JUDGMENT : K.S. Hegde, J. This appeal by special leave arises from the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No. 785 of 1963 on its file where in the High Court agreeing with the findings of the trial court confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act but enhanced at the instance the State the sentence imposed by the trial court from six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/- to months 18 rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-. 2. The appellant was the Patwari of Halza Karoli in Alwar Tehsil. The charge against him is that he demanded and obtained a bribe of Rs. 100/- from P.W. 10, Tarachand for supplying him copies of Khasra Teepz relating to 31 Khasra numbers in the village of Chirkhana, for samvats 2011 to 2017. According to P. W. 10, the appellant insisted on getting Rs. 100 from him for giving those copies though the legal charge for giving same was Rs. 20/- He complained about this matter to P.W. I., Ramjilal Agarwal, the Zila Pramukh. P.W. I. took P.W. 10, on May 4, 1961 to P.W. 12, Shri Sohanlal Talwar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department, Bharatpur and informed him about the complaint of P.W. 10. P.W. 12 recorded a complaint from P.W. 10. P.W. 10 then produced a hundred rupees currency notes before P.W. 12 who initialled the same and returned it to P.W. 10 after noting its number, to be given to the appellant. Thereafter P.W. 10 accompanied by P.W. 1, P.W. 11, Laxminarain, clerk in the Anti Corruption Department and P.W. 6, Rangilal went to the house of the appellant. Not finding the appellant there they went in search of the appellant in Alwar Town. Ultimately they saw him in the dispensary of Dr. Kaul, backoned the appellant to go into an inner room where he passed on the hundred rupees currency note to the appellant. Then P.W. 10 and the appellant came out of the inner room and sat in the consulting room of Dr. Kaul. At that time P.W. 10 asked the appellant to note down the years for which he wanted the Khasra Nos. Accordingly the appellant noted those numbers on Ext. P. 12. Then P.W. 10 and the appellant came out of the inner room and sat in the consulting room of Dr. Kaul. At that time P.W. 10 asked the appellant to note down the years for which he wanted the Khasra Nos. Accordingly the appellant noted those numbers on Ext. P. 12. Soon thereafter P.W. 10 signalled P.W. 6 whereupon he went and fetched P.W. 12 who searched and seized the hundred rupees currency note and Ex. 12 from the person of the appellant. This in brief is the prosecution case. 3. At this stage it is convenient to set out the defence version. According to the appellant there was some mis-understanding between him and P.W. 10. Some of the properties of P.W. 10 were under joint cultivation of himself and his tenants. P.W. 10 wanted to evict his tenants. In that connection there was litigation between him and his tenants. P.W. 10 wanted the appellant to change the Khasra teeps in his sole name to make out a case of his exclusive possession but the appellant refused to do so. Therefore P. W. 10 was piqued with the appellant. According to the appellant he was only in possession of Khasra teeps of Samvats 2016 and 2017. He had given the copies of those teeps to P.W. 10 long before the alleged date of the occurrence. Other teeps were in the Tehsil office. Hence there was no occasion for P.W. 10 to ask for the copies of those documents. Nor was he asked to give their copies. His further case is that P.W. 10 was in arrears of land revenues to the extent of Rs. 260/45 P. The appellant had been asked by the Tehsildar to collect the same. Notice demanding the arrears had already been issued to P.W. 10. 4. Coming to the occurrence proper his case is that on May 4, 1961, when he was sitting in Dr. Kaul's dispensary, the appellant came to him and paid Rs. 100/- towards the arrears of land revenue saying that he would take the receipt for it later. Thereafter P.W. 12 came there and asked whether he had received Rs. 100/- from P.W. 10 towards the arrears of his land revenue and produced the currency note in question. Kaul's dispensary, the appellant came to him and paid Rs. 100/- towards the arrears of land revenue saying that he would take the receipt for it later. Thereafter P.W. 12 came there and asked whether he had received Rs. 100/- from P.W. 10 towards the arrears of his land revenue and produced the currency note in question. The appellant asserts that the whole thing has been manoeuvred by P.W. 10 with a view to wreck vengeance against him for refusing to alter the revenue records in support of his case. 5. As mentioned earlier the trial court as well as the High Court has accepted the prosecution evidence and rejected the defence version. Ordinarily this Court does not reappraise the evidence on record. But this is a matter of discretion. Undoubtedly this Court has power under Article 136 to review the entire evidence. In this case we are convinced that we must depart from the normal rule as we are convinced that both the trial court as well as the High Court has accepted the prosecution case at its face value. They have neither analysed the evidence on record nor sifted the same nor have they judged the same on the basis of probabilities. We are of the opinion that the judgments of the courts below have resulted in grave injustice to the appellant. 6. The two principal aspects of the prosecution case are, the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant and the payment of the bribe by P.W. 10. On both these aspects the prosecution case rests primarily on the testimony of P.W. 10. Therefore we have first to see whether it can be accepted without corroboration and if it cannot be accepted without corroboration, whether the same is corroborated. 7. It is clear from the admissions made by P.W. 10 that there were disputes between him and his tenants and that he was anxious to evict them. Admittedly there was litigations between P.W. 10 and his tenants. The appellant's case that P.W. 10 wanted him to alter the Khasra teeps finds some support from the evidence of P.W. 1, Ramjilal Agarwal. Therefore the case of the appellant that P.W. 10 bore grudge against him is entitled to weight. It is clear from the prosecution evidence that P.W. 10 was out to trap the appellant somehow. The appellant's case that P.W. 10 wanted him to alter the Khasra teeps finds some support from the evidence of P.W. 1, Ramjilal Agarwal. Therefore the case of the appellant that P.W. 10 bore grudge against him is entitled to weight. It is clear from the prosecution evidence that P.W. 10 was out to trap the appellant somehow. When P.W. 10 and others did not find the appellant in his house they went in search of him in Alwar town. When they saw him in the dispensary of Dr. Kaul, P.W. 10 went into the dispensary of Dr. Kaul, and took the appellant to an inner room and there passed on the hundred rupees currency note. It was P.W. 10 who tried to keep the payment secret. He would not even allow the witnesses who accompanied him to observe the payment. From all these circumstances, it is clear that even if the evidence of P.W. 10 is held to be true there can be no doubt that he was out to induce the appellant to take bribe. On the admitted facts of the case we have no hesitation in holding that P.W. 10 was an accomplice. Hence the rule laid down by this Court in Dalpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1969 ACC 111 : AIR (1969) SC 17 is inapplicable to the facts of the case. 8. Further P.W. 10's evidence in material respects is improbabilised by numerous circumstances. He admitted that even prior to the date of the occurrence he had been given by the appellant the copies of Khasra teeps of Samvats 2016 and 2017. Therefore there was no occasion for him to ask for the copies of those very documents over again. He has given no reason for asking for those very copies over again. Now coming to Khasra teeps of Samvats 2010 and 2015, it is not the case of P.W. 10 that he made any written application for the same. It is conclusively proved by the evidence of P.W. 3, Radhakishan, Inspector Land Records and P.W. 7, Gopalbehari, the Tehsildar that those teeps, according to rules, should have been in the Tehsil office and their copies could only be given by the Tehsil and that an application. Therefore there was no occasion for P.W. 10 for asking the appellant to give the copies of those records. Therefore there was no occasion for P.W. 10 for asking the appellant to give the copies of those records. P.W. 10 does not give the copies of those records. It is not his case that the records in question remained with the appellant contrary to rules. 9. As to the asking of the copies of Khasra teeps is concerned we have only the testimony of P.W. 10. That testimony is not corroborated by any other evidence or circumstance. The circumstances mentioned above improbabilise the version of P.W. 10. This aspect of the case was not noticed both by the trial court as well as by the High Court. 10. Now coming to the demand of bribe said to have been made by the appellant, here again we have only the evidence of P.W. 10. That evidence as we shall presently see is not corroborated in any satisfactory manner. It may be noted that P.W. 6 and P.W. 11 were sent by P.W. 12 with P.W. 10 to witness the payment of bribe yet P.W. 10 takes the appellant to the inner room for the payment and thereby affords no opportunity to P.W. 6 and 11 either to over hear the conversation between him and the appellant or to witness the payment. This behaviour of P.W. 10 is rather strange. 11. So far as the payment of Rs, 100/- is concerned that fact is not denied by the appellant. According to him as seen I I earlier that money was paid towards the arrears of land revenue. P.W. 10 pretended ignorance about his arrears of land revenue but that fact is conclusively proved and the same was not disputed before us nor before the courts below. From Exhs. D-7 and D-8, it is seen that demand notices had been issued to P.W. 10 in respect of those arrears. 12. P.Ws. 11 and 12 want the Court to believe that the appellant did not produce the currency note in question immediately when P.W. 12 questioned him. According to them P.W. 12 had to seize the currency note in question from the pocket of the appellant. This evidence is completely falsified by the evidence of P.W. 6. 12. P.Ws. 11 and 12 want the Court to believe that the appellant did not produce the currency note in question immediately when P.W. 12 questioned him. According to them P.W. 12 had to seize the currency note in question from the pocket of the appellant. This evidence is completely falsified by the evidence of P.W. 6. He admits that immediately after P.W. 12 came to the scene and questioned the appellant about the receipt of the currency note, the appellant took out the note and produced the same before P.W. 12 and told him at that very moment that P.W. 10 had given the said currency note towards his land revenue arrears. From the evidence of P.W. 6 it is clear that the plea put forward by the appellant is not an after thought. It is difficult to believe that the appellant could have concocted his defence within such a short time. The trial court as well as the High Court has placed undue reliance on the evidence of P.W. 12, ignoring that of P.W. 6. Now coming to the so-called corroborating evidence, said to have been afforded by Exh. P. 12, a memo issued by a dry cleaning shop in Alwar, it is said that on that piece of paper the following words `Samvat 2010 and 2017' were noted. The appellant, admits that Exh. P. 12 was seized from him but he denies that the words `Samvat 2010-2017' were there at the time of the seizure. Even if we assume that the words in question were there at that time we do not think that Exh. P. 12 can be held to afford sufficient corroboration to the testimony of P.W. 10. It is an inconclusive circumstance. That apart, as regards the circumstances under which the words `Samvat 2010-2017' were said to have been written, there are conflicting versions. P.W. 6, who was put forward by P.W. 10 as having been present at the time the appellant wrote those words is conspicuously silent about it. P.W. 10's evidence shows that neither P.W. 11 nor P.W. 12 could have been present when the appellant is said to have written those words but P.Ws. 11 and 12 claim to have seen the appellant writing those words. P.W. 10's evidence shows that neither P.W. 11 nor P.W. 12 could have been present when the appellant is said to have written those words but P.Ws. 11 and 12 claim to have seen the appellant writing those words. From the evidence of P.W. 11, it is seen that P.W. 12 could not have been present when those words were written but P.W. 12 claims to have seen the appellant writing those words. There are other material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses on various aspects of the case. Under these circumstances it is difficult to believe the prosecution witnesses on this point. 13. After carefully assessing the evidence on record we have come to the conclusion that much of the prosecution evidence, particularly that of P.W. 10 is unreliable and untrustworthy. In our opinion the defence version is a more probable version. 14. For the reasons mentioned above we allow this appeal and acquit the appellant. He is on bail. His bail bonds do stand cancelled.