(1.) The appellant accused stood his trial before the learned Special Judge at Rajkot in criminal special case No. 4 of 1976 for the offences under sec. 161 of the I. P. Code and sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act at the end of which trial he was found guilty for both the offences by the learned special Judge and was amar dedsentence of R. I. for one year and fine of Rs. 500.00 in default R. T. for three months for the offence under sec. 161 of the I.P. Code with no separate sentence awarded for the offence under sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
(2.) Mr. Shah then contended that the case with regard to demand of bribe and acceptance of the money rests solely on the evidence of the complainant. Panch No. 1 who was specifically assigned for the purpose of keeping himself posted near the door as an applicant waiting for his turn to see the accused and to attempt to see and bear what would happen in the chamber of the accused between the accused and the complainant says that as the door was closed by the peon he could not see what happened in the chamber nor could he hear may conversation between the accused and the complainant. He therefore merely sat on a bench for all the time during which the accused and the complainant were closeted with each other in the chamber. The complainants evidence with regard to the demand conversation which took place between him and the accused wherein the accused enquired whether the complainant had brought money and on the complainant saying yes the accused stating give and the complainant giving money and the accused voluntarily taking the same in his right hand and placing the same in his bush shirt pocket) has not been corroborated by an independent witness like the panch. In a recent decision in Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1191 Kailasam J. who delivered the judgment of the court has in clear terms observed that there should be no doubt that the evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particulars. It is further observed as follows :
(3.) Mr. Chhaya the learned Public Prosecutor in this connection submits that in the instant case the required corroboration to the evidence of the complainant is supplied by the evidence of P. S. I. Trivedi ex. 79 who had the opportunity to see and hear that happened in the chamber of the accused and that therefore it cannot be said that the complainants evidence is not corroborated in material particulars. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the proposition that a P. S. I. who is a member of the raiding party and whose evidence would even otherwise require corroboration can supply such corroboration to the evidence of the complainant. As observed by the Supreme Court in Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab A. I. R. 1976 S. C. 91: