring to various cases, this Court has made the following observations: (SCC p. 646, para-13) “13. This Court in C.M. Sharma vs. State of A.P. (2010) 15 SCC 1 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 89, after considering various judgments of this Court including Panalal Damodar Rathi vs. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 4 SCC 526 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 121 and Meena vs. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 5 SCC 21 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 878 held that acceptance of the submission of the accused that the complainant's version required corroboration in all circumstances, in abstract would encourage the bribe-taker to receive illegal gratification in privacy and then insist for corroboration in case of the prosecution. Law cannot countenance such situation. Thus, it is not necessary that the evidence of a reliable witness is necessary to be corroborated by another witness, as such evidence stands corroborated from the other material on record.” 19. Law cannot countenance such situation. Thus, it is not necessary that the evidence of a reliable witness is necessary to be corroborated by another witness, as such evidence stands corroborated from the other material on record.” 19. The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is inter-alia the presumption that where it is proved that a public servant accused of an offence has accepted any undue advantage from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted that undue advantage, as a motive or reward as envisaged under section 7 for performing of a public duty improperly or dishonestly either by himself or by another public servant, as the case may. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Som Prakash vs. State of Delhi, (1974) 4 SCC 84 that the police officer cannot be discredited in a trap case merely because they are police officer nor can other witnesses be rejected because on some other occasion, they have been witnesses for the prosecution in the past. 20. So far as Rakesh Kapoor (supra) is concerned, in that case there was no ocular testimony in the record regarding demand of bribe by the convict of that case and the demand was made over telephone. The C.D.R. was not seized and produced before the Court and not brought on record. Hence, under such circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India gave the benefit of doubt on the technical ground to the accused but the facts of this case are different from the facts of Rakesh Kapoor (supra) because here there is ocular and trustworthy testimony in record which has come through the eye witnesses of the occurrence examined by the prosecution being the PWs. 5 and 6 regarding the demand of bribe money. Hence, the facts of this case being different from the facts of the Rakesh Kapoor (supra), the ratio of the said case is not applicable to this case. 21. 5 and 6 regarding the demand of bribe money. Hence, the facts of this case being different from the facts of the Rakesh Kapoor (supra), the ratio of the said case is not applicable to this case. 21. So far as the judgment of Neeraj Kumar Singh (supra) is concerned, in that case the accused of that case never demanded any money from the complainant of that case rather the evidence in the record was that he advised the complainant to meet one person and that person demanded money from the complainant and that person was not examined in that case as witness and there was no evidence in the record to link that the accused of that case had any relationship with the person to whom he allegedly advised the complainant of that case to meet and further the deposition of the PW-2 of that case who was the complainant, was not trustworthy for the reasons assigned in that judgment. So, the facts of this case are different from the facts of Neeraj Kumar Singh (supra). Hence, the ratio Neeraj Kumar Singh (supra) is not applicable in this case. 22. So far as the contention of the appellant-convict regarding the discrepancies in the evidence is concerned it is a settled principle of law that when the witnesses as examined after about four years of the occurrence there has to be some minor discrepancies in their testimony as all persons cannot be expected to have a photographic memory. The discrepancies pointed out in this case are of puerile in nature and do not go to the root of the case. Hence the said contention is of no help to the prosecution. So far as the contention of the appellant-convict that the basis of the case being the application submitted by the PW-5 to appellant-convict having not been produced in court is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that so far as the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is concerned, the is the presumption under section 20 of the said act, which the appellant-convict has failed to rebut and in view of such presumption the non-production of the said application is not sufficient to give any benefit to the appellant-convict. So far as the contention of the appellant convict regarding non-examination of the independent witnesses are concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that non-examination of independent or material witnesses are not fatal in all cases. The appellant-convict has failed to put forth any prejudice caused to him by non-examination of any witnesses. Hence on this score also the appellant-convict is not entitled to any benefit. 23 Thus the evidence in the record as discussed above is sufficient to establish the charge against the appellant-convict of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond any reasonable doubt. 24. Hence, the conviction of the appellant-convict Ramji Prasad for both the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge II-cum-Special Judge Anti Corruption Bureau, Cyber Cases and Electricity Act, Dhanbad in Special (Vigilance) Case No. 14-08 is confirmed. 25. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that rampant corruption is seen in every walk of our life. In such cases showing mercy to such corrupt official may send wrong signals. Rampant corruption which is taking place in the society needs a deterrence for arresting malady and keeping in view the nature of evidence in the record where the appellant-convict was seen openly demanding and accepting bribe for issuing birth certificates, this Court is of the considered view that the sentence imposed upon the appellant-convict Ramji Prasad is also proper. Accordingly, the sentence of the appellant-convict Ramji Prasad vide the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge II-cum-Special Judge Anti Corruption Bureau, Cyber Cases & Electricity Act, Dhanbad in Special (Vigilance) Case No. 14-08 is also confirmed. 26. Thus this appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed. 27. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant-convict Ramji Prasad is in custody. 28. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory application for suspension of sentence, is dismissed being infructuous. 29. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned court below forthwith.