Prevention of Corruption Act  1947  the minimum sentence that can be imposed is imprisonment for One year and the maximum sentence is seven years
However  the Court  for any special reasons to be recorded in writing
may impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year
There is no special circumstance in this case justifying the court to take a lenient view
Corruption has become so rampant in the country and the offence in this particular case cannot be considered trivial at all
This is not a case of a petty clerk or a peon accepting a small amount as a bribe for doing some little favour
The Court can lot take a lenient view of the conduct of an Income tax officer  who accepts a large amount as a bribe for causing loss to public revenue
742A C  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No180 of 1976
D From the Judgment and Order dt
17101974 of the Gujarat High Court in Crl
Appeal No 750 of 1973
N L Kakar  and RN Poddar for the Appellant
SK Dholakia  RC Bhatia and PC Kapur for the Respondent
He was tried and convicted by the Additional Special Judge  Ahmedabad of offence under Section 161  Indian Penal Code and Section 52 read with Section 51 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act
He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs 2000 on each of the two counts
On appeal  the High Court of Gujarat acquitted the accused of both the offences
The State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal by special leave of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution
The case of the prosecution briefly was as follows One Shashi Kant Mansukh Lal Sheth PW 2 was the 736 Managing partner of a firm known as Ms Hind Fertilizers  Bhavnagar
The assessments for the years 1968 69  1969 70  1970 71 and 1971 72 were pending before the accused income tax Officer
Between June and October 1971  there were nine hearings of the case
On 3572  Laxmikant Sheth pW 7 the Income tax practioner who was representing the firm  received a notice directing the firm s representative to attend his office on 14372 with the firm s books of account and to show cause why sums totaling Rs 194378 should not be added to their returns of income for the years in question
The firm felt that the notice was not justified As PW 7 would be busy on 14372  it was decided that they would go to the income tax office with their books of account on 13th itself
On 10372  Shashi Kant Sheth PW 2 contacted the income tax officer on the telephone and the latter asked him to meet him at his residence at 200 PM Shashi Kant went to the house of accused at Bhavnagar that afternoon
He was told to come again on the evening of 13th
On the 13th  PWs 2 and 7 went to the office and submitted the reply to the show cause notice
The accused wanted them to meet him again on 14th
PW7 said he was busy on 14th
The accused then asked PW 2 to come alone
As previously agreed on 10th  Shashi Kant went to the house of the accused on the night of 13th when the accused told him that the clarification given by the firm was not satisfactory and that they would have to pay a sum of about Rs 12500 by way of tax unless a sum of Rs 40000 was given to him as a bribe
On PW 2 pleading his inability to pay such a large sum  it was settled that a sum of Rs 12500 should be paid
PW 2 wanted to consult his partner
He was told by the accused that he should bring the amount to his house on the evening of 14th March  1973
There after  Shashi Kant contacted Shri Judeja  Deputy Superintendent of police  CBI who was camping at Bhavnayar Shashi Kant complained to him about the demand of bribe of Rs 12500 by the accused
Shri Judeja then took the necessary steps for laying a trap
Two officers of the postal department Shri Parikh  Manager  Postal Store Depot  Ahmedabad PW 3 who was staying in the guest house  and Shri Panchal  an officer of the Postal Department stationed at Bhavnagar itself were requested to serve as panch witnesses
Shashi Kant was asked to bring currency notes of the value of Rs 12500
The notes were treated with phenol phethelen powder
Shashi Kant put the notes in his pocket
He was instructed to go to the house of the accused accompanied by Parikh and to tender 737 the amount to the accused
On the accused receiving the amount Shri Parikh was to come out of the house and signal the police party to come
A panchnama stating all these facts was duly prepared at the guest house
Thereafter  as arranged  the raiding party proceeded towards the house of the accused
Shahsi Kant and Parikh  PWs 2 and 3  went inside
Shahsi Kant introduces Parikh to him as a member of his staff
They chatted generally for some time
The accused then mentioned about the amount to be paid to him whereupon Shashi Kant handed over the bundle of currency notes him
The currency notes were received by the accused who carefully put them in a newspaper and folded the newspaper
Parikh then went out and signalled to the police party
Judeja  Dy
Supdt
Of Police PW 9  the other panch witness Panchal and the rest of the police party rushed inside
The notes were seized
The accused was asked to dip his fingers in a solution of bicarbonate
The solution turned pink Thereafter  the panchnama was prepared
After the investigation was duly completed  the respondent was charge sheeted for the two offences of which he was ultimately convicted
The defence of the accused was that the prosecution case was false
Shashi Kant came to his house with a stranger on the night of 14372
He was surprised at his visit  but for the sake Of courtesy  he asked him to sit down and asked him the purpose of his visit
Instead of replying him  Shashi Kant and the stranger started talking about politics to him
He told him that he was a public servant and he was not interested in politics He also told them that he wanted to go to bed
He went to the toilet for a few minutes and when he returned  Shahsi Kant and the stranger stood up and went away after shaking hands with him
A few moments later they returned with the police party
They must have planted the notes in the newspaper which was lying on the table when he had gone to the toilet
It is seen from the facts narrated above that meeting of Shashi Kant and Parikh with the accused on the night of 14372 at 800PM is not disputed
It is also not disputed that Shashi Kant and Parikh talked to the a accused for quite considerable time  nearly 40 minutes
It is further not disputed that within a few moments after Shashi Kant and Parikh left the accused  Judeja  Panchal and rest of 738 police party entered the house of the accused and currency notes of the value of Rs 12500 were seized from in a fold of a newspaper laying on the table
The accused was present all the time and there was no protest by him
That the fingers of the accused were also dipped in some solution is not disputed
The only question is whether the amount of Rs 12500 was received by the accused as a bribe or whether the amount was planted by Shashi Kant and Parikh during the brief visit of the accused to the toilet
The learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of Shashi Kant  Parikh and Judeja and convicted the accused as aforesaid
The High Court  however  took are markably curious view of the evidence and acquitted the accused
The High Court narrated several circumstances  one after an other  why the prosecution case should not be accepted
We have considered every one of the circumstances and we find that there is not a single satisfactory circumstance reasonably justifying the acquittal
On the other hand we find that everyone of the circumstances is overstated and fanciful
The most important circumstance which seems to have weighed heavily with the High Court  almost to the point of obsession  was that Parikh and Panchal were not independent witnesses as they were both government servants and as they had some previous acquaintance with Inspector Sharma who was assisting Judeja in the investigation  The High Court was of the view that some other respectable residents of Bhavnagar should have been called as Panch witnesses to be associated with the raid
We are afraid the High Court has entirely misdirected itself in appreciating the evidence
In their approach to the evidence  the High Court has done injustice to the witnesses and this has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice
In appreciating oral evidence  the question in each case is whether the witness is a truthful witness and whether there is anything to doubt his veracity in any particular matter about which he deposes Where the witness is found to be untruthful on material facts that is an end of the matter
Where the witness is found to be partly truthful or to spring from tainted sources  the Court may take the precaution of seeking some corroboration  adequate and reasonable to meet the demands of the situation  but a court is not entitled to reject the evidence of a witness merely because they are government servants  who  in the course of their duties or even otherwise  might have come into contact with inves 739 tigating officers and who might have been requested to assist the investigating agencies
If their association with the investigating agencies is unusual  frequent or designed  there may be occasion to view their evidence with suspicion
But merely because they are called in to associate themselves with the investigation as they happened to be available or it is convenient to call them  it is no ground to view their evidence with suspicion
Even in cases where officers who  in the course of their duties  generally assist the investigating agencies  there is no need to view their evidence with suspicion as an invariable rule
For example  in rural areas  investigating officers would ordinarily think of calling in the village officers  such as  the Headman  the Patel or Patwari to act
as punch witnesses  as they are expected to be respectable persons of the locality
It does not mean that their evidence should be viewed with suspicion because they are government servants or because they are generally associated with investigating agencies whenever there is a crime in the village
For that matter it would be wrong to reject the evidence of police officers either on the mere ground that they are interested in the success of the prosecution
The court may be justified in looking with suspicion upon the evidence of officers who have been  demonstrated to have displayed excess of zeal in the conduct and success of the prosecution
But to reject the evidence of all official witnesses as the High Court has done in the present case  is going far too far
We think that it is extremely unfair to a witness to reject his evidence by merely giving him a label
There were two panch witnesses Parikh and Panchal of whom Parikh has been examined as PW3 while Panchal has not been examined
We have been taken through the whole of the deposition of Parikh and we find nothing whatever to doubt his veracity
Nothing was suggested to him as to why he should give false evidence to implicate the accused
All that was elicited from him was that he had worked as departmental inquiry officer and also to defend delinquents in such inquiries in his department
He had become acquainted with Inspector Sharma fifteen days before March 14  1972 as he was defending a delinquent at Bhavnagar in a case in which Shri Sharma was the prosecuting officer
Shri Panchal  who was Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices  Bhavnagar was the Inquiry Officer in that case
This is stated to be the close association of the two panch witnesses 740 with the investigating agency in this case
It is impossible to subscribe to this view
When Judeja  Deputy Superintendent of Police asked Inspector Sharma to get two independent panch witnesses  Parikh was readily available in the guest house and he had known Panchal as the Inquiry Officer in a departmental inquiry in the Postal Department
Both of them being Government Servants belonging to a different department  if Inspector Sharma thought that they could be called as independent punch witnesses  we are unable to impute any motives to the investigating agency or to cast aspersions on the witnesses Parikh and Panchal
We do not have any doubt in accepting the evidence of Parikh as that of an independent witness
Having examined his evidence in detail  we find his evidence to be truthful
His evidence substantiates the evidence of PWs 2 about the acceptance of the bribe by the accused and his keeping the money in a folded newspaper
If we accept the evidence of PWs 2 and 4  the prosecution case that the money was given as a bribe must be accepted and the defence version that the money was planted must be rejected
The other circumstances upon which the High Court relied Court are very trivial and it is unnecessary to burden this judgment with a seriatim discussion of those circumstances
For example  one of the circumstances was that if the accused had arranged that PW 2 should come to him on
the evening of 14th with the bribe  he would have been waiting in his house to receive him with the doors of the house open so that the bribe giver may walk in straight and he was not likely to have kept the doors closed and wait for the bribe giver to knock at the door
We consider it needless even to comment upon this circumstance
Another circumstance upon which the High Court relied was that the accused was not likely to have talked with PWs 2 and 3 for as long as 40 minutes if he was accepting a bribe
He would have merely received the money and sent them away
The very fact that he was talking to them for nearly 40 minutes indicated that no bribe was given or taken
On the other hand  we consider that this is a strong circumstance against the accused
The accused knew that PW 2 was an assessee who had a pending case before him
If the assessee paid him a visit after 800 PM at his residence  one would expect the accused to immediately suspect the reason for the visit and to turn him away at once or at least 741 within a few minutes after his coming to his house
Instead of that  he takes them inside the house  talks to them for nearly 40 minutes
This conduct of the accused is clearly against his innocence
Some question was raised that the solution which according to the investigating officer and the panch witness turned pink when the accused was asked to dip his fingers in it  had become yellowish when the chemical examiner examined the solution
Nothing really turns on this in view of the evidence of PWs 2  4 and that of the investigating officer PW 9
A point was sought to be made in this court of the failure of the prosecution to examine Inspector Sharma as a witness
All that Inspector Sharma did in the case was to assist Judeja  Deputy Superintendent of Police and to fetch the two panch witnesses when he was asked to do so
He could not by any means be called a material witness
As some comment was made during the course of the trial about the failure of the prosecution to examine Inspector Sharma  the prosecution offered him for cross examination and kept Inspector Sharma ready in court
The counsel for the accused stated that since the witness had already been dropped by the prosecution  he did not want to examine him unless the court directed him to do so
After the failure of the counsel of the accused to take advantage 
Of the offer made by the prosecution  we do not think that it is open to the accused to comment upon the so called failure of the prosecution to examine inspector Sharma as a witness
Nor can we draw any adverse inference against the prosecution
On this question  the High Court took the same view as we do
From the evidence of PWs 2  3 and 9  we do not have the slightest doubt that a sum of Rs 12500 was paid to and received by the accused as a bribe
The learned Sessions Judge was clearly right in convicting the accused and the High Court was wronging acquitting the accused
We do not think that this is a case where two views were reasonably possible
The only possible view was J that the accused was guilty and we hold him guilty of both the offences under section 161 IPC and section 5 2 read with section 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act  1947
The learned counsel for the accused argued that in view of the long time that has elapsed since the commission of the offence and in view of the circumstance that the accused has also retired from service  742 we may take a lenient view and not sentence the accused to any term of imprisonment
13th under sec 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act  1947  the minimum sentence that can be imposed is imprisonment for one year and the maximum sentence is seven years
However  the court  for any special reasons to be recorded in writing  may impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year
We are unable to find any special circumstance in this case justifying our taking a lenient view
Corruption has become so rampant in the country and the offence in this particular case cannot be considered trivial at all
This is not a case of a petty clerk or a peon accepting a small amount as a bribe for doing some little favour
We cannot possibly take a lenient view of the conduct of an income tax officer  who accepts a large amount as a bribe for causing loss to public revenue
We think that the sentences imposed by the learned Session Judge were the right sentences to be imposed on the accused
The judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the learned Special Judge is restored
The accused will surrender to his bail


Summary:
The Respondent was an Income Tax Officer He was tried a d convicted of the offence under section 161 Indian Penal Code read and section 52 read with section 51 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act The prosecution produced among other  PWs the managing partner of a firm known as Ms Hind Fertilizer  Bhavnagar an assessee before the accused from whom a bribe of Rs 12  500 was demanded and accepted on 1431972 Sri Parikh Manager Postal Store Department witness to the trap laid against the accused and Mr Judeja PW 9 the Dy
Supdt
of Police The defence of the accused was that the prosecutions version of how the currency notes were seized from him was false and that PWs 2 gone to the toilet The Additional Special Judge Ahmedabad accepted the prosecution version convicted the respondent of the offences with which he was charged and sentenced hi n to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs 2 000 on each of the two counts On appeal the High Court of Gujarat acquitted the accused of both the offences
Hence the State appeal by special leave of the Court Allowing the appeal  the Court
 HELD 1 1 From the evidence of PWs 2 3 and 9 it is clear beyond doubt that a sum of R 12 500 Was paid to and received by the accused as a bribe and therefore his conviction by the Trial Court was wrongly set aside by the High Court This is not a case where the views were reasonably possible The only possible view was that the accused was guilty of both the offences under section 161 Indian Penal code and section 52 read with section 51d of the Prevention of Corruption Act  1947 741G H 734 12 In the instant case  both Parikh PW 3 and Panchal not examined arc certainly independent witnesses
Both of them are government servants belonging to a different department  and if Inspector Sharma thought that they could be called as independent panch witnesses  no motive can be imputed to the investigating agency and no aspersions can be cast on the said witnesses
The evidence of Parikh was truthful
His evidence substantiates the evidence of PW 2  about the acceptance of the bribe by the accused and his keeping the money in a folded newspaper
From the circumstances that the accused did not keep open the doors of his house expecting PW 2  that he was in conversation with PW 2 for more than 40 minutes instead of sending him away after taking the alleged bribe  the colour of the solution had changed to yellow when the Chemical Examiner  examined it and that the failure to examine Sharma the inspector no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution
In fact  the prosecution offered Sharma for cross examination and kept him ready in court
The counsel for the accused stated that since the witness had already been dropped by the prosecution  he did not want to examine him unless the court directed him to do so
After the failure of the counsel of the accused to take advantage of the offer made by the prosecution it is not open to the accuses in the appeal by special leave to comment upon the so called failure of the prosecution to examine Inspector Sharma as a witness
740B D  F 741B  B E 21 In appreciating oral evidence  the question in each case is whether the witness is a truthful witness and whether there is anything to doubt his veracity in any particular matter about which he deposes
Where the witness is found to be untruthful on material facts that is an end of the matter
Where the witness is found to be partly truthful or spring from tainted sources  the court may take the precaution of seeking some corroboration  adequate and reason
able to meet the demands of the situation
738F G 22 But a Court is not entitled to reject the evidence of a witness merely because they are government servants  who  in the course of their duties or even otherwise might have come into contact with investigating officers and who might have been requested to assist investigating agencies
If their association with the investigating agencies is unusual  frequent designed  there may be occasion to view their evidence with suspicion
But merely because they are called in to associate themselves with the investigation as they happened to be available or it is convenient to call them  it is no ground to view their evidence with suspicion
Even in cases where officers who in the course of their duties  generally assist the investigation agencies  there is no need to view their evidence h suspicion as an invariable rule
For example  in rural areas  investigating officers would ordinarily think of calling in the village officers  such as  the Headman  the Patel or Patwari to act as punch witnesses  as they are expected to be respectable persons of the locality
It does not mean that their evidence should be viewed with suspicion because they are government servants or because they are generally associated with investigating agencies whenever there is a crime in the village
For that matter it would be wrong to reject the evidence of police officers either on the mere ground that they are interested in the success of the prosecution
708H 739A D 735 23 The court may be justified in looking with suspicion upon the evidence of officers who have been demonstrated to have displayed excess of zeal in the conduct and success of the prosecution
But to reject the evidence of all official witnesses as the High Court has done in the present case  ii going far too far
It is extremely unfair to a witness to reject his evidence by merely giving him a label
739D E