JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. Heard the parties through video conferencing. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 06.03.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in Vigilance (Spl.) Case No.05 of 2010 whereby and where under, the learned court below has held appellant-convict guilty for the offences punishable under Section 7 and under 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 and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. The appellant-convict has further been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant (P.W.1) submitted an application for settlement of land and fixation of land revenue of a land in the records of which, the name of his great grandfather was mentioned as a possessor of the land. The appellant who was the Karamchari of Kisko Circle in the district of Lohardaga demanded bribe of Rs. 8000/- in total that is Rs. 4000/- at the beginning of the work and another Rs. 4000/- at the end of the work. As the complainant was not intending to pay the bribe amount, he approached the Vigilance Bureau by submitting a written application addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vigilance Bureau, which has been marked Ext.1 in this case. On the basis of the written application of the complainant, P.W.4 conducted verification and finding the allegation of the written application to be true, the P.W.4 submitted his report. On the basis of the same, the F.I.R. of this case has been registered and a trap team was constituted. A successful trap was made on 16.02.2010 and the appellant-convict was caught red-handed after accepting the bribe. The post trap formalities were done. On the basis of the same, the F.I.R. of this case has been registered and a trap team was constituted. A successful trap was made on 16.02.2010 and the appellant-convict was caught red-handed after accepting the bribe. The post trap formalities were done. The P.W.10 being the I.O. of the case took charge of the investigation, obtained the sanction for prosecution and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charges for the said offences were framed against the appellant-convict and upon his denying the charges, he was put to trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution has altogether examined 12 witnesses besides proving documents which were marked Exhibits 1 to 20. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant-convict. 5. P.W.1- Md. Junaid is the complainant of this case. He has proved the complaint submitted by him to the Vigilance Bureau. He has deposed that upon verification of his complaint on 15.02.2010, the same was found to be true. He then stated about the pre-trap formalities done in connection with this case. The trap-team went for Kisko block on 16.02.2010. After reaching Lohardaga, it was found that the appellant was in his rented accommodation at Shantinagar. They went to Shantinagar. The P.W.1 and P.W.4 first went to the house of the appellant. On their arrival the appellant demanded Rs. 4000/-. The P.W.1 handed over the notes smeared with Phenolphthalein powder. After the money was given P.W.4 caught hold of the appellant-convict and recovered. 2 witnesses were called. Search of the appellant was made in presence of the witnesses. Upon search money was recovered from the right hand of the appellant. The numbers of the notes were tallied. Upon the hands of the appellant being washed in the solution the colour of solution turned pink. The seizure of the bottles containing the solution with which the hands of the appellant-convict were washed and the currency notes were made and seizure list was prepared. P.W.1 has also stated about signing upon the bottles and the seizure list by the witnesses and the members of the vigilance team. P.W.1 identified the appellant-convict in court to be the person who demanded money from him and from whom money was recovered. He also proved the seized currency notes. P.W.1 has also stated about signing upon the bottles and the seizure list by the witnesses and the members of the vigilance team. P.W.1 identified the appellant-convict in court to be the person who demanded money from him and from whom money was recovered. He also proved the seized currency notes. In his cross examination, on being confronted to him, he admitted having submitted the application in the circle office and the same was marked exhibit ’A’. P.W.1 further stated that the vision of his eyes is poor since his childhood but he does not use power glasses. He gave the money in the residence of the appellant- convict situated in Shantinagar, Lohardaga. He cannot say the boundary of the house but it was an east facing house of one room. The occurrence took place at 1 PM. The verification was made at Kisko and on the next day he went to give money. 6. P.W.4 Shyam Lal Champia has deposed that the P.W.1 submitted an application to the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the Deputy Superintendent of Police entrusted verification of the application submitted by P.W. 1 to the P.W.4. On 15.02.2010 he went for verification with the P.W.1 to Kisko area of Lohardaga. In his presence the appellant-convict told about payment of Rs. 4000/- before the work and Rs. 3000/- after the work. He did the verification in the circle office. The appellant-convict told that the money was to be given either in the office or in his residence. He has also deposed about the submission of verification report and the registration of the F.I.R. He further stated about constitution of the trap team and pre-trap preparation in detail. He then proved the documents, signatures and endorsements which were marked exhibits. The P.W.4 further deposed that on 16.2.2010 all the members of the trap team reached Lohardaga at 1 PM. The appellant-convict informed the complainant to come to his residence. The complainant and all the members of the trap team reached the rental accommodation of the appellant-convict. The complainant called the appellant-convict outside. The complainant paid the money to the appellant-convict. The P.W.4 was beside them. As the complainant gave to the appellant-convict and the appellant convict caught the same in his right hand. The P.W.4 and the P.W.5 immediately reached there and apprehended the appellant-convict. The complainant called the appellant-convict outside. The complainant paid the money to the appellant-convict. The P.W.4 was beside them. As the complainant gave to the appellant-convict and the appellant convict caught the same in his right hand. The P.W.4 and the P.W.5 immediately reached there and apprehended the appellant-convict. The P.W.4 caught the left and the P.W.5 caught the right hand of the appellant-convict. By that time the Magistrate and other members of the trap team also reached there. Many people also assembled there. In presence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 search of the appellant-convict was made. Rs. 4000/- consisting of 8 pieces of notes of Rs. 500 /- the denomination each were seized from him. On being compared the numbers of the notes tallied with the numbers of the notes mentioned in the G.C.note memorandum. He has also stated about seizure of the tainted notes recovered from the appellant-convict and also stated about the other post trap formalities in detail. On being proved by him the documents were marked exhibits. In his cross examination the P.W.4 has stated that they stopped about 20 m before the place of occurrence and from there they went by walking straight to the residence of the appellant- convict. At the time of occurrence the complainant was standing at a distance of 20-25 yards from the P.W.4. On being called by the complainant the appellant-convict came out. He was following the complainant. He knows that one of the independent witnesses was the brother of the complainant. He did not know this earlier and came to know this only after the independent witness disclosed his name. 7. P.W.5 Dinesh Kumar Singh was working as a police constable posted in the Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi on the date of occurrence. He had stated about the pre-trap preparations in detail. He further deposed that all the members of the trap team reached Lohardaga at 1 PM. The complainant talked with the appellant-convict over mobile phone and the appellant convict informed the complainant to come to his residence with money. All the members of the trap team took their positions and the complainant and the P.W.4 proceeded towards the house. The appellant-convict was found standing near the gate of his house. The complainant talked with the appellant-convict for some time and thereafter gave the bribe money to the appellant-convict. Thereafter P.W.5 and others received the signal. All the members of the trap team took their positions and the complainant and the P.W.4 proceeded towards the house. The appellant-convict was found standing near the gate of his house. The complainant talked with the appellant-convict for some time and thereafter gave the bribe money to the appellant-convict. Thereafter P.W.5 and others received the signal. The P.W.5 went quickly and caught hold of the right hand of the appellant-convict while the P.W.4 caught hold of the left hand of the appellant-convict. After that one by one the members of the trap team as well as the Special Magistrate also reached there. Many persons assembled there out of whom two independent witnesses being the P.W.2 and P.W.3 were called. In presence of the independent witnesses the search of the P.W.4 and P.W.5 was made. Thereafter the search of the appellant-convict was made. From the right hand of the appellant-convict Rs. 4000/- consisting of 8 notes of Rs. 500/-denomination each were recovered. On comparison of the numbers of the notes and their denomination with that of G.C. note memorandum was made and the same were found to be true. The P.W.5 also stated above the colour of sodium carbonate solution turning pink upon the fingers of both hands of the appellant-convict being washed therein one by one. He has also stated about the post trap formalities in detail. In his cross examination the P.W.5 has stated that after reaching the house of the appellant-convict when the complainant and the appellant-convict were talking to each other the P.W.5 was at a distance of 10 m from them. He has not heard the conversation between the appellant-convict and the complainant. 8. P.W.2 Javed Akhtar has stated that on 16.2.2010 at about 1 PM he was near the residence of appellant-convict. He saw the complainant and the P.W.3 also present there. A vigilance raid was made. The PW2 saw the P.W.1 giving money to the appellant-convict. After that the team caught hold of the appellant-convict. The PW2 was asked to be a witness. He agreed. The search of appellant-convict was made. Rs. 4000/- was recovered from him. The numbers of the notes were compared and the same tallied. In his cross examination he had stated that the house of P.W.1 is at a distance of 200-300 yards from the house of the P.W.2. 9. P.W.3 Md. He agreed. The search of appellant-convict was made. Rs. 4000/- was recovered from him. The numbers of the notes were compared and the same tallied. In his cross examination he had stated that the house of P.W.1 is at a distance of 200-300 yards from the house of the P.W.2. 9. P.W.3 Md. Javed has deposed that on 16.2.2010 at 1 PM he reached near the house of appellant-convict. He saw complainant giving money to the appellant-convict. After sometime the vigilance caught hold of the appellant-convict. On being asked by the vigilance team the P.W.3 agreed to be a witness in this case. In his presence the search of appellant-convict was made and Rs. 4000/- was recovered from him. The numbers tallied with the numbers mentioned in the paper earlier. He further stated that on both the hands of the appellant-convict being washed in the solution separately; the colour of the solution turned pink. In his cross examination the P.W.3 has stated that the complainant is his own elder brother and they reside in the same house. 10. P.W.12- Dhaneswar Ram has deposed that he was the Deputy Superintendent of Police; posted in the vigilance bureau on 15.02.2010. He has stated about the constitution of the trap team. He has stated in detail about the pre-trap preparations done on 16.02.2010. They reached near the house of Baban Sahu at Shantinagar situated in Lohardaga at about 1 PM. The appellant-convict was residing there in a rented accommodation. The P.W.1 and P.W.4 were sent to the appellant-convict and the P.W.12 and others waited for the signal. On receiving the signal they went there and saw that the appellant-convict was standing near the door and P.W.4 was catching hold of one of his hand while the P.W.5 was catching hold of his other hand. He also described in detail about the post trap formalities including preparation of the documents and the same being signed by the witnesses of this case. In his cross examination the P.W.12 has stated he has neither heard the conversation between the appellant-convict and the complainant nor has seen the complainant giving the bribe money to the appellant-convict. 11. P.W.6 John Kiro has deposed that He was posted as a Police Inspector in Vigilance Bureau on 15.02.2010. He has also described in detail about the pre-trap preparations. The trap team reached Lohardaga at 1 PM on 16.02.2010. 11. P.W.6 John Kiro has deposed that He was posted as a Police Inspector in Vigilance Bureau on 15.02.2010. He has also described in detail about the pre-trap preparations. The trap team reached Lohardaga at 1 PM on 16.02.2010. The complainant contacted the appellant-convict over mobile phone. The complainant said that the appellant convict is residing in a rental accommodation in the house of Baban Sahu and was present there and the appellant convict has called the complainant there. They went to Shantinagar. On being demanded by the appellant-convict Rs. 4000 was given to him. The P.W.1 signalled to the P.W.4 by wiping his face with both his hands. The P.W.4 signalled the other members of the team. They immediately reached the place of occurrence and saw that the P.W.4 was holding the left hand of the appellant-convict while the P.W.5 was holding his right hand. The G.C.notes were in the hand of the appellant-convict. In presence of the independent witnesses, Special Magistrate, I.O. and other members; search of the appellant-convict was made and 8 currency notes of Rs. 500 denomination each were recovered from his right hand. He has also stated about the post-trap formalities in detail. In his cross examination the P.W.6 has stated that he has not heard the conversation between the appellant-convict and the complainant as he was outside. 12. P.W.7 Mukul Minz is the Head Clerk of the legal section of the office of Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga. He has proved the sanction for prosecution of the appellant-convict which has been marked Exhibit 17/A. 13. P.W.8 Bhola Singh had stated that he was posted as constable in vigilance bureau on 15.02.2010. He was a member of the trap team. He had stated about the pre-trap preparations. He then stated that on 16.02.2010, on reaching Lohardaga the PWs 1, 4 and 5 were sent to the residence of the appellant-convict. The appellant-convict was caught after receiving the money. On search being made bribe money of Rs. 4000/- was recovered from his hand. He has also stated about the post trap formalities. In his cross examination has stated that he did not hear any conversation between the appellant-convict and the complainant nor he saw the same. 14. P.W.9 Swarnbara has deposed that on 15.02.2010 he was posted as the Welfare Officer. He was deputed as the Special Magistrate. He has described in detail about the pre-trap preparations. In his cross examination has stated that he did not hear any conversation between the appellant-convict and the complainant nor he saw the same. 14. P.W.9 Swarnbara has deposed that on 15.02.2010 he was posted as the Welfare Officer. He was deputed as the Special Magistrate. He has described in detail about the pre-trap preparations. He further stated that on 16.02.2010 they reached Shantinagar of Lohardaga at about 1 PM. The complainant and the verifying officer were sent to the appellant-convict. After receiving the bribe money by the appellant-convict upon receiving the signal of the complainant, they surrounded the appellant-convict from 4 sides. He saw police officers holding the hand of the appellant-convict. In presence of the independent witnesses, on search being made Rs.4000/- was recovered from the right hand of the appellant-convict. The numbers of the notes tallied with the numbers of notes mentioned in G.C.notes memorandum. He also stated about the post trap formalities including his signing upon various documents and currency notes. In his cross examination the P.W.9 has stated that he has neither heard the conversation between the appellant-convict and the complainant nor he has seen the giving and taking of the money. 15. P.W.10 Chandra Bhusan is the Investigating Officer of the case. He stated about the constitution of the trap team and the pre-trap preparations in detail. On 16.02.2010 they went to Shantinagar, Lohardaga where the appellant-convict was residing. First the P.W.1 and P.W 4 were sent to the residence of the appellant-convict. After receiving the signal the police personnel caught hold of the hands of the appellant-convict. In presence of independent witnesses the search of appellant-convict was made and money was recovered from his right hand. The numbers of the notes tallied with the numbers mentioned in the G.C.notes memorandum. He has also stated in detail about the post trap formalities including his signing the recovered currency notes of Rs. 4000/-. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and obtained the sanction for prosecution and upon completion of the investigation on finding sufficient evidence he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant-convict for having committed offences punishable under section 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In his cross examination has stated that he did not prepare any map of the place of occurrence. 16. P.W.11 Dr. In his cross examination has stated that he did not prepare any map of the place of occurrence. 16. P.W.11 Dr. Kiran Kumari was the Scientific Assistant of State Forensic Science Laboratory at the relevant time. She has proved the report prepared in connection with chemical examination of the solution in which the hands of the appellant-convict were washed, which was marked Exhibit 20. She further stated that Phenolphthalein was detected in the paper contained in the envelope and Phenolphthalein as well as sodium carbonate were detected in the contents of glass phials. 17. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant-convict was recorded regarding the circumstances appearing in evidence against him in which he denied the allegations made against him and also stated that he is innocent. 18. The 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 Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted and sentenced him as already indicated above. 19. Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant-convict submits that learned court below failed to appreciate the facts of the case- both on facts as well as on law. It is next submitted by Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant that learned court below failed to consider that there is anomaly in the testimony of the prosecution witness as though in the complaint which has been marked Exhibit 1 and which was submitted by the complainant to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, it has been averred that the land in question in respect of which the appellant-convict was demanding bribe from the complainant was a Gairmajrua land whereas in paragraph 24 of his cross examination the P.W.1 has stated that he is not having the papers of the land for which he had requested for settlement and in paragraph 25 of his cross examination the complainant has stated that the plot in question is a “Raiyati Plot” and because of this reason the learned trial court ought not have believed the testimony of the P.W.1. In support of his contention Mr Pandey relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the case of Suraj Mal versus State (Delhi Administration) reported in (1979) 4 SCC 725 paragraph 2 of which reads as under: “2.Xxxxx It is well-settled that where witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses. For these reasons, therefore, when the Special Judge disbelieved the evidence of PWs 6, 8 and 9 in regard to the complicity of Ram Narain, it was not open to him to have convicted the appellant on the same evidence with respect to the appellant, which suffered from same infirmities for which the said evidence was disbelieved regarding the complicity of Ram Narain. If the witnesses draw no distinction in the examination-in-chief regarding acceptance of bribe by Ram Narain and by the appellant and the witnesses were to be disbelieved with respect to one, they could not be believed with respect to the other. In other words, the evidence of witnesses against Ram Narain and the appellant was inseparable and indivisible. Moreover, there is an additional circumstance which throws a serious doubt on the complicity of the appellant Suraj Mal. Although, in his statement at p. 71 of the paper-book, the complainant has clearly stated that all the three accused including the appellant had met him and demanded bribe of Rs 2000, the appellant having demanded Rs 100, yet in the report which he lodged before Mr Katoch, there is no mention of the fact that the appellant at any time demanded any bribe at all. Even the presence of the appellant at the time when the demand was made by Davender Singh has not been mentioned, in this document. This report, undoubtedly contains reference to a demand having been made by the SHO Davender Singh on behalf of the appellant, but there is no statement in this report that any demand was made by Suraj Mal directly from the complainant. This report, undoubtedly contains reference to a demand having been made by the SHO Davender Singh on behalf of the appellant, but there is no statement in this report that any demand was made by Suraj Mal directly from the complainant. If, in fact, the appellant would have demanded bribe from the complainant just on the previous evening, it is not understandable why this fact was not mentioned in the report which the complainant submitted to the D.S.P. Katoch and which is the FIR constituting the evidence. We have perused the statements of PWs 6,8 and 9 and we find that while in the examination-in-chief they have tried to implicate all the three accused persons equally without any distinction, in their cross-examination, they have tried to save Ram Narain and made out a different story so far as Ram Narain is concerned and have even gone to the extent of stating that he did not demand any money and that he refused to accept the money which was offered to him. In this state of the evidence, we feel that the High Court was not right in convicting the appellant. Mr Lalit appearing for the State vehemently submitted that whatever be the nature of the evidence in the case, it is an established fact that money had been recovered from the bushshirt of the appellant and that by itself is sufficient for the conviction of the accused. In our opinion, mere recovery of money divorced 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. Moreover, the appellant in his statement under Section 342 has denied the recovery of the money and has stated that he had been falsely implicated. The High Court was wrong in holding that the appellant had admitted either the payment of money or recovery of the same as this fact is specifically denied by the appellant in his statement under Section 342 of the CrPC. Thus mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the appellant, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the appellant voluntarily accepted the money. Thus mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the appellant, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the appellant voluntarily accepted the money. Xxxxx.” (Emphasis Supplied) It is then submitted by Mr Pandey that non-production of the letter dated 11.12.2007 the reference of which has been made in the complaint submitted by the complainant marked Exhibit 1 also creates a doubt about the prosecution case. Mr Pandey further submitted that it is a settled principle of law that recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case in itself is not reliable and inconsistent. In this respect Mr Pandey relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P. reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152 , paragraph no.22 and 23 of which reads as under :- “22. In a recent enunciation by this Court to discern the imperative prerequisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it has been underlined in B. Jayaraj [B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] in unequivocal terms, that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Section 7 as well as Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. It has been propounded that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. Qua Section 20 of the Act, which permits a presumption as envisaged therein, it has been held that while it is extendable only to an offence under Section 7 and not to those under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, it is contingent as well on the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Such proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, it was emphasised, could follow only if there was proof of demand. Axiomatically, it was held that in absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act would also not arise. 23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.” (Emphasis Supplied) Learned counsel for the appellant-convict next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satvir Singh v. State of Delhi reported in (2014) 13 SCC 143 , paragraph no.34 of which reads as under :- 34. This Court, in K.S. Panduranga case has held that the demand and acceptance of the amount of illegal gratification by the accused is a condition precedent to constitute an offence, the relevant paragraph in this regard from the above said decision is extracted hereunder: (SCC pp. 740-41, para 39) “39. Keeping in view that the demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification is a condition precedent for constituting an offence under the Act, it is to be noted that there is a statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act which can be dislodged by the accused by bringing on record some evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that money was accepted other than for the motive or the reward as stipulated under Section 7 of the Act. When some explanation is offered, the court is obliged to consider the explanation under Section 20 of the Act and the consideration of the explanation has to be on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. It is not to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. When some explanation is offered, the court is obliged to consider the explanation under Section 20 of the Act and the consideration of the explanation has to be on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. It is not to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. In the case at hand, we are disposed to think that the explanation offered by the accused does not deserve any acceptance and, accordingly, we find that the finding recorded on that score by the learned trial Judge and the stamp of approval given to the same by the High Court cannot be faulted.” and further submitted that as in this case demand of bribe by the appellant-convict has not been sufficiently proved by the prosecution by examination of independent witnesses and as the P.W.2 and P.W.3 are interested witnesses being the neighbour and the brother of the informant respectively hence they lack credibility and the learned trial court ought to have acquitted the appellant-convict by holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand of bribe. It is then submitted by Mr Pandey that PW-4 who is the verifying officer, is also an interested witness as he is concerned with the success of the trap and his testimony does not inspire confidence. It is next submitted by Mr Pandey that the P.W.10 in para 32 of his cross-examination has stated that neither any paper with regard to settlement of the land in question has been recovered from the appellant-convict nor from the circle office hence the learned trial court below ought to have held that the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish the charges against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. It is then submitted by Mr Pandey that the sanction for prosecution has been accorded by the sanctioning authority for the prosecution of the appellant-convict in a mechanical manner without application of independent mind and in this respect Mr Pandey relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the case of T.K. Ramesh Kumar v. State, (2015) 15 SCC 629 : (2016) 3 SCC (Cri) 316, paragraph 17 and 18 of which read as under 17. Further, it is noticed that PW 2, the employer of the appellant, who is a seniormost IAS Officer, while exercising his statutory power under Section 19 of the Act is required to apply his mind very carefully while granting sanction to prosecute the appellant herein under the Act. He has accorded sanction for the prosecution of the appellant on the charges of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant from the complainant for issuance of a khata certificate of the property. In the evidence of PW 2 before the Special Judge at para 5 of his examination-in-chief he has categorically stated that the sanction was accorded by him for the prosecution against the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. The demand made was for payment of illegal gratification for change of khata as well as for issuance of khata extract, this would clearly go to show that there is non-application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority for according sanction to prosecute the appellant on the above charges. On this count also the appellant must succeed. 18. In this regard it would be useful to refer to the decision of this Court in Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, which reads thus: (SCC p. 632, para 19) “19. Since the validity of ‘sanction’ depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation, it necessarily follows that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. The mind of the sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it to take a decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration. If it is shown that the sanctioning authority was unable to apply its independent mind for any reason whatsoever or was under an obligation or compulsion or constraint to grant the sanction, the order will be bad for the reason that the discretion of the authority ‘not to sanction’ was taken away and it was compelled to act mechanically to sanction the prosecution.” It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-convict that in view of the above, the appellant-convict be acquitted by at least giving him the benefit of doubt, by setting aside the impugned judgment. 20. Mr. Sekhar Sinha, learned Public Prosecutor defended the impugned judgment and submitted that P.W.1- the complainant and P.W.4 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 Section13 (2) read with Section13(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 next submitted that the fact that the appellant-convict accepted illegal gratification and the same was recovered from his possession is sufficient to draw the presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the appellant-convict has failed to rebut the said presumption. It is also submitted that the report submitted by the State Forensic Science Laboratory shows that there was phenolphthalein in the sodium carbonate solution with which the hands of the appellant-convict were washed. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Rajkumar Agarwal, (2012) 8 SCC 616 , in paragraph 13 of which this honourable court observed as under: “13.Xxxxxxxxxxxxx Rampant corruption is seen in every walk of our life. People, particularly those holding high office, are frequently seen accepting illegal gratification. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Rajkumar Agarwal, (2012) 8 SCC 616 , in paragraph 13 of which this honourable court observed as under: “13.Xxxxxxxxxxxxx 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 at this stage may send wrong signals Xxxxxxxxxxx.” It is submitted by Mr Sinha that as the prosecution by cogent evidence has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt hence the sentence also appears to be proper. It is then submitted that the evidence in record, is sufficient to establish the said essential ingredients to bring home the charges 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. 21. 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, the Hon’ble Supreme court observed 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. 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. 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. 22. 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.1, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W. 6 and P.W.10 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 1988 i.e. the demand of the bribe amount as deposed by the P.W.1 by the appellant-convict, the acceptance of the bribe amount by him and the recovery of the tainted bribe amount from his custody as stated by them in their respective examination in chief. 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 Section138 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.)”. 23. 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.)”. 23. So far as the contention of the appellant-convict regarding lack of application of mind in the sanction of prosecution is concerned, upon being proved by the P.W.7, the sanction for prosecution has been marked Ext.17/A without objection. There is no cross-examination of the P.W7 regarding the non-application of mind by the authority who accorded the sanction for prosecution of the appellant-convict It is a settled principle of law that the appellate court cannot set aside the conviction of an accused on the ground of any ‘irregularity’ in sanction for prosecution which includes non-application of mind by the authority who sanctioned prosecution of an accused, unless in the opinion of the appellate court “failure of justice”, has in fact, been occasioned by such ‘irregularity’ in sanction for prosecution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State by Police Inspector Vs. T. Venkatesh Murthy reported in AIR 2004 SC 5117 has held as under in paragraph-7 and 11:- 7. “A combined reading of sub-sections (3) and (4) make the position clear that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code no finding, sentence and 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. 11. The expression "failure of justice" is too pliable or facile an expression, which could be fitted in any situation of a case. The expression "failure of justice" would appear, sometimes, as an etymological chameleon (the simile is borrowed from Lord Diplock in Town Investments Ltd. v. Deptt. Of Environment (1977) 1 All ER 813: 1978 AC 359 ). The criminal Court, particularly the superior Court should make a close examination to ascertain whether there was really a failure of justice or it is only a camouflage.” 24. In the case of State of Bihar and Others vs. Rajmangal Ram reported in AIR 2014 SC 1674 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under in paragraphs-7 and 8:- 7. In the case of State of Bihar and Others vs. Rajmangal Ram reported in AIR 2014 SC 1674 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under in paragraphs-7 and 8:- 7. “In a situation where under both the enactments any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction, which would also include the competence of the authority to grant sanction, does not vitiate the eventual conclusion in the trial including the conviction and sentence, unless of course a failure of justice has occurred, it is difficult to see how at the intermediary stage a criminal prosecution can be nullified or interdicted on account of any such error, omission or irregularity in the sanction order without arriving at the satisfaction that a failure of justice has also been occasioned. This is what was decided by this Court in State by Police Inspector v. T. Venkatesh Murthy wherein it has been inter alia observed that: “14. … Merely because there is any omission, error or irregularity in the matter of according sanction, that does not affect the validity of the proceeding unless the court records the satisfaction that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in failure of justice.” 8. The above view also found reiteration in Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab and others wherein it was, inter alia, held that mere omission, error or irregularity in sanction is not to be considered fatal unless it has resulted in failure of justice. In Prakash Singh Badal (supra) it was further held that Section 19(1) of the PC Act is a matter of procedure and does not go to the root of jurisdiction. On the same line is the decision of this Court in R. Venkatkrishnan v. Central Bureau of Investigation. In fact, a three-Judge Bench in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Virender Kumar Tripathi while considering an identical issue, namely, the validity of the grant of sanction by the Additional Secretary of the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs of the Government of Madhya Pradesh instead of the authority in the parent department, this Court held that in view of Section 19(3) of the PC Act, interdicting a criminal proceeding mid-course on ground of invalidity of the sanction order will not be appropriate unless the court can also reach the conclusion that failure of justice had been occasioned by any such error, omission or irregularity in the sanction. It was further held that failure of justice can be established not at the stage of framing of charge but only after the trial has commenced and the evidence is led (Para 10 of the report).” 25. In the case of State of Orissa vs. Mrutunjaya Panda reported in AIR 1998 SC 715 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under in paragraph-2:- 2. “On perusal of the impugned judgment we find that the High Court's attention was not drawn to the provisions of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which expressly lays down, inter alia, that any error or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution shall not be a ground for reversing an order of conviction by the appellate court unless in the opinion of that court a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. The section further lays down that in determining whether any error or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution has occasioned a failure of justice, the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage of the proceedings. In view of the above provisions the High Court was required to decide, after recording a finding that there was some error or irregularity in the sanction, whether such error or irregularity occasioned a failure of justice and further whether such objection regarding the validity of the sanction was raised in the trial court. Admittedly, the above point was not raised in the trial court nor do we find anything on record from which it can be said that the error or irregularity in the sanction (even if we assume that the finding of the High Court in this regard is correct) did occasion any failure of justice. In that view of the matter it must be said that the High Court was not at all justified in acquitting the respondent on the ground that there was no valid sanction to prosecute him. Since on facts, the concurrent findings of the courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and supported by cogent reasons the judgment of the High Court has got to be reversed.”(Emphasis supplied by me) 26. Since on facts, the concurrent findings of the courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and supported by cogent reasons the judgment of the High Court has got to be reversed.”(Emphasis supplied by me) 26. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no evidence in the record in this case, as already indicated above, that the appellant-convict has produced any material in the record regarding the non-application of mind by the Deputy Commissioner concerned to sanction the prosecution of the appellant-convict not there is any material for this court to arrive at a conclusion that “failure of justice” has occasioned to the appellant-convicted in any manner in this case by the sanction for prosecution which has been marked Exhibit 17/A. Under such circumstances this court is of the considered view that this is not a case which warrants interference in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of this court with the impugned judgment on the ground that the sanction of prosecution has been accorded without proper application of mind. 27. After carefully, going through the evidence in the record, it is found that nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of the prosecution-witnesses to discard or disbelieve their testimony. The PW1 as stated above the demand of money by the appellant-convict, the acceptance of money upon demand by the appellant-convict from the complainant-PW1 and also recovery of the money from the appellant-convict. As per the case of the prosecution also the P.W.1 is the only person who had the occasion to hear and see the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant-convict. Under such circumstances of the case where there is a solitary eyewitness to an occurrence, and his testimony is trustworthy and credible the same cannot be discarded merely because no independent witness was not examined on that particular point in respect of which no independent witness exists as per the case of the prosecution. Further the testimony of P.W.1 is corroborated by the other witnesses as already indicated above. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as mentioned above 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 chemical examination report of the solution which were kept in bottles 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-convict 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 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’ble 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.W1, as well as the other witnesses as already discussed above in detail, they pale into insignificance. The judgments of the Supreme Court of India relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-convict are no doubt settled principles of law but as already indicated above in this case as the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the demand of the bribe money and acceptance of the same by the appellant-convict of what I can say money through the P.W.1 in no uncertain manner. The P.W.1 appears to be a truthful and trustworthy witness and his testimony inspires confidence. His testimony in this respect has also been corroborated by other prosecution witnesses. Therefore in the considered opinion of this court those settled principles of law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-convict which relates to cases where the prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe money by the active portion of those cases, are applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore in the considered opinion of this court those settled principles of law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-convict which relates to cases where the prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe money by the active portion of those cases, are applicable to the facts of this case. 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, beyond reasonable doubt; therefore 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 06.03.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in Vigilance (Spl.) Case No.05 of 2010, accordingly the said judgment of conviction is confirmed. 28. 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 office in revenue department, 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.” In this backdrop, considering the amount of bribe taken by the appellant–convict, the sentence also appears to be proper. Accordingly, the order of sentence dated 06.03.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in Vigilance (Spl.) Case No.05 of 2010 is also confirmed. Thus this appeal being without any merit is dismissed. 29. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant-convict is on bail. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the bail granted to the appellant convict Kush Kumar Tiwary is cancelled. Thus this appeal being without any merit is dismissed. 29. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant-convict is on bail. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the bail granted to the appellant convict Kush Kumar Tiwary is cancelled. The appellant-convict is directed to surrender before the trial court forthwith failing which the trial court is directed to take all coercive steps for apprehension of the said appellant-convict to be taken into custody for serving out the remaining sentence. The learned trial court is directed to release the seized tainted money to the complainant after keeping the copies of the same. 30. Let a copy of the Judgment be sent to the learned trial court forthwith.