The case of prosecution must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of the statement of a shadow witness. Independent corroboration is required before convicting the accused.

Jitendra Chauhan, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.4.2002 (for short as `impugned judgment) passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, (for short the trial Court), whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) and 7 of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 (for short `the Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 7 of the Act and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under Section 13 of the Act and default of payment of fine, to further undergo riorous imprisonment for a period of four months.

2. The facts, as noticed by the trial Court in paras 2 and 3 of the impugned judegment, are re-produced as under :-

"Complainant Ramesh Kumar purchased a plot in the name of his two sons named Raj Kumar and Mohinder Kumar, about 8-10 years back. Aforesaid sons of the complainant moved an application on April 16, 1998, before Tehsildar, Patiala for mutating the above-said plot in their favour. Copy of the registered sale deed appended to the application. On April 23, 1998 complainant approached the Halqa Patwari, accused no. I and requested him to do the needful. Said accused replied that he had already received the application for mutation but mutation would be entered only after he was given bride amounting to three thousands ropees. Complainant made entreaties in the name of his poverty. Accused no. I retorted saying that he was not an ordinary patwari and was nephew of a Tehsildar. However, in view of persistent importunes he agreed to receive bribe amounting to two thousands rupees. As the complainant was not willing to give bribe he put forth an excuse that the amount demanded was not available with him. Accused no. I agreed to enter the mutation and prepare the copy that very day asked for the compalinant to bring the monry and have the copy in the after noon April 24,1998 from his office. On April 24,1998 the complainant, in the company of his Raj Kumar, approached DSP Vigilance, Patiala alongwith two thousand rupees[3x500+5x100] and produced the same before the DSP Vigilance."

3. DSP Ranjit Singh, PW-12, recorded the statement of complainant and on its basis , FIR, Exhibit PK, was registered and it was decided to lay a trap. A raiding team headed by DSP,Ranjit Singh, PW-12, was constituted in which Harjit Singh, PW-9, Sr. Assistant of Punjabi University, Patiala and Raj Kumar, PW-11, were also joined as official witness and shadow witness resectively, to assist the raiding team The currency notes worth Rs. 2,000/- [3x500+5x100] were treated with phenolphthalein powder and returned the same to the complainant with the instructed to hand over those very currency notes to the accused as and when demanded. The official witness Harjit Singh, PW9, was also instucted to accompany the complainant Ramesh Kumar, PW8, to the office to the accused for giving signal to the raiding party after receipt of the bribe money by the accused.

4. Thereafter, the raiding party including the complainant and independent witnesses proceeded to the Tehsil office of the accused/appellant. On reaching the bridge of Ganda Naala on Behera Road near Tehsil Office, Patiala, the complainant and shadow witness were sent to the office to the accused whereas rest of the members of the raiding party remained present outside the office of the accused/appellant.

5. After receiving the pre-decided signal by the members of the raiding party, DSP Ranjit Singh Dhillon, PW-12, led the raiding party inside the office of the accused, disclosed his own identity and also verified the antecedents of the accused. On being asked by DSP Ranjit Singh Dhillon, PW-12, the complain