The judgment underscores the necessity of credible and independent witnesses, and the requirement to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in corruption cases.

Rakesh Saksena, J. -

Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 22nd Oc­tober, 1997 passed by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (C.B.I.) Jabalpur in Spe­cial Case No. 08/1989, convicting him under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 5000/- on each count re­spectively. Substantive sentences have been di­rected to run concurrently.

2. In short, facts of the case are that in the month of November, 1989, appellant R. K. Goswami was functioning as Branch Manager of Nagan -Deori Branch of Chhindwara -Seoni, Kshetriya Gramin Bank at Nagan- Deori, Dis­trict Seoni. This Bank was sponsored by the Central Bank of India. On the application of complainant Mohanlal Uikey, a loan for a sum of Rs. 6000/- was sanctioned. As first installment, a sum of Rs.1,000/- was paid to him by the ap­pellant on 14.4.2008. When complainant Mohanlal approached to appellant for remain­ing amount of Rs. 5,000/- on 31,10.1989, ap­pellant demanded Rs. 500/- by way of illegal gratification for disbursement of the said amount.

3. Since, complainant did not want to give bribe, he went to C.B.I. Office Jabalpur and submitted a written complaint Ex. P/12. Super­intendent of Police, C.B.I, recorded the first in­formation report Ex. P/17 and deputed Inspec­tor R. K. Shukla (PW6) to inspect the matter. Inspector R.K. Shukla requisitioned services of two independent witnesses namely K.K. Sareen (PW3) and Dr. A.K. Verma (PW4), who were the employees of Oriental insurance Company. These Officers on 2.11.1989 verified the facts from the complainant, R.K. Shukla (PW5) ob­tained Rs. 500/- from the complainant and dem­onstrated the effect of Phenolphthalein powder to complainant and other witnesses. He ar­ranged for a trap and asked complainant to hand over the bribe money of Rs. 500/- to appellant and give a signal. A pre trap panchnama Ex. P/13 was prepared.

4. On 2.11.1989, complainant and the mem­bers of the trap party reached the Bank Nagan Deori, where appellant was working. Complain­ant handed over tainted currency notes of Rs. 500/- to appellant and gave prefixed signal to C.B.I, people. Inspector R.K. Shukla and other members of the trap party caught appellant's hands and washed them with sodium carbon­ate solution which turned pink. Tainted cur­rency notes were recovered from the pocket of appellant. When pocket of the pants of appel­lant was washed with sodium carbonate solu­tion, it also turned pink. All the solutions were seized and a memorandum of the trap proceed­ings Ex. P/14 was drawn. On the same day, loan file of the complainant was seized vide memo­randum Ex. P/15 and spot map Ex. P/16 was drawn. After further investigation and obtain­ing the requisite sanction Ex. P/l, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge.

5. On charges being framed appellant pleaded false implication. His defence as per his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was that complainant had given Rs. 500/- to him for getting them depos­ited in his saving bank account. He had handed over the said amount to cashier Ramesh Maravi. He had sanctioned the loan to complainant ac­cording to rules and had asked him to bring li­cense from the forest department. According to him, in the past also complainant often handed over money to him for depositing in the saving account. Receipts were used to be issued by the cashier later on.

6. Prosecution examined six witnesses to es­tablish its case viz. Sudhakar Trimbak Karkhanis (PW1), Hemant Jha (PW2), K.K. Sarin (PW3), Dr. A.K. Verma (PW4), Inspector R.K. Shukla (PW5) and complainant Mohanlal Uikey (PW6). Appellant, to substantiate his defence, exam­ined Remesh Kumar Maravi (DW1) and Somnath Nema (DW2). Learned Special Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, convicted and sentenced the appellant of the charges under Section