Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
11. There is no denying the fact that on 06.09.1996, a trap was laid on the complaint filed by the complainant and the appellant-accused was caught red-handed by the Vigilance Department, Patiala. Due procedure was followed while conducting the trap wherein Bakhshish Singh (PW-8) was nominated as a shadow witness who accompanied the complainant-Arjan Singh (PW-6), who was handed over the currency notes of denomination of Rs. 500/- and Rs. I 00/- duly smeared with phenolphthalein powder and after recording their numbers. When both of them went inside the office, the appellant-accused, who was sitting on a chair, on seeing them, asked the complainant ifhe had brought the money. When PW-6 replied positively, the appellant-accused took from him six hu11dred rupees and put them in the right hand side upper drawer of his table and handed over to him the copy of Jamabandi after obtaining his signature on a Register where the complainant signed and put the date as 06.09.1996. The shadow witness came out of the office of the accused and signaled in a specific manner. Thereupon, DSP Amar Nath along with other members of the raiding party went inside the office of the accused. A glass of water was requisitioned and sodium carbonate was added to the water. When fingers of both the hands of the accused were made to be washed in the solution, the colour of the solution turned light pink and the numbers of the currency notes also tallied and they were taken into possession by investigating team. After carrying out necessary formalities,. the accused was arrested.
12. In order to prove the manner of investigation and various aspects relating to the prosecution one Kewal Krishan was examined as PW-5. PW-5 is the official witness and was associated with the raid. Balbir Singh Kanungo (PW-3), a clerk of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala deposed before the court that the appel !ant-accused was ~orking under him and he used to receive writings of the accused. On this basis, he identified the writing arid signature of the accused on the copy of the Jamabandi. The complainant, in his deposition, narrated the whole incident · before the court. PW-5 completely corroborated with the statement of the complainant-Arjan Singh (PW-6). Though learned counsel for the appellant-accused pointed out the flaws in the process, no discrepancy was found with respect to the material aspects of the matter such as recovery of the incriminating currency notes, their identity or the credibility of the witnesses.
When witness is examined on oath at length, it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. An objection was raised by learned counsel for the appellant-accused that the copy of the Jamabandi stood prepared on 04.09.1996 and thus, there was no occasion for the appellant-accused to ask for the illegal gratification on 06.09.1996. The best piece of evidence to establish this point was the Ujrat Register wherein signatures of the complainant were obtained as a token of delivery of copy of Jamabandi but no attempt was made on behalf of the appellant-accused to get the said Register produced on record. The .· – said entry bears the date as 04.09.1996 in the relevant column. but signatures of the complainant regarding receipt thereof were obtained on the said entry by the appellant-accused at the time of trap, that is, on 06.09.1996.
Even otherwise, the demand, acceptance and recovery of the incriminating currency notes from the accused have been sufficiently proved. The objection that reliability of the trap was impaired as the solution collected in the phial was not sent to the Chemical Examiner is too puerile for acceptance. This point was considered by this Court in State of U.P. vs. Zakaul/a/1 (1998) l SCC 557 wherein it was held as under:- "13 ….. We have not come across imy case where a trap was conducted by the police in which the phenolphthalein solution was sent to the Chemical Examiner. We know that the said solution is always used not because there is any such direction by the statutory c provision, but for the satisfaction of the officials that the suspected public servant would have really handled the bribe money ….. " Further, it was asserted that the hands of the appellant-accused might have got in touch with the phenolphthalein powder when he was caught hold by the investigating officer and, thus, finding on conviction cannot be recorded on the basis of the phenolphthalein sodium carbonate test.
In the case on hand, there is no evidence on record to show that the investigating officer shook hands with the appellant-accused or caught his hands and, as such there was no occasion for the phenolphthalein powder being transferred from the hands of the investigating officer to those of the accused. Even otherwise, the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the custody of the appellant-accused has been proved by direct evidence.
13. It was also brought to the notice of the court thatthe complainant- Arjan Singh nursed a grudge against the appellant-accused for having supplied a copy of the Jamabandi to Nirmal Singh- adopted son of the complainant and the present case is the outcome of the said grudge only. In view of the above, it was stated before the couit by learned counsel for the respondent-State that the matter between the aforesaid Nirmal Singh and the complainant was compromised and even otherwise no material on record has been placed to show that a copy of the Jamabandi was supplied to Nirmal Singh by the appellant-accused. The contention is misconceived. Moreover, the said suit has no relevance at all with the instant case as it was filed on 16.01.1997, i.e., much later than the date of incident of 06.09 .1996.
14. It may also be mentioned here that Head Constable Gurcharan Singh (PW- I) has categorically stated in his deposition that the sealed nip of hand-wash of the appellant-accused was also deposited with him on 06.09.1996 along with other case properties and he made the entry thereof in the relevant register. Though he was not cross-examined on this aspect, it was he who made the entry and he should have been confronted with the said entry iflearned counsel forthe appellant-accused thought that there was some discrepancy in it and ifthe appellant-accused wanted to take benefit thereof. In fact, there was no such discrepancy as deposit of sealed nip of hand-wash of the appellant-accused has been mentioned in the register.
15. The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was demand, payment and acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established, the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted "as motive or reward" for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word "gratification" need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the court has to draw on the factual premise that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like "gratification or any valuable thing". lfacceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word "gratification" must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it. In the case on hand, from the facts on record, it is proved beyond doubt that the appellant-accused asked for the money to do a particular act and actually accepted the same. He was caught red-handed and, therefore, we do not find any reason to disagree with the findings of the trial court and the High Court.
16. In a decision of this Court in State of Punjab vs. Madan Moltan Lal Verma (2013) 14 SCC 153 it was held as under:- "11. The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the. absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational c c facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person. (Vide Ram Prakash Arora v. State of Punjab, T. Subramanian v. State of T.N, State of Kera/av. C.P. Rao and Mukut Bihari v. State of Rajasthan.)"
17. On the same lines, in C.M. Sliarnu1 vs. State of A.P. (2010) I 5 SCC 1, this Court has held as under:- "23. We do not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the broad submission of Mr Rai that demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to constitute the offence under the Act. Further mere recovery of currency notes itself does not constitute the offence under the Act, unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that . the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. In the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that both the ingredients to bring the Act within the mischief of Sections 7 and 13(1 )(d)(ii) of the Act are satisfied."
18. It is a settled principle of law laid down by this Court in a number of decisions that once the demand and voluntary acceptance of E · illegal gratification knowing it to be the bribe are proved by evidence then conviction must follow under Section 7 of the PC Act against the accused. Indeed, these twin requirements are sine qua non for proving the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. In the light of our own re- appraisal of the evidence and keeping in view the abovesaid principle in mind, we have also come to a conclusion that twin requirements of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were proved in the case on hand on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution against the appellant and hence the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section t3(l)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Act. Conclusion:
19. On the face of the specific and positive evidence which cannot be said to be inherently improbable, the plea of the appellant-accused that the prosecution case is fit to be rejected on the ground of improbab ii ity does not appeal to us. The courts below, in our opinion, have rightly rejected the defence evidence. Therefore, in our opinion, the prosecution in this case has proved the guilt of the appellant-accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
20. For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal dismissed.