V. D. GYANI, J. ( 1 ) - The appellant has been convicted under section 161, IPC and under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- or rigorous imprisonment for six months in lieu of payment of fine. ( 2 ) SHORT facts of the case are: that the appellant at the material time was posted as an Upper Division Clerk, Grade-I, in the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and was working in the town planning branch vide order dated 4. 7. 81, Ex. P. 12, Issued by the Corporation Commissioner. It was his duty to process and deal with applications for sanction of building maps and plans. On 18. 8. 1981, complainant Ajher Ahmed approached him (the appellant) with three applications for sanction of buildingmaps of (1) Abdul Hamid Hatim, (2) Smt. Premlatabai and (3) Smt. Bhuribai. The accused- appellant demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 5/- for each application, for processing and forwarding the same for sanction of building-map by concerned authority. The complainant Ajher Ahmed Khan and his brother, who is a licenced draughts man, were not willing to give any such bribe to the appellant. He, therefore, taking back the three applications and promising to come with required money by next day evening, made a complaint, Ex. P-2, to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) Indore. ( 3 ) ON the basis of this complaint, a trap was arranged vide Panchnama, Ex. p. 3, and the trap party proceeded to Ujjain Municipal Corporation Office to trap the accused, who was caught red-handed while accepting bribe. The incriminating notes were recovered, trap Panchnama, Ex. P-4, was prepared, appellant was arrested, and on completion of investigation, was prosecuted for the above offence. The trial Court found him guilty and sentenced him, as stated above. Hence, this appeal. ( 4 ) SHRI Jaisingh, learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following points: 1) That complainant Ajher Ahmed (P. W. 2) and Nirmal Kumar (P. W. 3) were declared hostile. Prosecution case, is without supports. 2) Advelse inference should be drawn for non-examination of Khalil Ahmed, who was present throughout trap. 3) Demand for illegal gratification on the part of the accused-appellant was not at all proved. 4) Sanction for prosecution, Ex. P-I, was not valid. Prosecution case, is without supports. 2) Advelse inference should be drawn for non-examination of Khalil Ahmed, who was present throughout trap. 3) Demand for illegal gratification on the part of the accused-appellant was not at all proved. 4) Sanction for prosecution, Ex. P-I, was not valid. ( 5 ) TAKING up the question of sanction, at the very out-set, as it goes to the root of the matter, the contention raised by the learned counsel seeking support from full Bench decision of this court as reported in 1988 M P. L. J. 199, the fact that sanction for prosecution was not accorded by the law department of the State Government, does not in any manner, help the appellant. It is not in dispute that he was posted as a Clerk in the employment of the Corporation and the sanctioning authority. Shri Patvardhan (P. W. 1) at the material time was the Administrator of the Corporation. He has not at all been cross-examined. His competence to accord sanction had not been challenged. Going through the sanction order, Ex. P-i, it is clear that the sanction was accorded on consideration of all the relevant material facts. No infirmity has been pointed out, in the order. The appellant being a municipal servant, and the sanctioning authority being the administrator of the Corporation, was competent to dismiss the appellant from service, as such was also competent to accord sanction for prosecution. Appellants counsel could not point out anything, adversely affecting the competency of P. W.-l to accord sanction for prosecution. In the circumstances, the Judgment relied upon by the appellants counsel does not help him. The sanction is held to be valid. It may also be noted that this point, going through the impugned judgment, does not appear to have been raised before the trial Court, nor does the appeal memo contain any such ground. Still, however, the point as raised was entertained as it goes to the root of the matter. ( 6 ) COMING to the question of corroboration of trap witnesses and the evidentiary value of such witnesses, it was strenuously urged by the learned counsel that there should be corroboration from independent reliable sources, which in the present case was lacking. Still, however, the point as raised was entertained as it goes to the root of the matter. ( 6 ) COMING to the question of corroboration of trap witnesses and the evidentiary value of such witnesses, it was strenuously urged by the learned counsel that there should be corroboration from independent reliable sources, which in the present case was lacking. In this connection it may be noted that the Supreme Court in Hazarilai v. Delhi Administration has pointed out that Court can accept the evidence of a Police Officer who laid the trap, even without any corroboration. In Prakashchandra 1. AIR 1980 SC 873 . v. Delhi Administration2, it has been held by the Supreme Court that a Court can act on the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness. It has been further held by the Supreme Court in Hazarilai case (Supra), that acceptance of illegal gratification can be proved by both, direct as well as circumstantial evidence. There are cases propounding the view that corroboration should be sought in such cases, but it all depends on the facts and the circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule as regards corroboration, can be insisted for being applied. It is in this legal background that the evidence needs to be appreciated, keeping in view whether corroboration were necessary, is forthcoming from reliable sources. The mere fact that a witness was declared hostile would not necessarily result in discarding his evidence as a whole. In the instant case, as pointed out by the learned counsel that the complainant Ajher Ahmed (P. W. 2), and Nirmal Kumar (P. W. 3), another trap witness, have turned hostile. This fact merely puts the Court on guard before accepting their testimony, it should be subjected to close scrutiny. ( 7 ) AJHER Ahmad (P. W. 2) stated that he did not make the application Ex. p 2. not had he any mind to get the accused trapped. But he had admitted his signatures on the complaint, Ex. P-2, and the preliminary Panchnama, Ex. P-3. In his cross-examination, he had admitted that he had been to the vigilance office and accompanied the trap party to the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain. He has admitted that his brother Khalil had given Rs. IS in the vigilance office with three notes of Rs. P-2, and the preliminary Panchnama, Ex. P-3. In his cross-examination, he had admitted that he had been to the vigilance office and accompanied the trap party to the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain. He has admitted that his brother Khalil had given Rs. IS in the vigilance office with three notes of Rs. 5/- each, they were besmeared with phenolphthalein powder and were kept in the pocket of his bushirt. He has also testified to the demonstration held at the vigilance office about the change of the colour on washing of hands. He denied having made any signal to the trap party but admitted that two constables had come and caught hold of the accused by his hands. He pleaded ignorance about the proceedings which took place after the accused was caught. He admits having kept Rs. 15/- on the table. He was confronted with his previous statement, Ex. P-9 but denied having made the statements marked A to A, B to B, C to C, E to E, F to F, G to G, and H to H. 2. 1979 Crl. LJ 329. ( 8 ) NIRMAL Kumar (P. W. 3), who is employed in the Commissioners Office at Ujjain has deposed that he was called to the vigilance office, Ajher Ahmed (P. W. 2) was present there along-with one man. A Panchnama relating to three notes of Rs. 5/- each was prepared. Their numbers were noted and the notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder. He admits having gone to the Corporation Office alongwith the trap party. He has also corroborated the preliminaries, which were performed before proceeding to the Corporation Office for trapping the accused. According to him, Ajher Ahmed (P. W. 2) entered the office room of the accused, he also accompanied him, as the accused was not on his seat, they waited for a while. After some time the accused turned up. Ajher Ahmed placed three maps before the accused who put his signatures thereon. According to him, Ajher Ahmed placed Rs. 15/- in the tray lying on the accused table and shook hand with him, he came out and gave the agreed signal to the raiding party by keeping his hand on head. Police party rushed in and seized the notes and prepared Panchnama, Ex. P-4, Nirmal Kumar has admitted his signature thereon. According to him, Ajher Ahmed placed Rs. 15/- in the tray lying on the accused table and shook hand with him, he came out and gave the agreed signal to the raiding party by keeping his hand on head. Police party rushed in and seized the notes and prepared Panchnama, Ex. P-4, Nirmal Kumar has admitted his signature thereon. ( 9 ) NIRMAL Kumar turned hostile on the point as to what transpired at the initial stage at the vigilance office. But in cross-examination, he admitted as true the whole preliminaries at the vigilance office before proceeding to the Municipal Corporation Office for raid. ( 10 ) ALTHOUGH these two witnesses have turned hostile but notwithstanding their being declared hostile, the prosecution case in its essence and basic features remains unshaken. If, Ajher Ahmed had no mind to get the accused trapped there was no reason for his going to the vigilance office and submitting a complaint, Ex. P-2, on which he admits his signatures. It does not stand to reason as to why he should accompany with the trap party to the Corporation Office. What was the need for him to place Rs. 15/- on the table of the accused, after he had signed or initialed maps submitted by him. As has been noted above, acceptance of bribe can be proved by both, circumstantial and direct evidence and it stands proved by direct evidence to the extent it is available as for e. g. actual seizure of notes and there being found besmeared with phenolphthalein powder vide Panchnama, Ex. P14, Nirmal Kumar (P. W. 3) support the prosecution case as a whole except on the point that the notes were taken by the accused from Ajher Ahmed and the same were recovered from his pocket. But the circumstances amply establish acceptance of notes by the accused. ( 11 ) IT was strenuously urged that demand was not proved. Ex. P-2, is the complaint signed by Ajher Ahmed (P. W. 2) which specifically contains a recital about demand on the part of the accused and unwillingness of the complainant to pay. Ajher Ahmed had admitted his signature thereon. It is not his case that it was either under threat, undue influence or as the result of any fraud or deception that his signature was obtained on Ex. P-2. Ajher Ahmed had admitted his signature thereon. It is not his case that it was either under threat, undue influence or as the result of any fraud or deception that his signature was obtained on Ex. P-2. His subsequent conduct accompanying the trap party to the Corporation Office and giving the agreed signal after parting with the notes, amply prove the illegal demand for bribe on the part of the accused-appellant. ( 12 ) SHRI Jaisingh, learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on Sitaram v. The State of Rajasthan3, Suraj Mal v. The State (Delhi Administration4 and Kailash Chandra Babu v. State of Orissa5, contended that demandt was not established, as such the appellant could not be convicted. So far as the principle of law is concerned, Tdemand on the part of an accused being an essential ingredient of the offence charged, it must be established by the prosecution. There can be no dispute over the proposition of law, whether it is established, is a question of evidence. ( 13 ) THE cases relied upon, turn on their own peculiar facts. In Sitaram's case (supra), Sitaram, an Assistant Inspector, Cooperative societies was tried along-with one Vikramsingh Inspector, Cooperative Societies, who had asked for bribe of Rs. 400/- from one Mohanlal, Secretary, Co operative Society, for return of samiti record which was seized and according to accused revealed embezzlement of huge amount. ( 14 ) AFTER the usual preliminaries, the trap party proceeded to Panchayat. Mohanlal was accompanied by one Sugansingh, Panchas remained standing on the road. From the 3. AIR 1975 SC 1432 . 4. AIR 1979 SC 1408 . 5. 1988 (2) Crimes 609 . office the accused came to hotel and after taking tea there, Vikramsingh the other accused asked complainant Mohanlal to give Rs. 400/- to Sitaram, and went away. It was said that appellant made a demand while returning from the hotel. The High Court acquitted accused Vikramsingh, holding In my opinion the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable manner of doubt that the accused demanded Rs. 400/- as bribe from Mohanlal. ( 15 ) THE Supreme Court noted, that this finding was not only in favour of Vikramsingh but also in favour of Sitaram as well whose conviction was maintained on the basis of presumption as the initialled currency notes were recovered from appellant. 400/- as bribe from Mohanlal. ( 15 ) THE Supreme Court noted, that this finding was not only in favour of Vikramsingh but also in favour of Sitaram as well whose conviction was maintained on the basis of presumption as the initialled currency notes were recovered from appellant. Payment was held as proved on the basis of evidence of Panch Witnesses Mukandsingh (P. W. 2) and Sugansingh (P. W. 9 ). Mukandsingh had admitted in cross-examination that he could not see when Mohanlal gave money to Sitaram. His evidence was held to be hearsay in view of many jerks and jolts given to the prosecution case, did not consider it safe to sustain finding of payment on the evidence of Sugan Singh alone. Thus payment also became doubtful and the presumption removed. Demand was not established as per High Courts finding noted above. This case, therefore, does not help the appellant. ( 16 ) THE most distinctive feature of Surajmals case, (Supra), was that there was no mention of the fact that the appellant had at any time demanded bribe, in the report submitted to the vigilance, Deputy Superintendent of Police, which was the First Information Report, in case. ( 17 ) THIS was a case where three Police Officers were prosecuted. Special Judge acquitted one. High Court acquitted the Station Officer, on the ground of sanction. One of the arguments before the Supreme Court was that the appellant could not be convicted on the basis of the evidence found to be unreliable as regards accused Pamnarain another Police Inspector acquitted by the trial court. The Supreme Court found that P. W s. 6, 8 and 8 while being consistent in their examination-in- chief, in their cross-examination they tried to save Ramnarain going to the extent of saying that he refused to accept the money offered to him. The Supreme Court, therefore, felt that High Court was not fight in convicting the appellant. Repelling an argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that money was actually recovered from the appellant's bushshirt. Supreme Court said mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it was paid was enough to sustain conviction when the substantive evidence in the case was not reliable. Repelling an argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that money was actually recovered from the appellant's bushshirt. Supreme Court said mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it was paid was enough to sustain conviction when the substantive evidence in the case was not reliable. ( 18 ) COMING to the Kailash Chandra Babus case (Supra), the explanation offered by the accused, who was Excise Sub-Inspector, to the effect he was under transfer order, the amount of Rs. 100/- was given by the complainant, a Liquor Contractor, as contribution towards his farewell party arranged by the office was held as reasonable and plausible in the circumstances of the case. ( 19 ) IN the instant case, the First Information Report, Ex P-2, clearly mentions the demand made by the accused, his explanation is wavering, he pleaded ignorance about the three notes found on the table according to him he came to know about it later. He disputed the recovery itself which on the basis of evidence is proved. Thus the cases discussed above are of no help to the appellant. ( 20 ) IT was argued that Khalil Ahmed who was with raiding party throughout, and who had given Rs. 15/- at the vigilance office as testified by Ajher, there was no reason to keep him back. It is on record that it is Khalil Ahmed who is a licensed draughtsman. Municipal rules and bye-laws require such license to be issued and renewed from time to time. A man like Khalil has to deal with, day in and day out with the clerk in the town planning department (the post held by the accused) for getting application for sanction of maps processed and ultimately sanctioned. The reason behind Khalil Ahmed not figuring as a witness, Ajher Ahmed turning hostile is not far to seek. Any obstruction or obstructionist buyonant attitude at that stage can well make a draughtsmans professional prospects. It is a question of survival for him and when there is no choice left, between survival and suffering illegal demands no wonder, survival has an upper hand. ( 21 ) IT was next urged that no gazetted officer was accompanied with the trap party. The need for a gazetted officer is only to land assurance to the trap and is not a requirement of a law. ( 21 ) IT was next urged that no gazetted officer was accompanied with the trap party. The need for a gazetted officer is only to land assurance to the trap and is not a requirement of a law. It is intended to avoid any possible mischief or mal-practice during trap. ( 22 ) THERE is nothing on record to suggest any mischief or mal-practice during trap. The evidence of Umakant Akolekar cannot be discarded on the sole ground that he is a Police Officer. There is ample evidence on record to corroborate this witness. Circumstances, established in the case also support his evidence. It does not suffer from any such infirmity, as such to discard or exclude his testimony. ( 23 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence as imposed by the trial Court are maintained. He shall surrender to his bail-bonds for undergoing the remaining part of his sentence. .