JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-appellant, who is a practising lawyer at Ajmer, has been convicted by the learned Special Judge, A. C. D. Cases, Jaipur u/s 152 and 420, IPC. Under each of the count, he has been sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment, under both the counts, he has been ordered to suffer four weeks simple imprisonment for each default. The substantive sentences under both the counts have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. In the year 1970, the accused-appellant Shamsher Singh had not been enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Rajasthan and was awaiting his enrolment as an Advocate. The accused had studied law in the Government College. Ajmer when Amrit kumar (P. W. 1), an Advocate of Ajmer, was also a part time lecturer. The accused had started attending the courts even prior to his enrolment as an Advocate and was in a way undergoing a period of training under Amritkumar (PW 1). A case u/s 323 and 336, IPC was pending against one Ajitsingh (PW 2) in the Court of Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Ajmer City (East), in the year 1970, whose presiding officer was Shri Gurcharan Singh Hora, a Sikh gentleman. Shri Amrit Kumar (PW 1) was representing the accused Ajitsingh (PW 2) in that case and final arguments were heard on 12.8.70 and that case (No. 238/58) was adjourned for pronouncement of judgment for 22.8. 70, but somehow the judgment could not be pronounced, and the case was again adjourned for judgment to 25.8.70. It is alleged that Ajitsingh (PW. 2). who was a permanent servant in the Western Railway at Ajmer was much concerned about the result of his case, and he apprehended that in case he was convicted his services may be terminated. He approached one Sethi Ticket Collector to make a recommendation to Shri Hora, the magistrate and then on 17.8.70 the said Ajit singh (PW 2) approached the accused-appellant to recommend his case to the magistrate, and the accused appellant gave out that he knew the magistrate very well and both were on visiting terms. He approached one Sethi Ticket Collector to make a recommendation to Shri Hora, the magistrate and then on 17.8.70 the said Ajit singh (PW 2) approached the accused-appellant to recommend his case to the magistrate, and the accused appellant gave out that he knew the magistrate very well and both were on visiting terms. The accused directed Ajit singh (PW 2) to come to him the next day and when Ajit singh met the accused, the next day, the accused gave out that the magistrate will not accept money through him, but would only accept through the police. The accused directed Ajit singh (PW 2) to come to his house and on 19.8.70 he went to the house of the accused in the evening, and the accused first demands Rs. 1500/-, but ultimately the bribe money of Rs. 500/- was settled. The accused directed Ajit Singh to hand over the money at his house in the afternoon of 20.8.70 to his wife and further said that that money will reach him in the Court. Ajitsingh was short of money, and, therefore, he arranged a sum of Rs. 350/- from Fattandas (PW 3). who was known to him and was also working in Western Railway at Ajmer. Fattandas paid Rs. 350/- through a Cheque on 20.8.70, and as per the case of the prosecution, the amount of Rs. 500/- was delivered by Ajit singh (PW 2) in the presence of Fattandas (PW 3), and one Chetan Sarup (not examined) on 20.8.70 in the afternoon at the house of the accused, to his brother at the instance of the wife of the accused. 3. Ajit singh was asked by the wife of the accused to come in the evening, and when Ajit singh went to the house of the accused, the accused is alleged to have given out that Rs. 500/- will not do, and Ajit singh should pay Rs. 300/- more, but Ajitsingh showed his inability on the ground that the money was not with him and also gave out to the accused, that he should pay the amount of Rs. 300/- from his pocket to the magistrate and he (Ajit singh) will repay the amount to the accused on 1.9.70. But, the accused gave out that Ajit singh should execute a pronote for Rs. 300/- in favour of his brother Jagjit singh. Ajit singh executed a pronote for Rs. 300/- from his pocket to the magistrate and he (Ajit singh) will repay the amount to the accused on 1.9.70. But, the accused gave out that Ajit singh should execute a pronote for Rs. 300/- in favour of his brother Jagjit singh. Ajit singh executed a pronote for Rs. 300/-as directed by the accused in the name of Jagjit singh, who was not present at that time. The accused gave out that Ajit singh will be acquitted on 25.8.70. But, to the surprise of Ajit singh (PW2), when the judgment was pronounced by the learned magistrate Shri Hora on 25.8.70 Ajitsingh was not acquitted, but was convicted u/s 323. IPC. and was sentenced to pay a line of Rs. 500/-, Sometime was taken for getting the sentence of fine suspended, as Ajitsingh wanted to prefer an appeal against his conviction and sentence. When Ajit singh came out of the court room, he told Mr. Amrit Kumar (PW.1). his Advocate, "does the magistrate convict persons even after taking money". But, Amritkumar (PW. 1) asked Ajit singh as to what he was saying and he directed Ajit singh to come to his hours in the evening. It was a talk in the Court compound that money has been taken in the name of the Magistrate. The accused is alleged to have told Ajit singh that he should come in the evening and collect his money. But. in the evening at his house, the accused gave only Rs. 500/- to Ajit singh and asked him that the pronote of Rs. 300/- executed by him in favour of his brother should also be returned to him. Ajit singh went to Amrit kumar and narrated the entire incident to him. On 26-10-70 the accused called Ajit singh a this house and gave this message to Ajit singh outside Loco Workshop, Western Railway Ajmer at 4. 15. p. m. in the presence of Ramnarain master and one Baijnath. But, when Ajit singh went to the house of the accused, in the evening, and demanded the accused to return his pronote, the accused is alleged to have given out that he will return the pronote only on Ajit singh's giving in writing as he wished. He, therefore, at the dictation of the accused wrote Ex, D. 1 and Ex. D. 2. He, therefore, at the dictation of the accused wrote Ex, D. 1 and Ex. D. 2. first in urdu and then in English, mentioning therein that no money was taken by the accused from Ajitsingh in connection with his case. Because Ajitsingh wanted to take his pronote back, which the accused was not going to return unless Ajitsingh acted as her his wishes, Ajitsingh writs Ex. D. 1 and Ex. D. 2, though their contents were not correct. But, even then the pronote was not returned, and Ajitsingh was taken by the accused to Amritkumar (PWl), after the execution of Ex D 1 and Ex. D2., and told Amritkumar that he may ask Ajitsing whether he (accused) had taken any money from him. But, Amritkumar (PWI) is alleged to have said that he knew that the pronote executed by Ajitsingh was with the accused, otherwise he would have seen that Ajitsingh would have disclosed the true facts. The pronote was, however, not returned and Ajitsingh approached Mr. Hora magistrate in the morning of 27-8-70, but Shri Hora directed Ajitsingh to come to the Court. Ajitsingh went to the Court on the same day and gave a report in writing (Ex. P. 2) in urdu. His statement was also recorded by Shri Hora, which too has been marked as Ex. P. 3. 4. Shri Gurcharan Singh (Hora) Magistrate forward the complaint (Ex.P. 3) of Ajit singh to the Dy. S. P., A. C. D., Ajmer with a letter dated 31 8.70. He also on 29.8.70. informed the District & Sessions Judge, Ajmer. In spite of several reminders the investigation could not be finalised, and, the learned Addl. Munsif & Magistrate 1st class, Ajmer (East) Shri Bahadur singh Chandrawat. ordered on 24.1.72 to hold on enquiry u/s 202, Cr. P. C on the complaint, as the statement of the complainant had already been recorded u/s 200, Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused u/s 420 and 162, IPC vide his order dated 15.3.73 and committed the case to the Court of Special Judge, (A.C.D. Cases), Ajmer, vide his order dated 23-6-72. On creation of a Court of Special Jude, A.C.D. cases, Rajasthan at Jaipur the case was transferred to that Court, and the learned Special Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused, as aforesaid. On creation of a Court of Special Jude, A.C.D. cases, Rajasthan at Jaipur the case was transferred to that Court, and the learned Special Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused, as aforesaid. The defence of the accused was of denial and he further came out with a case that it was Amritkumar Advocate (PW 1), who was representing Ajitsingh in the case, who had taken the money in the name of the Magistrate from Ajitsingh, Because Amritkumar promised to the accused that he will get him acquitted in appeal, it is at the instance of Amritkumar that a false case has been concocted against him. The accused also examined witnesses in defence, but the plea of the accused did not find favour with the learned Special Judge. 5. From a perusal of the memo of appeal, it appears that Ajitsingh was also arrayed as a respondent along with the State, but when the appeal was actually filed against the State the name of Ajitsingh was struck out. Any how, as it was a complaint case, thought it proper to hear the Advocate for the complainant also who was present when the case was reached. Therefore along with the learned P.P., the learned Advocate for the complainant was also heard. 6. Arguments were heard on 13-7-79, written arguments were submitted on behalf of the complainant. There is no provision of written arguments in this Court, on behalf of any of the parties, and it was not given out at the time of arguments also that written arguments were to be submitted later on. As already stated, they were submitted after three days of the conclusion of the arguments. However, I have gone through them as well. 7. The main submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that only on the statement of Ajit singh and Fattandas (PW 2&3 respectively), the payment of Rs. 500/- to the accused cannot be relied upon. According to him, neither the demand of illegal gratification, nor its payment to the accused by Ajit singh has been proved, and, according to him, the learned Special Judge herself has disbelieved the evidence so far as the extra judicial confession of the accused is concerned. 500/- to the accused cannot be relied upon. According to him, neither the demand of illegal gratification, nor its payment to the accused by Ajit singh has been proved, and, according to him, the learned Special Judge herself has disbelieved the evidence so far as the extra judicial confession of the accused is concerned. It is further submitted that on the evidence on record no offence u/s 162, IPC or 420, IPC is made out against the accused, and it cannot be said that the accused by cheating Ajit singh fraudulently or dishonestly induced him to deliver a sum of Rs. 500/- and to execute a pronote of Rs. 300/- in favour of his brother. It can also not be said that the accused accepted the amount of Rs. 500/- and got the pronote executed as gratification, the motive or reward, for inducing Shri Hora the Magistrate by corrupt or illegal means to show favour to the accused in exercise of his official functions. 8. In reply, the learned P.P. and the learned Advocate for the complainant have submitted that the circumstances of the case corroborate the testimony of Ajit Singh and Fattan Das, and the demand of money by the accused, payment of the same by Ajitsingh to accused stands, proved. It also stands proved that the accused cheated Ajit singh, and thereby dishonestly induced him to deliver Rs. 500/-. and to execute a pronote in favour of his brother. 9. The first question, which arises for determination in this appeal is as to whether the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- as gratification, or, by corrupt or illegal means to influence Shri Gurcharan Singh Hora, Magistrate, a public servant, to show favour to Ajitsingh accused of a case pending in the Court of Shri Hora. 10. In such cases, the demand of gratification, the payment of the same to the accused are necessarily to be proved by the prosecution. Recovery of the gratification from the accused is also a relevant fact. In the instant case, neither the amount of Rs. 500/- alleged to have been received as gratification by the accused from Ajitsingh (PW2) has been recovered nor can be recovered, and as per the prosecution itself, this amount of Rs. 500/- was returned to Ajitsingh on 25.8.70 in the evening at his house, nor the pro-note of Rs. In the instant case, neither the amount of Rs. 500/- alleged to have been received as gratification by the accused from Ajitsingh (PW2) has been recovered nor can be recovered, and as per the prosecution itself, this amount of Rs. 500/- was returned to Ajitsingh on 25.8.70 in the evening at his house, nor the pro-note of Rs. 300/- alleged to have been executed by Ajitsingh in favour of the brother of the accused has been recovered. The learned Special Judge only on the evidence of Ajitsingh (PW2) and Fattandas (PW3) has held proved that the accused obtained Rs. 500/- from Ajitsingh as gratification nor by corrupt or illegal means to influence Shri Hora Magistrats. Though, while concluding, it has not been held by the learned Special Judge that the appellant also got executed a pronote for Rs. 300/- from Ajitsingh, but she while discussing the evidence appears to have reached that conclusion also, from the evidence of Ajitsingh and from Ex. D.I and Ex.D. 2. These documents shall be referred to at latter stage. The learned Advocate for the appellant has taken me through the evidence of Ajitsingh (PW2) and Fattandas (PW3). and has urged that both of them cannot be relied upon and they do not prove either the demand or taking of gratification by the accused. There is material on record, no doubt, that Fattandas (PW3) is a witness who was subordinate to Ajit singh for many years and both were employed in Loco Workshop, Ajmer in the year 1970. So far as the demand of gratification of Rs. 500/- to be paid to Shri Hora to influence him to show favour to Ajitsingh. The learned Special Judge has placed reliance on the statement of Ajitsingh (PWI), so far as demand of gratification by the appellant is concerned. The first document concerning the of gratification is Ex.P. 3. The complaint of Ajit singh to Shi Hora on 27-8-70. It is not mentioned therein as to when first of all the accused gave out to Ajitsingh that he has relation with Shri Hora and can get him acquitted in a case in which final argument were heard on 12.7.70. In Ex.P. 3, it is mentioned that it was on 19.9.70 when first time the accused gave out to Ajit singh that the Magistrate takes bribe but not through the police. In Ex.P. 3, it is mentioned that it was on 19.9.70 when first time the accused gave out to Ajit singh that the Magistrate takes bribe but not through the police. But, a look at the statement of Ajit singh (PW2) will show that in cross-examination he states that it was on 14-8-70 that the accused told him that he knew the Magistrate and if Ajit singh had any work to be done, he can see that the same is done. According to Ajit singh, there was a lunch break in the Loco Workshop from 11 to 12 A. M. He first stated that he had gone to the Courts on 14-1-70 at 1 or 2 in the noon, but perhaps then realising that he should have been on duty during those hours corrected himself and said that he had been to the Court in between Hand 12 A. M. He is unable to say as to what was the case in which he was required by Ajitsingh to come to the Courts on 14-8-70.1 Therefore, it cannot be relied upon that-on 14-8-70, the appellant gave out to Ajitsingh that he knew the Magistrate and could get his work done, if he so desired. According to Ajitsingh, he went to the house of the accused on 17-8-70 at about 5 P.M. and the accused gave out to contact him next day. He went to the accused on 18-8-70, and the accused gave out that the Magistrate had told him that he was recommending the case of the same accused who had kept his hand on the dias in the Court and was scolded by him, and as this incident had taken place in the court, he believed that the accused the Magistrate had given out that there was no life in the arguments and Ajitsingh will be convicted. He, therefore, told the accused to do something, and the accused gave out that he will look into the matter on 19-8-70. Ajitsingh does not state that the accused had asked him to contact him in the court on 19th in the afternoon, but even then Ajitsingh went to the Court on 19th in the afternoon and it is alleged that the accused met him in the verandah and gave out that the Magistrate will not accept bribe through him but through police officer. The accused asked Ajitsingh to contact him at his house in the evening and there the bargain was struck at Rs. 500/- It is really surprising that when the accused gave out that the matter can only be settled ft. through police officer for a sum of Rs. 1500/- as bribe money, how could the accused agree for a lesser sum of Rs. 500/ -. The statement of Ajitsingh that the accused first demanded Rs. 1500/-, and then Rs. 1000/- and ultimately a sum of Rs. 500/- as the gratification money to be paid to Shri Hora, magistrate through some police officer is not supported by any evidence and it does not appeal to reason that in such matters starting from 1500/ - the amount was ultimately settled at Rs. 500/- will later on deal with the evidence of alleged payment of Rs. 500/-, but before that will like to take up the case of execution of the pronote of Rs. 300/- Ajitsingh (PW2) states that when he went in the evening of 20.8.70 to accused's house, he gave out that a sum of Rs. 500/ - will not do and Ajitsingh will have to pay Rs. 300/ - more. He had no ready money, and Ajitsingh asked the accused to pay the amount of Rs. 300/ - from his pocket which he will pay on 1st after the receipt of his salary. But the accused gave out that he should execute a pronote in favour of Jagjitsingh. He executed the pronote but Jagjitsingh was not present.I have already said that the pronote has not been brought on record. There is no independent corroboration of statement of Ajitsingh so far as the execution of the pronote is concerned. In Ex. P. 3. it is mentioned that the accused volunteered to add Rs. 300/ - from his pocket, so as to make the sum at Rs. 800/ - , but in his statement Ajitsingh states that it was he who told the accused to pay the amount from his pocket. When the judgment in the case was announced by Shri Hora on 25.8.70, according to Ajitsingh, the accused gave out outside the court room that Ajitsingh should come and collect his amount of Rs. 500/ - . If the pronote would have been executed, then Ajitsingh would have insisted at that very time to return the pronote to him. Ex. When the judgment in the case was announced by Shri Hora on 25.8.70, according to Ajitsingh, the accused gave out outside the court room that Ajitsingh should come and collect his amount of Rs. 500/ - . If the pronote would have been executed, then Ajitsingh would have insisted at that very time to return the pronote to him. Ex. D. 1 and D. 2 are alleged to have been executed on 26.8.70, and according to Ajitsingh he wanted to take the pronote back, but the accused was not willing to return it unless Ex. D. 1 and D 2 were executed, and that is why Ajitsingh is alleged to have written Ex. D. 1 and D. 2. Ajitsingh admits that when after the execution of Ex. D. 1 and D. 2 he went along with the accused to Amritkumar (P W 1), he did not tell him that the pronote has or has not been returned to him. Ajitsingh remained silent at that time. It does not appeal to reason that even after execution of Ex. D. 1 and D. 2, Ajitsingh would have allowed the pronote to remain with the accused. He does not say that the accused refused to return the pronote, and that is why he lodged the complaint Ex. 2 in Urdu (Ex. P. 3 - Hindi translation) on 27th before Shri Hora. Therefore, his statement that he wrote Ex D. 1 and D. 2 out of fear in order to get the pronote back is such which cannot be relied upon. The learned Special Judge has not placed reliance on the statement of Amritkumar Advocate and has observed that the attitude of Amritkumar is strange, as even after coming to know outside the court on 25.8.70 that somebody has taken bribe in the name of the Magistrate, and his client Ajitsingh was involved, he waited for the whole day and came to know about the incident only after 8. P. M., She has also observed that Amritkumar is taking a keen interest in the case and is supporting the complainant. Therefore, the statement of Amritkumar that Ajitsingh gave out to him that the accused had accepted Rs. P. M., She has also observed that Amritkumar is taking a keen interest in the case and is supporting the complainant. Therefore, the statement of Amritkumar that Ajitsingh gave out to him that the accused had accepted Rs. 500/ - and also got executed a pronote in favour of his brother has not rightly been relied upon by the learned Special Judge, who has held the payment proved only on the evidence of Ajitsingh (PW2) and Fattandas (PW3). A look at the statement of Ajitsingh will show that he is unable to say as to which of the witnesses in the list will prove what. A look at the record will further show that some of the witnesses namely, Rajhans and Satyavan are near to Amrit Kumar (PWI). Satyavan is the real nephew of Amritkumar and Rajhans (PW7) is the son of Vishwadeo, who had taken, Kanyadan' at the time of marriage of Amritkumar (PWI). Both these witnesses were produced to prove the alleged extra judicial confession of the accused to Amritkumar. But, the evidence of extra judicial confession has been rightly disbelieved by the learned Special Judge for the reasons given by her under Point No. 2. It can, therefore, be said that there is basis for inference, as observed by the learned Special Judge, that Amritkumar has taken keen interest in the case on behalf of the complainant and further that Rajhans and Satyavan might have been included as witnesses at his instance to prove the extra judicial confession, as admittedly at the time of alleged extra judicial confession Ajitsingh was not present, and he does not say that Amritkumar told him about this evidence. Fattandas (PW 3) has stated that on 19.8.70 at about 8 P.M. Ajitsingh came to him and told him that the accused had demanded Rs. 500/- for being paid to the Magistrate through some police officer. I will later on deal with the statement of Fattandas for the alleged payment of Rs. 500/-, but suffice it to say that the statement of Fattandas cannot be relied upon. The reasons which shall give later on for not placing reliance on the testimony of Fattandas may also be taken as reasons under this head of the alleged demand of gratification. 11. Coming to the evidence of payment of Rs. 500/-, but suffice it to say that the statement of Fattandas cannot be relied upon. The reasons which shall give later on for not placing reliance on the testimony of Fattandas may also be taken as reasons under this head of the alleged demand of gratification. 11. Coming to the evidence of payment of Rs. 500/-, it may be said that the evidence in this connection consists of the statements of Ajitsingh and Fattandas, on whose evidence the learned Special Judge has held the payment as proved. But she has not examined the evidence minutely. It is not the case of the prosecution that the amount of Rs. 500/- was paid to the accused, but rather it was paid at the house of the accused on 20-8-70 to Rajendra Singh brother of the accused at instance of a lady, who was the wife of the accused. Ajitsingh (PW2) states that on 19-8-70 the accused had told him at his house in the evening that Rs. 500/- should be paid at his house at about 11 or 12 noon, and that amount will reach him in the court . He does not state that the accused then gave out that the amount should be paid to his wife or brother. Even as per the case of Ajitsingh when these talks took place, none was present. Ajitsingh further states that he reached the house of the accused on 20th August at about 11-20 A.M. accompanied by Fattandas and Chetan Sarup. He further states that at the house of the accused, his wife gave out that the amount should be paid to his Devar (husband's younger brother) and be got counted The amount will reach the accused. He, therefore, counted the notes of Rs. 500/- to Rajendra Singh, brother of the accused, and the wife of the accused and Rajendra Singh gave out that Ajitsingh should come in the evening. If the statement of Fattandas (PW 3) is looked into, he states that when at the house of the accused, Ajitsingh called a lady came and asked him to wait and then called a boy, who was aged about 18-20 years. Ajitsingh paid Rs. 500/- to that boy, and that boy gave out that Ajitsingh should meet his brother in the evening. Ajitsingh paid Rs. 500/- to that boy, and that boy gave out that Ajitsingh should meet his brother in the evening. Fattandas does not state that the lady who came out was the wife of the accused or she asked to count the notes to her Devar. He also does not say that that lady gave out that the amount will reach the accused. In Ex. P. 3, it is not mentioned that the amount of Rs. 500/- was paid in presence of Fattandas or Chetansarup. Moreover, till 25-8-70, Ajitsingh was having full confidence in the accused. Therefore it cannot be said that Ajitsingh would have taken Fattandas and Chetan Sarup to witness the paynent of Rs. 500/-. Even Ajitsingh does not say that in the evening of 20th the accused gave out that he had received the sum of Rs. 500/- from his brother or wife, and all that is stated by Ajitsingh is that the accused gave out that Rs. 500/- will not do, and he had to pay Rs. 300/- more, which Ajitsingh was not having, and, therefore, executed a pronote in favour of another brother of the accused named Jagjit Singh. 12. Fattandas (PW 3), as already observed above, was working under Ajitsingh at the relevant time. He states that on 19.8.70, Ajitsingh came to him and Master Chetan Sarup was present at his house. Ajitsingh asked him to pay Rs. 350/-, as according to Ajitsingh, he had to pay Rs. 500/- to the accused for his acquittal in a criminal case through police. He asked him to come next morning at about 11 A. M. along with Chetan Sarup and promised to draw a cheque for Rs. 350/- in favour of Chetansarup. The amount was required on 20.8.70, and if a cheque was to be given, it could have been given on that very day, i. e., on 19.8.70. Chetan Sarup was present and the cheque could have been drawn in his favour- But, instead, both Ajit Singh and Chetansarup were asked by Fattandas to come next morning at 11 A. M., when it was a working day, and there was only a break of an hour from 11 to 12 noon. When the a amount was required by Ajitsingh, a cheque could have been drawn on 19th August itself. When the a amount was required by Ajitsingh, a cheque could have been drawn on 19th August itself. According to Fattandas, he had asked Ajitsingh to come along with Chetansarup as he (Fattandas) does not know English and a cheque was to be filled. He further states that Ajitsingh knows only very little of English, and he gave out that he will not be able to fill in the cheque. The reason assigned by Ajitsingh for drawing a cheque in the name of Chetansarup and not in his name is that there was only an hour of lunch break, and, therefore, he did not take the cheque in his name but took it in the name of Chetansarup, who could do the work early in the Bank. It is not mentioned in Ex. P. 2 and D. 3 A that the amount of Rs. 300/-\was taken from Fattandas though it is mentioned that it was drawn from the Bank. His explanation that in Ex. D. 3A, the name's of Fattandas and Chetan Sarup were not mentioned, because he did not remember, cannot, be relied upon, because the matter was fresh and both of them were working under him. His statement that he remebered the name of Fattandas only 2-4 days after of Ex. D. 3A cannot be relied upon. A cheque could have been drawn on 19.8.70 itself in the name ot Ajitsingh, more so when there was only an hour of lunch break from 11 to 12 noon on 20.8.70. Therefore, merely because Rs. 350/- were drawn by Chetansarup from the account of Fattandas, it cannot be said that the amount was taken for payment to the accused. How could the drawal of cheque, withdrawal from the bank and payment at the house of the accused to his brother at the instance of accused's wife be done within an hour of lunch break from 11 to 12 A. M. has not been explained. It, therefore, appears that the names of Fattandas and Chetan Sarup were introduced later on to support the payment of Rs. 500/- at the house of the accused. Chetan Sarup has not been examined, though he was present at 8 P. M. on 19.8.70 at the house of Fattandas, when Ajitsingh is alleged to have given out that he required Rs. 350/- being short of money, as he had to pay Rs. 500/- at the house of the accused. Chetan Sarup has not been examined, though he was present at 8 P. M. on 19.8.70 at the house of Fattandas, when Ajitsingh is alleged to have given out that he required Rs. 350/- being short of money, as he had to pay Rs. 500/- to the accused for being paid to the Magistrate through police. When the cheque had been drawn in the name of Chetansarup, what was the necessity of Fattandas to draw the cheque at 11-15 A.M. then to take meals and to go to the Bank to take the money and then to accompany Ajitsingh to the house of the accused, as he had to attend the office after 12 A. M. Therefore, the statements of Ajitsingh and Fattandas cannot be relied upon to prove the payment of Rs. 500/-, as gratification to the accused for being paid to the Magistrate through the police. 13. The learned Special Judge has held that Ex. D. 1 and D. 2 corroborate the statement of Ajitsingh. A perusal of Ex. D.l and D.2 will show that Ajitsingh gave in writing that he had no talk regarding the criminal case against him with the accused. He had never contacted the accused for giving and taking money. It can also be said that the name of the accused also came in those talks, and, therefore, if the accused who was awaiting his enrolment as an advocate and was still to enter the profession got written Ex. D.l and D.2 it cannot lead to the only inference that he got written the same because he had accepted the money in the name of the Magistrate. Therefore, the case of Ajitsingh that he wrote Ex. D.l and D.2 because he wanted to take his pronote back cannot be relied upon, more so when he did not care to take the pronote back thereafter. 14. I am, therefore, unable to place reliance on the statement of Ajitsingh and Fattandas as the payment of Rs. 500/- at the house of the accused to his brother at the instance of his wife for being paid to Shri Hora, the Magistrate through police is concerned. 14. I am, therefore, unable to place reliance on the statement of Ajitsingh and Fattandas as the payment of Rs. 500/- at the house of the accused to his brother at the instance of his wife for being paid to Shri Hora, the Magistrate through police is concerned. / am also unable to hold only on the statement of Ajitsingh (PW2) that the accused made any demand of gratification by corrupt or illegal means to influence Shri Hora, a public servant, to show favour to Ajitsingh accused in a criminal case in court. It can also not be said on the material on record in this case that the accused cheated Ajitsingh and thereby dishonestly induced him to deliver a sum of Rs. 500/-or to execute a pronote in favour of his brother Jagjitsingh. 15. In the result, the appeal is accepted, the judgment of the learned Special Judge convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant u/s 162 and 420, IPC is set aside. The accused is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He is on bail and need not surrender to his bail bonds, which shall stand discharged. 16. Before parting with this case, I will like to observe that there appears to be absolutely no basis for the accused to have come out with a plea that Amritkumar had actually accepted the gratification and the name of the accused has been falsely implicated. This plea of the accused is not borne out from the record and does not appear to be bonafide. In profession, one is able to make a mark after hard labour and in life nothing is more cherished than the reputation, more so of an Advocate, and if that is at stake, the Advocate will make all efforts to get his reputation vindicated. In these circumstances, though Amrit Kumar has not been relied upon by the learned Special Judge, and too have concurred, but will not blame Amrit Kumar to appear as a witness and to take some interest in the complainant, as observed by the learned Special Judge, A.C.D. Cases, Rajasthan, Jaipur. *******