JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the acquittalc Ved Prakash, respondent, under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(l)(d) of the Prever. tion of Corruption Act by the Special Judge, Sri Ganganagar. 2. The prosecution case against Ved Prakash respondent was as follows: Harchandram and Inderjeet jointly entered into a contract with Panchayat Samiti, Raisinghnagar for construction of Pakka Khala of 56 R. S. Raisinghnagar branch at Gangwala in the year 1966 and deposited a sum of Rs. 7,218-by way of security for the said contract. This amount was to be withdrawn, after performance of the contract, by Harchandram as agreed by Inderjeet. Accordingly, Harchandram presented an application Ex. P. 1 before the B. D. O. 7-7-67 and prayed for refund of the security amount to him. The B. D. O. call for report of Ved Prakash respondent on 11-7-67, who was working on the p of Overseer at that time. It is in this connection that Ved Prakash was alleged have solicited a sum of Rs. 1,000/-from Harchand for making a report in the latter's favour for refund of the security amount to him. At first Herchand agreed to give the bribe but later on, he changed his mind and determined not offer illegal gratification to the respondent for making a favourable report on his application for refund of security amount. Hence, Harchandram approached Dy. S P. Anti-Corruption Department, Sri Ganganagar and gave him an application, Ex. P. 2 on 5-8-67 along with ten currency notes of Rs. 100/- each for laying a trap against the respondent. The Dy. S. P. Anti Corruption Department, accepted the currency notes in the presence of two Panchas, noted down their numbers in Fard Ex P. 3 and put his initials to them each and returned them to Harchandram complainant with a direction to hand them over to the respondent on letter's demand. The Dy. S. P. then went to Raisinghnagar in a jeep-car for layiq down the trap. In the evening, he received an information from the complaint that he had a talk with Ved Prakash respondent, who agreed to accept the money alter a short while at the shop of the former, Thereupon, the Dy. The Dy. S. P. then went to Raisinghnagar in a jeep-car for layiq down the trap. In the evening, he received an information from the complaint that he had a talk with Ved Prakash respondent, who agreed to accept the money alter a short while at the shop of the former, Thereupon, the Dy. S. P. took with him Amarsingh and Ajayabsingh, Motbirs, from the bus stand and went to the complainant's shop and took positions and directed Sarwansingh witness, who was with the complainant to give a green signal to the Raid Party as soon as the bribe was received by the respondent. After sometime at 7.30 P. M. the respondent arrived there and went into the shop of the complainant. Inside the shop, there was Harchandram and Sarwansingh witness, The respondent asked for tea in the shop. Thereupon, the complainant sent Sarwansingh for bringing tea for the respondent. Sarwansingh brought tea and the respondent took it. Thereafter. Harchandram took out ten currency notes of Rs. 100/- each from his pocket and handed them over to the respondent, who accepted the money and kept it in the pocket of his bush-shirt. The respondent then asked the complainant to come to him on the next day and further promised to make a favourable report on his application for withdrawal of the security amount. Then Sarwan Singh came out of the shop and gave a pre-arranged signal to the Raid Party Upon receipt of the signal, the Dy S P. and the two Panchas rushed down stairs and went into the shop. The Dy. S. P. disclosed his identity to the respondent and asked him to deliver money which he had received from the complainant. The respondent took out 10 currency notes of Rs. 100/- each from the pocket of his bush-shirt and handed them over to the Dy. S. P. who when inquired from the respondent from where he had got Rs. 1,000/-. The respondent replied that the money was received by the way by him. Then numbers of the currency notes recovered from the respondent were compared with the numbers recorded in the Panchayatnama and, on comparison being done, it was found that the two sets of numbers tallied. The Dy. S. P. took the currency notes into his possession vide memo of recovery Ex. P. 4 and prepared the site plan and arrested the respondent. The Dy. S. P. took the currency notes into his possession vide memo of recovery Ex. P. 4 and prepared the site plan and arrested the respondent. Then he recorded the First Information Report and after collecting other necessary evidence in the case, he eventually filed a charge-sheet against the respondent in the Court of Special Judge at Sri Ganganagar, after obtaining requisite sanction for his prosecution under Section 161 IPC and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act from the Chief Engineer. (Irrigation), Rajasthan. 3. The Special Judge tried the respondent and found him not guilty of the aforesaid offence. Hence aggrieved by his judgment of acquittal, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal as stated above. 4. We have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. N. S. Acharya, Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. B. Advani, learned counsel for Ved Prakash respondent, 5. Mr. N. S. Acharya, has challenged the correctness of the acquittal of the respondent on facts as well as on the strength of certain legal objections. His contention is that the prosecution succeeded in proving that the respondent accepted a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from Harchandram as illegal gratification for making a favourable report in the letter's favour on his application for withdrawal of the security amount, which lay deposited with the Panchayat Samiti but the Special Judge failed to raise a presumption as to the guilt of the respondent under section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Inspite of the fact that the respondent could not prove that the money was innocently received by him and not as a reward for showing favour to the complainant in the matter of his application for withdrawal of the security amount. It was further urged that the Special Judge went wrong in placing reliance on the version of the defence, which was culpably false and an after thought. 6. It was further urged that the Special Judge went wrong in placing reliance on the version of the defence, which was culpably false and an after thought. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, urged that the Special Judge has taken a reasonable view of the evidence adduced by both the sides and this Court should not likely to disturb the finding of fact arrived by him after close and careful scrutiny of the entire materials on the record because in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court is bound to give due weight to the opinion of the trial Judge as to the credibility or incredibility of the witnesses, whose evidence have been brought on the record either by the prosecution or by the accused It was further argued that no presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 could legitimately be drawn in this case because the prosecution utterly failed to discharge its burden that the money was received by the respondent as gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of the official act as a motive or reward for showing favour to Harchandram complainant in exercise of his official functions. According to the submission of the learned Counsel that Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act places an initial burden on the prosecution to establish that the money received was a gratification other than legal remuneration and unless this is proved, the burden is not shifted on the accused to establish that it was not as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 161 IPC that the gratification was obtained. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contention. 8. At the outset, we may observe that the presumption under Section 4 (I) of the Prevention of Corruption Act can be raised only when there is proof on the record from the side of the prosecution that the accused accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain any gratification other than legal remuneration. If there is no such evidence adduced by the prosecution or if the evidence adduced by it is not reliable than no presumption as envisaged by Section 4(1) of the aforesaid Act could legitimately be drawn. Hence we proceed to find out whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the money received by the respondent was illegal gratification. If there is no such evidence adduced by the prosecution or if the evidence adduced by it is not reliable than no presumption as envisaged by Section 4(1) of the aforesaid Act could legitimately be drawn. Hence we proceed to find out whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the money received by the respondent was illegal gratification. To discharge its this burden, the prosecution has examined Harchandram (PW1) and Sarwansingh (PW 3). Curiously enough, Sarwan Singh (PW3) did no support the prosecution case and stated in clear and definite terms that the respondent demanded a sum of Rs. 1.000/- from Harchandram and his brother Iniarteram, which was to be given to Inderjeet Sarwansingh did not say in his deposition that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was accepted by Vei Prakash respondent as gratification other then legal remuneration for making a favourable report on the application of Harchandram for withdrawal of the security amount. Sarwansingh was, therefore, declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Special Public Prosecutor in the triad Court In his cross examination, he denied the correctness of the contents of Ex. P 3 and could not say for what purpose, the money was received by the respondent Hence from his evidence, it is not proved that the respondent accepted the ten currency notes of Rs. 100/- each as illegal gratification for showing any favour to Harchandram complainant in exercise of his official functions. 9. Harchandram complainant no doubt stated in his deposition at the trial that the respondent solicited a sum of Rs. 1.000/- from him for making a report in his favour on his application for withdrawal of the security amount, which he presented before the B. D. O. and which was forwarded to the respondent for making a report. Harchandram further stated that he later on handed over the ten currency notes to the respondent inside his shop, after getting them initialled by the Dy.S P. The evidence of Harchandrram, upon careful scrutiny, does not carry conviction to our mind. Harchandram further stated that he later on handed over the ten currency notes to the respondent inside his shop, after getting them initialled by the Dy.S P. The evidence of Harchandrram, upon careful scrutiny, does not carry conviction to our mind. About the river is not always an accomplice of the persons, who receives it because if gives bribe for the purpose of bee instrumental only in the detection of the crime and the offender without having an intention to do the crime, he cannot be considered to be a guilty associate of the bribe taker and in law his evidence can be acted upon and a conviction can be based thereon without corroboration by other evidence but as a rule of caution and prudence, his testimony must be subjected to close and careful scrutiny before it can be made a basis for a conviction. The reason is that he is undoubtedly a decoy witness, who is highly interested in the success of the trial. Keeping these principles in our view, we carefully scaned and weighed the evidence of Harchandram and found that he is not a truthful witness because he denied execution of agreement Ex.D. 10 by him in favour of Inderjeet, who was his partner in the contract, which they jointly had taken from Panchayat Samiti, Raisinghnagar, for construction of a Pakka Khala at village Ganguwala. When his attention was drawn to his signatures on this document, Harchandram gave an evasive reply by stating that the signatures marked A to B on Ex D. 10 bore close resemblance to his signature but he could not definitely say whether those signatures were or were not his own signatures. This document was proved by the respondent from the testimony of Inderjeet (PW 6) in whose favour it was executed and that of Vikramsingh (PW 7), " who was an attesting witness thereto. Both Inderjeet and Vikramsingh clearly stated a in their depositions that their arose a dispute between Harchand and Inderjeet in respect of the contract which they had jointly taken from the Panchayat Samiti, Raisingh nagar for construction of Pakka Khala at Ganguwala and Vikramsingh and Ved Prakesh respondent were asked by the parties to bring about an amicable settlement between them. Vikramsingh and Ved Prakash, thereon, settled the dispute and decided that a sum of Rs 1,950/- would be given by Harchandram to Inderjeet and that the security amount would be withdrawn by Harchandram alone. The terms of the settlement were reduced to writing in Ex. D. 10 which bore the signatures of Harchandram, Vikramsingh and Ved Prakash There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of Vikramsingh and Inderjeet relating to the execution of this deed of agreement Ex. D. 10 by Harchandram complainant. Harchandram told a lie that this document was not executed by him in favour of Inderjeet. Another lie was told by him when he was asked in cross-examination whether B. D. O. had sent a reply to his notice that the construction work of Khalla was festive and unless the defects were removed the security could not be refunded to him. He further gave an evasive reply when he was asked whether the c instruction work of Khalla was inspected by Ramji Lal Gupta, A. E. N., Irrigation and by Ramavtar Gupta, Block , A.E.N., Raisinghnagar and whether defects were pointed out to him, although there is letter Ex. D.8. on the record which clearly reveals that defects were pointed out to Harchandram and he was informed that security amount would not be refunded to him unless he made necessary repairs in the Khalla. Consequently, we also do not feel inclined to place reliance on the evidence of Harchandram (PW1), who has no regard for truth and whose evidence stands uncorroborated on the point that bribe of Rs. 1,000/- was solicited from him by the respondent and was later on accepted by the latter inside the shop of the former. 10. The respondent, in his written statement produced at the time of his statement under Section 343 Old Cr. P.C. admitted that he had received ten currency notes of Rs. 100/- each from Harchandram and at the time and place alleged by the prosecution but according to his plea, this sum was not obtained by him as a motive of reward for showing any favour to Harchandram in his official capacity. According K to his version, Imartaram, brother of Harchandram, was a member of the Panchayat Samiti, Raisinghnagar and he got a contract for construction of Khalla of 56 RB at village Ganguwala in the name of his brother and one Inderjeet. According K to his version, Imartaram, brother of Harchandram, was a member of the Panchayat Samiti, Raisinghnagar and he got a contract for construction of Khalla of 56 RB at village Ganguwala in the name of his brother and one Inderjeet. Later on some dispute arose between Inderjeet and Harchandram about the contract which was amicably settled on 4.3.67 in the presence of the respondent and Vikramsingh. Extension Officer, Co-operative. As per the terms of the settlement, a sum of Rs. 1,950/- was to be paid to Inderjeet by Harchandram and the security amount of the said contract was to be withdrawn by Harchandram from the Panchayat Samiti, Raisinghnagar. The terms of the contract were reduced to writing in a deed of agreement marked Ex. D. 10, which was executed by Harchandram in favour of Inderjeet. This sum was not paid by Harchandram to Inderjeet and so, Inderjeet wrote a letter Ex. 22 on 31.7.67 to Udai Karan Suman, Proprietor of Suman Sewa Sadan, Raisinghnagar to make an arrangement for payment of as sum of Rs. 1,000/- to him either from him or from Ved Prakash, respondent or from Imarte Ram In this letter, it was also written by Inderjeet that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was due to him from Imarteram. Udai Karan Suman came to the respondent and showed the letter to him. The respondent thereupon, went to Imarteram and Harchandram along with Udai Karan Suman and after showing the letter he asked them to arrange for payment of Rs. 1000/- to Inderjeet. Imartarem and Harchandram asked the respondent to come to them on the next day for getting the amount of Rs. 1,000/-. Hence the respondent went to the shop of Imartarem and Harchandram on 5.8.67 and obtained the ten currency notes of Rs. 100/- each from the latter, which sum he put in the pocket of his bush-shirt. Soon thereafter, the Dy.S.P. Anti Corruption Department, reached there and asked the respondent to hand over the amount which he had received from Harchandram. The respondent immediately took out the money from his pocket and handed it over to the Dy. S. P., Anti Corruption Department. The above version given out by the respondent, in his defence, finds ample corroboration from the contents of letter Ex. D. 22 and of agreement Ex. D. 10 and of Ex. The respondent immediately took out the money from his pocket and handed it over to the Dy. S. P., Anti Corruption Department. The above version given out by the respondent, in his defence, finds ample corroboration from the contents of letter Ex. D. 22 and of agreement Ex. D. 10 and of Ex. D. 23, which documents have been fully proved by the testimonies of Udaikaran Suman, P.W. 5. Inderjeet P.W. 6 and Vikram Singh P.W. 7, From a bare perusal of letter Ex. P 23, it is further evident that Udai Karan Suman gave a reply to the letter of Inderjeet Ex. P, 22 on 4.8.67. in which, he had asked Ved Prakash to send money to him (Inderjeet), after getting the amount from Imarteram. 11. The Trial Judge has believed the defence version supported by the above mentioned documentary evidence and the defence witnesses for good reasons given out by him in his Judgment and with which we fully agree. Upon careful review of the contents of the aforesaid documents and the above mentioned witnesses, we have come to the conclusion that the story put forth by the respondent in his written statement bears a ring of truth in it specially when the prosecution could not lead satisfactory evidence to prove that the amount was received as a bribe by the respondent from Harchandram at the time and place stated in the charge. 12. Consequently, we find no substantial ground for interference with the finding of fact arrived at by the Special Judge after careful and thorough scrutiny of the oral as well as documentary evidence on the record. It cannot be said in this case that the Special Judge has not taken a reasonable view of the evidence on the record. 13. The result of the above discussion is that the appeal filed by the State fails and is, hereby, dismissed. The bail bonds of the respondent are discharged.Appeal dismissed. *******