D. C. GHEEWALA, M. K. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant original accused in Special Case No. 2 of 1977 decided by the learned Special Judge Bhavnagar has been aggieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed against him on 19 October 1977 convicting him for the offences under sec. 161 I. P. Code and under sec. 5 (1) (d) read with sec. 512) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to R. I. for two years on the first charge and R. I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 500. 00 in default further R. I. for six months on the second charge with a direction that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE accused at the relevant time that is in July 1976 was attached as a surveyor in the office of the District Inspector of Land Records at Bhavnagar. Complainant Baldevbhai Ex. 6 who is a resident of village Mandva in taluka Talaja of the said district is the owner of land bearing survey number 151. There is in the neighbourhood another village called Jaspara and the said land situated in Mandva has common boundary with the land of one Puna Devji situated in Jaspara. The complainant got converted out of the said land of survey number 151 land admeasuring 1 acre 7 gunthas into non agricultural use and divided the same into posts and sold the said plots. One of the plots was sold by him to prosecution witness Laxman Bhagwan also called Lakhabhai. ( 3 ) IT was the prosecution case that the complainant suspecting that the said Puna Devji who had put up a hedge on the boundary line of his land had encroached upon a part of the land of the complainant wanted his land to be surveyed to find out the extent of the encroachment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 4 ) THE complainant came to Bhavnagar and went to the house of the accused and paid an amount of Rs. 200. 00as had been earlier demanded by the accused. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 4 ) THE complainant came to Bhavnagar and went to the house of the accused and paid an amount of Rs. 200. 00as had been earlier demanded by the accused. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 5 ) IT is then the prosecution case that after going home he talked about what had happened to witness Laxman alias Lakhabhai Ex. 15 saying that Rs. 200. 00 had already been extorted by these persons and that a further amount of Rs. 200. 00 had been demanded and he did not want to pay it. He therefore decided to go for reporting the matter to the Antiorruption office at Bhavnagar and asked the said witness Laxman alias Lakhabhai to accompany him. Both of them went to Bhavnagar where the complainant gave his complaint as per Ex. 14 before P. I. Danubha Ex. 32 of the Anticorruption Bureau. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 6 ) THE complainant and Lakhabhai came to the house of the accused at about 2 or 2-30 p. m. The complainant then said that the amount of Rs. 200. 00 was on the higher side to which the accused said that it was much on the lower side that really speaking Patel (his superior officer) would require Rs. 500. 00 but because it was the complainants work he would persuade him with the said amount. The complainant thereupon by his right hand took out the marked currency notes from the left pocket of his underwear and placed the same in the left hand of the accused which had been extended by the latter for receiving money. He held the money in a clenched fist. Lakhabhai then asked the accused to count the money. The accused said that there was no need to count but Lakhabhai suggested that it would be better if he counted them as it was a question of money and the accused then counted them and thereafter placed them on the mat pressed under his thigh. The complainant gave the prearranged signal of taking out his headgear and placing it on the ground. The complainant gave the prearranged signal of taking out his headgear and placing it on the ground. Lakhabhai at that time feigned vomitting sensation and saying that he was going for taking Soda he went down and thereafter the raiding party rushed up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 7 ) P. I. Danubha then seized the notes from under his thigh and thereafter on the experiment being done with the ultraviolet lamp it was found that there were marks of anthracene powder on the palm of the left hand of the accused and all fingers of both his hands and there was a smudge on his left lip. There were also similar marks on his underwear and his Lengha where it fitted the thigh portion as also on the mat. The accused was thereafter prosecuted before the learned Special Judge for the aforesaid offences. ( 8 ) IT was the defence of the accused that the complainant was harbouring a grievance against him because his land could not be measured as desired by the complainant and on the day of the incident complainants accompanied by witness Lakhabhai had come to his house and told him that the accused will have to come to his village with his superior officer Patel and he was ready to pay money to Patel whereupon the accused scolded him and asked him not to talk such rubbish things before him and said that he would not come to his village when he was making such allegations Thereafter witness Lakhabhai tried to vomit. The accused said that he would give him water but Lakhabhai wanted to take Soda and therefore he went outside. At that time the accused went near the stair case to see as to whether Lakhabhai was vomitting or not and within a fraction of moment as he was standing near the stair case P. I. Danubha Lakhabhai and other members of the raiding party came up and they made the accused to sit on the mat where the complainant had in the meanwhile put notes. P. I. Danubha demanded the notes telling him that they were underneath his left thigh and he was asked to count the said notes and hand them over to the police and that is why there are marks on his hand and lengha where it fit she left thigh. It was his case that he was falsely involved in the said trap. ( 9 ) MR. D. K. Shah the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant accused after drawing our attention to the evidence of complainant Baldevbhai Ex. 6 his companion Laxman Bhagwan alias Lakhabhai Ex. 15 and panch No. 1 Natverlal Ex. 18 submitts that in the instant case the evidence of the complainant with regard to the demand and acceptance of moneys by the accused from the complainant on the day of the incident that is on 24 July 1976 at his house is not corroborated by panch No. 1 Natverlal and that therefore independent corroboration in material particulars with regard to the story put forward by the complainant concerning voluntary acceptance of money by the accused lacks the required corroboration. Mr. Shah has also further submitted that mere recovery of moneys from the custody of the accused is not sufficient to convict the accused particularly when the complainants evidence with regard to the payment of moneys is not corroborated by independent evidence. ( 10 ) IT is true in the instant case there was a change of roles. The role which was originally assigned to panch No. 1 to be with the complainant and to see and hear what would pass between the complainant and the accused at the time of payment of money was changed and the said role was assigned to the complainants companion Laxman alias Lakhabhai. It is also true that as the evidence of Lakhabhai read along with the evidence of the complainant discloses it was at the instance of Lakhabhai that the complainant decided to report the matter to the anticorruption branch that Lakhabhai accompanied the complainant to the anticorruption office and he accompanied the complainant along with other members of the raiding party to the house of the accused after the trap was arranged. The evidence also discloses that the interest shown by Lakhabhai was exceptional and at times it appeared that he was more enthusiastic and more interested in the success of the trap then even the complainant. The evidence also discloses that the interest shown by Lakhabhai was exceptional and at times it appeared that he was more enthusiastic and more interested in the success of the trap then even the complainant. This would be evident from the fact that it was at his instance that the accused was persuaded to count the notes because as he says in his evidence unless he counted the notes there would not be marks of anthracene powder left on both his hands. Mr. Shah is therefore right in his submission that Lakhabhai cannot supply the required corroboration to the evidence of the complainant with regard to the prosecution case in material particulars. ( 11 ) BUT in our opinion there is sufficient evidence on record which corroborates the main aspects of the case as it emerges from the evidence of the complainant and the evidence of his companion Lakhabhai. The main aspects are that in pursuance of the trap arranged which was arranged as the accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 200. 00 as illegal gratification the raiding party proceeded after usual formalities with regard to the making of the notes treating them with anthracene power performing the experiment with the ultraviolet lamp etc. were performed and that after the complainant and Lakhabhai went into the house of the accused the complainant started conversation by saying that the amount of Rs. 200. 00 was on a higher side to which the accused replied by saying that it was on the lower side because the reasonable amount payable to his superior officer Patel be would be about Rs. 500 He assured that he would be able to persuade Patel if the amount of Rs. 200. 00 was paid to him. On this as is the case mainly of the prosecution the complainant took out the marked currency notes from his pocket the accused at that time extended his left hand the complainant placed the notes in the left hand of the accused and the accused held the notes with clenched fist. Lakhabhai then insisted on him to count the notes. He counted them and thereafter he placed them on the mat pressed under his left thigh. Lakhabhai then insisted on him to count the notes. He counted them and thereafter he placed them on the mat pressed under his left thigh. Thereafter on the prearranged signal being given Lakhabhai on the pretext that he was feeling a vomitting sensation and he wanted to go out for consuming Soda went down and informed Panch No. 1 that moneys had been paid and thereupon Panch No. 1s giving a signal to the others the members of the raiding party came up. Though the accused denied that he had accepted the bribe money on an inquiry being made by P. I. Dinubha on a search being made at the instance of the complainant and Lakhabhai who had conveyed the information that the notes were lying under his thigh the same were recovered under his thigh on the mat and on the experiment with the ultraviolet lamp being made it was found that there were marks of anthracene powder on the palm of his left hand all the fingers of both his hands on the portion of his Lengha which would fit on the thigh part and his underwear as also the mat on which he was sitting and there was also a smudge on his left lip. ( 12 ) THE evidence in regard to material particulars with regard to the above facts in corroboration of the evidence of the complainant and Lakhabhai is supplied by the oral testimony of panch No. 1 Natverlal as also P. I. Dinubhai Panch No. 1 is an independent panch and a respectable panch witness. His testimony is not shaken in cross examination and he impresses as a truthful and honest witness. No remarks could be made against this witness which would show any infirmity in his evidence. This evidences therefore supplies the necessary corroboration to the story of the complainant with regard to the notes having been given by him to the accused the accused having accepted them in his hands the accused having counted them and the accused ultimately having placed them under his thigh lying on the mat and the said currency notes having been found from under his thigh lying on the mat after the raiding party came up. ( 13 ) POINTED attention of the accused was drawn to this evidence in his examination under sec. ( 13 ) POINTED attention of the accused was drawn to this evidence in his examination under sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the explanation which is given by him is neither reasonable nor probable and is not plausible at all. His explanation is that when these persons came and started talking about his visit to the village of the complainant for the purpose of survey Lakhabhai saving that he was getting a vomitting sensations got up and proceeded downwards for the purpose of taking Soda. The accused offered water. He also got up and went upto the staircase to see whether Lakhabhai was vomitting or not and at that time P. I. Danubha and others rushed up. In the meantime it is his case that the complainant must have placed the notes on the mat. He was asked to sit on the mat and was asked to take out the notes from under his thigh lying on the mat and to give them after counting them. He counted them and then handed them over to the P. I. This explanation in our opinion is not at all reasonable and cannot be accepted. On the contrary the accused thereby admits though in a different manner that he had counted the notes and that they were under his thigh after the raiding party had come up. ( 14 ) THE main ingredient of the offence therefore of voluntary acceptance of the money by the accused from the hands of the complainant is proved by the evidence of the complainant and his companion Lakhabhai and the same is amply corroborated by the evidence of panch No. 1 as also the circumstances which are established through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including panch No. 1 who is an independent witness showing that there were marks of anthracene powder not only on the left hand palm of the accused but also on the fingers of both his hands on the Lengha which would fit in on the thigh portion which Lengha he had on his person at that time on his underwear as also on his left lip which might have come in touch with any finger or any part of his body which had originally got the marks. ( 15 ) WE feel on going through the evidence though for reasons to a certain extent different from ones assigned by the learned Special Judge that there is sufficient evidence on record establishing the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused. We may mention at this stage that we are partly not in agreement with the reasoning adopted by the learned Special Judge for drawing conclusion drawn by him. It seems he discerned corroboration of the evidence of the complainant from the evidence of Lakhabhai and he further sought corroboration from the evidence of P. I. Danubha. Lakhabhai was not that independent witness like panch No. 1 who could supply the required corroboration. On the contrary as earlier observed he was a highly interested witness. HG was the first person to be contacted by the complainant for advice. He had also an interest in a part of the land which was the subject matter of the dispute so far as its common boundary with the Punas land is concerned. He was the person at whose instant the complainant went to Bhavnagar and contacted the anticorruption bureau and lodged his complaint and he was also the person who accompanied the complainant as a member of the raiding party to the house of the accused and who even went to the length of prevailing upon the accused to count the notes with the specific intention that that would result in the anthracene powder being found on both his hands. He would therefore be a highly interested witness whose testimony itself would require some corroboration and simlarly the I. P. also would be a partisan witness he being the person who had arranged the trap and conducted the raid But as earlier observed there is sufficient corroboration to the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses from independent sources. The corroboration need not necessarily be by an eye witness to the actual taking of the bride. What is required is corroboration from an independent source with regard to the eye witness account given by the complainant and or any other interested or partisan witness. The corroboration may not be direct evidence but may not be in the nature of circumstantial evidence brought on record by oral testimony of an independent reliable and respectable witness like panch No. 1 in the instant case. The corroboration may not be direct evidence but may not be in the nature of circumstantial evidence brought on record by oral testimony of an independent reliable and respectable witness like panch No. 1 in the instant case. He corroborates the evidence of the complainant witness Laxman and P I. Danubha by saying that Lakhabhai (Laxman) came down and said moneys had been paid that he and other members of the raiding party then rushed up that on being asked by P. I. Danubha though the accused denied having taken the bribe money the same were actually found lying pressed under his left thigh on the mat as pointed out by the complainant and Lakhabhai; that on the experiment being made marks of anthracene powder were found on the fingers of the both his hands on one of his palms on the Lengha fitting the thigh portion and on the mat as also a smudge on his lip. This therefore indicates that he bad extended his hand and accepted and kept the moneys in it as complainant and Lakhabhai depose had counted them and then placed the same on the mat under his thigh from where they were ultimately recovered. It would be seen that apart from the complaint which corroborates the evidence of the complainant with regard to the previous demand and payment as also further demand the evidence of the complainant witness Lakhabhai and P. I. Danubha is corroborated by the evidence of an independent and respectable panch witness Natverlal who is also in turn corroborated by the documentary evidence brought on record by panchnama Ex 19 acontemporaneous document prepared immediately after the successful culmination of the raid. The first submission of Mr. D. K. Shah therefore does not appeal to us. ( 16 ) IN support of his second submission Mr. Shah drew our attention to Suraj Mal v. The State (Delhi Administration) A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 1408. As observed by the Supreme Court:" In case of bribery. mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable". There cannot be any misapprehension with regard to the ratio emerging from this decision. Mere recovery of money by itself would not be sufficient to convict the accused. mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable". There cannot be any misapprehension with regard to the ratio emerging from this decision. Mere recovery of money by itself would not be sufficient to convict the accused. But if there are circumstances which are consistent with the guilt of the accused or when there is substantive evidence which cannot be said to be not reliable then the court can base an order of conviction on being satisfied that moneys were recovered from the accused. Unlike the facts in the case before the Supreme Court in the case at hand there are circumstances which show that the moneys were paid by the complainant and accepted by the accused voluntarily as gratification other than legal remuneration. The accused had counted the notes after extending his hand in which the moneys were placed by the complainant and thereafter he had placed the said wad of notes under his thigh and the said notes were recovered by the police under his thigh lying on the mat. Now this substantive evidence of the complainant and prosecution witness Lakhabhai in the case at hand cannot be said to be not reliable particularly when it is corroborated by the evidence of panch No. 1 as also the circumstances enumerated in his evidence viz. find of marks of the anthracene powder at the very place where it would be found if. the amount was paid to and accepted by the accused in the manner as deposed to by the complainant and prosecution witness Lakhabhai. It is true there are some infirmities in the evidence of the complainant. He has exhibited a tendency to avoid facing truth when it goes against him but that is on minor or insignificant aspects. There is no enmity between him and the accused and there is no reason why he should try to involve him in a false cases However as he is a complainant who has already previously given bribe to the accused as he himself says his evidence requires to be scrutinised with care and caution necessary in the case of an accomplice and the corroboration required would from an indipendent source be on material aspects. We have scrutinised and assessed the evidence of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses bearing in mind these guidelines and we cannot say that the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable as was the case with regard to the evidence which was on record in the matter dealt with by Supreme Court in Surajals case (supra ). As observed by the Supreme court in Surajmals case (supra) at page 1410 mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the appellant in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the appellant voluntarily accepted the money. We are satisfied that in the instant case there is evidence to prove the payment of bribe and to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money and the prosecution case does nut rest on mere recovery of moneys from the custody of the accused Mr. Shah therefore fails to make any headway thorough his second submission. ( 17 ) APPEAL partly allowed with regard to the sentence only and dismissed with regard to the order of conviction. Sentence reduced to one year R. I. Appeal partly allowed. .