Judgment : 1. This appeal is directed against impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06/09/96 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in special case No. 01/88 whereby the appellant has been held guilty of commission of offence and sentenced as described below - Conviction Sentence Under Section 161 of IPC Two years R.I. Under Section 5(1)(d) R/W Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Two years R.I. and fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default, imprisonment for five months. (Both the sentences to run concurrently) 2. According to the story of the prosecution, at the relevant time, the appellant was posted as Assistant Director in the office of Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Bilaspur. The complainant-Awadh Bihari Richhariya (PW6), at that time, was posted as Assistant Statistical Officer, Tribal Development Department at Pawai. It is said that the appellant had communicated adverse remark dated 24/05/86 vide Ex.P/2-A to the complainant in connection with which, the complainant met the appellant at Bilaspur in his office on 04/06/86. At this stage, the appellant demanded bribe of Rs.500/- for correcting the confidential records and improving the same. The complainant (PW6) submitted a complaint in the office of DSP, Vigilance on 05/06/86 (Ex.P/4) alleging that a bribe of Rs.500/- has been demanded by the appellant. The complaint was verified in the presence of panch witnesses and thereafter, tainted currency notes were deposited with the Vigilance Officer. Demonstration of reaction of phenolphthalein with sodium carbonate solution was given to the complainant in the presence of panch witnesses and a pre-trap panchanama of this demonstration was prepared in the vigilance office by S.N. Dubey (PW12), DSP, Vigilance, Bilaspur in EX.P/9 on 05/06/86. The tainted currency notes wrapped in a piece of paper were kept in the pocket of the complainant with instructions to give it on demand to the appellant and not to touch the notes before that. Thereafter, it is said, the trap team along with panch witnesses went to the office of the appellant. The complainant went inside the office and after sometime, the complainant and the appellant came out and went to the office of a gas agency and then returned from there. A signal was given and thereafter, trap team arrived in the office and caught hold of the appellant. The complainant went inside the office and after sometime, the complainant and the appellant came out and went to the office of a gas agency and then returned from there. A signal was given and thereafter, trap team arrived in the office and caught hold of the appellant. At this stage/the complainant stated that the appellant had taken bribe money of Rs.500/- from the complainant in the office of the gas agency and deposited towards supply of gas connection to him. The hands of the appellant were washed. The trap team thereafter, went to the gas company office along with the complainant and the appellant and it is said that the owner of the gas agency informed that the appellant had deposited Rs.500/- which was taken put by him and counted by panch witnesses and then seized. Some other documents kept by the appellant were also seized in the presence of the witnesses. Proceedings of washing of hands in sodium carbonate solution were also drawn in the office. After collection of sample of hand wash of the appellant, the complainant, owner of the gas agency, panch witnesses and the tainted currency notes, a trap panchanama in Ex.P/10 was prepared by the Vigilance Officer S.N. Dubey (PW 12). This was followed by registration of offence against the appellant alleging commission of offence under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short "the Act of 1947"). 3. After completion of investigation and obtaining sanction of prosecution granted by State Government vide order dated 07/05/87 (Ex.P/7), charge sheet was filed. Charges were framed against the appellant on 15/02/89 by the Special Judge, Bilaspur for alleged commission of offence under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) of the Act of 1947 stating that the appellant, in his capacity as Assistant Director, a public servant, demanded bribe of Rs.500/- in discharge of his official duty and thereby committed offence. The appellant abjured guilt and was put to trial. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses. Thereafter, the appellant was examined under Section 313 CrPC in respect of incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against him. The appellant abjured guilt and was put to trial. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses. Thereafter, the appellant was examined under Section 313 CrPC in respect of incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against him. The appellant, while denying commission of offence, came out with a defence that upon instructions from the higher authority, the appellant had conducted an enquiry on an allegation of misconduct against the complainant and on the report submitted by him, the complainant was given warning. Confidential remarks were communicated to the complainant by the appellant requiring him to give his explanation within a month but the complainant approached him on 04/06/86 for correction of ACR entries and when the appellant expressed his inability, the complainant went back and again came on 05/06/86 requesting that a vehicle may be provided to him to go to Amar Gas Agency and co-incidentally, the appellant also having some work with the gas agency, accompanied the complainant and went there to meet the owner of the gas company. He was not knowing, what was done by the complainant there. In support of his defence, the appellant examined one defence witness. The learned Trial Court, however, disbelieving the defence and relying upon the prosecution case and evidence led by the prosecution, recorded a finding that the appellant demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.500/- and thereby committed the offence. The appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. of two years with fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, imprisonment of five months, which led to filing of this appeal. 5. Assailing correctness and validity of impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, learned counsel for the appellant argued that present is a case of false implication by the complainant against the appellant because the appellant had submitted an adverse, enquiry report which led to issuance of warning and adverse remark in the confidential report of the complainant. The complainant insisted to change the remarks which the appellant did not accede to. There is no independent corroboration of the story of demand of bribe by the appellant. It is submitted that the tainted currency notes were not recovered from the possession of the appellant. Recovery of currency notes from the cash box of the gas company office renders highly doubtful the story of demand and acceptance. There is no independent corroboration of the story of demand of bribe by the appellant. It is submitted that the tainted currency notes were not recovered from the possession of the appellant. Recovery of currency notes from the cash box of the gas company office renders highly doubtful the story of demand and acceptance. None of the panch witnesses have either heard any conversation between the complainant and the appellant, nor have witnessed demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant. No documentary evidence of deposit of Rs. 500/- by the appellant with the gas company was proved by the prosecution. In the back ground that the complainant had a strong motive for false implication of the appellant, the complainant giving tainted currency notes in the gas company office without notice and knowledge of the appellant cannot be ruled out and therefore, conviction of the appellant is unsustainable in law. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel argued that the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that an adverse confidential remark was written and communicated by the appellant to the complainant and the complainant met the appellant in his office on 4th and 5th of June, 1986. Acceptance of bribe money by the appellant from the complainant has been proved by an independent witness-Vijay Kumar Manchanda (PW 1), owner of the gas agency and also by his staff, Shyamal Vishwas (PW2), which is reliable and trustworthy. Corrected ACR prepared by the appellant on 05/06/86 and handed over to the complainant on that very day and occasion, was also recovered which bore the signature of the appellant. From the cash box of the gas company, the tainted currency notes, which were handed over to the complainant for being given to the appellant, on demand, were recovered and the numbers also tallied with the number noted in the pre-trap panchanama, prepared in the presence of independent panch witnesses. From the cash box of the gas company, the tainted currency notes, which were handed over to the complainant for being given to the appellant, on demand, were recovered and the numbers also tallied with the number noted in the pre-trap panchanama, prepared in the presence of independent panch witnesses. The story of demand and acceptance of bribe money by the appellant proved from oral evidence of the complainant (PW6) and independent witnesses Vijay Kumar Manchanda (PW1) and Shyamal Vishwas (PW2) is corroborated from FSL report EX.P/20 in which the hand wash of the appellant was found containing traces of phenolphthalein, meaning thereby that the appellant had handled the currency notes and thus, corroborates the prosecution story that after accepting the currency notes from the complainant in the office of gas company, the appellant handed it over to the owner of the gas company from where it was recovered. The appellant's defence is highly improbable that he incidentally went to the office of the gas company and while he was talking to the owner of the gas company, the complainant, without notice and knowledge of the appellant, deposited Rs. 500/- behind the back of the appellant. The evidence with regard to appellant having earlier deposited Rs. 500/- towards gas cylinder along with advance of Rs. 200/- against supply of stove has been proved from the documentary evidence i.e. subscription voucher in the name of the appellant issued by the gas company office vide Ex.P/2 and there is no record available with the gas company to render probable that Rs.500/- might have been deposited by the complainant (PW6) towards, supply of any gas connection to the complainant and not deposited by the appellant. As the demand and acceptance is corroborated from independent evidence, notwithstanding the fact that in the past, the appellant had prepared an adverse confidential report, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 7. In the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1191 the Supreme Court observed as under : "8. There could be no doubt that the evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particulars. 7. In the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1191 the Supreme Court observed as under : "8. There could be no doubt that the evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particulars. After introduction of Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code making the person who offers bribe guilty of abetment of bribery, the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that of an accomplice and corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon ........" 8. The status of person offering bribe and the caution required while assessing his evidence implicating a Govt. servant was examined by the Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in the case of M.O. Shamsudhin Vs. State of Kerala, (1995) 3 SCC 351 wherein, it was held as under :- "12. Now confining ourselves to the case of bribery it is generally accepted that the person offering a bribe to a public officer is in the nature of an accomplice in the offence of accepting illegal, gratification but the nature of corroboration required in such a case should not be subjected to the same rigorous tests which are generally applied to a case of an approver. Though bribe givers are generally treated to be in the nature of accomplices but among them there are various types and gradations. In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act the complainant is the person who gives the bribe in a technical and legal sense because in every trap case wherever the complaint is filed there must be a person who has to give money to the accused which in fact is the bribe money which is demanded and without such a giving the trap cannot succeed. When there is such a demand by the public servant from a person who is unwilling, and if to do public good approaches the authorities and lodges a complaint, then in order that the trap succeeds he has to give the money. There could be another type of bribe-giver who is always willing to give money in order to get his work done and having got the work done he may send a complaint. Here he is a particeps criminis in respect of the crime committed and thus is an accomplice. There could be another type of bribe-giver who is always willing to give money in order to get his work done and having got the work done he may send a complaint. Here he is a particeps criminis in respect of the crime committed and thus is an accomplice. Thus there are grades and grades of accomplices and therefore a distinction could as well be drawn between cases where a person offers a bribe to achieve his own purpose and where one is forced to offer bribe under a threat loss or harm that is to say under coercion. A person who falls, in this category and who becomes a party for laying a trap stands on a different footing because he is only a victim of threat of cocercion to which he was subjected to. Where such witnesses fall under the category of 'accomplices' by reason of their being bribe-givers, in the first instance, the court has to consider the degree of complicity and then look for corroboration if necessary as, a rule of prudence. The extent and nature of corroboration that may be needed in a case may vary having regard to the facts and circumstances." Keeping in view the aforesaid well settled principles in catena of decisions, I shall now proceed to the evidence on record to find out whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 9. The complainant (PW6) has proved that he had submitted written complaint (Ex.P/4) in the office of DSP, Vigilance, Bilaspur on 05/06/86 vide Ex.P/4. In his evidence, he has stated that when demand of bribe was made, he submitted complaint in writing on 05/06/86 and has proved his signature. S.N. Dubey, Vigilance Officer (PW12) has also stated in his evidence that the complainant had approached the vigilance office and submitted his complaint in writing in Ex.P/4. In order to lay credence to the entire proceedings, right from submission of complaint till completion of trap proceedings, the Vigilance Officer (PW12) had called two independent panch witnesses, D.R. Khunte, Nayab Tahsildar (PW10) and N.K. Sahariya, Nayab Tahsildar (PW14). Both of them have stated in their evidence that the complaint was made by the complainant which was read over, in which, they endorsed their signature and on this point, their evidence has remained uncontroverted. 10. Both of them have stated in their evidence that the complaint was made by the complainant which was read over, in which, they endorsed their signature and on this point, their evidence has remained uncontroverted. 10. In the complaint (Ex.P/4), it has been stated that the complainant received Annual Confidential Report sent by the appellant bearing no.604-B dated 04/05/86 when he was posted at Pawai. He was asked to submit his representation. He came and met the appellant in his office on 04/06/86 and requested that the remarks be improved, on which, the appellant demanded Rs.500/- for correcting his confidential remarks. Thereafter, report has been submitted by him. Proceedings of pre-trap panchanama by S.N. Dubey (PW 12) and evidence of two panch witnesses D.R. Khunte (PW10) and N.K. Sahariya (PW14), records that demonstration of reaction of phenolphthalein with sodium carbonate solution was given to the complainant and panch witnesses and both the panch witnesses have stated that such demonstration was given. Five currency notes, each of denomination of Rs.100/-, were submitted by the complainant and their numbers were also noted in the pre-trap panchanama. It records that five currency notes were kept in the pocket of the complainant with instructions to give it to the appellant only on demand and also not to touch it prior to demand. 11. Complainant (PW6) deposed in his evidence before the Court that when he reached the office of the appellant on 04/06/86 in connection with adverse remarks communicated to him and his reply sought, the appellant demanded Rs. 2,000/- but later on, Rs.500/- agreed to be given as bribe. The adverse remarks communicated to the complainant (PW6) by the appellant vide communication dated 24/05/86 in Ex.P/2-A has been proved by the prosecution. According to the complainant, he had received this letter while he was posted at Pawai. It contains signature of the appellant. The complainant has also stated in his evidence that thereafter, he sought permission from the Project Officer by his application vide Ex.P/3 to go to Bilaspur and permission was granted to him on 03/06/86. Issuance of the aforesaid letter communicating adverse remarks to the complainant has not been disputed by the appellant. The fact that the complainant had met the appellant at Bilaspur on 04/06/86 and 05/06/86 has also not been disputed. Issuance of the aforesaid letter communicating adverse remarks to the complainant has not been disputed by the appellant. The fact that the complainant had met the appellant at Bilaspur on 04/06/86 and 05/06/86 has also not been disputed. However, the appellant has come out with the defence that the complainant had a very strong motive to falsely implicate him because he had submitted an adverse enquiry report on an allegation of misconduct against the complainant on the face of which, a warning was issued to the complainant that he had misplaced financial records and adverse remark was also communicated to him for that reason, in this regard, clear suggestion has been given to the complainant in his cross examination and the fact that the appellant had conducted an enquiry and submitted a report which led to action against the complainant and a warning letter was issued to him followed by adverse remarks is also proved, not only from what has been stated by the complainant (PW6) in his cross examination but also from the letter (Ex.D/1-C) and note sheets (Ex.D/2), the appellant's fetter dated 02/02/85 addressed to the complainant, complaint's reply dated 11/07/85 and a warning letter issued to the vide Ex.D/3. This is also proved from the evidence of M.L. Karyam (DW1), Asst. Grade-I in the office of Secretary, Tribal Development Department, wherein he stated that on the application of the appellant, memo (Ex.D/1) was issued. Complainant (PW6) in his cross examination was confronted with the documents Ex.D/1, D/2, D/3 and in this regard, he has made evasive statement but admitted that in connection with the alleged misconduct of he having tom financial documents, enquiry was held and has admitted signature of the officer who issued Ex.D/1, D/2 and D/3. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence and material on record, both oral as well as documentary, it is proved that prior to the alleged incident of demand and acceptance of bribe, the appellant, at the instance of higher authorities, had enquired into allegations of misconduct of the complainant and had also submitted an adverse report which ultimately led to issuance of warning to the complainant and this was also one of the basis for recording and communicating adverse remarks to the complainant. 12. Therefore, the evidence on record needs to be examined cautiously and carefully. 12. Therefore, the evidence on record needs to be examined cautiously and carefully. Moreover, in this back drop, the story of demand and acceptance of bribe is required to be corroborated from established and dependable circumstances and evidence on record. 13. While the complainant (PW6) has remained firm on his evidence that when he reached in the office of the appellant on 04/06/86, the appellant demanded bribe of Rs.500/- for correcting ACR, in the present case, the tainted currency notes have been recovered from the office of the gas company. As per the evidence of the complainant (PW6), two independent panch witnesses, D.R. Khuhte (PW10) and N.K. Sahariya (PW14) as also the evidence of Vigilance Officer S.N. Dubey (PW12), when the trap team arrived along with the complainant in the office of the appellant, the complainant was sent inside and members of the trap team kept standing outside waiting for signal to be given by the complainant. After sometime, the complainant came out from the office along with the appellant and both of them sat in the vehicle and went away. After sometime, the complainant and the appellant came back to the office and at that time, the complainant gave signal, whereafter, the members of the trap team along with panch witnesses went inside the office but the tainted currency notes were not found with the appellant. Complainant (PW6) has stated that at that time, he informed the trap team that the appellant had taken him to the office of Amar Gas Agency, where he demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.500/- and deposited it in the office of gas agency towards supply of gas connection to him. The independent panch witnesses, D.R. Khunte (PW10) and N.K. Sahariya (PW14), who were present at the spot also stated that when they went inside the office of the gas agency, after arrival of the complainant and the appellant, the complainant stated such fact. This has also been stated by the Vigilance Officer (PW12) who was leading the trap team. Thereafter, the trap team took the appellant and the complainant along with them and they all reached in the office of the Amar Gas Company. 14. This has also been stated by the Vigilance Officer (PW12) who was leading the trap team. Thereafter, the trap team took the appellant and the complainant along with them and they all reached in the office of the Amar Gas Company. 14. The complainant, in his evidence, has deposed that he was taken by the appellant to the office of Amar Gas Agency and after arriving in the office of the gas company, on the insistence of the complainant to prepare and hand him over improved confidential remarks, the appellant took out proforma of confidential remarks from his bag, recorded a favourable report and gave a copy to him. Thereafter, he gave Rs.500/- to the appellant, which the appellant deposited in the office of the gas company and both of them came to the office of the appellant. This witness was subjected to detailed cross-examination on this particular aspect but the witness has remained firm on his statement regarding handing over of bribe money to the appellant. 15. Recovery of tainted currency notes from the cash box of the gas company office has been proved by the prosecution not only by the complainant (PW6) but also from the testimony of two independent panch witnesses D.R. Khunte (PW10) and N.K. Sahariya (PW14). Both have stated that when the trap team arrived in the gas company and when the owner was asked, he informed that the appellant had come along with the complainant and there, the complainant gave Rs.500/- to the appellant and that amount was deposited by the appellant with the gas company and when the cash kept in the box were taken out, the panch witness D.R. Khunte (PW10) sorted out and found those tainted currency notes which were smeared with phenolphthalein power and kept in the pocket of the complainant with instructions and the number of the currency notes were also tallied. 16. The Vigilance Officer (PW12) has also proved that upon being asked, the owner of the gas company (PW1) informed regarding deposit of Rs.500/- by the appellant and the tainted currency notes were found in the cash box, numbers were tallied and then seized from him in the presence of panch witnesses. The recovery and seizure of tainted currency notes from the cash box of the gas company office has been proved from the evidence of independent panch witnesses D.R. Khunte (PW10) and N.K. Sahariya (PW14). 17. The recovery and seizure of tainted currency notes from the cash box of the gas company office has been proved from the evidence of independent panch witnesses D.R. Khunte (PW10) and N.K. Sahariya (PW14). 17. The prosecution story of demand and acceptance of bribe money by the appellant is corroborated from two independent witnesses Vijay Kumar Manchanda (PW1), the owner of the gas company and Shyamal Vishwas (PW2), the Manager of the gas company. Vijay Kumar Manchanda (PW1) has stated in his evidence that the appellant had taken a gas connection in the year 1986 and after two-three months, the appellant had come to his office along with a companion. In his presence, the appellant had taken Rs.500/- from his companion and deposed. He has stated that those were currency notes of Rs.100/-. He deposed that he had accepted the aforesaid amount of Rs.500/- and kept in his cash box and in his presence the appellant signed in a form and handed it over to his companion. This witness has been subjected to detailed cross examination in which, he has stated that the appellant initially deposited Rs.500/- on 17/04/86. He has also stated that at that time, the appellant had given Rs.200/- as advance. He has denied suggestion that the complainant had earlier come and separately deposited Rs.500/-. He has also denied suggestion that the appellant had not come with the complainant. In his cross examination, this witness has clearly stated that on 17/04/86, the appellant had deposited Rs.500/- and further Rs.200/- and at that time stated that after giving balance amount, he will collect cylinder with regulator and stove. This witness has also denied suggestion that the complainant Awad Bihari Richhariya had taken any gas cylinder from his shop. This witness has further denied suggestion that when the police came along with the appellant, then at that time, currency notes were handed over to the appellant and then his hands were washed. He has also stated that receipt in Ex.P/2 towards deposit of Rs.500/- and Rs.200/- earlier on 17/04/86 was also issued. A suggestion has been given which has been denied that as the appellant did not pick up gas stove from their shop, he is falsely stating against the appellant. 18. He has also stated that receipt in Ex.P/2 towards deposit of Rs.500/- and Rs.200/- earlier on 17/04/86 was also issued. A suggestion has been given which has been denied that as the appellant did not pick up gas stove from their shop, he is falsely stating against the appellant. 18. In the absence of there being any cogent material or circumstances to operate as a, motive of false implication of the, appellant by Vijay Kumar Manchanda (PW1), the owner of the gas company, prosecution story of demand and acceptance by the appellant from the complainant is fully corroborated. There is no reason why this witness, who happened to be witness of acceptance of bribe, would give a false statement to implicate the appellant. The peculiar circumstances of the present case are that the appellant did not accept the bribe money in his office, may be due to abundant caution that he took the complainant along with him to the office of the gas company and there, he accepted the bribe money as demanded by him and immediately deposited it in the office of the gas company. Thus, in the aforesaid given circumstances, the owner of the gas company, appears to be a natural witness of the incident and there is no reason to disbelieve his testimony. The Manager of the gas company Shyamal Vishwas (PW2) has also deposed that the appellant had come along with one person and talked to his owner and after sometime, his owner told him that the Mr. Verma (the appellant) has given Rs.500/- in respect of which, a receipt may be issued to him. Thereafter, he prepared a receipt and gave it to the appellant. In his cross examination, he has denied suggestion that one person had come along with the appellant in the office and deposited money in the office. He, of his own, has stated that two persons along with the appellant had come in the office. 19. The proceedings of washing of hands of the appellant, collection and sealing of hand wash in bottles, collection of hand wash of Vijay Kumar Manchanda (PW1), panch witnesses and wash of currency notes, its sealling in bottles has been proved by the prosecution not only by the evidence of complainant-Awadh Bihari Richhariya (PW6) and S.N. Dubey (PW12) but also fully corroborated from, the evidence of independent panch witnesses D.R. Khunte (PW10) and N.K. Sahariya (PW14). S.N. Dubey (PW12) has stated in his evidence that these samples collected in the bottles were sent for chemical analysis to FSL vide covering memo (Ex.P/18) and has also proved receipt of FSL report (Ex.P/20) in which the hand wash of the appellant, complainant (PW6), panch witnesses D.R. Khunte (PW10), N.K. Sahariya (PW14) Vijay Kumar Manchanda (PW1) and wash of currency notes have been found containing traces of phenolphthalein further corroborating the story of the prosecution and most importantly that the appellant had also handled the currency notes. 20. Therefore, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.500/- from the complainant (PW6) towards issuance of improved confidential remarks. 21. Last submission of learned counsel for the appellant was that present is an incident of the year 1986 and the appellant has lost his job. He has undergone the agony of criminal trial for the last 29 years and presently, he is aged about 33 years. 22. Considering the aforesaid submission and circumstances of the case, particularly taking into consideration that present is a case of the year 1986, the appellant appears to be aged 63 years of age and also taking into consideration the amount of bribe, his sentence is reduced to one year. 23. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant for commission of offence under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) of the Act of 1947 is affirmed and instead of sentence of two years, sentence, of one year is awarded to the appellant along with fine of Rs.3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, R.I. of three months for each of the offences. As the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled and the appellant be taken into custody to serve out the sentence awarded.