The judgment established that the testimony of a hostile witness can be used for corroboration, and the lack of pre-trap verification does not necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case.

N.W. Sambre, J.

1. Heard.

2. The present appeal is by accused against the judgment of conviction delivered by the Designated Court under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, thereby convicting the present appellant, a public servant working as a Constable at the relevant time with the traffic department of State Police. The appellant is convicted under section 235(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, for the offences punishable under sections 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act of (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and was sentenced under section 7 of the Act to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and for an offence punishable under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

3. The few facts, as are necessary for deciding the present appeal against conviction are as under:-

4. The appellant herein was working as a Traffic Constable with Hingoli Police and was posted at Hingoli Police Station (city).

5. Complainant Trimbak, having auto-rickshaw was operating the same on Hingoli-Aundha road and in the month of May 2005, the appellant challaned his vehicle for illegally operating and contravening the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act prior to the trap in question, the appellant obstructed his auto-rickshaw for about three times and thereafter asked the complainant that in case he wanted to operate his auto-rickshaw on Hingoli road, then he has to pay bribe of Rs. 300/- per month and without payment of bribe, he would not be allowed to operate the auto-rickshaw on that road and he will be prosecuted. On 23rd May 2005 at about 2.00 p.m., the appellant stopped the complainant, when he was operating his auto-rickshaw and demanded the hafta of Rs. 300/- and threatened him to detain his vehicle in police station, in case the hafta is not paid. As a consequence, the complainant Trimbak informed him that he will arrange the amount and pay hafta of Rs. 300/- on 25th May 2005.

6. As he was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he lodged complaint against the appellant on 24th May 2005 with the Anti Corruption Bureau Office (hereafter referred to as 'A.C.B. Office' for brevity) with the above referred narrations. After the complaint was received by the office of A.C.B., the panch witnesses were called and given live demonstration as to the performance of trap, so as to catch him red-handed. Necessary instructions were given to the panch witnesses by the Investigating Officer, A.P.I. Jadhav.

7. It is claimed that the Investigating Officer and the panch witness No. 1 boarded the auto-rickshaw of complainant, whereas the panch witness No. 2 and other Officers followed in a departmental vehicle. As the accused was not found on the spot, i.e. near bus stand the rickshaw was taken to the Police Station and the accused came near the canteen in the Police Station premises, where the trap was arranged. P.W.1, Complainant Trimbak and the members of trap party went inside the canteen attached to the Police Station and after the accused accepted the amount of bribe, upon receiving appropriate signal, the accused was apprehended along with the tainted currency notes.

8. As a consequence of successful trap, the accused was charge-sheeted after receiving the sanction order from the competent authority for prosecution of the appellant.

9. After the charge was presented, the charge was framed against the present appellant at Exh.1, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and as such, the trial was conducted.

10. The prosecution examined in all four witnesses, i.e. P.W.1, complainant Trimbak, P.W.2 Shrikant Karbhajane, Panch witness, P.W.3 A.P.I. Jadhav, the Investigation Officer and P.W.4 D.C.P. Khandare, the competent authority who has awarded sanction for prosecution.

11. Based upon the e