( 1 ) * * * *

( 2 ) IT was very vehemently contended before us by Mr. Thakore that as far as this demand and attempt at obtaining illicit gratification is concerned the complainant who is a proverbial interested witness like an accomplice stood uncorroborated. It is too much to expect corroboration on all material parts. All that is required by law as laid down by take Supreme Court is that an interested witness like a complainant in a trap case should be corroborated in some material particulars so as to lend assurance to the court that his proverbial open-to-doubt testimony also is worthy of credit. In the course of our judgment we shall show that there is good deal of general corroboration to the say of the complainant.

( 3 ) AS we went through the deposition of the complainant we found that this villager pursuing agriculture was subjected to searching crossexamination. We were surprised to find that despite searching crossexamination? which at times was scathing also be stood the ordeal quite well. On the contrary the impression that we gathered from the series of repeats given by him to various questions put to him in the course of the cross-examination was that he was truthful. It appealed to us that had he been in any way banking on his imagination rather than real state of affairs he would have surely faltered here and there and would have exposed Himself to the charge of prevarication.

( 4 ) MR. Thakore attacked his evidence most on certain points which we now propose to deal with. Firstly Mr. Thakore contended that if money had been demanded from him on the earlier occasion as he claimed he would have certainly followed the procedure which he followed on 12 and be had not done so in the past his version of what allegedly transpired on 12-12-79 was open to serious doubt. We are not prepared to accept this line of reasoning. People do not react sharply to such deerhounds in Initial stages. As laymen they may hope that their work would be done in due course. As a matter of fact this complainant had waited for more than a year after he deposited the estimated costs of installation. After the lapse of more than a year if he gets self-same reply and ultimately decides to get the law vindicated rather than succumb to such pressure tactics his subsequent action cannot be assailed as in any stay unnatural and consequently his statement regarding the earlier demands also cannot be discarded as totally worthless. Secondly Mr. Thakore urged that the accused was an Officer who was hardly left alone and it would not be possible to believe that he would get seclusion to put his demand before the complainant. Executive Officers might be receiving citizens or their subordinates occasionally but it is not possible for us to believe that on all days throughout the period of their being in the cabin or office there will be no intermittent seclusion. At any rate on the days in question namely 12 and 13-12-79 there were such moments as stated by the complainants and as supported by the punch witness also for the incident of 18-12-79 The fact that on 13-12-79 the complainant and his accompanying companion had to wait outside the office right from about 10-30 A. M. till 1-00 P. M. also clearly suggests that the accused waited for seclusion for the purpose of striking the bid. It was then contended that the accused would not accept the amount from the complainant if he was accompanied by an unknown person. According to the complainant he was not asked as to who the accompanying companion of his was. According to the panch the complainant was also briefed by the P. S. I. to the effect that if the accused asked who that companion was the complainant should explain that he was his man from his village who had gone with him for some work. Banking on this divergence of versions of the complainant and the panch on this score Mr. Thakore submitted that the court should rely on the normal behaviour of a person taking illegal gratificat