JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant Pooranchand has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated September 6, 1975 of the learned Special Judge for Anti-Corruption Department (C.A.D.) Cases, Rajasthan. Jaipur convicting and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of which further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month under section 161. I.P.C. He was also convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of which further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months under section 5(2) read with 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2. The prosecution case was this. Amarsingh of Neemrana had some litigation in Nayay Panchayat, Neemrana. Appellant Poornachand was its Secretary. He demanded Rs. 50/- as illegal gratification from Amarsingh to get the case decided in his favour. Amarsingh agreed to the proposal and gave Pooranchand Rs. 40/- in 3-4, instalments. Only Rs. 10/ remained due but Pooranchand was not getting the case decided, Amarsingh felt annoyed and approached Additional Superintendent of Police (A.C.D.), Bharatpur through Ramsingh Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti. An application Ex. P.6 dated October 30, 1970 presented to him. A trap was arranged against the appellant on 14.10.70. The Additional Superintendent of Police (C. A.D) P.W.10 C.M, Paricha went to village Neemrana. He called Amarsingh and two motbirs, P.W.7 Ghasiram and P.W.8 Sagarmal. He initialled the currency-note of Rs. 10/- bearing No. G/9 489549 given by Amarsingh. It was dusted with phenolphthalein and was returned to Amarsingh to give it to Pooranchand. At about 1. p.m. Pooranchand came from Nayay Panchayat. At the bus stand, Amarsingh gave this note to Pooranchand and made the signal. Meanwhile, Pooranchand appellant proceeded ahead and gave this note to Moolchand, owner of a pan shop. The Additional Superintendent of Police cams and demanded the note from the appellant, who denied to have received any note from Amarsingh. The Additional Superintendent of Police was informed that the appellant had given that note to Moolchand and he recovered the note from the shop. The hand of the appellant was washed and the wash was found positive for penal the in. The Additional Superintendent of Police chalked out the F. I. R., Ex. P. 11 and investigated the case. The appellant was challenged. The appellant pleaded not guilty and his defence was of total denial. The learned Special Judge believed the prosecution evidence and convicted the appellant. 3. The Additional Superintendent of Police chalked out the F. I. R., Ex. P. 11 and investigated the case. The appellant was challenged. The appellant pleaded not guilty and his defence was of total denial. The learned Special Judge believed the prosecution evidence and convicted the appellant. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case carefully. 4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the trap witnesses were not impartial having enmity with the appellant. There was no corroboration worth the name to support the trap witnesses and the learned Special Judge sadly ignored this aspect of the case. It was highly improbable that any bribe was demanded by the appellant and was paid by Amarsingh. It is highly improbable that the appellant would be allowed to part with the bribe after he had received it from Amar Singh. The prosecution even failed to prove that this very note which was given by the appellant to Moolchand was recovered from his shop. The totality of the circumstance in the case makes it highly improbable. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment. 5. I have considered the contentions carefully. P.W. 1 Moolchand stated that the appellant came to his shop and gave him a ten Rupee note. Then Amarsingh and Ghasiram came after 10 minutes. The Additional Superintendent of Police came and asked for the note and he gave a ten Rupee note to him. The witness specially stated that on that day, he also received two other ten Rupee notes, one was given to him by Amarsingh and other by a Chakkiwala. He could not say which out of three currency notes was recovered from him by the Additional Superintendent of Police. In my opinion this witness for the prosecution destroyed its case that the very note given by appellant Pooranchand was recovered from him. None-else had seen the actual giving of this note to Moolchand. It was, therefore, only Moolchand who could say that the Additional Superintendent of Police recovered the very note which he got from Pooranchand. He had specifically stated that he could not say whether the very note given by Pooranchand was recovered by the police. None-else had seen the actual giving of this note to Moolchand. It was, therefore, only Moolchand who could say that the Additional Superintendent of Police recovered the very note which he got from Pooranchand. He had specifically stated that he could not say whether the very note given by Pooranchand was recovered by the police. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that Pooranchand gave this note to Moolchand. The recovery of currency note from the possession of the appellant is always a strong corroboration of the trap evidence in such cases. This corroboration is lacking in the present case. It adversely affects the prosecution case to a great extent. 6. To me it also appears unnatural that Amarsingh after having paid Rs. 40/- to the appellant would get annoyed and arrange for the trap. This is a very unusual feature of the prosecution story. Another improbable features of the case is that Pooranchand was allowed to part with the note. In such trap cases, the general experience is that the currency note is almost invariably recovered from the possession of the accused, who is not allowed to part with it. 7. The prosecution evidence is extremely doubtful whether this very note or any note was given by Amarsingh to the appellant. P.W. 5 Amarsingh stated that on 13.10.70, he sent Ramsingh, Pradhan to Bharatpur with Ex. P. 6 and a Ten Rupee currency note. On 14.10.70, the Additional Superintendent of Police came to village Neemrana and called him. He gave this very note to the Additional Superintendent of Police, which he had sent with Ramsingh Pradhan. The Additional Superintendent of Police initialled the note and powdered it. The Additional Superintendent of Police then returned the currency note to him with the instruction to give it to Pooranchand. The Additional Superintendent of Police and Ramsingh Pradhan went to Gram Panchayat. At about 1 p.m., Pooranchand came from Nayay Panchayat Office with Narainsingh. Ramsingh called Narainsingh then Pooranchand remained alone. He approached Pooranchand and gave him the note. They continued to walk. At the shop of Moolchand, Pooranchand gave the note to him. They proceeded further and sat at the shop of Kanta. Then the Additional Superintendent of Police and others came and recovered the currency note from the shop of Moolchand. Ramsingh called Narainsingh then Pooranchand remained alone. He approached Pooranchand and gave him the note. They continued to walk. At the shop of Moolchand, Pooranchand gave the note to him. They proceeded further and sat at the shop of Kanta. Then the Additional Superintendent of Police and others came and recovered the currency note from the shop of Moolchand. The witness denied the suggestion that any stolen copper wire was recovered from his or his brother on the information of Pooranchand. However, this fact is proved by the testimony of P.W.2 Narainsingh. Obviously, the witness had inimical relations with the appellant. He has also totally given a false version about the giving of note to the Additional Superintendent of Police, P. W. 10 C. M. Parlecha stated that he was given a note and an application by Ramsingh at Bharatpur. On the same night, he left for the village after dusting it with phenolphthalein powder. Thus, Amarsingh is wrongly stating that he gave the note to the Additional Superintendent of Police at Neemrana. 8. The testimony of P. W. 3 Ramsingh Pradhan is not relevant to prove the case. He stated that Amarsingh did not give him Rs. 10/-. He admitted that no confidence motion was brought against him twice. The witness denied that he had any strained relations with Pooranchand. But it appears from the statement of D W. 1 Vishambhardayal that Ramsingh was annoyed with Pooranchand. The learned Judge disbelieved the statement of D. W. 1 Vishambhardayal. However find this witness worthy of credence. He stated that Ramsingh was annoyed with Pooranchand because of the application etc. were written by Pooranchand on their behalf in the matter regarding the no confidence motions. He also produced three copies of such complaints in the hand-writing of Pooranchand. could find no reason to disbelieve the witness. It was suggested in the cross-examination that because he belonged of the party of Pooranchand and, therefore, was deposing falsely. This suggestion itself indicates that Ramsingh had strained relations with Pooranchand because Vishambhardayal D. W. 1 belonged to the party of Pooran Chand. The possibility, therefore, could not be ruled out that Amarsingh at the instance of Ramsingh bad concocted a false case. Amarsingh is the only witness who stated that he gave this initialled note to Pooranchand. His statement is not corroborated by any other evidence. The possibility, therefore, could not be ruled out that Amarsingh at the instance of Ramsingh bad concocted a false case. Amarsingh is the only witness who stated that he gave this initialled note to Pooranchand. His statement is not corroborated by any other evidence. P. W. 7 Ghasiram stated that he was with the Additional Superintendent of Police. Somebody signalled to the Additional Superintendent of Police. He then gave out the version of the recovery of the currency-note from Moolchand. Thus, this witness no where stated that in his presence Amarsingh gave this note to Pooranchand or Pooranchand gave it to Moolchand. 9. P. W. 8 Suratsingh stated that he and the head constable were following Amarsingh and Pooranchand. In the way, Pooranchand demanded the money from Amarsingh and the latter gave a ten Rupee note to the former. The witness had to admit in the cross-examination that he was 15 steps away from Amar Singh and Pooranchand and the head constable was further behind at a distance of 15 steps. He admitted that he did not hear Pooranchand demanding the money, from Amarsingh. He only saw some overtures of demand. In his police statement Ex. D. 4, it is not mentioned that he actually saw the giving of this note to Moolchand. Obviously, this witness could not have heard any conversation between Amarsingh and Moolchand and he admitted so. It is extremely doubtful whether he could see from a distance of 15 steps that any note was given. In any case, his statement on this fact is not worthy of any credence because this fact was not mentioned by him in his police statement. The other trap witness is P. W. 9 Sagarmal, Head Constable of Police. He stated that in the way Amar Singh gave a note to Pooranchand but he could not see the denomination of that note. He had to admit in the cross-examination that he saw something being given by Amarsingh to Pooranchand, but could not say whether it was a currency note. This witness is, therefore, not supporting the statement of Amarsingh on the count that Amarsingh gave a ten rupee note to Pooranchand. Thus, there is no other evidence worth the name to prove the fact that a signed currency note of Rs. 10/- was given by Amarsingh to Pooranchand. The statement of Amarsingh does not find support from any other evidence. Thus, there is no other evidence worth the name to prove the fact that a signed currency note of Rs. 10/- was given by Amarsingh to Pooranchand. The statement of Amarsingh does not find support from any other evidence. In the circumstance of the case that Amarsingh had inimical relation with Moolchand, I am of the view that it is extremely unsafe to rely upon his uncorroborated testimony to hold that he gave a signed ten Rupee note to Pooranchand as illegal gratification. It was thus observed in Sita Ram v. The State of Rajasthan (A. I. R. 1975 S.C. 1432) - "The main ingredients of the charge under section 161 of the Penal Code with reference to the facts of this case are these, (1) That the accused was a public servant. (2) That he must be shown to have obtained from any person any gratification. (3) The gratification should be other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to the person. When the first two ingredients are proved by evidence then a rebuttable presumption arises in respect of the third ingredient. In absence of the first two facts, the presumption does not arise. On mere recovery of certain money from the person of an accused without the proof of its payment by or on behalf of some person to whom official favour was to be shown the presumption cannot arise." 10. In my opinion, Amarsingh is not a reliable witness. In any case, his evidence cannot be believed in the absence of independent corroboration. I am, therefore, of the view that the prosecution had failed to establish that the appellant received any money or illegal gratification from Amarsingh. The appellant is therefore, entitled to an acquittal. 11. The appeal is, therefore, accepted the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Jaipur is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offence under section 161, IPC and section 5(2) read with 5 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant is on bail and need not surrender to his bail-bonds, which are hereby cancelled.Appeal Allowed - Appellant Acquitted. *******