S. B. SAKRIKAR J. ( 1 ) THE appellant/accused has directed this appeal against the judgment and order of sentence dated 31. 1. 1996 passed by Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge Mandleshwar in Spi. Criminal Case No. 1/95 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishment under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, Tthe Actt) and sentencing him for 6 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500j. c: in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for 15 days. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the case of the prosecution is that on 20th December, 1988, the, accused/appellant was posted as SO at PS Karhi, District West Nimar, Khargone. On the aforesaid date, on the report of one Laxmisingh, crime No. 222/88 was registered against the complainant Omprakash (PW 1) and his father Dharamvir, at PS Karhi for the charge punishable under Sections 341, 294/34, IPC. It is stated that Omprakash (PW 1) and his father were called at PS Karhi for the payment on 29th December, 1988 and the accused/ appellant informed the complainant and his father about registration of the crime against them, at the same time, he stated that if the complainant pays him Rs. 500/- then he will release the complainant and his father on bail and also close criminal case registered against them. On 29th December, 1988, the complainant and his father returned to their village, they had assured the accused/appellant that they will make arrangement for the payment of the amount of Rs. 500/- within two days. It is also stated that on 31st December, 1988 Omprakash (PW 1) went to PS Karhi and requested the accused/appellant Harishankar that he may be given further time for making arrangement for the payment of Rs. 500/- as demanded by the appellant. On the request of the complainant, accused/appellant gave time till 3rd January, 1989. As per the case of the prosecution, complainant Omprakash did not want to pay Rs. 500/- to the accused/appellant as illegal gratification for releasing the complainant and his father on bail and also for closure of the criminal case registered against them. As such on 3rd January, 1989 he approached. the office of the S. P. (Vigilance) at Indore and submitted report, Exh. P/i requesting the Special Police Establishment to arrange trap and getting the accused/appellant red-handed accepting the bribe. As such on 3rd January, 1989 he approached. the office of the S. P. (Vigilance) at Indore and submitted report, Exh. P/i requesting the Special Police Establishment to arrange trap and getting the accused/appellant red-handed accepting the bribe. On the report of the complainant, Spi. Police Establishment Indore arranged the trap on 4. 1. 1989. Complainant Omprakash was sent to PS Karhi for making the payment of alleged 500/- rupees as demanded by the accused/appellant by way of bribe. The aforesaid trap could not succeed and instead of trapping the accused/appellant accepting the alleged bribe of Rs. 500/-, on the report of the accused/appellant Harishankar, crime No. 1/89 was registered against Omprakash (PW 1) under Sections 161 and 165, IPC for attempting to give illegal gratification to the appellant, a public servant. ( 3 ) ON the report of Omprakash (PW 1), on investigations and according the sanction from the Government, a case was registered against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections. 7, 13 (1) (d)/13 (2) of the Act and the challan was filed. On the report of the appellant, a case registered against Omprakash (PW 1) under Crime No. 1/89 was also investigated and on completion of the investigation, challan was also filed in the Court of Spi. Judge at Mandleshwar against said Omprakash for the offence punishable under Sections 161 and 165, IPC. ( 4 ) IN Special Criminal Case registered against the appellant, on trial, he was acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 13 (i) (d) and 13 (2) of the Act but convicted and sentenced for the offencet punishable under Section 7 of the Act as indicated above. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned judgment of the Special Judge, Mandleshwar Distt. West Ni mar. ( 5 ) DURING pendency. 6f this appeal, the appellant has filed the copy of the judgment dated 31. 1. 1996 passed by the Special Judge, Mandleshwar Distt. West Nimar in Spi. Case No. 2/89 registered against the complainant Omprakash (PW 1 ). On perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it emerged that the complainant of the present case Omprakash stands convicted of the offence under Section 165a, IPC and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine further imprisonment for 7 days. ( 6 ) I have heard Mr. Jaisingh and Mr. On perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it emerged that the complainant of the present case Omprakash stands convicted of the offence under Section 165a, IPC and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine further imprisonment for 7 days. ( 6 ) I have heard Mr. Jaisingh and Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsels for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Salim learned Penal Lawyer for the State. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant contended that from the evidence of the prosecution, it is not proved beyond doubt that on 29th and thereafter on 31st December, 1988, accused/appellant Harishankar posted as SO at PS Karhi demanded Rs. 500/- by way of illegal gratification for the release of the complainant Omprakash and his father on bail and for closure of the criminal case under Crime No. 222/88 registered as PS Karhi. The Counsel also submitted that in view of the fact that on the report of the accused, criminal case under Sections 161 and 165 of the Act was registered against the complainant Omprakash with regard to the same incident and he was convicted and sentenced under Section 165-A, IPC vide judgment dated 31. 1. 1996 by the Spi. Judge, Mandleswar passed in Spi. Case No. 2/89. In view of the aforesaid facts and the evidence on record, the appellant also deserves acquittal of the charge under Section 7 of the Act. ( 8 ) AS against the aforesaid contention, Mr. Abdul Salim, learned Penal Lawyer supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. ( 9 ) I have carefully perused the record and the evidence of the prosecution and considered rival submissions of the learned Counsel of both the parties advanced before me; In view of the facts of the case and the conviction recorded against the appellant, the only question arose for decision in this appeal is that whether from the evidence of the prosecution it is proved beyond doubt that on 29th December, 1988 and thereafter on 31st December, 1988 appellant/accused acting as public servant being posted as SO at PS Karhi agreed to accept Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification from Omprakash (PW 1) for releasing him and his father on bail and for closure of the criminal case No. 222/88 registered at PS Karhi against them? 500/- as illegal gratification from Omprakash (PW 1) for releasing him and his father on bail and for closure of the criminal case No. 222/88 registered at PS Karhi against them? ( 10 ) BEFORE considering the evidence of the prosecution I think it proper to take into account the principles applied for the appreciation of the statement of the complainant who happens to be accomplice and also interested witness in the success of the trap. The law is well settled on the point that in bribery cases, the complainant is an interested witness and his evidence must be considered with great caution and it can be accepted only when it is corroborated in material particulars by other evidence adduced by the prosecution. In case of Pannalal Damodhar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra1, the Apex Court has held that after introduction of Section 165-A, IPC making the person who offers bribe is guilty of abetment of bribery. The complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that the offence of an accomplice and corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon. Similar view is also expressed by the Apex Court in case of B. K Kutty v. State2, and it was held that uncorroborated evidence of the witness who on his own showing would be characterized as an accomplice being bribe giver, is untrustworthy of credit although, an accomplice is a competent witness under Section 133 of the Evidence Act. A conviction may not be illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of accomplice. As a rule of prudence, however the evidence of accomplice should be corroborated in material particulars. Being tainted, the evidence of accomplice is satisfied on double test. The evidence must be reliable and if this test is satisfied, it must be sufficiently corroborated. ( 11 ) IN view of the aforesaid position of law on examining the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution in the present case, it is found that on the point of demand of bribe of Rs. 500/-, the prosecution has examined Omprakash (PW 1) and Bhagwan Gir (PW 6 ). Omprakash (PW 1) in his statement stated that about 7 years back, on the date of the incident when he along with his father Dharamvir were going to village Piplya, at the same time, some dipute arose between Laxmisingh and themselves. 500/-, the prosecution has examined Omprakash (PW 1) and Bhagwan Gir (PW 6 ). Omprakash (PW 1) in his statement stated that about 7 years back, on the date of the incident when he along with his father Dharamvir were going to village Piplya, at the same time, some dipute arose between Laxmisingh and themselves. Said Laxmisingh gave filthy abuses to the complainant and his father. The next day of the incident, Dharamvir lodged report against Laxmisingh at P. S. Karhi. In para 3 of his statement, he stated that after two days of the aforesaid report, he and his father were called at PS Karhi and the SO Harishankar informed them about registration of the criminal case registered against them and also stated that in the instant case, they will be released on bail and the case would be closed. At the same time, Omprakash (PW 1) stated that they will come after two days on making the arrangement. In paras 3 and 40f his statement, Omprakash (PW 1) has oat stated anything with regard to the demand of Rs. 500/- for releasing them on bail and for closing of the case. In view of the aforesaid statement of PW 1 Omprakash, the demand of Rs. 500/- as bribe for releasing him and his father on bail and for closing of the case is not at all stated and does not stand proved. Even considering otherwise, as per the statement of Omprakash after two days of lodging of the report by his father at PS Karhi he was called by the accused at PS Karhi, on perusal of the record, it is found that report, Ext. P/4-c was lodged at PS Karhi by Dharamvir father of Omprakash (PW 1) on 26. 12. 1998 and as per the statement of Omprakash (PW 1) he was called at Police Station Karhi after two days of the aforesaid report when bribe of Rs. 500/- was demanded by the accused. In view of the above fact, the alleged date of the demand of bribe comes to 28. 12. 1988 for which no charge is framed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. ( 12 ) OMPRAKASH (PW 1) in para 5 of his statement has further stated that on 31. 1. 1989 (which appears to be wrongly typed and it should have been 31. 12. 12. 1988 for which no charge is framed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. ( 12 ) OMPRAKASH (PW 1) in para 5 of his statement has further stated that on 31. 1. 1989 (which appears to be wrongly typed and it should have been 31. 12. 1988) he again went to PS Karhi and at that time the appellant again demanded money but on that day also he stated that he could not make arrangement for the payment and stated that he is making all efforts, for the payment as demanded. In Para 5 he did not say anything about demand of Rs. 500/ by the appellant as per the facts stated in the report, Exh. P1 submitted to S. P. (Vigilance) Indore It is stated that for the first time, accused/appellant demanded Rs. 500/ bribe on 29. 12. 1988 and thereafter on 31. 12. 1988. It is also stated in Ex. P1 that Rs. 500/- was demanded by the appellant for releasing him and his father on bail and for closing the case registered against them. On perusal of Exh. D/2 memo of arrest, D/3 personal bond and surety bond and from the statement of DW 1 S. K. Dubey, ASI PS Karhi, it emerged that Omprakash (PW 1) and. his father were arrested in connection with Crime No. 222/88 on 30. 12. 1988 at Poke Outpost Piply Khurd and were released on bail the same day from the outpost on executing personal bond and surety bond Exh. D/3. The aforesaid fact indicates that alleged criminal case were registered against the complainant and his father was registered at Outpost. Piply Khurd and the proceedings of the aforesaid case were also conducted at the outpost by ASI SK Dubey (DW 1 ). So the accused/appellant who is posted as SO at PS Karhi was not in-charge of the aforesaid case. From the aforesaid fact, it also emerged that (PW 1) Omprakash and his father were arrested on 30. 12. 1988 and released on the same day on executing personal bond and surety bond. As such the statement of Omprakash (PW 1) is falsified that on 31. 12. 1988 accused/appellant again demanded Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification for releasing him and his father on bail and for closing the case registered against them. 12. 1988 and released on the same day on executing personal bond and surety bond. As such the statement of Omprakash (PW 1) is falsified that on 31. 12. 1988 accused/appellant again demanded Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification for releasing him and his father on bail and for closing the case registered against them. ( 13 ) FROM the statement of Shri Dubey (DW 1) and on perusal of the report Exh. D/18, D/19-C, D/20-C, D/27-C and D/28 it appears that the complainant Omprakash (PW 1) is of criminal character and number of criminal cases have been registered against the complainant. On perusal of the judgment dated 31. 1. 1996 passed by the Special Judge, Mandleshwar in Spi. Cri. Case No. 2/89 - it is also found that in presence of the trap party, on 4. 1. 1989 when Omprakash (PW 1) wanted to pay currency not of Rs. 500/- by way of bribe to the accused/appellant, the accused/ appellant refused to take the aforesaid currency notes and registered the case against the complainant Omprakash (PW 1) under Crime No. 1/89 at PS Karhi under Sections 161 and 165 of the IPC. On perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is also found that in the aforesaid criminal case registered against the complainant Omprakash, he was convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge for the offence punishable under Section 165-A of the IPC. ( 14 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the law applicable, to the case on hand, the trial Court has committed an error in relying on the statement of Omprakash (PW 1) and interested witness, whose statement does not get corroboration in material particulars from the statement of other prosecution witnesses and the evidence on record of the case. ( 15 ) IN my considered opinion and in view of the evidence on record, the charge demanding Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification for releasing the PW 1 (Om prakash) and his father on bail and for closing of the criminal case registered against them, does not stand proved beyond doubt. As such, conviction and the sentence as ordered by the trial Court deserves to be set aside. ( 16 ) IN the result, this appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. As such, conviction and the sentence as ordered by the trial Court deserves to be set aside. ( 16 ) IN the result, this appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The judgment and the order of sentence holding the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 7 of the Act, is thereby set aside and the appellant accused is also acquitted of the charge under Section 7 of the Act. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged. Appeal allowed. .