Conviction upheld on bribery charges; evidentiary standards require both corroboration and circumstantial evidence, even if co-accused acquitted.

1. This appeal arises from the judgment of Shri H. C. Bagchi, Special Judge, Delhi delivered in Corruption Case No. 26/76. Basic facts necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under :

2. Accused Teka Ram was functioning as Reader in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate (for short SDM), Patel Nagar on 25-10-1975. The allegation against Teka Ram is that he was a public servant and in his discharge of official duty by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant, he accepted or obtained Rs. 8/- as illegal gratification other than his legal remuneration from the complainant. Duli Chand through Hari Ram, co - accused, as a motive or reward for showing favour to the complainant, Duli Chand, by getting him a licence for temporary sale of fire - works and as such had committed offences punishable under S.5(2) read with S.5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and S.161 of Indian Penal Code .

3. According to complainant on 25-10-1975, he had gone to the Court of the S.D.M., Patel Nagar in Room No. 25, New Courts, Tis Hazari and presented his application for the grant of licence for the sale of fire - works to accused Teka Ram, who was working as Reader to the SDM Court. The accused, Teka Ram told the complainant that the date for issuance of licence had already expired. After some time the accused again called the complainant and told him that he would have to spend Rs. 30/- if he wanted to have the said licence. The accused agreed to accept Rs. 15/- by way of bribe from complainant. The complainant had paid Rs. 7/- and told him that he would bring the balance amount of Rs. 8/- after some time. The accused then accepted the application for grant of licence. The complainant went home to bring the remaining amount of Rs. 8/- to be paid to the accused. The complainant, went to the Anti - Corruption Branch and gave his complaint statement, Exhibit PW 9 / A which was recorded by Inspector K. L. Sethi.

4. In pursuance to the complaint of the complainant, a trap was organised. The services of Baldev Raj Arora and Narender Veer Singh Sodhi were employed to act as Panch witnesses. In their presence, the statement of Duli Chand was recorded. He produced GC notes one of Rs. 5/- and three of Rs. 1/- denomination. The GC notes were treated with a chemical powder and a formal demonstration test was given through Baldev Raj Arora.

5. The raiding party at about 4.25 p.m. set out for the raid and reached near the Court Room of SDM, Patel Nagar. The complainant and two Panch witnesses were sent inside the Court Room while the other members of the raiding party took position outside the Court Room. At that time, the SDM was not present in the Court. It was alleged by the complainant that on asking of Teka Ram, accused, he had paid the bribe of Rs. 8/- to Hari Ram, accused who was present in the Court and who after accepting the same gave it to the Teka Ram, accused.

6. At about 4.35 p.m., Baldev Raj Arora came out of the Court Room and gave the green signal, on receipt of which rest of the raiding party went inside the Court Room. The complainant told the Inspector that he had passed on the tainted money to Hari Ram - accused at the instance of Teka Ram - accused who in turn passed on the same to Teka Ram - accused and that the latter had gone towards the Retiring Room. Accused was not found in the Court Room and according to the prosecution version, he had slipped away from the Court room to avoid any unpleasant scene. Hari Ram, accused who had been acquitted by the trial Court was apprehended by the Head Constable while the Inspector went insi