N. H. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) * * * * ( 2 ) IT was very vehemently contended before us by Mr. Thakore that as far as this demand and attempt at obtaining illicit gratification is concerned the complainant who is a proverbial interested witness like an accomplice stood uncorroborated. It is too much to expect corroboration on all material parts. All that is required by law as laid down by take Supreme Court is that an interested witness like a complainant in a trap case should be corroborated in some material particulars so as to lend assurance to the court that his proverbial open-to-doubt testimony also is worthy of credit. In the course of our judgment we shall show that there is good deal of general corroboration to the say of the complainant. ( 3 ) AS we went through the deposition of the complainant we found that this villager pursuing agriculture was subjected to searching crossexamination. We were surprised to find that despite searching crossexamination? which at times was scathing also be stood the ordeal quite well. On the contrary the impression that we gathered from the series of repeats given by him to various questions put to him in the course of the cross-examination was that he was truthful. It appealed to us that had he been in any way banking on his imagination rather than real state of affairs he would have surely faltered here and there and would have exposed Himself to the charge of prevarication. ( 4 ) MR. Thakore attacked his evidence most on certain points which we now propose to deal with. Firstly Mr. Thakore contended that if money had been demanded from him on the earlier occasion as he claimed he would have certainly followed the procedure which he followed on 12 and be had not done so in the past his version of what allegedly transpired on 12-12-79 was open to serious doubt. We are not prepared to accept this line of reasoning. People do not react sharply to such deerhounds in Initial stages. As laymen they may hope that their work would be done in due course. As a matter of fact this complainant had waited for more than a year after he deposited the estimated costs of installation. We are not prepared to accept this line of reasoning. People do not react sharply to such deerhounds in Initial stages. As laymen they may hope that their work would be done in due course. As a matter of fact this complainant had waited for more than a year after he deposited the estimated costs of installation. After the lapse of more than a year if he gets self-same reply and ultimately decides to get the law vindicated rather than succumb to such pressure tactics his subsequent action cannot be assailed as in any stay unnatural and consequently his statement regarding the earlier demands also cannot be discarded as totally worthless. Secondly Mr. Thakore urged that the accused was an Officer who was hardly left alone and it would not be possible to believe that he would get seclusion to put his demand before the complainant. Executive Officers might be receiving citizens or their subordinates occasionally but it is not possible for us to believe that on all days throughout the period of their being in the cabin or office there will be no intermittent seclusion. At any rate on the days in question namely 12 and 13-12-79 there were such moments as stated by the complainants and as supported by the punch witness also for the incident of 18-12-79 The fact that on 13-12-79 the complainant and his accompanying companion had to wait outside the office right from about 10-30 A. M. till 1-00 P. M. also clearly suggests that the accused waited for seclusion for the purpose of striking the bid. It was then contended that the accused would not accept the amount from the complainant if he was accompanied by an unknown person. According to the complainant he was not asked as to who the accompanying companion of his was. According to the panch the complainant was also briefed by the P. S. I. to the effect that if the accused asked who that companion was the complainant should explain that he was his man from his village who had gone with him for some work. Banking on this divergence of versions of the complainant and the panch on this score Mr. Banking on this divergence of versions of the complainant and the panch on this score Mr. Thakore submitted that the court should rely on the normal behaviour of a person taking illegal gratification namely his precaution to see that the money is paid only when the paper and payee alone are there and there is nobody to witness the act. We are not prepared to hold that it is the invariable conduct of a man accepting money. When money in by is to be taken from a rustic person the presence of another similar rustic with him may not be made much of by the payee. The prospects of getting such easy money at times blur the vision of the acceptor. He in the remotest dream of his would not feel that he is being watched in the course of a trap. He therefore might take the things easily and the accused might have either assumed or might have been told by the complainant as the panch states that the companion of the complainant was a man of his village. It is well nigh possible that he might not have asked anything on this score and either the complainant or the panch witness might have committed some error due to lapse of time. With the passage of time memory fails and on such peripheral aspects people at times forget details. So the alleged divergence between the two persons on this point cannot be made much of when the overall circumstances as emerging from the evidence are taken together. We have no doubt that the incident had happened in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Mr. Thakore then fourthly submitted that this complainant and the second panch appeared to be the birds of the same feather in so far as the second panch was having good many Sour mills in the town of Botad and the complainant also had in the past been running a flour mill which for about four years from the day of his deposition was assigned by him to somebody also for running. it is to be remembered as a principle of law that suggestions in cross-examination are no evidence. This proposition of law is good both in the case of the prosecution and the defence. Mere hurling of some such suggestions which are denied can hardly take the place of proof or evidence. it is to be remembered as a principle of law that suggestions in cross-examination are no evidence. This proposition of law is good both in the case of the prosecution and the defence. Mere hurling of some such suggestions which are denied can hardly take the place of proof or evidence. The law of evidence is alike both for the prosecution and for the defence. If the accused wants to establish a certain fact he has to lead evidence or that score. such suspicions cannot have any place in the realm of appreciation of evidence. As a matter of fact there was not even a well-formulated suggestion to the complainant that it was he who had procured the second panch. All that was suggested to him was that he and the second panch had good relations and at his say the second panch was called as a panch witness. The suggestion was not only denied but the witness emphatically stated that he did not know him till the second panch himself on inquiry by the P. S. I. told the P. S. I. that that second panch was running flour mills. The witness categorically stated that he did not know the second panch and he had no occasion to see him. The fact that one man is having a flour mill at Botad and the fact that another man is permanently stationed at some village in that taluka with his occasional visits to Botad cannot lead us to infer that they must be knowing each other. We reiterate that a suggestion denied by a witness remains only a suggestion and has no evidentiary value at all. Appeal dismissed: Sentence reduces. .