JUDGEMENT 1. Appellant has been convicted under S.165-A read with 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months' R.I. for offering bribe to the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Panji for clearing him in the driving test for obtaining a medium vehicle driving licence. 2. It was not in dispute that the appellant had applied for obtaining a medium vehicle driving licence. On 5-9-72 Motor Vehicles Inspector Barreto, P.W. 3 accompanied the appellant to the testing ground for holding a test to ascertain his fitness for a driving licence. It was also admitted that after the test the appellant and the Motor Vehicles Inspector came to the Office of the Director of Transport Shri Counto P.W. 4. In the Chamber of the Shri Counto, Inspector Rane was called and he prepared some panchanama. 3. According to the prosecution the appellant was not fit to pass the driving test as he was unable to change the gears after proper declutching. He therefore, offered a bribe of Rs. 50/- to the Motor Vehicles Inspector Barreto. Barreto declined to accept the money and brought the appellant to the office of the Director of Transport. He made a complaint to the Director who questioned the appellant about the truth thereof. The appellant kept quiet and hesitated but on being asked repeatedly confessed that he had done so. He produced Rs. 50/- before the Director from his pocket who phoned the Police. Inspector Rane reached the office of the Director, seized the amount lying on the table of the Director and prepared the panchanama. 4. The appellant denied the story as totally false. According to him he had actually passed the test for driving but Motor Vehicles Inspector Barreto wrongly declared him unfit. He therefore, went to the Director's chamber to complain against him. The Director got furious and a false case was concocted against him. 5. During the pendency of the case before the learned Special Judge a technical point about the competence of Inspector Rane to prepare a panchanama was raised in view of the provisions contained in Section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act which lays down that no Police Officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police shall investigate such an offence. The learned trial Judge then made an order that this part of the investigation should be done by the Dy. The learned trial Judge then made an order that this part of the investigation should be done by the Dy. S.P. who accordingly made a fresh panchanama after examining the panch witnesses. All this amounts to a farce because a seizure once made cannot be redone because the seized property is already in possession of the Police. However, this has no bearing on the main issue because the existence of the panchanama made either by Inspector Rane or Dy. S.P. Dhaimode is an innocuous and irrelevant circumstance. Possession of Rs. 50/- or even more by the appellant was quite a normal thing and the prosecution case did not advance an inch on the basis of this panchanama. 6. The matter ultimately hinges on the statement of the Motor Vehicles Inspector Barreto. Now it has been repeated time and again that without independent corroboration, the testimony of a complainant should not be considered sufficient to fasten a charge of bribery or abetment of bribery (Darshan Lal v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1974 SC 218 : (1974) Cri LJ 307)). In the cited case the Supreme Court in the absence of independent corroboration interfered with the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court and the High Court and allowed the appeal. 7. It is not as if evidence to corroborate Inspector Barreto was not available. Inspector Barreto admitted that when he took the necessary driving test one instructor was sitting in the same vehicle. This instructor was not examined either to prove that the appellant was unable to change the gear properly or to show that he made any offer of bribe to the Inspector. The first and natural reaction of the Inspector in such a case would have been to inform the person present at the spot. This part of the story that the appellant was not fit for being granted the licence as he failed in the test remained uncorroborated. Similarly there was absence of corroboration when such corroboration could be produced, with regard to the offer actually made by the appellant. This is not to say that Inspector Barreto told a lie but it is only to emphasize the rule of prudence laid down by the Supreme Court that uncorroborated statement of a complainant cannot found a conviction for an offence under Section 161 or the allied offence under Section 165-A, I.P.C. 8. This is not to say that Inspector Barreto told a lie but it is only to emphasize the rule of prudence laid down by the Supreme Court that uncorroborated statement of a complainant cannot found a conviction for an offence under Section 161 or the allied offence under Section 165-A, I.P.C. 8. Prosecution might seek corroboration from the alleged extra judicial confession of the appellant before the Director of Transport and other persons in the chamber of the Director. It must be kept in mind that the appellant was brought in the Director's chamber by the Motor Vehicles Inspector who had alleged that the appellant offered him a bribe. It is clear from the statements of the witnesses to the said confession namely, Director Shri Counto P.W. 4 and Asst. Director Shri Ingle P.W. 5, that the appellant on being questioned first kept quiet and hesitated but after being pressed, he admitted. 9. An extra-judicial confession by itself is not a very strong piece of evidence. A confession to be accepted as an incriminating piece of evidence must be voluntary and true. (Aher Raja v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217 : (1956 Cri LJ 421). In the present case if all the circumstances in which the alleged confession was made are visualised, a doubt can validly be raised about its voluntary character. The appellant was taken to the chamber of the Director of Transport. The Director of Transport and other persons present there were persons in authority and it was clear that the appellant was not willing initially to make any confession. The confession was made clearly out of fear by some sort of threat which might have been administered to him. In the position in which he was cornered, it would be reasonable to infer that he lost his wits and under pressure he admitted the suggestion made by the Inspector and the Director. 10. It may be noted that none of the prosecution witnesses repeated the words actually spoken by the appellant. It appears from a perusal of their statements that when a leading question was put whether he had made the alleged offer, he admitted it. There was no record of the specific words spoken by the appellant from which it could be gathered that he had made the offer in the circumstances and for reasons alleged by Inspector Barreto. It appears from a perusal of their statements that when a leading question was put whether he had made the alleged offer, he admitted it. There was no record of the specific words spoken by the appellant from which it could be gathered that he had made the offer in the circumstances and for reasons alleged by Inspector Barreto. An answer in the affirmative to a leading question by a person in authority will render the confession unacceptable to support a charge of such a serious offence. Besides, in the presence case I have reasons to feel that the confession was made due to fear under express or implied threat proceeding from a person in authority and therefore was not admissible in view of Sec. 24, of the Indian Evidence Act. 11. If the evidence about extra-judicial confession is excluded from consideration, the only evidence left would be the uncorroborated testimony of Barreto and for reasons already given this would not be sufficient to base a conviction under Section 161 read with 165-A, I.P.C. 12. The appeal is therefore allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge. The seized amount be returned to him. Appeal allowed.