Judgment 1. This appeal by Madhusudan Prasad Agarwal is directed against the judgment and the order of the Special Judge, Darbhanga, convicting the appellant under Sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and imposing a sentence of fine of Rs. 500.00 on him under the said section and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The learned Judge further convicted the appellant under Sec.161 of the Indian Penal Code, but he did not impose upon him a separate sentence under that section. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, was that Raghunath Prasad Mishra (P. W. 3), resident of village Madanpur, who was an agriculturist had applied for correction of his Khasra (plot number) before the Block Development Officer, Bahadurpur Anchal in the district of Darbhanga on the 31st of July, 1964. The Block Development Officer sent for the record from the Compensation Officer. Appellant was incharge clerk of the record. P. W. 3 met the appellant and requested him to send the record to the Block Development Officer. Appellant, however, told P. W. 3 that since the Compensation Officer had taken charge of the Baheri Block Development Office, he was unable to send the record as desired. Thereupon, P. W. 3 filed a petition before the Revenue Sub-divisional Officer for a direction to send the relevant record to the Block Development Officer, Bahadurpur Anchal. The Sub-divisional Officer directed the compliance. Subsequently on the 21st of September, 1964, P. W.3 asked the appellant to send the record, where-upon the appellant demanded Rs. 7/- from him as illegal gratification for doing the work. P. W. 3 then told him that he would be able to pay him Rs. 5/- for the said purpose on the 22nd of September, 1964. On that date P. W. 3 went to the chamber of the Collector, Darbhanga with a petition Ext. 4 and reported that the appellant was demanding Rs. 2/- for copying the paper and Rs. 5/-for sending the record to the Block Development Officer. The Collector directed P. W. 3 to see the Sub-divisional Officer, who asked P. W. 3 to meet him next day at 10 a. m. When P. W. 3 on the next day met the Sub-divisional Officer, the latter directed Mr. 2/- for copying the paper and Rs. 5/-for sending the record to the Block Development Officer. The Collector directed P. W. 3 to see the Sub-divisional Officer, who asked P. W. 3 to meet him next day at 10 a. m. When P. W. 3 on the next day met the Sub-divisional Officer, the latter directed Mr. A. P. Sharma (P. W. 6), who was the Magistrate, First Class and Bishwanath Singh (P. W. 1) the Sub-Inspector incharge of Laheriasarai Police Station to accompany P. W. 3. On reaching near the office of the appellant P. W. 6 took a currency note of Rs. 5/- Ext. 1) from P. W. 3 and put his initial thereon. Along with them there was one constable Harinandan Singh. P. Ws. 1 and 6 remained near the Co-operative Bank whereas, P. W. 3 went to the Compensation Office along with Harinandan Singh as directed by P. W. 6. P. W. 3 handed over the said five rupee currency note (Ext. 1) to the appellant who kept the same in his pocket. At that time Harinandan Singh, who had accompanied P. W. 3 remained at the door whereas P. Ws. 1 and 6 had reached near the house of one Triguna Mishra which was adjacent south to the Compensation Office where the appellant was working. On receiving signals from P. W. 3 as well as constable Harinandan Singh P. W. 6 along with P. W. 1 entered the Compensation Office. There P. W. 6 disclosed his identity to the appellant and told him his purpose for going there. He further told the appellant that he had taken Rs. 5/- as a bribe and he wanted to search his person. The appellant was wearing a bush shirt. From the pocket on the left side of his chest the said five rupee currency note (Ext. 1) which was initialled by P. W. 6 was recovered. Appellant was arrested there and P. W. 6 forwarded a report (Ext. 2) to the Sub-divisional Officer. On the basis of the said report a first information report (Ext. 3) was drawn up by Shri Darbeshwar Prasad Singh (P. W. 7), Deputy Superintendent of Police, who took up investigation. After obtaining sanction (Ext. 5) from the District Magistrate and completing investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. 3. 2) to the Sub-divisional Officer. On the basis of the said report a first information report (Ext. 3) was drawn up by Shri Darbeshwar Prasad Singh (P. W. 7), Deputy Superintendent of Police, who took up investigation. After obtaining sanction (Ext. 5) from the District Magistrate and completing investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. 3. Before the Special Judge on behalf of the prosecution as many as seven witnesses were examined. Out of them P. W. 1 was the Sub-Inspector, P. W. 3 was Raghunath Prasad Misra, who had delivered the currency note of Rs. 5/- (Ext. 1) to the appellant, P. W. 6 was the Magistrate, First Class about whom I have already mentioned, P. W. 7 was the Investigating Officer and P. W. 2, Accountant Darbhanga Collectorate, who at the relevant time was working in the same Compensation Office and he was one of the search witnesses. Girish Nandan Prasad Srivastava (P. W. 4) was examined to prove the sanction (Ext 5). Ganga Prasad Jha (P. W. 5) had proved Exts. 7 series. He is more or less a formal witness and nothing of importance turns on his evidence. 4. The defence of the appellant, in brief, was that P. W. 3 had come to the office where the appellant was working and had taken five one rupee notes, in exchange of his one five rupee note, and the appellant was innocent and had not committed any offence. In order to establish his defence, he examined two witnesses, namely, Sayeedul Rahman (D. W. 1) and Bimlendra Mahto (P. W. 2), both of whom were working in the same Compensation Office at the relevant time. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has assailed the judgment and the order of the learned Special Judge and contended that the learned Judge has erred in convicting and imposing a sentence on the appellant, chiefly on the two grounds - (i) According to the learned counsel the learned Judge has erred in convicting the appellant on the uncorroborated testimony of P. W. 3; and (ii) The learned Judge has erred in disbelieving D. Ws. 1 and 2 mainly on the ground that they were co-workers with the appellant in the same Compensation Office, and because the learned Judge committed an error of record in holding that the defence case was that five rupee small coins were exchanged by the appellant with one five rupee currency note (Ext. I) given to the appellant by P. W. 3. 6. I shall take up for consideration ground No. (i) first. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that P. W. 3 was an accomplice. His evidence required further corroboration. Harinandan Singh the constable who had accompained him and who had witnessed the handing over of the currency note of Rs. 5/- (Ext. 1) to the appellant was not examined by the Prosecution in order to corroborate the evidence of P. W. 3. In the absence of corroboration from Harinandan Singh the learned Special Judge erred on basing the conviction of the appellant on the sole testimony of P. W. 3. In order to find support to his contention learned counsel relied on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Prakash Arora V/s. The State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 498 : (1972 Cri LJ 1293) where their Lordships held that the evidence of interested and partisan witnesses who were concerned in the success of the trap must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witnesses. In a proper case the Court might look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused persons. On the basis of this observation learned counsel for the appellant contended that P. W. 3 was highly interested and partisan witness, who was concerned in the success of the trap and, therefore, independent corroboration was essential on the facts of the instant case. 7. In my opinion, the above observations of their Lordships are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case even the search witness was not examined by the prosecution. Hence there was no independent corroboration. In that view of the matter, their Lordships held that the prosecution had not established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case it may be noticed that Hari Shankar Choudhary (P. W. 2) was examined as a search witness. His evidence, therefore, will amount to a corroboration to the evidence given by P. W. 3. In that view of the matter, their Lordships held that the prosecution had not established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case it may be noticed that Hari Shankar Choudhary (P. W. 2) was examined as a search witness. His evidence, therefore, will amount to a corroboration to the evidence given by P. W. 3. Reference may be made to another judgment of the Supreme Court in The State of Bihar V/s. Basawan Singh, AIR 1958 SC 500 : (1958 Cri LJ 976). In paragraph 16 of the judgment at page 507 their Lordships observed as follows :- ".........In our view, the evidence of the two search witnesses does provide independent corroboration, in a material particular, to the testimony of the raiding party.......... independent corroboration does not mean that every detail of what the witnesses of the raiding party have said must be corroborated by independent witnesses. As was observed by Lord Reading in (1916) 2 KB 658(C) even in respect of the evidence of an accomplice, all that is required is that there must be "some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it." In 1952 SCR 377 at p. 385 : AIR 1952 SC 54 at p. 57 : (1952 Cri LJ 547) (B), to which we have referred in an earlier paragraph, the nature and extent of corroboration required, when it is not considered safe to dispense with it, have been clearly explained and it is merely necessary to reiterate that corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime; it is sufficient even though it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime." Learned Counsel for the State pointed out by reference to ordersheet dated 14-6-1967, passed by the Special Judge that on that date the Public Prosecutor had filed a petition to the effect that he would not examine the said constable Harinandan Singh on account of his having turned hostile. In my opinion, that was not enough. The prosecutor ought to have examined him as a witness and after getting him declared as a hostile witness ought to have cross-examined him. Simply filing such a petition, in my opinion, will not absolve the prosecutor from the responsibility of examining Harinandan Singh. In my opinion, that was not enough. The prosecutor ought to have examined him as a witness and after getting him declared as a hostile witness ought to have cross-examined him. Simply filing such a petition, in my opinion, will not absolve the prosecutor from the responsibility of examining Harinandan Singh. However, in the instant case, since the search witness (P. W. 2) was examined, in my opinion, on the observation of their Lordships in AIR 1958 SC 500 : (1958 Cri LJ 976) (supra), there was sufficient corroboration to the evidence given by P. W. 3. 8 Learned counsel for the appellant further referred to the evidence of P. W. 3 to show that nowhere he stated that the five rupee currency note (Ext. 1) was given to the appellant as a bribe for sending the records to the higher authority. In my opinion, reading the evidence, as a whole, it is clear that it was given to the appellant as a bribe, as this witness has stated the entire prosecution case which I have referred to above, as to how he approached the authority and made a complaint and thereafter P. W. 6 was deputed. The application in which he has given details about the prosecution version stating therein how the appellant was demanding bribe from P. W. 3 was also marked as Ext. 4 and the same was proved by him. After due consideration, I do not find any merit in ground No. (i) which fails. 9. Now I turn to consider ground No. (ii), Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the evidence of D. Ws. 1 and 2, who stated that the appellant had given five one rupee notes to P. W. 3 in exchange of one 5 rupee note (Ext. 1) given to the appellant by P. W. 3; whereas the learned Special Judge committed an error of record in observing that five rupee small coins were given by the appellant to P. W. 3. On that ground alone the learned Special Judge has disbelieved the defence version as well as the evidence of D. Ws. 1 and 2 by holding that it was highly improbable that a person would carry small coins of Rs. 5/-. In my opinion, that appears to be a mistake on the part of the learned Special Judge. On that ground alone the learned Special Judge has disbelieved the defence version as well as the evidence of D. Ws. 1 and 2 by holding that it was highly improbable that a person would carry small coins of Rs. 5/-. In my opinion, that appears to be a mistake on the part of the learned Special Judge. The evidence of the defence witnesses was clear that five one rupee notes were given to P. W. 3 in exchange by the appellant Learned counsel further pointed out that at the very initial stage the appellant had taken it as a defence. In my opinion, that may be his defence, but reading the evidence of D. Ws. 1 and 2, I find that they were working in the same office where the appellant was working. Naturally, therefore, they cannot be considered as independent witnesses. It was necessary for the appellant to get his defence corroborated by other independent witness or evidence. In that view of the matter, I do not feel confident in relying on the evidence of those defence witnesses. Further on the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I find that the sentence of a fine of Rs. 500.00 is excessive. In my opinion, the ends of justice will be met if the sentence of fine of Rs. 500.00 is reduced to Rs. 250/-(Rupees two hundred and fifty) and I so reduce the sentence. In default of payment of fine, the appellant will undergo one months rigorous imporisonment. 10. In the result, the conviction of the appellant is upheld and the judgment and order of the learned Special Judge are affirmed with the above modification in the sentence. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. If the fine of Rs. 500.00 has already been paid by the appellant, Rs. 250.00 shall be refunded to him. Sentence modified