Judgment The appellant is the accused in C.C. No. 38 of 1976 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad. He was convicted under section 161 , Indian Penal Code, and under section 5 (1)(a) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under the first count and rigorous imprisonments for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months under the second count. The substantial sentences of imprisonment are directed to run concurrently. 2. For the convenience sake, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in C.C.No. 38 of 1976. The accused was working as Sub-Inspector, Anti Smuggling Squad in the year 1974. One P. Chalapathi Rao (P.W. 7) was arrested on 29th June, 1974 under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (hereinafter referred, to, as “MISA”) on the allegation that he was smuggling goods. P.W. 7, is the son-in-law of P.W. 1's brother-in-law. Two or three days after P.W. 7's arrest, P.W. 1 went to Bodhan to obtain certified copies of the documents in cases that were pending in the Court against P.W. 7 as he wanted to file a writ petition challenging his detention. P.W. 2 who is the nephew of P.W. 1 and brother-in-law of P.W. 7 also accompanied him. The accused met P. Ws. 1 and 2 at the bus stand of Bodhan and threatened that he would include their names in the MISA list and send them to jail unless they would pay Rs. 3,000 to him. The P.W. 1 told him that they cannot pay so much and that they would pay him Rs. 1,000 at the rate of Rs. 500 each. Then the accused agreed for the same and asked them when they would pay, P.W. 1 told him that he would pay in a week or ten days. P.W.1 after coming home informed the same to the ladies. Then the ladies told P.W. 5 who is the elder brother of P.W. 1 and who is a retired teacher that P.W. 1 was going to be detained by the accused under MISA unless he would pay Rs. 500 to him and they asked P.W. 5, whether he had money. After a week or ten days P.Ws. Then the ladies told P.W. 5 who is the elder brother of P.W. 1 and who is a retired teacher that P.W. 1 was going to be detained by the accused under MISA unless he would pay Rs. 500 to him and they asked P.W. 5, whether he had money. After a week or ten days P.Ws. 1 and 2 came to Hyderabad in connection with P.W. 7's case and hence they could not meet the accused, within the time¡ promised. Then they came back to Bodhan, where P.W. 6, the son-in-law of P.W. 1, was staying. P.W. 5 was: in the house of P.W. 6 at the time when P. Ws. 1 and 2 returned to the house of P. W. 6. Then P.W. 5 asked P.W. 1 whether it was true that the accused demanded him to pay Rs. 500 for not arresting him under MISA. P.W. 1 told him in the affirmative. Then P.W. 5 told him that he brought Rs. 500, so that he can give that amount to the accused and he gave that amount to P.W. 1. Then P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 went together to the house of the accused at Bodhan. P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 remained outside, while P.W. 1 went inside the house of the accused and paid the amount of Rs. 500 to the accused. Then the accused asked P.W. 1 about the balance, P.W. 1 told him that he would pay him in a week. 3. On 3rd December, 1974, P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to Bodhan. Then the accused met them at Ramesh Tailoring shop. The accused asked P.W. 1 as to why he did not bring the balance. P.W. 1 told him that he would pay him on 8th and asked him to come to his (P.W. 1's) house at Adakaspalli which is about 10 to 13 miles from Bodhan. The accused told them that he would come to his village. After attending to their work at Bodhan, P.Ws. 1 and 2 came to Hyderabad and went to ACB office at about 3 or 4 p.m. and met the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB Hyderabad (P.W. 14) and complained to him against the accused. P.W. 14 asked P.W. 1 to give it in writing. P.W. 1 prepared Exhibit P-1 and presented it to P.W. 14. 1 and 2 came to Hyderabad and went to ACB office at about 3 or 4 p.m. and met the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB Hyderabad (P.W. 14) and complained to him against the accused. P.W. 14 asked P.W. 1 to give it in writing. P.W. 1 prepared Exhibit P-1 and presented it to P.W. 14. He also informed P.W. 14, that he asked the accused to come to his house at Adakaspalli on 8th and requested P.W. 14 to come there. P.W. 14 registered Exhibit P-1 as Crime No. 4/ACB-HR/74, dated 6th December, 1974 and obtained permission from the Director, ACB for laying trap. On 8th P.W. 14 started from Hyderabad to proceed to Adakaspalli having secured the presence of P.W. 3 and Yusuf Sheriff. After reaching the house of P.W. 1, P.W. 14 introduced P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. and another mediator. Then he asked P.W. 3 to read out Exhibit P-1. After P.W. 3 read out Exhibit P-1, P.W. 1 confirmed the report. Then P.W. 1 produced five currency notes of hundred rupee denomination which were intended to be given to the accused. One of the Inspectors who came with P.W. 14 treated the currency notes with Phenolphthalein powder and the significance of it was demonstrated to the mediators and P.W. 1. P. W. 14 instructed P.W. 1 to give the notes to the accused on his demand. P.W. 14 also instructed P.W. 1 to give a signal in case the accused received the amount. A panchanama Exhibit P-2 was prepared incorporating all these facts and also the numbers of the currency notes. The panchanama is Exhibit P-2. P.W. 14 laid in wait along with his party in a thatched house situated in the compound of P.W. 1. But the accused did not come to the house of P.W. 1 on that day, P.W. 1's son, Venkatakrishna Rao (P.W. 4) met the accused at Munsif Magistrate's Court, Bodhan. Then the accused told him that he was not coming to his village on that day and asked him to tell his father that he should come and meet him at Bodhan on the next day morning. P.W. 4 went to Adakaspalli and conveyed to P.W. 1 as to what the accused told him. P.W. 1 informed P.W. 14, the message communicated to him by the accused. P.W. 4 went to Adakaspalli and conveyed to P.W. 1 as to what the accused told him. P.W. 1 informed P.W. 14, the message communicated to him by the accused. P.W. 14 enquired P.W. 4 about the same and he confirmed it. Then P.W. 14 and his party took P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 along with them and went in a jeep to Ruddalur Farm. There they stayed for the night. On the next morning P.W. 4 verified currency notes and they treated them with some more phenolphthalein powder. They all proceeded to Bodhan in a Jeep. At a distance of about one furlong from Bodhan, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 got down from the Jeep while P.W. 14 and his party proceeded to the Magistrate's Court, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 went to the house of the accused. But the accused was not available. Then they searched for the accused P.W. 4 met the accused at the bus stand and told him that P.W. 1 had come to Bodhan and enquired the accused when P.W. 1 should meet him and then the accused told him that he would wait at Ramesh Tailoring Shop for P.W. 1. P.W. 4 came to P.Ws. 1 and 2 and told them as to what the accused informed him. P.W. 1 told P.W. 14 all this, P. Ws. 1 and 2 proceeded by walk to Ramesh Tailoring Shop, at about 8-30 a.m. P.W. 14 and his party followed them, stayed at some distance. At about 940 a.m., P.Ws. 1 and 2 entered the shop. Within five minutes P.W. 1 came out and gave the pre-arranged signal, by lighting a cigarette. P.W. 14, his party including the mediators rushed into the shop. They found the accused by the side of a wooden almirah in the Tailoring shop. P. W. 14 disclosed his identity and the identities of others. He got sodium carbonate solution prepared and asked the accused to put his fingers in that solution. The solution turned pink. Then P.W. 14 asked the accused to hand over the currency notes given by P.W. 1. The accused took out those currency notes from the hip pocket of his trousers and produced them on the table. He got sodium carbonate solution prepared and asked the accused to put his fingers in that solution. The solution turned pink. Then P.W. 14 asked the accused to hand over the currency notes given by P.W. 1. The accused took out those currency notes from the hip pocket of his trousers and produced them on the table. One of the mediators verified the numbers noted in the panchanama Exhibit P-2; sodium carbonate solution was again put in another glass number and the hip pocket of the accused's trousers was subjected to test. The solution turned pink. Then P.W. 14 seized the notes M. Os. 1 to 5 and the pant M.O. 6 under panchanama Exhibit P-3. P.W. 14 arrested the accused and released on bail. He examined P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4. On 11th December, 1974 he sent the property and the panchanama to the Court and later filed the charge-sheet against the accused. 4. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses in all to prove its case. After the prosecution evidence was closed, the accused was examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. He stated that he did not demand P.Ws. 1 and 2 any illegal gratification at any time nor did he receive such a gratification from them. After getting down from the bus, he was going to his house and on the way he went to Ramesh Tailoring shop and asked the tailors about his cloths. P.W. 1, who was there, thrusted some money in his pocket. Then he questioned him what it was and picked out the currency notes from his pocket and threw them on the table. Just at that time, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (P.W. 14) came and caught hold of him and conducted sodium carbonate test. He further stated that he brought P.Ws. 1 and 2 to the Police Station about 10 or 15 days prior to the trap incident as they were smuggling paddy and made them to sit in the station during the night and let off them on the next morning. They, therefore, bore grudge on that account. P.W. 7 also bore grudge as he reported against him under the MISA. 5. The accused examined two defence witnesses who are D.Ws. 1 and 2. D.W. 1 was working in the Ramesh Tailoring shop. He knew P.Ws. They, therefore, bore grudge on that account. P.W. 7 also bore grudge as he reported against him under the MISA. 5. The accused examined two defence witnesses who are D.Ws. 1 and 2. D.W. 1 was working in the Ramesh Tailoring shop. He knew P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the accused, as they used to get their clothes stitched in his shop. He states that at about 7-30 or 7-45 a.m., on 9th December, 1974, P.W. 1 came and enquired whether his clothes were stitched and/when he told them that buttons were to be stitched he sat in a chair. At about 8 or 8-15 a.m., the accused and his constables got down from the bus and came to his shop and enquired whether his clothes were ready. Then P.W. 1 got up and put some hundred rupee notes, in the hip pocket of the accused. The accused took out the notes, threw them on the tailoring table and questioned P.W. 1 as to why he was putting the money in his pocket. Then P.W. 1 hurriedly went away. In two or three minutes some officers came and one of them caught hold of the hands of the accused. The accused told him as to what had happened and asked him to verify from D.W. 1 and others. P.W. 9 was asked to get water and P.W. 14 mixed some powder in it and the accused was asked to dip his fingers in the solution and then the solution turned pink. The accused did not ask P.W. 1 money in his shop. He also stated that no panchanama was prepared there. D.W. 2 is the proprietor of Ramesh Tailoring Shop. He stated that on 9th December, 1974, P.W. 1 came to his shop at about 7-45 a.m., and asked for his clothes and he sat in a chair, when they told him that buttons were to be stitched. Half an hour later, the accused came and enquired for his clothes. They told him that they were not ready. While the accused was talking to them. P.W. 1 got up and put some hundred rupee notes in the hip pocket of the accused. Then the accused took out them and threw them on the table and questioned P.W. 1 as to why he did so. Then P.W. 1 went away. Immediately some people came and caught hold of the accused. P.W. 1 got up and put some hundred rupee notes in the hip pocket of the accused. Then the accused took out them and threw them on the table and questioned P.W. 1 as to why he did so. Then P.W. 1 went away. Immediately some people came and caught hold of the accused. The accused told them as to what had happened. They got water fetched in a glass tumbler and some powder was mixed in it. The accused was asked to put his fingers in the solution. Then the solution turned pink. He also stated that no panchanama was prepared there. 6. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution evidence and rejected the plea of the accused and the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2. Sri Bali Reddy, the learned Counsel for the appellant, contends that the prosecution case that the accused was a habitual bribe taker and received illegal gratification from P.Ws. 7 and 10, was rejected by the Special Judge himself. With regard to the demand of Rs. 1,000 by the accused from P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the payment of Rs. 500 by P.W. 1 in pursuance of the said demand was not proved as P.W. 6 who is none else than the son-in-law of P.W. 1 did not corroborate the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 5 and P.W. 1's section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, statement contradicts his present version as to who actually paid the amount of Rs. 500 and the said contradiction was brought on record as Exhibit D-1 and as P.W. 2 did not support P.W. 1's version that he (P.W. 2) also accompanied him to the house of the accused for giving the amount of Rs. 500 to the accused. Even with regard to the demand, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is not satisfactory. While P.W. 1 says that the accused demanded both of them ( i.e., P.Ws. 1 and 2), P.W. 2 in his section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, statement stated that he was not present when the accused made the demand and the same was brought on record as Exhibit D-2. Sri Bali Reddy, therefore, contends that when the vital parts of the prosecution case viz., the demand and the earlier payment of Rs. 1 and 2), P.W. 2 in his section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, statement stated that he was not present when the accused made the demand and the same was brought on record as Exhibit D-2. Sri Bali Reddy, therefore, contends that when the vital parts of the prosecution case viz., the demand and the earlier payment of Rs. 500 to the accused, are not proved, the accused cannot be held liable for the offences with which he stood charged and in support of his contentions, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Hari Dev v. State1, in which it was held that if an essential part of the prosecution case on which the other part was dependent cannot be upheld, the conviction of the accused is unsustainable. He also contends that as the explanation of the accused as to the circumstances under which the money which was recovered by. the trap party from him, is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 9, D.Ws. 1 and 2, his explanation should be accepted as reasonable and hence the convictions and sentences passed against the accused are unsustainable. 7. I think that Sri Bali Reddy's contention that the accused demanded P.Ws. 1 and 2 to pay him Rs. 3,000 and ultimately they agreed to pay Rs. 1,000 but they paid Rs. 500 to the accused towards part-payments is not proved is well founded. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 on this aspect is highly discrepant. P.W. 5 says that P.W. 6 the son-in-law of P.W. 1 informed him about the demand made by the accused and hence he procured Rs. 500 and proceeded to P.W. 6 and then P.Ws. 1, 5 and 6 went to the house of the accused and P.W. 1 went into the house of the accused, while P.Ws. 5 and 6 stayed outside the house of the accused and P.W. 1 gave the amount of Rs. 500 to the accused. But P.W. 5 in his statement under section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, stated that the accused asked them whether they brought the money and then P.W. 1 gave the amount to the accused and the accused received it in the presence of P.W. 5 and that contradiction was brought on record as Exhibit P-6. P.W. 1 claims that the amount of Rs. P.W. 1 claims that the amount of Rs. 500 paid to the accused is his own money and it was not given by P.W. 5. But P.W. 5 says that he gave the amount to P.W. 1. P.W. 1 did not state in Exhibit P-1 that his brother came to Bodhan. with money and gave him Rs. 500 and his brother also came along with him to the house of the accused. Though he states in the chief-examination that he paid the amount of Rs. 500 to the accused, while his brother and son-in-law stayed outside the house, in the cross-examination he stated that he, his son-in-law (P.W. 6), and brother (P.W. 5) went to the house of the accused and his son-in-law, P.W. 6, gave that amount to the accused in his presence. But P.W. 6 did not support, at all, the version given by P.W. 1. P.W. 6 who is no other than the son-in-law of P.W. 1 did not support the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 5 either their going together to the house of the accused or paying the amount. On the other hand, P.W. 6 states that he did not go at all with P.W. 1 to the house of the accused at any time and he did not meet the accused at any time. P.W. 2's earlier statement under section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, does not show that the accused demanded Rs. 3,000 from him and P.W. 1 and that they agreed to pay Rs. 1,000 and the relevant contradiction is brought on record as Exhibit D-2. 8. All these discrepancies and contradictions which are of material nature undoubtedly go to show that the prosecution case that the accused demanded P.Ws. 1 and 2 Rs. 3,000 and they agreed to pay Rs. 1,000 and in pursuance of the same, P.W. 1 paid Rs. 500 to the accused is not proved and the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5 cannot, therefore, be accepted. The learned Special Judge is not justified in not considering these material infirmities in the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5. 9. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was habitually demanding and receiving the illegal gratification from several others. Under charge No. 2 it is alleged that in April, 1974 the accused demanded Rs. 3,000 and accepted Rs. 1, 2 and 5. 9. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was habitually demanding and receiving the illegal gratification from several others. Under charge No. 2 it is alleged that in April, 1974 the accused demanded Rs. 3,000 and accepted Rs. 2,000 from Pendyala Chalapathi Rao (P. W. 7) and in May or June, 1974 he demanded Rs. 800 and accepted Rs. 500 from Velampalli Mohan Rao (P.W. 10). To prove these charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12. P.W. 10 states that the accused demanded Rs. 800, but he did not pay him. In the cross-examination he admitted that the accused did not ask him to pay him Rs. 800. In view of this admission, P.W. 10's statement in the chief-examination cannot be given any weight. P.W. 11 says that the accused did not demand him any amount at any time. P.W. 12 says that he knew P.W. 1 and P.W. 11 did not pay any amount to the accused in his presence at any time. P.W. 7's evidence is, of course, corroborated by P.W. 8. P.W. 8 admittedly is a friend of P.W. 7. If really P.W. 7 paid Rs. 2,000 to the accused, he could not have been arrested under MISA and the Vigilance Department could not have filed cases. But he admits that Vigilance Department filed two cases against him. The fact that P.W. 7 was arrested under MISA and two cases were filed against him would clearly show that his statement that he gave Rs. 2,000 is nothing but false. He did not report to higher authorities about the same. The evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8 cannot, therefore, be accepted. The learned Special Judge has rightly not accepted the evidence of P.Ws. 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12. Hence the prosecution case that the accused was habitually demanding and receiving the illegal gratification cannot be accepted. 10. When the prosecution case either with regard to the fact that the accused was habitually demanding and receiving the illegal gratification or with regard to the fact that the accused demanded Rs. 3,000, but P.Ws. 1 and 2 agreed to pay Rs. 1,000 and the accused agreed to accept Rs. 1,000 and P.Ws. 1 and 2 paid Rs. 500 to the accused towards part-payment cannot be accepted, the trap incident only remains. 11. 3,000, but P.Ws. 1 and 2 agreed to pay Rs. 1,000 and the accused agreed to accept Rs. 1,000 and P.Ws. 1 and 2 paid Rs. 500 to the accused towards part-payment cannot be accepted, the trap incident only remains. 11. To sustain conviction against the accused under section 161 , Indian Penal Code and section 5 (1) (a) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is not sufficient for the prosecution to prove the trap incident alone, but the prosecution should prove all the vital parts of the prosecution story on which the trap incident depends. All the facts which are connected with the trap incident are vital parts of the prosecution story. The vital parts which consist of demand, part-payment and the trap incident are dependent upon each other. Hence the prosecution is bound to prove all these vital parts. If the demand and the part-payment said to have been made from out of the total amount demanded by the accused and agreed to be paid by the complainant have been disbelieved, then the trap incident, though proved, does not stand by itself. It cannot, therefore, form the basis of conviction, as it is not the case of the prosecution that the amount which was recovered from the accused was the amount that the accused had asked for from the complainant. There may be some suspicious circumstances against the accused. But they are of no consequence, if once the Court comes to the conclusion that the essential part of the prosecution case which provides the genesis of the case on which the trap incident rests cannot be accepted. 12. This legal position is made clear by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Hari Dev v. State1. In that case the prosecution case was that the accused demanded Rs. 100 from the complainant and the complainant agreed to pay the same and paid Rs. 20 to the accused and promised to pay the balance of Rs. 80 after the permission was granted and the accused received the amount of Rs. 20 from the complainant and agreed to receive the balance amount of Rs. 80 after the permission was granted. This transaction took place on 28th January, 1969. 20 to the accused and promised to pay the balance of Rs. 80 after the permission was granted and the accused received the amount of Rs. 20 from the complainant and agreed to receive the balance amount of Rs. 80 after the permission was granted. This transaction took place on 28th January, 1969. On 24th February, 1969 the accused told the complainant that he would see him in the shop of the complainant next day for the balance amount of Rs. 80. Next day the accused saw the complainant in his shop. But the complainant was first unwilling to pay. On being warned by the accused that it would mean rejection of his application for permission, the complainant asked him to come the following day for the balance. Then the complainant went to the Office of the Special Police Establishment, Kotah House and made a statement before the Inspector, B.K. Shukla and eight currency notes of ten rupee each belonging to the complainant were treated with phenolphthalein powder and handed back to the complainant with a direction to pass these to the accused on his demand. Then the trap incident took place at about 4 p.m., in the presence of the mediators. The prosecution examined eight witnesses, while the accused examined two defence witnesses. The Special Judge did not accept the defence evidence, but accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted the accused. The accused preferred appeal. The High Court did not accept the prosecution case on the first two charges on the ground that it would be unsafe to hold on the bare testimony of the complainant that Rs. 20 has been paid to the accused as alleged, without corroboration. The High Court however, accepted the trap incident which is the other part of the prosecution case that the accused had been caught while accepting Rs. 80 as bribe from the complainant. However, the High Court ultimately affirmed the order of the conviction. Hence an appeal before the Supreme Court. 13. Their Lordships observed that the main difficulty they felt in accepting the prosecution arose out of the fact that the High Court did not believe the part of it, which according to the prosecution, was the genesis of the case. Their Lordships further observed: “Having disbelieved the story that the accused had asked for a bribe of Rs. 100 of which Rs. Their Lordships further observed: “Having disbelieved the story that the accused had asked for a bribe of Rs. 100 of which Rs. 20 was paid in advance, we do not think the High Court could reasonably proceed on what was left of the prosecution case to affirm the order of conviction passed by the trial Court. The prosecution case was one integrated story which the trial Court had accepted. If the High Court did not find it possible to accept a vital part of the story, it is difficult to see how the other part, which did not stand by itself, could be -accepted. It was not the prosecution case that Rs. 70 which was recovered from the appellant was the amount that the appellant had asked for from the complainant. This was a new case made by the High Court. Undoubtedly there are circumstances in this case which are highly suspicious against the accused. But the High Court having disbelieved an essential part of the prosecution case on which the other part was dependent, we do not consider it safe to sustain the conviction of the appellant. Accordingly, we allow, the. appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused”. From the observations made in the judgment in the above cited case, it is clear that their Lordships took the view that although there were circumstances which were highly suspicious against the accused, no conviction can be sustained against him if once the Court disbelieves an essential part of the prosecution on which the other part was dependent, as the prosecution case is one integrated story and each vital part is dependent upon the other. As the demand, part-payment and the trap incident form one integrated story, all these three constitute vital parts. If the demand and part-payment which have preceded the trap incident are not proved, the trap incident by itself does not stand and as such the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of the trap incident alone. It is true that their Lordships did not consider the effect of the statutory presumption provided under section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The reasons are obvious. The prosecution is not entitled to invoke the presumption under section 4 (1) when the prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden of proving that the accused accepted the illegal gratification. It is true that their Lordships did not consider the effect of the statutory presumption provided under section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The reasons are obvious. The prosecution is not entitled to invoke the presumption under section 4 (1) when the prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden of proving that the accused accepted the illegal gratification. It is well-settled that it is only when this initial burden is successfully discharged by the prosecution that the burden of proving the defence shifts upon the accused and a presumption would arise under section 4 (1) of the Act. When the prosecution failed to discharge the initial burden of proving its case, the question of the accused rebutting the presumption under section 4 (1) does not arise. As the prosecution failed to prove its case that the amount recovered from the accused in the trap incident was illegal gratification, their Lordships held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. Hence their Lordships felt that it was not a case where the presumption under section 4 (1) of the Act had arisen, and they did not feel it necessary to advert to this aspect. 14. This decision applies to the case on hand in all fours. As in Hon Dev's case1, in the case on hand also the prosecution failed to prove essential parts of the prosecution case. If those two vital parts of the prosecution case are found disbelieved, then the trap incident alone remains. As held by the Supreme Court in the above cited case, no conviction can be sustained on the basis of the mere trap incident when the vital parts of the prosecution case which formed the genesis for the trap incident cannot be accepted. Hence the prosecution case has to be rejected. When the prosecution failed to discharge the initial burden of proving its case, the Court has to reject the prosecution case even without examining the question whether the explanation offered by the accused is reasonable or probable as it would arise only after the presumption, under section 4 (1) of the Act is invoked against the accused. In the case on hand, the accused not only gave an explanation, but also proved with satisfactory evidence of D. Ws. In the case on hand, the accused not only gave an explanation, but also proved with satisfactory evidence of D. Ws. 1 and 2 which is supported by the evidence of P.W. 9 examined by the prosecution itself and rebutted successfully the presumption raised under section 4 of the Act even if such a presumption is invoked by the prosecution, though in fact such a situation did not arise in this case. 15. As stated above, the prosecution examined P.W. 9. But he did not support the prosecution case. On the other hand, he supported the defence version. The accused examined two defence witnesses, D.Ws. 1 and 2 who are concerned with the Ramesh Tailoring Shop. P. W. 9 as well as D.Ws. 1 and 2 spoke in identical terms supporting the defence case. D.W. 2 is the younger brother of P.W. 9. D.W. 1 was working as tailor in the Ramesh Tailoring Shop. P.W. 9 stated that P.W. 1 came and enquired whether his shirts were stitched and then he told him that they were not ready as the buttons were still required to be stitched and then he sat in the shop. The accused got down from the bus and was going to his house and on the way he came to the tailoring shop of P.W. 9 and enquired P.W. 9 and D.Ws. 1 and 2 whether his clothes were ready. White P.W.9 was talking to the accused, P.W. 1 rushed to the accused and had put some money in the hip pocket of the accused. Then the accused protested questioning the conduct of P.W. 1 and removed the currency notes thrust in the hip pocket of the pant and threw on the table nearby. In the meanwhile P.W. 14 and other members of the trap party came and P.W. 14 conducted the sodium carbonate solution test and seized the currency notes from the table, P.W. 9 was of course, treated as hostile witness and was cross-examined. P.W. 9's evidence corroborates the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2. Thus if the evidence of P.W. 9 and D.Ws. 1 and 2 is taken into consideration, it lends support to the explanation offered by the accused. But the learned Public Prosecutor contends that the evidence of P. Ws. P.W. 9's evidence corroborates the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2. Thus if the evidence of P.W. 9 and D.Ws. 1 and 2 is taken into consideration, it lends support to the explanation offered by the accused. But the learned Public Prosecutor contends that the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 reveals that they conducted sodium carbonate solution test as soon as they reached the Tailoring Shop asking the accused to dip his fingers in the solution and the accused dipped his fingers and then the solution turned pink and thereafter P.W. 14 demanded the accused to produce the currency notes given by P.W. 1 and then the accused took out a bundle of currency notes from his hip pocket of the trousers and produced them on the table and again they conducted sodium corbonate solution test and accused was asked to rinse his fingers in the solution and accordingly the accused rinsed his fingers in the solution and the solution turned pink and then he got prepared panchanama Exhibit P-3. He, therefore, contends that the explanation offered by the accused is false and the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2 cannot be accepted. But the clear admission made by P.W. 1 himself in the cross-examination falsifies the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 14 with regard to all these facts. P.W. 1 admitted that water was taken into a glass tumbler from a Kuja which was there after the accused placed the notes on the table. From this admission, it is clear that the sodium carbonate solution test was conducted only once. From the admission made by P.W. 1, it is again clear that the notes were on the table. If the accused had produced the currency notes from the hip pocket of the trousers on the demand made by P.W. 14, then he could have handed over them to P.W. 14 himself. There was no necessity for him to place them on the table. When P.W. 1 admitted that those currency notes were on the table and the sodium solution test was conducted only once, the explanation offered by the accused that he protested against P.W. 1 thrusting the notes in the hip pocket and threw them on the table as well as the evidence of P.W. 9 and D.Ws. 1 and 2 should be given weight. 1 and 2 should be given weight. If all these circumstances are taken into consideration, the presumption under section 4 was rebutted by the accused satisfactorily. I, therefore, hold that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. The learned Special Judge did not advert to all these aspects though they are of material nature but has erroneously placed implicit reliance upon the version of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 14 and others and his judgment is, therefore, unsustainable. I, therefore, set aside the convictions and sentences passed against the accused. The accused is acquitted of all the charges. His bail bonds are cancelled. The fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded to him. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed; accused acquitted.