JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal by Ganadesh Vasudev Khandeparkar, aged 42, a Deputy Inspector of Education in the employment of the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu against his conviction under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Under the former charge he has been sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200 or, in default, one month's rigorous imprisonment, while on the latter the sentence awarded to him is two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 600 or in default, three months' rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentences of imprisonment have been directed to run concurrently.

2-13. (After stating the facts, leading to the complaint, the trap laid to catch the accused and the recovery of the amount paid to the accused. His Lordship continued as under :-)

The main incidents on which the prosecution story rests are that the accused was a member of the selection committee, that on 29-9-1964 the complainant approached the accused for help in securing him employment, that the accused undertook to help the complainant against the payment of Rs. 100, that on 18-9-1965 the complainant re-committed himself to pay Rs. 100 to the accused and promised to bring the money to the latter's house on the evening of 20th of September, 1965, and that on 20-9-1965 the complainant actually made over Rs. 100 to the accused. Shri Sardesai, the Dy. Director of Education, stated as P.W. 10 that the accused never worked on the selection committee and this statement of the witness was not challenged by the prosecution. Therefore, one out of the four points just mentioned is knocked out. In respect of the remaining three points we have the uncorroborated statement of the complainant himself. Shri Jethlamani, representing the accused, contended that the complainant of this case falls in the category of accomplice witnesses and as such his statement cannot be accepted without corroboration in material particulars. It was held in the case of Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 322, that witnesses not willing party to giving of bribe to accused but only actuated with the motive of trapping the accused cannot be treated as accomplices. However, the Supreme Court observed further, the evidence of such witnesses is nevertheless the evidence of partisan witnesses who were out to entrap the accused and as such their evidence cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration.

Subsequently, in the case of Major Barsay v. State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 1762, the Supreme Court had to reconsider the same matter. It was emphasised in this latter case that though a trap witness is not an approver, he is certainly an interested witness in the sense that he is interested to see that the trap laid by him succeeded. He could at least be equated, the Supreme Court observed further with a partisan witness and it would not be admissible to rely upon his evidence without corroboration. However, the Supreme Court made it clear that the evidence of a trap witness is not a tainted one and that it would only make a difference in the degree of corroboration required rather than necessity for it. It would follow that Shri Jethlamani was not right in contending that the complainant Narayan Patil is an accomplice witness for it is certain that he was not prepared to pay any bribe money to the accused. At the same time, this Narayan Patil is a partisan witness because he approached the police for arranging a raid party to entrap the accused. It is natural that he should now see that the case filed, at his instance and with his active help, by the prosecution against the accused succeeds. Hence on the basis of the rule enunciated by the Supreme Court the bare statement of the complainant cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated by some independent and dependable testimony. This is the conclusion touching the legal aspect of the statement made by Narayan Patil o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document