P.K. Bhasin, J.@mdashThe appellant has been convicted by the learned Special Judge, Delhi under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(for short ''the Act'') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years u/s 7 and forty months rigorous imprisonment u/s 13(1)(d). Separate fines with default stipulations were also imposed upon the appellant.
2. The relevant facts leading to the trial and conviction of the appellant have been narrated by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment and the same are reproduced hereunder:
1. Present case was registered on 22.6.89 on the written complaint of Shri Sri Ram alleging that he was getting his house No. A-46, Shastri Nagar, repaired. Shri Satvir Sharma, accused visited house No. A-46, Shastri Nagar on 19.6.89 and demanded a sum of Rs. 5000/- as illegal gratification for allowing him to continue the repair/renovation of his house. Complainant Along with his neighbor R.K. Verma visited the office of accused at Karol Bagh on 21.6.89 where accused told the complainant to pay him Rs. 1500/- on 22.6.89 at his office and to pay the balance amount later on. The complainant was not willing to pay the illegal gratification to the accused and hence he lodged a written complaint with CBI on 22.6.89. A case was registered and the investigation of the case was entrusted to Sh. Vijay Rawal, Inspector CBI.
2. Shri Vijay Rawal arranged two independent witnesses S/Shri Sardari Lal and S.S. Kataria, both from the department of Industrial Development Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi on 22.6.89. The numbers of the GC notes of Rs. 1500/- produced by the complainant were recorded in the handing over memo and these GC notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder. Thereafter these GC notes were given to the complainant with the direction to give the same to the accused on his demand. After completion of all the legal formalities, Shri Vijay Rawal laid a trap on 22.6.89. The party reached in the office of the accused at Karol Bagh, Delhi at 3.20 PM on 22.6.89. All members of the trap party took suitable potitions near the office of the accused and complainant Along with independent witnesses entered the office of the accused at 3.35 PM. There accused repeated his demand for illegal gratification and accepted the tainted money of Rs. 1500/- from the complainant as illegal gratification in the presence of independent witnesses. After receiving appointed signal, Shri Vijay Rawal, other members of the trap party apprehended the accused. The tainted money of Rs. 1500/- was recovered from the right side pocket of pant of the accused by Sardari Lal, independent witness and numbers of GC notes so recovered were compared with the numbers of GC notes recorded in the handing over memo which tallied. The hand washes of the accused were taken. The wash of the right side pocket of pant of accused was taken. All other formalities were completed on the spot and accordingly accused has been chargesheeted for the offence punishable u/s 7 and 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988. Further, sanction for prosecution u/s 19(1)(c) of P.C. Act, 1988 has also been taken.
3. To prove the accusations against the appellant the prosecution had relied upon the evidence of the complainant(PW-2 Sri Ram), his neighbour to whom he had narrated about the demand of bribe by the appellant(PW-5 Ram Kishan Verma), the two independent panch witnesses(PW-3 S.S.Kataria and PW-4 Sardari Lal) and the trap laying officer(PW-7 Inspector Vijay Rawal). The appellant- accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. had pleaded innocence and claimed that a false case had been foisted upon him as he had booked unauthorized construction being carried out by the complainant because of which he had got annoyed and had threatened him(the appellant) to get him removed from service. As regards the solutions of sodium carbonate turning pink when his hands were dipped in separate solutions after his apprehension the appellant''s stand was that the CBI officials had caught hold of him and had rubbed their hands with his right hand and then forced him to dip his hands in a colourless solution and they had dipped their own fingers also in that solution and that solution had turned pink.
4. During the course of arguments Mr. K.B.Andley, learned senior counsel for the appellant, read out the relevant portions of the statements of main prosecution witnesses and then urged for rejecting their evidence. Before I consider the criticism of Mr. Andley I would like to notice the relevant portions of the evidence of material witnesses. PW-2 Sri Ram is the complainant. The relevant portions of his testimony are as under:
I was employed with the D.C.M., Delhi, which was closed about 6 - 7 years back. My services were terminated. At that time I was residing in a house allotted to me by DCM. I vacated the said DCM and I had a plot on which I had constructed my own house at Shastri Nagar, Delhi and after leaving the DCM I shifted to my own house after about one and a quarter year. Where I am presently reside with my family. About 5-6 years back(this witness was examined on10/01/95) I was carrying on repairs of the said house. It was a summer season while the repairs was going on two persons came to the site and one of them is the accused Satbir Sharma accused present in the court and other may be chaprasi. The other man came inside the house and met him and told him that repairs was necessary because of bad condition of the house that man told me that Sahab was standing outside and he has called me. I told him that I was an uneducated person Therefore he himself should talk to the Sahab. I did not see the said date Saheb. That person came there and told me that Rs. 5000/- should be paid. Otherwise I would not be allowed to undertake the repairs. That person gave me a paper chit and told me to come to the office at Tibia College and meet Satbir Sharma in his office. Next day I went to his office at Tibia College Along with my neighbor Shri Ramkishan Verma. In the office Shri Ram Kishan Verma went to inside the room and I remained outside. They talk something in English which I could not understand and Sri Ram Kishan Verma also coming of that office room told me that the matter is settled about 1500/- which I was required to pay in connection with the repairs of the house. This money was to be paid to the accused. I did not remember the date thereafter I and Ram Kishan Verma discussed and decided that a step should be taken so that the money of 1500/- could be saved. I told him to take up this step. Thereafter Shri R.K. verma took me to the CBI office next day''''.... Thereafter, I myself wrote an application to the CBI''''. The said report (complaint) is Ex. PW2/A ''''....I went to the CBI office Along with Shri Ram Kishan Verma and handed over Rs. 1500/- of Rs. 50 denomination each. This was about 2/3 days after the complaint was giving. The number of the currency notes were noted down a paper. Number of the GC notes were noted down a piece of paper'''' I was directed to hand over the printed currency notes to accused Satbir Sharma on his demand''.... After completing the proceedings in the CBI office, we left CBI office about 2 or 2.30 p.m. At Tibia College I Along with Ram Kishan Verma and one more person whose name I do not remember went the office room of the accused which was on the first floor. On reaching the office room the chaprasi met me and asked him if Saheb was there he told me Sahab was sitting in the room. I entered the room leaving behind Ram Kishan Verma and the other person entered the room. Sahab told me if I had brought the money ''''...and thereafter I gave the money to accused Satbir who accepted the same with his hands and kept it in the pant pocket. ''''I came out and those Ram Kishan Verma and the other person also came Along with me on the ground floor and gave the signal to the CBI officers''''. The raiding party members went up and entered the office room of the accused and caught the accused" He was confronted that he had taken money from me which he denied then the personal search was taken and the money was recovered from his pant pocket'''' The numbers of the currency notes were tallied with the numbers already recorded in the handing over memo''''. Thereafter the hands of the accused was washed in a solution which turned into pink.
5. PW-3 is the panch witness who was associated by CBI for the trap. He deposed about the pre-raid formalities conducted at the office of CBI and then he went on to depose about the actual trap proceedings at the office of the appellant. The relevant portions from his evidence are as under:
We had left the CBI office at about 3.25 p.m. we reached at M.C.D. office Tibia College, New Delhi. At that place complainant/myself and Shri S.K. Verma or R.K. Verma were directed to go inside the office while other members of the trap party took up their respective position. We all three went to the office of accused Satbir Sharma who is present in the court. (Witness has rightly identify the accused)''''.... Thereafter Sri Ram went inside the room and called the accused and Sri Ram and accused came out of the room. Thereafter accused said ''HAA BOLO KYA BAAT HAI''. Thereafter complainant said ''SAHAB JAISA AAPNE KAHA that MEIN RUPEES 1500/- LE AYA HOO'' Thereafter accused accepted Rs. 1500/-. Accused kept that money in his pant pocket. After keeping Rs. 1500/- with him accused said ''BAAKI PAISO KA INTJAAM JALDI KAR DENA DO TEEN DIN ME AAB TUM JAAO''. Complainant asked from the accused that now can he construct his house. The accused replied ''MAKAAN KA KYA BANWANA MAKAAN BANA TO HUA''''.Thereafter complainant given the pre-appointed signal. ''''.Inspector Vijay Rawal enquired from me as to whether the money has been taken which I had replied yes and then we all three Along with went upstairs. Thereafter we all went the office of the accused and accused was present in his seat. Inspector vijay Rawal inquired from the accused as to where is the money. I told him that the money is in the pocket of the accused. Thereafter Vijay Rawal asked the accused to take out the money. The accused replied ''KOON SE PAISE, PAISE MERE PASS NAHI HAA''. At that time Sri Ram was also present there''''. As far as I remember Inspector Vijay Rawal had asked me to take out tainted currency note from the pocket of the accused and as such I took out the same. PW Sardari lal was also present there at that time. In the presence of members of the trap party, inspector Vijay Rawal compared the numbers of those tainted GC notes with handing over memo and their number tallied.
6. PW-4 Sardari Lal is another panch witness associated for the trap. He also deposed about the pre-raid proceedings at the office of CBI and the relevant portions of his statement regarding the actual trap are as under:
After the pre-raid proceedings, we left the CBI office for MCD office, Karol Bagh, CBI vehicles were stopped at main road at a distance of one furlong from MCD office. Thereafter, we proceeded towards MCD office on foot. Complainant Siri Ram, PW Kataria and PW Verma went into the office of the accused and we the remaining members of raiding party took position outside the office at some distance. We had reached at MCD office at about 3-20 PM. I did not see anyone giving the signal, but at about 3-45 PM CBI Inspector rushed towards the office of the accused Along with the members of the raiding party. As soon as we entered the office of the accused, complainant and witnesses said that bribe has been paid and CBI officials caught hold of the accused from his wrist. They disclosed their identity and showed the identity card. Inspector of CBI confronted the accused that he has taken the bribe. The accused got nervous. I was directed to search the accused and Rs. 1500/- were recovered from the right side pocket of the pant of the accused, present in the court''''.After the recovery of currency notes, myself and PW Shri Kataria compared the numbers of currency notes with the numbers already noted down in the handing over memo Ex. PW2/B and currency notes were found to be the same.
Thereafter water was fetched in a glass tumbler and sodium carbonate was dissolved in it. Accused was made to dip one hand in the aforesaid solution and on this said solution turned pink. ''''...Accused was made to take off his pant. Another sodium carbonate solution was prepared afresh in a glass tumbler and inner lining of the right side pocket of the pant of the accused was dipped in sodium carbonate solution and the said solution turned pink....
7. PW-5 Ram Kishan Verma is the complainant''s neighbour to whom he had told about the demand of bribe. The relevant portions of his evidence are as under:
I know Siri Ram complainant. It is the incident of June, 1989. On the fateful day Siri Ram came to see me at my bank situated at Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. He requested me to accompany his to MCD office, Karol Bagh Zone and he told me that Zonal Engineer. Again said, that Engineer was demanding a bribe of Rs. 5000/- from him for permitting him to repair his house. I took short leave permission from my officer and went Along with Siri Ram to MCD office, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. We reached at MCD office at 3-30 PM and there we met accused Satbir Sharma who is today present in the court. Siri Ram told accd. Satbir Sharma that he being a poor person was unable to pay Rs. 5000/- as bribe and accd. Satbir Sharma reduced his demand to Rs. 1500/- and told the complainant to bring the amount of Rs. 1500/- on the next day. He also told that in the event of non-payment of Rs. 1500/-, house of Siri Ram would be demolished. Actually, Satbir Sharma had told the complainant to bring the Installment of Rs. 1500/- on the next day and to arrange for the rest of the amount of demand within 2 or 3 days. Thereafter, Siri Ram told me that he was not in a position to arrange for the demanded amount and I suggested to him to lodge a complaint with the CBI office. We planned to visit CBI office on the next day. On the next day, I Along with Siri Ram reached at CBI office at about 11AM. ''''...Complainant was directed to pay the tainted amount to the accused only in the event of specific demand. One of the public witnesses was directed to accompany the complainant and watch the proceedings and hear the conversation. He was also directed that in the event of passing of money, he should given signal by placing his hand over his head. I was also directed to accompany the complainant and watch the proceedings and see the passing over of the money. All the pre-raid proceedings were reduced into writing in the form of handing over memo Ex. PW2/B and bears my signatures at encircled portions D on both the pages.
We left the CBI office at about 3PM and reached at MCD office, Karol Bagh at about 4PM. CBI vehicle was parked at some distance near Tibia College. Myself, complainant and one public witness went to the MCD office to meet the accused and other members of raiding party took position outside. Accused was sitting on his official seat and on seeing us he said ''AA GAYE'' and Siri replied in affirmative. Thereafter, accused Satbir Sharma asked, PAISE LAAE HO and Siri Ram replied, HAAN JI. He also said that with great difficulty he has arranged for Rs. 1500/- which he has brought. Thereafter, Satbir Sharma accused said ''PAISE TO DAINE HIN PAREN GEY KAHIN SE BHI LAAO MAKAAN BANWA RAHE HO''. Accused PAISE LAHE HO DEY DO AND Siri complaint took out tainted Rs. 1500/- and gave the same to the accused. Accused after accepting the tainted money in his hand kept it in his pocket immediately. Accused kept the money in the pocket of his pant. After giving the money, Siri Ram asked, ''SAHIB AB TO MEN APNA KAAM KARWA SAKTA HOON''. On this accused said, '' AGAR BAKI KA PAISA DO TEEN DIN MAIN NAHIN DIYA MEN TOOMARA MAKAN GIRA DOON GAA''. The aforesaid public witness who had accompanied us gave pre-arranged signal by putting his hand over his head and CBI officials came inside the office. I also gave the similar signal. Accused was apprehended from both his wrists. Thereafter, they disclosed their identify and confronted the accused with the fact that he had accepted bribe, however, the accused denied having taken any bribe. Siri ram told CBI officials that he has given the tainted money to the accused which he has kept in his pant pocket''''. The second public witness took search of the accused and recovered aforesaid Rs. 1500/- from the pant pocket of the accused. CBI officials were not wearing any identification pant. Thereafter aforesaid public witness compared the recovered currency notes which were already noted down with the handing over memo and confirmed that the currency notes were the same. Thereafter, a glass of water was brought and the Chemical powder was dissolved in the same. Said Chemical powder was in the IO bag. It was the same Chemical powder which was used for making solution in the pre-raid proceedings. Other Chemical powder was not taken along to the site of raid. Accused was made to dip his right hand fingers in the aforesaid solution which turned from colourless to pink''''.... Thereafter fresh solution of the said Chemical in a clean glass of water was prepared and inner lining of the pocket of the pant of the accused from which the tainted notes were recovered was dipped in the same. Aforesaid pocket wash turned milky white, but not pink''''.... Similarly, accused was also made to dip his left hand finger in a solution of aforesaid Chemical prepared in a clean glass and the said solution turned light pink'''' I have seen the currency notes which are Ex.P1 to P-30. These are the same tainted notes which were accepted by the accused.
8. PW-7 is the trap officer from CBI. He deposed as under:
In June, 1989 I was posted as Inspector. On 22.6.89 one of my informer brought Shiri Ram and Shri R.K. Verma to my office at CGO Complex Lodhi Road. When I enquired about their visit, Shri Ram told me that one Junior Engineer Satyavir Sharma of Karol Bagh Zone, M.C.D. was demanding Rs. 5000/- as bribe for permitting him to renovate his house at Shastri Nagar. He also told me that said J.E. had met him on 21-6-89 evening and directed him to bring Rs. 1500/- on 22.6.89. This fact was also confirmed by Shri R. K. verma. Thereafter Shri Ram wrote down his complaint Ex. P.W.2/A in Hindi.
I organized a trap party, which included Inspector S.C. Yadav, Inspector RK Chadha, Inspector Mehar Singh, ASI Om Parkash of CBI and two independent witnesses Mr. Sardari Lal and Shri S. S. Kataria both from Udyog Bhawan. I told the facts to all the members of trap party in the presence of complainant. Complainant showed his complaint to the independent witnesses, who asked him certain questions to satisfy themselves''''. Complainant produced 30 G.C. notes of Rs. 50/- denomination each. I noted down the numbers of those G.C. notes in the handing over memo P.W.2/B. those GC notes were treated with phelphthlene powder by ASI Om Parkash. Sodium carbonate solution was prepared in a glass of water. ASI Om Parkash who treated the GC notes dipped his fingers in the said colourless solution, which turned pink. After this demonstration, I explained the reaction of phelolphthlene powder with sodium carbonate solution to all the members of raiding party. Demonstration solution was thrown away. I handed over treated GC notes to the complainant Shri Ram and he kept them in the left pocket of his payjama. Before that personal search of complainant was conducted to ensure that he was not carrying anything. Complainant was directed to hand over said treated notes to the accused only in the event of demand and before that he was not supposed to touch the GC notes. Shri S.S. Kataria was directed to act as shadow witness and remained with the complainant to watch the proceedings and hear the conversation. I also directed Shri R. K. Verma to accompany the complainant for the purpose of raid. I directed the complainant to given signal by scratching his head in the event of acceptance of bribe by the accused. Similar instructions were given to witness S.S. Kataria and Shri R. K. Verma. ''''...I prepared handing over memo Ex. P.W. 2/B and obtained the signatures of all the members of raiding party.
On 22.6.89 at about 3.00 PM after pre-raid proceedings, we all left for CBI office for the raid. We reached near the office of Karol Bagh Zone, M.C.D. Complainant Shri Ram with his associate R. K. Verma and shadow witness S.S. Kataria went into the office. We the other members of the raiding party took positions near MCD office. At about 3.50 PM complainant RK Verma and SS Kataria came downstairs and the complainant gave appointed signal by scratching his head. Similar signals were given by RK Verma and Shadow witness. Thereafter, at the instance of complainant we all rushed to the office of JE Satyavir Sharma and he was found sitting on his seat. I caught hold of left wrist of the accused and Shri S. C. Yadav caught hold of his right wrist. I disclosed my identity and challenged Satyavir Sharma that he has accepted the bribe from the complainant. Complainant confirmed and stated that accused had kept the bribe money in the right pocket of his pant. (objected to) I directed PW Sardari Lal to check the right pocket of the pant of the accused and thereafter he recovered Rs. 1500/- comprising of 30GC notes of Rs. 50/- denomination each from the right pocket of the pant of the accused. I myself tallied the numbers of those recovered notes with the numbers noted down in handing over memo and GC notes were found to be the same. Independent witnesses as well as complainant also tallied the recovered GC notes.
Sodium carbonade solution was prepared in a glass of water and accused Satyavir Sharma was made to dip his right hand fingers in the said solution. On this aforesaid colourless turned pink. ''''.Fresh solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in a clean glass of water and accused was made to dip his left hand fingers into the same, on this solution turned whitish pink. ''''. Fresh solution sodium carbonade was prepared in a clean glass of water. Accused was made to remove his pant and inner lining of right side pocket of his pant was dipped in the said solution and on this solution turned pink. '''' I prepared recovery memo PW2/C.
9. This is the evidence which was read out before me by the counsel for the respondent. Mr. Andley had submitted that even though these witnesses had deposed about the recovery of tainted money from the appellant-accused at the time of trap but the evidence of none of them inspires confidence. It was also submitted that the prosecution case as reflected in the complaint (FIR) of the complainant to CBI was that the initial demand of bribe of Rs. 5,000/- was made by the appellant-accused himself at the house of the complainant three-four days prior to 22/06/89 when the complainant had lodged his complaint(Ex.PW-2/A) with CBI but while giving evidence in Court the complainant gave a different version and claimed that two persons had come to his house but one of them only had met him and had demanded Rs. 5,000/- saying that otherwise he would not be allowed to carry out the repair work in his house and had also told him to meet Satbir Sharma(the appellant) next day in his office. The witness had also stated that that day he had not met the other person who had come there and in cross- examination also he had admitted that on that day he had not met the accused. Mr. Andley submitted that the consequence of this deviation from the original version given to CBI by the complainant and the one given by him in Court and the CBI not prosecuting the chaprasi who had made the initial demand of bribe is that the entire case against the appellant regarding demand of bribe by him becomes doubtful. It was also contended that the complainant had to be cross- examined by the prosecutor because of his having introduced one ''chaprasi'' during his evidence but during that cross-examination also he denied that initial demand of bribe was made by the accused alone and not by any chaprasi and that fact also makes the complainant wholly unreliable. It was also submitted that even on the second occasion the accused, as per the complainant, had not demanded bribe from him directly and the deal was settled with his neighbour PW-5 Ram Kishan Verma. Mr. Andley also submitted that the panch witness PW-3 S.S. Kataria was also cross-examined by the public prosecutor which shows that he was also not a reliable witness. Learned Counsel further submitted that all the trap witnesses had given discrepant statements in Court regarding the actual trap proceedings and particularly the conversation between the complainant and the appellant-accused and that fact also renders the evidence of each one of them unreliable and not worthy of any credence and should not have been relied upon by the trial Court. Learned senior counsel concluded by saying that the appellant deserves to be acquitted and if at all this Court is not inclined to accept that prayer then at least the sentences of imprisonment awarded to the appellant by the trial Court should be reduced taking into consideration the small amount of bribe demanded by the appellant, his present age and the fact that the incident is of the year 1989 and during all these years the appellant has undergone lot of mental torture which by itself is sufficient punishment for him.
10. On the other hand Shri R.M. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the respondent-CBI supported the trial Court''s judgment and submitted that there were definitely certain inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses but those were not on any material aspect of the prosecution case and in fact they were bound to be there since the witnesses were examined after more than five or six years of the trap. It was also contended that in a case of corruption like the present one if the prosecution is able to establish that some money which was not the legal remuneration of the accused was recovered from his possession at the time of trap then the Court is bound to presume that that money was obtained by him as illegal gratification. In the present case since the CBI had been able to prove the recovery of tainted money from the possession of the appellant by reliable evidence there remains no scope for the acquittal of the appellant as he had not been able to offer any Explanation for that recovery and so the statutory presumption u/s 20 of the Act has remained unrebutted.
11. From a reading of the evidence of the complainant it is no doubt clear that regarding the initial demand he had introduced one chaprasi in the story and had also claimed that initial demand was made by that chaprasi but that will not render the prosecution case doubtful. The appellant-accused was charged and tried for his having obtained bribe from the complainant on the day of the trap i.e. 22/06/89 and on that aspect the complainant has deposed that the appellant had asked for money when he had gone to his office for getting him apprehended red handed while accepting the money from him and on his demand only he had given to the appellant the phenolphathalein treated currency notes. He has also deposed that those very notes were later on recovered from the possession of the appellant when other members of the trap team entered his office room on getting pre-arranged signal. The two panch witnesses as well as the trap officer(PW-7) have also supported the prosecution case regarding the recovery of tainted money from the appellant-accused. Of course, to all the witnesses of recovery it was suggested in cross-examination on behalf of the accused that no money was recovered from the accused as claimed by them but in my view there is no reason to disbelieve the witnesses and particularly the trap officer regarding the recovery of tainted money from the appellant-accused. Although the appellant- accused has taken a plea that he had been falsely implicated in this case but I am of the view that it is difficult to accept that the two panch-witnesses, both of whom were government officials and totally independent witnesses, and the trap officer would have conspired with the complainant who was a retired government servant, to falsely implicate the accused.
12. No doubt, there are some discrepancies in the statements of the complainant, his neighbour PW-5 and the panch witnesses but those discrepancies are not to be given any weightage since it is to be borne in mind that witnesses were examined in Court after more than six years of the trap and some discrepancies were bound to occur in their statements due to the passage of time. However, on the material aspect of the prosecution case i.e. recovery of tainted money from the pocket of the appellant-accused all the trap witnesses had claimed in one voice that money was recovered from the pocket of the appellant-accused after his apprehension by the CBI officials. Similarly, the evidence of the complainant and panch witness PW-3 S.S. Kataria cannot be rejected just because they were cross-examined by the public prosecutor on some aspects. It is now well settled that entire evidence of a witness in a criminal trial does not get washed off if the witness is cross-examined by the prosecutor and whatever he deposes in favor of the prosecution can be relied upon if that version is duly corroborated by other reliable evidence. Here, on the point of recovery of tainted money from the appellant-accused the evidence of the complainant is fully corroborated by the second panch witness PW-4 Sardari Lal as well as the trap officer PW-7 Inspector Vijay Rawal. So, just because the complainant and PW-3 S.S.Kataria were cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution it cannot be said that their evidence has to be ignored.
13. In fact, even if evidence of the complainant and panch witness S.S. Kataria were to be excluded totally from consideration because of their having been cross-examined by the prosecutor the prosecution would have still succeeded based on the evidence of the other panch witness PW-4 Sardari Lal and the trap officer PW-7 Inspector Vijay Rawal. In this regard it may be mentioned here that there have been cases in which convictions of the public servants for the offence of bribery were maintained even up to the Supreme Court despite the fact that complainant as well as the panch witness had not supported the prosecution at all and the conviction was maintained by the Supreme Court primarily on the evidence of the trap officer regarding the recovery of tainted money from the possession of the accused at the time of the trap. In this regard, I may make a useful reference to only one such decision of the Apex Court which is reported as
14. I am also of the view that even if it could be said, as was contended by Mr. Andley, that the complainant had a reason to lodge a false complaint against the appellant-accused because of his objecting to the repair work being done by the complainant in his house, at least, other witnesses of recovery could not be attributed any motive for falsely claiming that tainted money was recovered from the pocket of the appellant-accused at the time of raid. At least no motive was suggested to any one of them in cross-examination on behalf of the accused. In my view, the evidence of recovery of tainted money from the appellant-accused is unimpeachable. And, once recovery of money from a public servant is established and no Explanation for the same is offered by the public servant then it has to be held that he had obtained that money himself and in that event even if there is no direct evidence of prior demand of bribe that would not be of any consequence since prior demand of bribe by the public servant would be implicit in its acceptance because unless there was some kind of prior deal between the public servant and the person giving the money to him the money, which is shown to have been recovered from the public servant at the time of trap and which the public servant does not claim to be his own money, would not have been accepted. Of course, the public servant can claim that the money recovered was due to him on some account and if he is able to probabilise this plea then the statutory presumption u/s 20 of the Act, which is a rebuttable presumption, of recovered money being illegal gratification can be said to have been rebutted. In the present case, however, the appellant has denied the very recovery of tainted money from his possession. However, the evidence adduced in that regard by CBI having been found to be acceptable by the trial Court as well as by this Court the bare denial of the appellant-accused is valueless.
15. I am, Therefore, of the view that there is no merit in the appellant''s challenge to his conviction.
16. Coming now to the question of sentence, I am of the view that considering the fact that the incident of demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant is of the year 1989 and during all these years he must have suffered lot of mental agony because of the pendency of the criminal proceedings against him he deserves some leniency. I am of the view that since minimum sentence of imprisonment is provided under Sections 7 as well as 13 of the Act this Court can in the facts and circumstances of the case reduce the sentence of imprisonment under both these Sections to the minimum sentence provided.
17. In the result, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 I reduce the sentence of imprisonment to six months for the conviction of the appellant u/s 7 and to one year for his conviction u/s 13(1)(d). With this modification only on the point of sentence the appeal against the judgment of conviction stands dismissed. The appellant was released on bail during the pendency of the appeal and now that his conviction has been sustained he shall be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out the sentences of imprisonment awarded to him.
