JUDGMENT - PADHYE, J.:---The State has filed this appeal against the acquittal of respondent accused Bhivsan Sampatrao Pagar, who was tried for the offence punishable under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 161 of the I.P.C. The accused was an Overseer in the office of the Sub-divisional Officer, Palkhed Canal Construction, and at the relevant time was working on the Palkhed Canal Construction work at Pimpalgaon. One Sukha Kapse, who was earlier working as a labourer, had taken a small contract in the aforesaid construction work, which work was being supervised by the accused as an Overseer and who was also in charge of passing the bills of the contractors after taking the necessary measurement from time to time. Running bills were submitted from time to time by the contractors for the part of the work done and these bills were to be passed by the accused in his capacity as an Overseer. According to the prosecution this contractor Sukha Kapse submitted bills amounting to Rs. 11,299/- for the period from 1-7-1971 to 13-6-1972. He was paid a major portion of the amount but his final bill was not passed. According to the prosecution, the accused was not passing the final bill as he wanted some gratification for the said amount. 2. In this context it is alleged that complainant Sukha Kapse approached the accused on 16-12-1972 for getting his final bill passed and at that time, it is alleged , the accused demanded an amount of Rs. 100/- as advance of commission which according to the prosecution was by way of bribe or gratification for getting the work of passing the bill of canal work done. 3. The said Sukha then approached the Anti Corruption Police and stated before the P.S.I. Anti Corruption Department that the accused was demanding a bribe for doing his work. He made a complaint to the P.S.I. Anti-corruption Department and after getting the necessary permission from Magistrate a trap was arranged. It is alleged that this Sukha along with P.W. 2 Suresh Gangurde were sent to the accused on 20-12-1972 to offer the bribe of Rs. 100/- to the accused on demand being made by him. The usual formalities of smearing the ten notes of Rs. It is alleged that this Sukha along with P.W. 2 Suresh Gangurde were sent to the accused on 20-12-1972 to offer the bribe of Rs. 100/- to the accused on demand being made by him. The usual formalities of smearing the ten notes of Rs. 10/- each with Anthracene powder were duly followed and after that the said Sukha along with Suresh Gandurge were sent to the accused. It is then stated that the accused demanded the amount from complainant Sukha and Sukha paid the amount of Rs. 100/- in ten notes of Rs. 10/- each to the accused by way of gratification. On Sukha giving the pre-arranged signal, the Police party which was laying in wait rushed to the house of the accused and the amount of Rs. 100/- was seized from the accused. All the subsequent formalities were also gone through. The accused was thereafter put up for trial. 4. The prosecution examined the complainant Sukha as P.W. I and panch witness, who had been sent with him, viz Suresh Gangurde, P.W. 2, and these are the only material witnesses on behalf of the prosecution in this case. On the basis of the evidence to these two witnesses, the Court below has held that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the accused and acquitted him. It is against this acquittal that the present appeal has been filed by the State. 5. Out of the two witnesses, Suresh Gangurde panch witness is of no assistance to the prosecution. In fact his evidence in not relied upon even here. This witness stated that he had accompanied the complainant Sukha to the house of the accused but he was asked to go down and therefore he went downstairs from the first floor whether the accused was staying and where they had earlier gone. He does not speak therefore about any demand by the accused or payments made to the accused by the complainant sukha. His evidence is therefore useless and does not advance the case of the prosecution any further. We are therefore left with the evidence of complainant Sukha alone. 6. He does not speak therefore about any demand by the accused or payments made to the accused by the complainant sukha. His evidence is therefore useless and does not advance the case of the prosecution any further. We are therefore left with the evidence of complainant Sukha alone. 6. The evidence of complainant Sukha also does not help the prosecution case, as Sukha has completely gone back on his original case, had he does not state that the accused demanded the amount by way of bride or that he paid that amount as bride for doing his work of finalising his bills to the accused. The witness was in the first instance cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution without seeking the permission of the Court or without declaring him hostile. At the subsequent stage permission was sought to contradict the witness with his police statement and at a still later stage the permission was asked to declare the witness hostile, which was granted and thereafter he was cross-examined with the help of his police statement. Taking his evidence into consideration as a whole there is nothing in the evidence to prove that the accused had at any time demanded any amount from complainant Sukha either earlier or at the time of the raid. No doubt he had made the complaint and in the complaint he had stated that the accused was demanding the bride for finalising the bills and in his subsequent statement earlier he had stated that the accused demanded the amount from him by was of bride and accepted the said amount of Rs. 100/- but at the time of his evidence he completely went back and did not support the prosecution cause about the payment of bribe. The witness appears to us to be a simpletion and perhaps under pressure of some influential persons and that might be the reasons why he went back over his previous statement. When his statement was put to him piece by piece he admitted having made such statements, but this in not substantive evidence. In his substantive evidence he has not stated that the accused had either earlier on 16-12-1972 or on 20-12-1972 asked that amount as bride. In fact his substantive evidence shows that he had taken a loan of Rs. When his statement was put to him piece by piece he admitted having made such statements, but this in not substantive evidence. In his substantive evidence he has not stated that the accused had either earlier on 16-12-1972 or on 20-12-1972 asked that amount as bride. In fact his substantive evidence shows that he had taken a loan of Rs. 125/- from the accused for payment to various labourers as their wages and the accused did not demand bribe from him for taking measurements and preparing and sanctioning his bills. It is also the case of the accused that he had advanced a loan Rs. 125/- to the complainant for making payment to his labourers and that Rs. 100/- were paid by Sukha to him towards that advance. In fact he had also given an application to the Superintending Engineer that he felt sorry himself for the earlier complaint made to the Anti-Corruption Branch. In the further cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor he adhered to his earlier story that he had taken a loan of Rs. 125/- from the accused and that the amount had been paid to him by the accused in cash. He again reiterated that he had taken this loan from he accused earlier after the Divali of 1972. He denied the suggestion that he had falsely deposed earlier that the accused did not demand Rs. 100/- from him earlier as bribe or that he was resiling from truth and was suppressing the truth. 7. Whether that may be the fact remains that the witness does not support the prosecution case in any aspect whatever. There is no substantive evidence before the Court on the basis of which, if accepted, the accused could he convicted. Thus there in no evidence on the basis of which conviction could brought home to the accused. 8. The learned trial Judge took a view that on the basis of such evidence, as has been in the case, there was no case for convicting the accused. We do not see any good reason to take a different view that the one taken by the lower Court. 9. Accordingly we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Special Judge, Nasik. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. 10. Accuseds bail bond to be cancelled. Appeal allowed. -----