D. C. GHEEWALA, M. K. SHAH, J. ( 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 :"after introduction of S. 165-A of the I. P. C making the person who offers bribe guilty of abatement 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". ( 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:"the officers functioning in the anticorruption department must seriously endeavour to secure really independent and respectable witnesses so that the evidence in regard to raid inspires confidence in the mind of the Court and the court is not left in any doubt as to whether or not any money was paid to the public servant by way of bribe". The Supreme Court therefore in that case did not rely on police witnesses as also interested witnesses viz. the complainant and his relatives with regard to the evidence in connection with search of the person of the accused and bribe money being found therefrom. ( 4 ) EVEN otherwise the evidence of P. S. I. Trivedi does not inspire confidence. It appears he has been brought on the scene to fill in the lacuna by virtue of the fact that the person who was specifically assigned the job viz. ( 4 ) EVEN otherwise the evidence of P. S. I. Trivedi does not inspire confidence. It appears he has been brought on the scene to fill in the lacuna by virtue of the fact that the person who was specifically assigned the job viz. panch No. 1 who was an independent witness court not perform the job assigned to him. It is difficult to understand why an independent witness of the status of a Deputy Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate got himself reconciled by silting on the bench and being an idle witness to what is alleged to have been seen and heard by P. S. I. Trivedi from one of the windows of the accused chamber through which the said panch who was present from the very beginning could have had access so far as watching is concerned. It should be borne in mind in this connection that the P. S. I. came much later on the scene and as he says after lapse of about five minutes after the complainant and panch No. 1 had gone to the first floor where the office of the accused is situated. In these five minutes the aforesaid window if it was open was accessible to the panch. There is no reason why he should have followed the instructions of P. S. I. Trivedi literally and be complacent by sitting on the bench when he found that it was not possible to stand near the door and to see and hear therefrom what was going on inside the chamber. In any event after the P. S. I. came and when he started looking from the window as the prosecution case is this panch could have been vigilant and could have also gone to the window and either along with the P. S. I. watched what was happening inside or the P. S. I. could have given room to the panch to witness what was happening inside. It seems the primary function which was assigned to the panch and which was his duty to perform viz. to see watch and witness what would transpire between the accused and the complainant in the chamber when both met when the complainant would entered the same with the marked currency notes alleged to have been demanded by the accused was abdicated by the panch and instead the P. S. I. took over this important task. to see watch and witness what would transpire between the accused and the complainant in the chamber when both met when the complainant would entered the same with the marked currency notes alleged to have been demanded by the accused was abdicated by the panch and instead the P. S. I. took over this important task. The P. S. I. cannot be termed an independent witness and he can not thereafter supply the required corroboration to the evidence of the complainant whose evidence even otherwise does not inspire confidence and is not trustworthy in the background of the events which had happened viz. the dispute with regard to water bills the defects which were pointed out from time to time in the work done stoppage of final bill in respect of one work and said final bill not having been prepared for a long time though the work was over long back and difficulties and handicaps the complainant had to face in securing supply of water. ( 5 ) MR. Shah also drew our attention to a passage Raghbirs case (supra) at page 98:"we may take this opportunity of pointing out that it would be desirable if in cases of this kind where a trap is laid for a public servant the marked currency notes which are used for the purpose of trap are treated with phenolphtalein powder so that the handling of such marked currency notes by the public servant can be detected by chemical process and the court does not have to depend on oral evidence which is sometimes of a dubious character for the purposes of deciding the fate of the public servant It is but meet that science oriented detection of crime is made a massive programme of police for in our technological age nothing more primitive can be conceived of than denying the discoveries of the sciences as aids to crime suppression and nothing cruder can retard forensic efficiency than swearing by traditional oral evidence only thereby discouraging liberal se of scientific research to prove guilt". These remarks of the Supreme Court very forcefully apply to the facts of the present case where also oral evidence does not inspire confidence and the currency notes are treated with anthracene powder instead of phenolphthalein powder. ( 6 ) BUT Mr. These remarks of the Supreme Court very forcefully apply to the facts of the present case where also oral evidence does not inspire confidence and the currency notes are treated with anthracene powder instead of phenolphthalein powder. ( 6 ) BUT Mr. Chhaya submits that the Supreme Court though it has advocated the desirability of currency notes being treated with phenolphthalein powder has not deprecated the practice of the use of the anthracene powder because further urges Mr. Chhaya detection of crime by means of use of anthracene powder would also fall within the category of science oriented detection of crime. We cannot read in the observations of the Supreme Court what Mr. Chhaya want us to read. The very fact that specifically reference to phenolphlein power and only to phenalphthalein powder is made suggests that antrancene powder is ruled out. Again the object stated by the Supreme Court in this behalf is handling of such marked currency notes by the public servant can be detected by chemical process (emphasis supplied ). In case of anthrance powder there is no detection by any chemical process and therefore also anthracene powder is ruled out. Lastly it is obvious that in the case in which anthracene powder is used the court has to rely on the oral evidence of witnesses and though they may speak about a particular shine being found when the concerned articles or limbs are viewed under an ultraviolet lamp it still rests entirely on the oral evidence of witnesses in whose presence the experiment is alleged to have been carried out with no opportunity to test their veracity by reference to any scientific method of testing and analysis which is surely available in a case in which phenolphthalein powder is used Here the witnesses may orally say that upon the hands palm or fingers or any other articles which were earlier treated with phenolphthalein powder or which had come in contact with it were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate the solution turned pink. But their veracity can be tested if the said solution is analysed and that is the reason why the courts insist that the solution be preserved and not thrown out; and that also appears to be the reason why the Supreme Court has advisedly observed that the notes be treated with phenolphthalein powder so that the handling thereof by a public servant can be detected by a chemical process. ( 7 ) LASTLY it was submitted by Mr. Shah that in any event even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the notes were found from the person of the accused and that therefore a presumption would arise under sec. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act even then the evidence on record shows that there are intrinsic circumstances in the case which fully probablise the defence of the accused and show that the explanation given by him is reasonable. He relies on Man Singh v. Delhi Administration A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 1118. This was a case in which according the accused who was alleged to have received a bribe of Rs. 5. 00 from the complainant; who was a Khomchawala selling fruit juices and other articles had taken up the defence that the amount was due from the complainant on account of the balance of Rs. 10. 00 which had been paid to the complainant for fruit juice supplied to the appellant which cost Re. 1/- only. The accused case was that he had received Rs. 4. 00 and Rs. 5. 00 remained to be paid by the complainant accused which he had promised to pay at some other time. The following observations of the Supreme court are very significant in this behalf;" It is well settled that in such cases the accused is not required to prove his defence by the such standard of proof of reasonable doubt but it is sufficient if he offers an explanation or defence which is probable and once this is done the presumption under sec. 4 stands rebutted. In the instant case from the evidence referred to above. the defence of the appellant has been clearly proved under sec. 3 of the evidence Act". In the case at hand also the evidence does show that there was a dispute about water charges a bill for Rs. 5 315 was sent and later a part payment of Rs. In the instant case from the evidence referred to above. the defence of the appellant has been clearly proved under sec. 3 of the evidence Act". In the case at hand also the evidence does show that there was a dispute about water charges a bill for Rs. 5 315 was sent and later a part payment of Rs. 3 0 by cheque was made leaving the balance of Rs. 2 315 The water supply which was stopped was agreed to be continued on the express understanding that advance requisitions will be issued by the complainant firm and the complainant firm will pay cash against supply of water on an agreed rate viz. Rs. 35. 00 per tanker and accordingly water was being supplied against cash payments. But though the liability in respect of old bill of Rs. 5 315 had been admitted by the complainant only a part payment had been made and the balance amount of Rs. 2 315 had remained to be paid. It is in this context that we should appreciate the defence case that when complaint about water was made by the complainant before the accused on the date of the incident the accused drew his attention to the arrears that is the said balance of Rs. 2 315 and immediately thereafter the complainant in a dramatic manner took cut a was of currency notes and thrust them into the bushshirt pocket of the accused saying that that was the amount for water. Before the accused could collect his wits the complainant placed the said notes into his pocket with the remarks that that was the amount for water and he left the chamber saying that he would collect the receipt the next day. In our opinion the explanation offered by the defence with regard to the circumstances under which the money came into the bush shirt pocket of the accused and were found from the same when the raiding party entered and he was searched is a probable one and therefore the presumption if any arising under sec. 4 would stand rebutted. The intrinsic circumstances in the case which fully probablise the defence of the accused show that the explanation given by him is a reasonable one. [rest of the judgment is not material for the reports. ]appeal allowed. .