MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. By this appeal, the Appellant lays a challenge to the judgment dated 3rd June, 1999 whereby the Appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the ‘P.C. Act’) and the order dated 3rd June, 1999 directing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months on both counts.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that Inspector Ved Prakash was the trap officer as well as the investigating officer. He prepared the handwriting memo, rough site plan and personal search memo. He also recorded the statement of recovery witness and the Complainant Sanjay Kohli and Jagdish Chander. The independent witnesses of the transactions Ishwar Singh, AFO, DESU and S.C. Bhatia, Office Supdt., DESU were deliberately not examined. The Appellant moved an application dated 10th September, 1999 praying for closing of the prosecution evidence in terms of the judgment Raj Dev Sharma vs. State of Bihar JT(7) SC(1) and the learned Trial Court vide order dated 10th September, 1999 closed the prosecution evidence and fixed the date of 31st March, 1999 for recording the statement of the accused. Even after closing of the prosecution evidence vide order dated 10th March, 1999, the learned Trial Court summoned two PWs and examined them to fill-up the lacuna in the prosecution case. The statement of the Appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is illegal as though certain witnesses have not been examined in evidence and there is no evidence adduced to this effect however questions have been put to the Appellant. Further, incriminating evidence have not been put to the Appellant and thus the same cannot be taken into consideration against the Appellant. It is contended that no independent witness was joined. Even the two witnesses cited in the charge-sheet were not produced in evidence. The witness to the raiding party cannot be regarded as an independent witness in a trap case of illegal gratification. Reliance in this regard is placed on Hari Chand vs. State of Haryana, 1998(1) CLR 718, Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1995(2) Crimes 274, Dharampal vs. State of Haryana 1998(1) AIR 580, Som Prakash vs. State of Punjab 1992 SC AIR 665, Ram Prakash Arora vs. State of Punjab, 1973 SC AIR 498, Surajmal vs. State, 1997 Crl.L.J. 1087, and Lachhman Das vs. State of Punjab 1970(1) Crl. L.J 526.

3. It is next contended that the learned Trial Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence of PW2 Sanjay Kohli despite the fact that this witness has turned hostile. There is no evidence of demand of the bribe and in the absence of this necessary ingredient, the Petitioner cannot be convicted for the offence as above.

4. Learned counsel for the CBI on the other hand contends that the conduct of the Appellant at the time of apprehension is relevant as when he was challenged by the CBI Inspector that he had accepted the bribe from the Complainant, he kept quite. The essential ingredients of Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act have been proved in the instant case as demand, acceptance and recovery of the illegal gratification have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. PW2 the Complainant has fully supported the prosecution case when he was examined on 6th January, 1996. Further when he was subsequently examined on 25th August, 1998 and 3rd March, 1999 he suppressed the truth and started resiling from his earlier statements. Thus he was declared hostile. However, still the PW2 has proved the essential ingredients of the offence. The initial demand, demand during trap, acceptance and recovery of bribe has been further proved and corroborated by the testimony of PW3 Jagdish Chander the shadow witness. Reliance is placed on Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs. State of M.P., 1991(3) SCC 627 to contend t