The necessity of independent corroboration to prove unlawful demand and acceptance of bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—The accused is convicted for an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1908 (sic 1988).

2. The case of the prosecution that P.W.1 was working as extra- departmental male carrier working on a consolidated salary. Accused was working as Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post Offices, K.G.F. On 11.2.1992 the accused told P.W.1 that the department is contemplating to terminate his service. In that connection stated that if he is paid Rs. 100/- towards bus charge he would go and see that he is retained in service. On 20.2.1992 the accused tells P.W.1 that he has to pay Rs. 10,000/- for his continuation and confirmation of the service. P.W.1 states that he is paid consolidated wages of Rs. 650/- and he is not in a position to pay heavy sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The accused agrees to do favour on payment of Rs. 5,000/- and gives him time to pay the amount in two installments.

3. P.W.1 feels offended by the unlawful demand gives complaint to P.W.11 as per Ex.P.13. The same is registered as FIR. P.W.1 an employee of Canara Bank is secured to act as pancha for the trap. First installment of bait money marked at M.O.1 is smeared with peneptholene powder and given to P.W.1 with an instruction to pay the amount only on demand. The entrustment mahazar is prepared as per Ex.P.1. The I.O. and his staff along with P.W.1 and 2 go near the house of the accused. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are asked to go and meet the accused in his house. P.W.1 goes inside the house and gives the bait money, comes out and gives the instructed signal.

4. The I.O. along with P.W.1 and P.W.2 go inside the home apprehended the accused and recovered the bait money from the accused. Before that his fingers are made to be dipped into the sodium carbonate solution. The solution becomes pink colour, collect the solution in a bottle and seized the same. The seizure mahazar is prepared. After obtaining sanction, the charge sheet is filed. The trial Court acquitted the accused.

5. The impartial shadow witness to the trap proceedings is taken with an object of proving the case of demand and acceptance of bribe by independent corroboration. The I.O. has not understood the very purpose of choosing P.W.2. P.W.1 alone would go and meet the accused in his house. Absolutely there is no independent corroboration to prove the theory of demand and acceptance of bribe. It is neither shown by the prosecution nor explained by P.W.2 that as to why P.W.2 could not follow P.W.1 to witness the trap. Only on the basis of interested testimony of P.W.1 it is not safe to base conviction. The order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is sound and proper. Appeal is dismissed.