"Therefore, there is no material discrepancy in the case of the prosecution with regard to demand of bribe, in which, both the appellants were involved. It is next submitted that the complainant has clearly stated that when the complainant reached the office, the appellant-Hameed was not present. As demand was raised by appellant-Hameed through appellant-Jaisingh, bribe money was given only after Ham6ed arrived and the complainant met him, whereafter Hameed told him to- give bribe money to appellant-Jaisingh. Therefore, the story of demand as stated by the complainant in his complaint, Ex.P-7 and in his evidence before the-Court, inspires confidence. It is further submitted that the story of demand as stated by the complainant is fully corroborated from the evsd%Begg|SW|Rgnd8Bt;jR|inch witness, A. R Naik, PW4, who had aEcom(Kiriied the complainant, PW-3 3andiy,;has proved the conversatioffi^etween the complainantipPW-S and the appella(iVg||!meed that when the complainant approaebiefl)Bffii°lyEQttte money, then appellamt-Hameed told him to give money to the aR^(^^|uhgh. Thereafter, he also witnessed m^t the amount being given by the caift}la|n|^jt trfJaisingh. Jaisingh accepted the money and kept with him in hisfpoqklfe^^rencould be no other reason except the demand in pursuance of wt-iiel'ipmEd-iey was given by the complainant. ^Rirtq' :3r<3?r Therefore, story of demand made by the appellant-Hameed through appellantJaisingh is proved beyond any doubt. It is next contended that the evidence of Dr. Harish Mulchandani, PW-3 that the bribe money offered by him, was accepted and kept by the appellant-Jaisingh in his pocket, were corroborated from the evidence of independent panch witness, A. P. Naik, PW-4, who has cleariy supported the version of accepting bribe money and keeping in his pocket. Recovery of bribe money from the pocket of appellant-Jaisingh is proved from the reliable testimony of complainant, Dr. Harish Mulchandani, PW3, panch witness, A. P. Naik, PW-4, C. K. Tiwari, PW-9 and R. S. Uike, PW-11.
