The testimony of a complainant regarding the demand for bribe does not require independent corroboration. The evidence obtained as a result of the phenolphthalein powder test is admissible and can be relied upon against the accused.

D.S.TEWATIA, J.

1. The appellant a Medical Officer was convicted and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200.00 and in default of payment of fine to further sentence of two months rigorous imprisonment under S.5(1)(d) read with S.5(2) of the Prevention of Cor-ruption Act and to one years rigorous im-prisonment under S.161, I.P.C. However, the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. He has challenged his conviction and sentence in this appeal.

2. When this appeal came up for hearing before me in the first instance, the legality of the very prosecution was assailed on be-half of the appellant inter alia on the ground that the trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the offences in question unless sanction in terms of S.197, Criminal P.C. by the competent authority was forthcoming. I referred the proposition in question for decision to a larger Bench. The Division Bench in its judgment dated 14-4-1982 : (re-ported in 1982 Cri LJ 1718) after settling the legal proposition against the appellant remit-ted the appeal to be decided on merits. On resumption of the hearing the learned coun-sel for the appellant raised two more legal pleas viz.

(i) Whether the statement of the com-plainant regarding the factum of the accused having demanded bribe from him when the complainant first approached him for his fit-ness certificate required independent corroboration? and

(ii) Whether the evidence furnished by the application of phenolphthalien powder test was legally admissible?

The learned counsel cited a few decisions of the single Judges of this Court in support of both the propositions. I entertained doubts as to the soundness of the view taken by the learned single Judges. Since the learned counsel for the appellant had been raising legal propositions piecemeal and not knowing that the learned counsel may yet have one or more such legal propositions up his sleeves which may have required a reference of this appeal to the Division Bench for the third time, so instead of referring the afore-mentioned two legal propositions for an au-thoritative decision, I considered it desirable that the entire appeal be decided by a Divi-sion Bench and that is how this appeal is be-fore us.

3. Amrik Singh P.W.4 (hereinafter re-ferred to as the complainant) a science graduate and an employee of Punjab National Bank, Kurali, happened to visit his relation in village Hulka. There he caught Malarial fever. He visited Government Medical Dispensary, Banur, for taking medi-cines as also a sickness certificate. There Dr. Mrs. Nisha Sood, wife of the accused Dr. Sood, demanded by way of bribe rupees ten from him which he did not pay then and promised to pay the same at the time of getting fitness certificate. He was given medicines and was advised three days rest under the direction of the accused. Since the complainant felt relief, so that very next day i.e. 22-7-1977, he went to Banur in the afternoon around 5 P.M. and requested the accused for issuing a fitness certificate. Ac-cused demanded Rs. 20.00 by way of bribe. The complainant who had no intention to pay the amount gave an excuse that he did not have the amount with him and promised to pay the same on the next day. Next day the complainant visited office of the Vigil-ance Department, Patiala. There he was di-rected to see Vigilance Inspector Teja Singh P.W.11 (hereinafter referred to as the Vigilance Inspector). Vigilance Inspector directed a Constable to bring some person to witness the recording of the statement of the complainant. The Constable fetched Mam Chand P.W.5 from the bus stand. After the arrival of Mam Chand in the Vigilance Office, Vigilance Inspector record-ed the statement of complainant Ext. PG. The complainant then produced one currency note of Rs. 20.00 Ext. PH which was duly taken into possession. The Vigilance In-spector thereafter gave a demonstration of phenolphthalein powder test by first smearing a paper wit