In cases involving allegations of bribery, the prosecution must provide independent corroboration of the demand for bribe and the recovery of the bribe money. The sanction for prosecution must also be valid, and the sanctioning authority must apply his mind before giving sanction.

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

1. Balbir Chand who was Meter Reader in Punjab State Electricity Board at Tarn-Taran was tried for offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code by Sh. A.B. Singh Wasu, Special Judge, Amritsar. As per judgment dated 30th April, 1986, he was held guilty and was sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to undergo rigourous imprisonment for six months, for the offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by this judgment recording his conviction, Balbir Chand filed the present appeal.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that there was an electric meter N.K. 93 in the premises of Jaswinder Singh, complainant which was checked by the appellant. The meter was sticky and the complaint was found stealing energy. He was told that if he pleased the appellant, he could save expenses of changing the meter. The electric connection was in the name of the mother of Jaswinder Singh. On 3-9-1983, the appellant again told the complainant at his shop that he should pay Rs. 300-otherwise he will make a report and the complainant will have to incur expenses amounting to Rs. 1,000/-. Jaswinder Singh thereupon contacted Vigilance Bureau, Amritsar where he made his statement Ex. P.B. on the basis of which a case was registered against the appellant. The complainant handed over three currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each to the Vigilance Inspector who noted the numbers of the currency notes and treated the same with phenolphthalein powder. The currency notes were returned to the complainant vide memo Ex. PC A trap was then laid. Ujjagar Singh PW accompanied the raiding party and agreed to act as a shadow witness. Shri O.P. Goyal, S.D.O. was joined from Tarn-Taran. The appellant came to the shop of Jaswinder Singh where he demanded the bribe money. The complainant handed over currency notes P1 to P3 to the appellant. When a signal was made by Ujjagar Singh the raiding party entered the shop of the complainant. The appellant threw the currency notes underneath the table. He was apprehended and his hands were washed in a solution of sodium carbonate which became pinkish. The currency notes were recovered from underneath the table and the numbers of the currency notes were tallied with the numbers mentioned in memo. After completion of the investigation the appellant was arrested and eventually prosecuted.

3. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC denied the allegations made against him and contended that when his hands were wished, there was no change of colour and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the ground where the same had been thrown by the complainant himself who concocted false case against him in connivance with Ujjagar Singh who was his partner and Gurmukh Singh who was a relative of Ujjagar Singh and was an employee of the Vigilance Department. He was involved in this case as he had already reported against Jaswinder Singh PW. He further stated that he was coming from the side of Khalsapur road as usual, after taking reading of meters and was passing through the market when Jaswinder Singh called him. In the meantime, an official of the Vigilance Department came there. He was called in the presence of Sardari Lal Kapur, President of Arhtia Association. He never accepted any illegal gratification and Sardari Lal Kapur knew about this fact and he sent telegram Ex. D.C. In his defence he also produced photostat copies of the enteries Ex. DA & DB made in the register, in order to prove that he had already reported that the two meters installed in the premises of the complainant were not giving true reading and one of the meters was dead.

4. I have hea