JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal, J 1. Sushil Kumar J.E.-II Sub Division Office, Punjab State Electricity Board, Bela (since expired) has assailed the judgment dated 13.7.1996 passed by the Special Judge, Rupnagar, whereby he was convicted under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-. Though, accused-appellant Sushil Kumar had already expired on 6.2.2003, yet, his wife Bala Rani has opted to contest the appeal in his place. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 15.3.1993, Paramjit Singh-complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant'), in the year 1992, had applied for getting electric connection at Electricity Board, Sub Division Bela. Consequently, he was issued demand notice and he completed all the formalities. Despite number of his visits to Sushil Kumar J.E. (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused'), posted at Sub Division Bela, did not release electric connection, despite pole, cable and meter were sent to his house. Ultimately, on demand of illegal gratification to the tune of Rs.400/-for releasing electric connection made by the accused, the complainant made a false promise to pay the said bribe and complained about the same to Sukhwinder Singh, Inspector Vigilance along with 4 currency notes of Rs.100/-denomination each, who applied phenol phathalien powder to the notes; called for a glass of water and put washing soda in the said water and then small quantity of phenol phathalien powder was also put in that water. Resultantly, the colour of the water changed to light pink. After demonstrating it to the witnesses, the water was thrown away. He also searched the complainant and thereafter handed over the said tainted money to him to hand over the same to the accused on demand and in case of acceptance, Kikal Singh would give signal by shaking his hands. After completing the formalities Investigating Officer Sukhwinder Singh sent ruqa, on the basis of which case was registered at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib on 15.3.1993. 3. On completion of formalities, after joining Harjit Singh (PW2) he raided the office of the accused. After money was accepted by the accused and on signal given by Kikal Singh, the accused was apprehended red handed. The Investigating Officer completed the investigation and challaned the accused. 4. 3. On completion of formalities, after joining Harjit Singh (PW2) he raided the office of the accused. After money was accepted by the accused and on signal given by Kikal Singh, the accused was apprehended red handed. The Investigating Officer completed the investigation and challaned the accused. 4. The accused was charged under Section 13 (2) of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and opted for trial. 5. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined Hem Raj (PW1), Harjit Singh (PW2), Sukhdev Singh (PW3), Paramjit Singh (PW4), Kikal Singh (PW5), Narinder Kumar LDC (PW6) and DSP Sukhwinder Singh (PW7). 6. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he admitted that he was posted as Junior Engineer but denied if he demanded or accepted the bribe of Rs.400/-. He further explained that the complainant had not completed all the formalities for getting the electricity connection. In fact a sum of Rs.948/-was due against Sukhdev Singh uncle of Paramjit Singh in whose house Paramjit Singh was residing. The electric connection of Sukhdev Singh was disconnected due to non payment of bill and Paramjit Singh applied new connection in the same premises which could not be released without payment of outstanding amount. On 15.3.1993, Paramjit Singh came to him and requested him to issue outstanding bill and when he was present in connection with the preparation of the outstanding bill, Paramjit Singh forcibly put the money in his back pocket which he threw and got him arrested. In defence, he examined Rajinder Nath (DW1) who was working as Junior Engineer at Bela on 15.3.1993 and Ajit Singh Line Man as (DW2). Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. 7. Hence this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that due to serious discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, they do not inspire confidence. No independent witness has been examined for corroborating the version as set up by the complainant. The sanction letter is defective and it was not got proved from the person who issued the same. The defence version as set up by him is more probable and reasonable as compared to the story set up by the prosecution. 8. The prosecution version stands corroborated by Paramjit Singh (PW-4), Kikal Singh (PW5) and also by Harjit Singh Agriculture Inspector (PW2) a witness to the recovery. The defence version as set up by him is more probable and reasonable as compared to the story set up by the prosecution. 8. The prosecution version stands corroborated by Paramjit Singh (PW-4), Kikal Singh (PW5) and also by Harjit Singh Agriculture Inspector (PW2) a witness to the recovery. While unfolding the prosecution version as set up by the prosecution, Paramjit Singh has given complete narration of facts leading to the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification of Rs.400/-by the accused. He has reiterated that despite his repeated requests to install the electric connection the accused did not buzz. He also went to Rajinder Kumar SDO and complained against the accused. Despite the oral instructions issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, he did not release the electric connection. He has also testified about the formalities as completed by Inspector Vigilance Sukhwinder Singh who recorded his statement Ex.PD. He has also detailed about the colouring of the currency notes with Phenol Phathalien powder. He further stated that the Inspector Vigilance noted the numbers of the currency notes and applied the powder on the same and then gave demonstration. The colour of the water changed after the powder was applied to the notes and the same were put in the glass of water. He has stated that the currency notes were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PE. He also instructed them to approach the accused at his office at Bela along with currency notes. He as well as Kikal Singh proved the demand and acceptance of Rs.400/-by the accused. The testimony of the complainant as well as of shadow witness has been corroborated by Harjit Singh Agriculture Inspector (PW2) who stated that he joined the Inspector Vigilance on 15.3.1993 and went to the Electricity Office at Bela. They sat in a Khoka and on getting the signal the accused was apprehended. Inspector Vigilance Sukhwinder Singh searched the accused and recovered currency notes from the pocket of his pant. He tallied the numbers of the notes with the chit. Thereafter, mixture of water and soda ash was prepared in the glass of water. The accused was asked to wash his hands. The colour of the water turned to light pink and the same was put into a nip which was sealed with the seal “SS”. He tallied the numbers of the notes with the chit. Thereafter, mixture of water and soda ash was prepared in the glass of water. The accused was asked to wash his hands. The colour of the water turned to light pink and the same was put into a nip which was sealed with the seal “SS”. The back pocket of the pant of the accused was also washed in the mixture of the water and Soda ash. The colour of the water turned to light pink. It was also put into a nip. The attendance register Ex.P11 and concerned file Ex.P10 also lend corroboration to the prosecution case. Not only this, Investigating Officer Sukhwinder Singh (Pw7) also supported and corroborated the statements of the complainant and other witnesses namely Harjit Singh (PW2) and Kikal Singh (PW5), who have fully supported the prosecution case. Neither Harjit Singh (PW2) nor Sukhwinder Singh (PW7) had any motive to depose against the accused. There is no iota of evidence on record to hold that the complainant was inimical towards the accused in any manner. No such circumstance has been pointed out as to hold the false implication of the accused. 9. As regards electric connection, the complainant had applied for an independent connection on the basis of an application dated 27.7.1992. He had also deposited a sum of Rs.1650/-on account of additional expenditure of the cables on 1.1.1993. If it would have been the case of revival of the disconnected connection of Sukhdev Singh, then he was not required to deposit Rs.1650/-on account of new connection and would have revived the connection by depositing lessor amount i.e. Rs.948/-. The complainant vide letter Ex.P10 furnished test report regarding connection. He has even been supplied with pole, wire and meter by the Electricity Department but he was not being released connection. Had it been the case of deposit of Rs.948/-as a condition for releasing the connection, then no such material i.e. pole, wire and meter would have been supplied to him, therefore, no merit is found in the defence version set up by the accused. 10. As regards sanction, the same has duly been granted by the Chief Engineer. Hem Raj (PW1) has proved that Chief Engineer himself dictated the sanction order Ex.PA. On perusal of Ex.PA, it transpires that the sanction was granted for prosecution of the accused after application of mind. 10. As regards sanction, the same has duly been granted by the Chief Engineer. Hem Raj (PW1) has proved that Chief Engineer himself dictated the sanction order Ex.PA. On perusal of Ex.PA, it transpires that the sanction was granted for prosecution of the accused after application of mind. There is no ostensible defect in the order of sanction and the examination of Chief Engineer to prove the sanction was not essential. 11. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant had become accomplice and his testimony requires corroboration from the independent source is without merit. An accomplice is a person who has concurred in the commission of an offence, meaning thereby a partner in the crime and associate in the crime. When the witness sustains such a relation to the criminal act that he could be jointly indicted with the accused, he is an accomplice. Similar view was taken in case AIR 1942 Avadh 221, that the word 'accomplice' means a guilty associate or partner in the crime or who in some way or other was connected with the offence in question. Similar view was taken in case State of Vindhya Pradesh vs. Shiv Bahadur Singh, 1952 Crl. L.J. 561. The Delhi High Court in case State vs. P.K. Jain and another, 2008 (1) RCC 4 while elaborating the status of the complainant in a corruption case and denying the necessity of corroboration of his testimony observed as under :- “10. I consider that observations of learned A.S.J. brandishing the complainant in a trap case as accomplice amounts to discrediting the criminal justice system itself and portrays that the criminal justice system cannot respect the witnesses. This country is facing unprecedented rise in corruption. Situation has come to a stage that MCD officials, due to the corrupt practices, have turned the whole city into a slum by allowing all types of unauthorized construction, encroachment, squatting over public land. Engineers of local body who were supposed to check the unauthorized construction and encroachment of the public land, encroachment of roads, encroachment of pavements, turn a blind eye to all this, since their pockets are warmed and palms are greased. Similarly the observation of the trial Court that complainant and his son are interested witnesses and not trustworthy, is unfortunate. Engineers of local body who were supposed to check the unauthorized construction and encroachment of the public land, encroachment of roads, encroachment of pavements, turn a blind eye to all this, since their pockets are warmed and palms are greased. Similarly the observation of the trial Court that complainant and his son are interested witnesses and not trustworthy, is unfortunate. In case of a legitimate trap, the persons and police officials taking part in trap, in no sense can be said to be accomplice or un-creditworthy witnesses so that their evidence would require, under law to be corroborated by independent witness. The rule of corroboration is not a rule of law. It is only a rule of prudence and the sole purpose of this rule is to see that innocent persons are not unnecessarily made victim. The rule cannot be allowed to be a shield for corrupt. Moreover, the corroboration need not be by direct oral evidence and can be gathered from circumstantial evidence. The sole evidence of a complainant is sufficient to convict a person, if it is reliable, accepted and trust worthy. There was a stage under our criminal justice system when the victim of rape was also considered as an accomplice. However, the law rectified itself over the time and gradually it was realized that it was unjust to consider and brand, a victim as an accomplice and seek corroboration of her testimony. Ultimately, Supreme Court laid down that sole testimony of a victim of rape, if trustworthy, was sufficient to convict the accused. In case of bribe giving and taking, normally people do not report the instances of bribe because it suits them to give bribe as they get their illegal works done. Only few persons come forward who either do not believe in giving bribe or who are on the right-track or who are fed up by giving bribe. It requires great courage to report a matter to the Anti-Corruption Branch in order to get a bribe taker caught red handed. In our judicial system complainant sometimes faces more harassment than accused by repeatedly calling to police stations and then to court and when he stands in the witness box all kinds of allegations are made against him and the most unfortunate is that he is termed as an accomplice or an interested witness not worthy of trust. In our judicial system complainant sometimes faces more harassment than accused by repeatedly calling to police stations and then to court and when he stands in the witness box all kinds of allegations are made against him and the most unfortunate is that he is termed as an accomplice or an interested witness not worthy of trust. I fail to understand why a witness should not be interested in seeing that the criminal should be punished and the crime of corruption must be curbed. If the witness is interested in seeing that there should be corruption free society, why Court should disbelieve and discourage him. The witness who reported the demand of bribe so as to trap the culprits cannot be considered as an accomplice or non trust worthy or interested witness. There is no reason for the court insisting upon an independent corroboration of the complainant's evidence in regard to the demanding of bribe before the trap was laid. When a given complainant first visits a public servant for doing or not doing some task for him, he does not go to him as a trap witness. He goes there in a natural way for a given task. To require him to take a witness with him at that stage would amount to attributing to the complainant a thought for foreknowledge of the fact that the accused would demand bribe. (Rajinder Kumar Sood vs. State of Punjab, 1982 Cr.L.J. 1338 (P&H)). The necessity for court to search for independent witness in case of charges for corruption cannot be insisted upon. Such crimes are committed in secrecy and normally bribe are not taken openly (although there are bold public servants who do even that). In case of trap where accused has not been lured and goaded in some form to accept bribe but the accused himself has created a situation so that he gets bribe money or the accused indulges in the harassment of the complainant to compel the complainant to give bribe and the complainant reports the matter, the absence of independent witnesses to support the version of the complainant cannot be a ground to acquit the accused.” 12. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I do not find any concoction in the prosecution version which is based not only on the testimony of the complainant and a shadow witness but also on the testimony of Harjit Singh Officer of the level of Agriculture Inspector. Recovery also stands corroborated by Inspector Sukhwinder Singh. Thus, the case stands proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As an upshot of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.