JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the conviction of Chandanmal Appellant, S.H.O. Police Station, Sagwada District Dungarpur, under Section 5(1) (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year within a fine of Rs. 500/-, in fault of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment, Under Section 161 IPC and sentenced to Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to rigorous imprisonment for 8 months under Section 5(2) read with (5)(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, by the Special Judge for A.C.D. Cases, Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated October 16, 1975. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, as put-forth before the trial court was that one Kachru, PW. 3 was wrongly taken to be dealing in the selling of illicit liquor by the accused. The accused thus made a demand of Rs 100/-per month from him as illegal gratification, so as to permit Kachru to carry on his business of selling illicit liquor. Kachru avoided the payment on one or the other ground. Ultimately about 3.4 days prior to the laying of the trap, the accused approached Kachru at his house and persisted that either the amount of Rs. 100/- per month be paid to the accused or he (Kachru) would be involved in some case. Kachru succumbed to the illegal demand made by the accused and promised to pay him Rs. 100/-in the first instance and the remaining amount after some time. Kachru was not inclined to pay the said amount as bribe and as such he approached Shri Namo Narayan Meena PW. 7, Superintendent of Police, Dungarpur on 6-12-1973 at about 6.30 A.m. He lodged a written report Ex P. 2 executed by Dhyani Lal. Government currency notes worth Rs. 100/- article 4 to 11 were also presented by Kachru before the Superintendent of Police. Shri Namonarayan Meena, S.P noted down the numbers of the notes on the back of the report Ex. P. 2 and also put bis initials on the notes. The notes were dusted with phenolphthalein provider by the Superintendent of Police himself and the same were handed over to Kachru vide Memo Ex. P. 3 in presence of the Motbirs, Shanker lal, PW. 5 and Dhyani Lal. P. 2 and also put bis initials on the notes. The notes were dusted with phenolphthalein provider by the Superintendent of Police himself and the same were handed over to Kachru vide Memo Ex. P. 3 in presence of the Motbirs, Shanker lal, PW. 5 and Dhyani Lal. Kachru was asked to pay the notes on demand to be made by the accused and give a signal as soon as the notes were passed on to the accused. Thereafter, Shri Namo Narayan, S.P. Dungarpur proceeded to Sagwada laying a trap against the accused on the very day. Kachru and Motbirs were sent in advance in a separate Jeep to Sagwada and the Superintendent of Police along with trap party followed them in another Jeep. The party stopped near a Petrol-pump, situated near about the police Station. Sagwada. The decoy Kachru along with his nephew Prem Chand, PW. 8 were sent in advance to the Police Station to hand over the notes to the accused on his demand and to give a signal after delivering the notes. After a few minutes, Prem Chand, PW. 8 came to the Superintendent of Police and informed him that bribe had been passed on to the accused. The S.P. along with Motbirs reached the Police Station, Sagwada and found the accused in his residential quarter in side the Police Station. The Super-indent of Police asked the accused to stand-up and demanded the accused to produce the bribe taken by him from Kachru. The accused did not speak and kept mum At this time Kachru told the Superintendent of Police that the accused had, after taking the noise from him kept the same under-neath the table cloth on the table lying before the accused. The place where the notes had been put by the accused under the table cloth was found a bit raised an turning the table cloth, the notes were found lying on the table. The numbers of these notes were tallied with those of the memo Ex. P. 3 and found to be correct. The S.P. then got the hands of the accused washed in two glasses in which sodium carbonate had been mixed. According to the prosecution case the hand wash of the right hand changed into pink colour while that of the left hand wash remained while. The S.P. sealed both the hand wash in separate bottles and prepared seizurememo, Ex. The S.P. then got the hands of the accused washed in two glasses in which sodium carbonate had been mixed. According to the prosecution case the hand wash of the right hand changed into pink colour while that of the left hand wash remained while. The S.P. sealed both the hand wash in separate bottles and prepared seizurememo, Ex. P. 4 in the presence of Motbirs Dhyani Lal, Shanker Lal, PW 5 and Chhagan Lal PW. 4. According to the prosecution case, PW. 4 Chhagan Lal had also arrived there by that time, as such he was also made a witness of memo Ex. P. 4. The S.P. then returned back to his Head Quarters at Dungarpur and thereafter all concerned papers were sent to the Anti Corruption Department. In due course FIR Ex. P/7 was chalked out by the Additional S P. A.C.D. Udaipur 30th January, 1974 and investigation was also made by him. The hand wash kept in sealed bottles was sent to the chemical Examiner by the Superintendent of Police, Dungarpur. The Chemical Examiner vide his report Ex. P. 8 showed that the hand wash of the accused of his right hand was positive for phenolphthalein powder while the bottle containing left hand wash had no such contents of phenolphalein The Additional S P., A C D. after completing the investigation sought necessary sanction for prosecution from the D.I.G., Udaiphr. PW. 2 Shri G. C. Singhvi, D.I.G. Udaipur range, after perusing the record accorded sanction for prosecution vide Ex. P/1. A charge sheet was thus filed on 29-8-74 against the accused in the court of Special Judge, A.C.D. Cases, Rajasthan Jaipur. The charges were framed against the accused Under Section 161 IPC. and Section 5(2) r.w. Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined in all 8 witnesses. The accused in his explanation Under Section 313/281 Cr. P.C, refused to have demanded any bribe from Kacbru and also denied the acceptance of Rs. 100/-as bribe from him. He however, admitted that on 6-12-1973 the S.P Dungarpur had come along with raiding party. He also stated that his hands were, of-course, washed by the S.P., but the water did not turn pink in either of the glasses. The water turned Mat-Melaby washing the hands. 100/-as bribe from him. He however, admitted that on 6-12-1973 the S.P Dungarpur had come along with raiding party. He also stated that his hands were, of-course, washed by the S.P., but the water did not turn pink in either of the glasses. The water turned Mat-Melaby washing the hands. In the local dialect or any other language the "piak" colour is not called Mat-Mela. His further case was that the bottles were not sealed properly. The slips were not pasted.The case of the accused further was that there was a group consisting of Kachru, Shanker Lal, Chhagan Lal and Dhyani Lal. These persons often created trouble for Government servants by trapping them. Dhyanilal publishes a Newspaper.These persons have falsely involved him in the case in collusion with the S.P. Sahab.The S.P.was also unhappy with him. Kachru was also annoyed because he had challenged Prem Chand The accused also took the stand that when he was posted as P S.I , at Udaipur Court, then a case under Section 454/380 IPC was filed against his brother Rajtnd and Shanti Lal in the Police Station, Pratapgarh, which was in the circle of Shri Namo Narayan Meena who was C.O. at that time. This case was registered in May, 1973 and the property belonged to the accused and his brother, which they had obtained through a decree of the Court. The accused had requested Shri Namo Narayan that a false case had been lodged against his brother and entire record may be perused. Shri Namonarayan though summoned the papers but then summoned the S.H.O. for discussions. The accused then again submitted applications to Shri Namonarayan Meena in this regard on 4-6-1973 and 9-6-1973, but he did not take any action Since then the relations between Namonarayan and accused and his brothers became strained. Shri Namonarayan then said that the goods will have to be recovered. According to the accused he told Sh. Namonarayan that there no goods to be recovered. On this the accused was a transferred as P.S.I. Salumbar from P.S.I., Udaipur on 22-6-1973. The S H.O. tried to arrest Rajmal, brother of the accused on 24-6-1973 and Shri Namonarayan made the present accused as an accused in that case also. The accused then submitted applications to S.P. Sahib on 27-6-73 and 5-7-73. Shri Namonaran did not take any action on that application nor he called the file. The S H.O. tried to arrest Rajmal, brother of the accused on 24-6-1973 and Shri Namonarayan made the present accused as an accused in that case also. The accused then submitted applications to S.P. Sahib on 27-6-73 and 5-7-73. Shri Namonaran did not take any action on that application nor he called the file. After the transfer of the accused to Salumber, Shri Namonarayan took money from the brother of the accused and filed an F.R. against his brother on 5-9-1973 which was granted by the court. Shri Namonarayan told the accused at that time also that he will settle terms with him when he would become S.P. Since Shri Namonarayan had taken money from the brother of the accused, his terms with Namonarayan became strained. Neither he demanded any money from Kachru, nor did he accept in. The colour of the water also did not change after washing his hands. The accused also examined 4 witnesses in support of his case. 4. The learned trial court after going through the record and hearing the arguments held that the demand as well as the acceptance of the bribe was proved by the prosecution and thus convicted and sentenced the accused in the manner indicated above. 5. Mr. Anthony appearing on behalf of the accused appellant contended that there is no evidence except the statement of dacoy for the demand of bribe. Kachru is not a person of repute. In his own statement he admitted that the police hid filed a case against him for consuming liquor, inspite of his having a licence for the same. This case was still pending in the Court This case was instituted after the alleged incident of giving of bribe to the accused. Kachru has also admitted that a case under Section 376 I.P.C. was also pending against him. Under these circumstances it is argued that Kachiu himself was a person involved in many criminal cases and no reliance could be placed on the unsupported testimony of such witness. It is further argued that there were serious contradictions in the date and period of the alleged demand alleged to have been made by the accused At one stage Kachru stated that before 3 or 4 months of the institution of this case, the accused was appointed as Sub Inspector, police Station, Sagwada. It is further argued that there were serious contradictions in the date and period of the alleged demand alleged to have been made by the accused At one stage Kachru stated that before 3 or 4 months of the institution of this case, the accused was appointed as Sub Inspector, police Station, Sagwada. At that time he was called to the Police Station Sagwada and told by the accused that he was dealing in the sale of illicit liquor. The accused then told him to pay Rs. 100/- p.m. otherwise he would be involved in some case. According to Mr. Anthony this time comes either in the month of August or September, 1973 as the trap was laid on 6.12.1973. P.W.3, Kachru further stated that he told this incident to Shri Shanker Lal, P.W. 5 who was a public worker and Shanker Lal told him that such a corrupt Thanedar should be caught red-handed, after 3-4 days, the accused came to his house and told him that he had not paid the money. P.W 3 further stated that he did not want to pay the bribe and as such he again talked with Shanker Lal, Thereafter Dhyani Lal, Shanker Lal, Prem Chand and himself went to the S.P., Duogarpur and submitted the report Ex.P.2 written by Dhyani Lal. In the cross examination this witness stated that accused Chandanmal had demanded bribe from him for the first time, 3 months before he was arrested, this period comes some time in September, 1973. In this further cross examination he stated that he did not complain to any body in police except to Shanker Lal regarding the demand of bribe by the accused. He told shanker Lal after 2 days. After this, the accused asked for the bribe again, just 3 or 4 days before the incident when he came to his house. According to Mr. Anthony this gives an entirely different time schedule for the demand of bribe According to this time schedule Kachru told Shanker Lal 2 days after demand, which would come some wherein September. On the other hand Kachru had said that the accused made the second demand 3 or 4 days before the incident. As per this statement the period comes some where in December. On the other hand Kachru had said that the accused made the second demand 3 or 4 days before the incident. As per this statement the period comes some where in December. This proves the falsity and irreconcilable discrepancy that the first demand was 3-4 days before the incident and the second demand in December, further inconsistency in the statement of this witness is brought on the statement made by the witness that he met Shanker Lal a day before the trap This period would come on 5-12 73. It is submitted that the above statement is not corroborated by P.W. 5 Shanker Lal. According to Shanker lal, Kachru met him in November December, 1973. Kachru told him that the Thanedar of Sagwada wanted bribe of Rs 100/- per month on the plea that Kachru was dealing in business of illicit liquor. According to Shanker Lal he told Kachru that we will trap the Thandedar. Then Kachru came to him on 5.12.1973 and said that on 6.12.1973 he had promised to give bribe to the accused. Thereafter, P W.5, Shanker Lal, Kachrus sisters son Prem went to Dungarpur on 6.12.1973 to meet the Superintendent of Police Serious infirmities are thus pointed out by Mr. Anthony in the statements of P.W 3 and P.W.5, which according to him are irreconcilable and prove falsity of the prosecution case with regard to the demand of bribe. 6. It is next contended that there was no corroboration of the statement of Kachru of the alleged payment of bribe to the accused. It is submitted that the story narrated by P.W.3 Kachru is not supported by his nephew P.W.8. Premchand. Prem Cahnd, P.W.8 was declared hostile by the prosecution without any substantial ground. 7. It was further argued that the best witness Dhyani Lal was not examined, although he was mentioned in the list of witnesses.No explanation has been given by the prosecution for non production of this witness. 8. It was strenuously urged by Mr. Anthony that the colour of the water in both glasses did not turn pink, but the prosecution tried to develop its case that Mat-mela meant as Pink colour. It this regard it was also argued that P W.3 first stated that the colour of the water in one of the glasses turned Mat-mela and subsequently he stated that it meant red by Matmela and not dirty. It this regard it was also argued that P W.3 first stated that the colour of the water in one of the glasses turned Mat-mela and subsequently he stated that it meant red by Matmela and not dirty. Further discrepancy is pointed out in the statement of this witness, in Portions A to B and C to D recorded by the Police under Section 162 Cr.P.C and his statement recorded in the Court. In his police statement he clearly used the word Glasses while in the court he told that he meant only by one glass. It is thus contended that in the original story as stated before the police both the hands of the accused were washed and the colour was Mat mela and the water was put in two bottle. The prosecution .subsequently changed this case to the effect that the right hand was washed separately and the colour of the water of right hand wash became red rose, while that of the left hand wash remained clear water. It is pointed out that P.W. 4 Chhagan Lal also gave the statement that the fingures of both the hands of the accused were dipped separately in two Glasses, then the in colour of the water changed to light red (pink). The water was transferred to separate bottles and the bottle were closed and sealed. According to the learned counsel, from the statement of P.W.4 Chhagan Lal it also transpires that the colour in both the glasses changed to light red and not that in one glass which contained the right hand wash became pink and that of the left hand wash remained clear water. 9. Mr. Anthony further argued that statement of P.W.7 Namonarayan is also full of contradiction and cannot be relied upon. Though in Ex. P.2 it was clearly recorded by Shri Namonarayan that two glasses full of clean water were brought and powder was added to the water and when both the hands of ;he S I. were washed with the water, the colour of the water turned some what mat-mela and the same kind of fact is mentioned in Ex. P.4, bat during his statement in the court it has been totally changed and improved to the effect that one glass of water containing right hand wash turned pink, while the other containing left hand wash remained clear. P.4, bat during his statement in the court it has been totally changed and improved to the effect that one glass of water containing right hand wash turned pink, while the other containing left hand wash remained clear. It is further submitted that though this witness Namonarayan has stated that in the local dialect pink colour is described as Mat-mela but his statement cannot be believed in this regard in as much as he was a resident of Sawai Madhopur and has nothing to do with the local dialect of Sagwada which falls in District Dungarpur. Even P.W.6 Additional S P. CID in his cross examination admitted that the water in bottle article 1 was deep Gulabi colour and not Mat-mela. That apart the trial court was not right in discarding the statement of D.W. 1 Jawabar Lal who retired as District Magistrate and is a resident of Dungarpur, clearly stated in this regard that the dialect popular in Dungarpur is Gujarati mixed with Mewari, which is called Bagri. According to this statement the water filled in the bottle article 1 was called Gulabi(pink) in their dialect and that this colour could not in any case be termed as Mat-mela (sandy). The witness also stated that Mat-mela meant dirty as sand and the colour of the water in bottle article is not called Matmela. Mr. Anthony further argued that the statement of Namonarayan cannot be believed as he had given an exaggeration to the prosecution case by showing that the accused at the time when he was entrapped was net only nervous but frightened and did not make any denial. This part of the statement of Namonarayan does not find corroboration from the statement of P.W. 3 Kachru as well as the other motbirans. Even in Ex.P.4, the seizure memo there is not one word about the accused becoming nervous or frightened: on the other hand, he immediately denied that he had taken any bribe. Mr. Anthony also argued that Namonarayan stated that when he got information regarding the accused, he informed the matter to the S.P. ACD who told him that he was not well and he was sending the phenolphthale in power along with a Inspector. He did this on the day he got the information (6-1-1973). The Sub-Inspector, ACD had come to his bungalow Dungarpur is about 65 miles from Udaipur. He did this on the day he got the information (6-1-1973). The Sub-Inspector, ACD had come to his bungalow Dungarpur is about 65 miles from Udaipur. He did not remember when did he talk with the Additional S.P. He clearly denied that the Sub-Inspector, ACD had come to him one day before the trap. Sagwada is about 22 miles from Dungarpur. On the aforesaid statement it is contended that according to this witness Namonarayan he talked S.P., ACD on 6.12.1973 after the receipt of the report Ex. P.2 by him, but it was physically impossible for the Inspector, ACD to come to Dungarpur from Udaipur covering a distance of 65 miles, and the statement is further belied by the Roznamcha of the ACD., Sub-Inspector filed before the trial court for its perusal According to which, ACD, Sub Inspector had left Udaipur for Dungarpur on 5th morning. This clearly shows that either Namonaryan is telling a lie or he was highly interested to lay the trap even before the lodging of Ex P.2 on 6.12.1973 as he had tried to call ACD, Sub-Inspector on 5.12.1973 even one day before the lodging of the report by Kachru 10. Lastly, it was argued by Mr. Anthony that there is no independent evidence to prove that the bottles containing the hand wash were kept sealed and sent to the Chemical Examiner in the same condition except the statement of Namonarayan. The prosecution has failed to produce the person who had taken the sealed bottles to the Chemical Examiner. Reliance in this regard is placed on State v. Motia and others, I.L.R. (1953) 3 Raj. 655. Mst. Javitri Devi v. State, 1957 RLW 132. 11. Learned public prosecutor on the other hand argued that Kachru, P.W.3 is a reliable witness and the demand of bribe by the accused is proved from his statement beyond any manner of doubt and it finds corroboration from Ex.P.2 and the statement of Shanker Lal, P.W.5. The discrepancies pointed but by learned counsel for the accused are miner in nature and do not in any manner effect the main prosecution story. The discrepancies pointed but by learned counsel for the accused are miner in nature and do not in any manner effect the main prosecution story. In the matters where any bribe is demanded or the same is given, generally it is done in a secret manner and even if there may be no other eye witness, the statement of decoy supported by other circumstantial evidence is sufficient to bring home the guilt against the accused. The evidence of P.W.7, Namonarayan who led the trap is entirely trust worthy and his evidence clearly proves that illegal gratification was accepted by the accused, which finds corroboration from the right hand wash of the accused which was positive for phenolphthalein. Reliance is placed on Hazari Lal v. the State, AIR 1980 S.C. 873 . It is further contended that no animosity has been alleged or proved against P.W.3 Kachru and merely because certain cases were registered against him. it does not make his evidence as untrust worthy. P.W.3 was not put any suggestion in the cross examination that he had put the notes below the table cover. Under these circumstances irresistible inference would be that the accused had received the notes and had put the same under the table cover as stated by P.W.3 Kachru The non production of Dhyani Lal is not of much consequence as he was not a witness of passing of notes to the accused. It is further contended that the statement given by the prosecution witnesses in their statement under Section 126 Cr.P.C. that colour of the water had become Matmela in both the glasses and their statement in the court that the colour of the water in one glass containing right hand wash turned risk is only a master contradiction and the entire prosecution case cannot be disbelieved on such insignificant discrepancy. It is also submitted that Sub-Inspector of Anti-Corruption Department had reached Dungarpur on 5.12.1973 as disclosed by Roznamch is not of much consequence as he might have come for another purpose, but the main question is whether the phenolphthlein powder was made available to S.P. Shri Namonarayan. which he had applied on the notes. It is also submitted that Sub-Inspector of Anti-Corruption Department had reached Dungarpur on 5.12.1973 as disclosed by Roznamch is not of much consequence as he might have come for another purpose, but the main question is whether the phenolphthlein powder was made available to S.P. Shri Namonarayan. which he had applied on the notes. It is proved beyond any manner of doubt by the statement of P.W.3 Kachru and P.W. 7 Namonarayan that phenolphthaleio powder was applied on the notes and as such the question whether the sub-inspector, ACD could cover a distance of 65 miles from Udaipur to Dungarpur was immaterial. The conduct of PW.7 Nimonarayan is straight forward and no reliable evidence has been put on record by the accused to show that he had any axe to grind against the accused. Learned Public prosecutor further submitted that it was proved by Namonarayan, P.W.7 that the hand wash was kept in two separate bottles which were staled and were delivered to the Chemical Examiner in the same condition and Ex P.8 report on the Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory also makes a mention that the glass bottles were properly sealed at the mouth with impression of a seal corresponding with the seal impression forwarded and the seals were intact. No question has been put by the defence in cross-examination to Namonatayan that the seals were tampered. Reliance is placed on Jai lal v. Delhi Administration, 1969 CAR (SC) 15 Learned Public Prosecutor thus supported the judgment of the learned Special Judge. 12. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties.First part of the prosecution case is whether any demand was made by the accused from Kachru. In this regard there is no direct evidence except that of Kachru PW. 3. lam conscious of the fact that in such matter it may not be possible for the prosecution to lead any other direct evidence as generally such demand is made in secret, However it cannot also be lost-sight of that decoy is an interested witness and his evidence must be scrutinised carefully. Kachru is in my opinion not a person of such sterling character that his evidence may be believed on the face of it. Kachru is in my opinion not a person of such sterling character that his evidence may be believed on the face of it. He has admitted in his cross examination that the police had filed a case against him for consuming liquor, inspite of his having licence for liquor. This case was still pending in the court. This case was instituted after the incident of bribe. He also admitted that a case is also pending against him under Section 376 IPC. Thus atleast 2 criminal cases were pending against him at the time when his statement was recorded. In his examination-in-chief at the very inception he stated that he was doing the business of wool of goats. The Excise Inspector Sagwada had filed two challans against him about 3/4 jeans back for keeping the illicit liquor in his house, in (he court of S.D.M., Dungarpur. He was acquitted in those cases. He further stated that before 3-4 months of the institution of this case, the accused present in the court came to be appointed as Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Sagwada. Accused called him at the police station and told that he was doing business of illicit liquor and as such either he should pay Rs. 100/- per month otherwise he would be got involved. On this the witness told that he was not doing any business of liquor and was doing business of wool and refused to pay Rs 100/- per month. On this the accused gave a threatening to harass him by involving in a false-case of illicit liquor. He told all this to Shri Shanker Lal a public worker of Sagwada. Shri Shanker Lal told him that such Thanedar has got to be caught red handed taking bribe. 3 or 4 days later the accused came to his house and told him that 3 months had passed but he had not paid the money, start paying Rs. 100/- per month even now, other wise he would be got involved On this Kachru told that he was a poor man and would try to arrange for bringing Rs. 100/- as early as possible and on that day avoided the accused. 100/- per month even now, other wise he would be got involved On this Kachru told that he was a poor man and would try to arrange for bringing Rs. 100/- as early as possible and on that day avoided the accused. He further stated that be did not want to give the bribe and as such he went to Shanker Lal and narrated him all the talks and then he along with Shanker Lal, Dhyani Lal, his sisters son Prem Cband went to the Superintendent of Police, Dungarpur. He got the report Ex. P. 2 written by Dhyani Lal and submitted at the Bungalow of the S.P. Firstly, if the statement of Kachru to the effect that he was not doing any business of liquor much less of illicit liquor, how could a question of demand of Rs. 100/-per month from him may arise. According to Kachru he was doing business of wool of goats and had nothing to do with the liquor business. It is not believable that a person who was not at all dealing in liquor business as stated by Kachru, the accused Sub-Inspector could have given a threatening of falsely involving him in any liquor case unless he succumbed to the illegal demand of Rs. 100/- per month. In my view from this circumstance two inferences are possible: one that Kachru was actually dealing in the business of illicit liquor; but he did not want to pay Rs. 100/-per month as demanded by the accused, if so, his character becomes dubious being a dealer in illicit liquor and the theory of demand as put forth by him requires close scrutiny. Secondly if he was only doing business of wool of goat and not doing any business of liquor, in that case there was no question of his having any fear of being involved in a false case of liquor and the question of demanding Rs. 100/- P.M. did not arise. In my view the first inference seems to be more logical though it is denied by PW. 3, Kachru. This inference also finds support from the fact that one case of consuming liquor was pending against this witness as admitted by him in his cross examination. PW. 100/- P.M. did not arise. In my view the first inference seems to be more logical though it is denied by PW. 3, Kachru. This inference also finds support from the fact that one case of consuming liquor was pending against this witness as admitted by him in his cross examination. PW. 3, Kachru has also admitted that the Excise Inspector, Sagwada had filed two challans against him in the court of S.D.M., Dungarpur for keeping illicit liquor in his house, 3 or 4 years back but he was acquitted in those cases. He has clearly admitted in his cross examination that a case under Section 376 I.P.C. was also pending against him. 13. I shall now examine the statement of Kachru, PW. 3 regarding the demand of bribe made by the accused from him. No exact date has been given by PW. 3, Kachru of the first or second demand made by the accused from him. In his statement as reproduced above the first demand was made by the accused 3-4 months before the institution of this case when the accused came to be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police Station, Sagwada. As the trap was laid on 6 12-1973 this time of first talk of demand comes same wherein August or September, 1973. According to Kachru he is fused to succumbed to the illegal demand and told the accused that he would not pay the amount of Rs. 100/- per month as demanded by him. He has further deposed that he narrated the entire story to Shanker Lal, PW. 5 It appears that though Shanker Lal told the witness that such Thanedar should be caught red handed by taking bribe, but admittedly neither any complaint was made to any higher police authorities nor any step for laying trap was taken at that time. According to Kachru the accused-Thanedar came to his house 3-4 days later and told him that three months had elapsed but he had not paid the amount. It is not understandable as to how after 3-4 days only it could have been aid by t e accused that 3 months had elapsed and the money had not been paid. According to Kachru the accused-Thanedar came to his house 3-4 days later and told him that three months had elapsed but he had not paid the amount. It is not understandable as to how after 3-4 days only it could have been aid by t e accused that 3 months had elapsed and the money had not been paid. If the period of second demand is to be taken as 3-4 days before the incident then it comes some where in the month of December and the first demand also comes to 3-4 days prior to second demand and the period of first demand also comes in the last month of November and thus there are inconsistencies in the statement of PW. 3, Kachru himself in the period of first and second demand. According to Kachru he had narrated the story of both the demands to Shanker Lal in cross examination, Kachru clearly stated that first demand was made by the accused 3 months prior to the laying of trap. The accused had talked to him in the Police Station by taking him aside. The accused had told him on the bus stand to come to the police station and he had gone to the police station of his own accord. The accused had come to know his name earlier by making enquiries from him. This happened a day before. He did not know the name of the constable who had come to call him a day earlier. In further cross examination Kachru admitted that he did not make any mention in report Ex. P. 2 about the talk of first demand by the accused to Shanker Lal nor the fact that Shanker Lal had told him to get the Thanedar caught red handed. While confronted with Ex. P- 1., his police statement recorded under Section 162 Cr. P.C. also he admitted that he had narrated the incident of first demand only to Shanker Lal and the narration or first demand to Shanker Lal could not be mentioned to over-sight. Thus the story of first demand and its narration to Shanker Lal becomes highly doubtful as it is neither mentioned in Ex P 2, nor in the police statement. As regards second demand, Kachru in his cross examination stated that the accused came to his house and asked him to come down by calling his name. Thus the story of first demand and its narration to Shanker Lal becomes highly doubtful as it is neither mentioned in Ex P 2, nor in the police statement. As regards second demand, Kachru in his cross examination stated that the accused came to his house and asked him to come down by calling his name. At the time when this talk took place there was no body else except himself and the accused. The time was about 8 9 P.M. The accused had demanded Rs. 300/- as arrears @ Rs. 100/- per month and to pay subsequently @ Rs. 100/- p.m. On this according to Kachru he made entreaties with the accused and got previous Rs. 300/ exempted and agreed to pay Rs. 100/- after arranging the same at the earliest. He further deposed that no time and date was fixed but had only agreed to pay at the earliest. He had told Shanker Lal to take an early action as he had to pay the money by 6/12. He further stated that he had met Shanker Lal only a day before the laying of the trap. Thus according to the Statement of Kachru no exact date of the second demand has been narrated by him and no date and time was fixed with the accused when he would receive the amount. As regards the fact of narrating this story to Sbanker Lal is concerned, he is specific that he told Shanker Lal a day before the laying of the trap and that comes to 5-12-1973. Now in this context when the statement of PW. 5, Shanker Lal is examined he stated that Kachru bad met him in November/December, 1973 and told him that Chandanmal Thanedar of Sagwada was demanding bribe of Rs. 100/- per month and demands the same on the ground that Kachru was doing business of liquor. Kachru told him that he did not want to pay the bribe. On this he told to entrap the Thanedar. Thereafter, Kachru came to him on 5-12-1973 and told him that he had settled with Thanedar to pay the bribe on 6-12-1973 Thereafter he along with Kachru, Dhyani Lal and Prem Chand went on the morning of 6-12-1973 in a Jeep to S.P., Dungarpur and narrated him the entire story. On this he told to entrap the Thanedar. Thereafter, Kachru came to him on 5-12-1973 and told him that he had settled with Thanedar to pay the bribe on 6-12-1973 Thereafter he along with Kachru, Dhyani Lal and Prem Chand went on the morning of 6-12-1973 in a Jeep to S.P., Dungarpur and narrated him the entire story. According to Shanker Lal Kachru bad met him two times and had narrated him the fact of demand firs; in November/December, 1973 and then on 5 -12-73. As regards the first demand according to Kachru it was some where in August or September 1973 and not November/December as stated by Shanker Lal. The fact of narrating the story of first demand to Shanker Lal does not find place in Ex. P. 2 and in his statement under Section 162 Cr. P.C. Though Kachru in his statement has clearly stated that no date was fixed with the accused but according to Shanker Lal, Kachru had told him that 6-12-1973 had been fixed with the accused. There is no independent corroboration of the second demand alleged to have been made by the accused at 8 or 9 p.m. at the house of Kachru himself. In Ex. P. 2, it was not mentioned that at the time of second demand Kachru got three hundred rupees exempted, but stated in the report that he agreed to pay Rs. 100/- at present but did not mention that on his entreaties the accused had exempted Rs. 300/-. In cross examination Shanker Lal stated that Kachru had talked to him in this connection on an early occasion 15 days before, but the second talk took place 3-4 days before the incident. Thus the period of second talk comes to 3-4 days earlier to the incident and not exactly on 5-12-1973. Thus there are discrepancies between the statement of Kachru and Shanker Lal about the period when the story of second demand was told by Kachru to Shanker Lal. The trial court itself while dealing with the discrepancies with regard to the dates observed: Shanker Lal in his statement has deposed or stated that about 15 days before the trap Kachru informed him of the evil design of the accused, while decoy states that the matter was revealed to Shauker Lal only two days after the demand by the accused. Of course there was no specification regarding point of time when the demand was first of all, made by the accused to Kachru. Therefore, it cannot be said that the discrepancies between the statements of Shanker and Kachru are so grave is nature that the statement of Shanker Lal cannot be taken to be an independent corroboration of Kachru The point of rime referred to by the learned counsel is not very material but the material point is whether in fact Kachru informed Shanker Lal of the demand put forth by the accused and whether Shanker Lal and Kachru are so reliable and Credible as to treat them wholly believable." In my view the discrepancies as pointed out above are material specially when Kachru does not seem to be a witness of sterling worth. Thus in my view the story of demand of bribe as put forth by PW. 3, Kachru is not free from doubt and does not inspire confidence. 14. The next and important part of the prosecution story is that P.W. 3, Kachru, P.W. 5 Shanker Lal, Dhyani Lal and P.W. 8 Prem Chand went to Lodge a complaint about 5.30 or 6 00 A.M. on 6-12-1997 at the bungalow of Shri Namonarayan Meena, S P. Ex. P. 2, complaint was written by Dhyani Lal. Thereafter Rs.100/ currency notes article 4 to 12 were produced by Kachru before Shri Namonarayan Meena, who noted their numbers on Ex P. 2 itself and treated them with phenolphthalein powder and thereafter Kachru was explained the further action and to give a signal when the amount was accepted by the accused There is no difficulty in accepting the above story of the prosecution. But the main controversy arises on the story of the prosecution whether the notes were accepted by the accused as bribe and put by him under the table cover or the notes were merley found under the table over but not accepted by the accused nor put by him. Again the direct evidence of tendering the bribe and its acceptance by the accused is of Kachru, P.W. 3 only. It may be pointed out that Prem chand P.W. 8 who had accompanied Kachru, P.W. 3 in the advance party, stated "in the Thana, myself and my maternal uncle went to the quarter of the Thanedar. My maternal uncle went inside the quarter and I kept waiting out-side. It may be pointed out that Prem chand P.W. 8 who had accompanied Kachru, P.W. 3 in the advance party, stated "in the Thana, myself and my maternal uncle went to the quarter of the Thanedar. My maternal uncle went inside the quarter and I kept waiting out-side. Before going in-side the quarter my uncle told me that on hearing my Khakhara (coughing) you should call the S.P., my maternal uncle coughed after some time and on hearing the same called the S.P. When the S P. came he had with him some of his staff. The S.P. went inside the quarter and remained outside."According to the above statement, Prem Chand was not a witness of actual tender of bribe by Kachru to the accused. The public Prosecutor got the witness declared hostile and sought the permission of the court for cross examining him. On cross-examination by the public Prosecutor he stated that he did not give the statement marked A to B in Ex. P. 9 to the police. Thus so far as direct evidence of tendering the bribe and its acceptance by the accused is concerned, it is the evidence of P.W. 3, Kachru alone. The statement of Kachru in this regard is "I enquired from a Santari whether accused was inside the police station or not. Santri told that Thanedar was in the quarter.went inside the quarter and my nephew Prem Chand remained standing on the doors. There I found the accused sitting on a Mudha in a room of the quarter. The accused as soon as he saw me asked whether I had brought the money. I told that I had brought. I gave notes of Rs. 100/- to the accused and the accused held the notes in his hand i.e. between his thumb and fingers of the right hand, then the accused present in the court put those notes beneath the table cloth which was spread over the table lying in front of him.1 gave the signal of coughing as under-stood earlier and my nephew went running to S.P. Saheb and S P. Saheb and his m:n Shanker Lal and Dhyani Lal and Chhagan Lal came there i.e. inside the quarter of the accused. By then Thanedar had called tea for me which took, S.P. Saheb told the accused to take out the notes which he had taken from Kachru as bribe. By then Thanedar had called tea for me which took, S.P. Saheb told the accused to take out the notes which he had taken from Kachru as bribe. The accused was trembling at the sight of S.P. Saheb told the accused to stand-up and raise his hands. The portion of the table cloth under which the notes were placed by the accused was bit raised. S.P. Saheb told to remove the cloth of the table. I do not remember, whether the cloth was removed by the accused or some body else. As soon as the cloth was removed the notes were found lying there, then S.P. Saheb picked up those notes. S.P. Saheb checked his signatures on the notes and compared the same with the numbers put on the supardgi memol Then S.P. Saheb called clean water in two clear glasses Soda was added in the water of those glasses. The colour of the water did not change on adding Jada. Then S P. Saheb told the accused to dip his fingers of each hand in separate glasses and the accused dipped his fingers in separate glasses. On this water in one glass turned Matmela i.e. of red colour and the other remained white. Then the S.P. sent for two clean bottles and filled the water in separate bottle and the bottles were sealed in our presence". In the cross examination he stated that S.P.Saheb did not explain the mode of putting the powder on the notes. As far as he remembered only that person was with S.P Saheb, from whom S.P.Saheb had got the powder put on the notes, rest were the person who were with him. The S P had not explained about the signal to be given. He (Kachru) had explained to his nephew prem Chand, that after giving notes to the accused he would give a signal of coughing In further cross examination he admitted that in portion C to D of Ex.D/1 he meant glasses, as one glass I have already held above that the story of demand of bribe by the accused as narrated by P.W.3 Kachru has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In Hari Devo Sharma v. State, AIR 1976 SC 1489 it was observed that when the very genesis of demand of bribe falls to the ground then the later part of the prosecution case regarding tendering and acceptance of bribe become very doubtful. Kachru being a decoy is an interested witness and is not a witness of sterling worth In these circumstances his solitary statement that accused accepted bribe from him and put the notes under table cover cannot be accepted at its face value unless it finds corroboration from other evidence. I shall therefore, carefully examine the other evidence of corroboration which has also been relied upon by the trial court. The learned trial court in this regard has found corroboration by the evidence of P.W.7, Namonarayan and the pbenolphthalein test which proved positive in this case. The contention of learned counsel for the accused appellant in this regard is that in the statement recorded by the police under Section 162 Cr.P C P W.3 Kachru had clearly stated that when fingers of both the bands of the accused were dipped into the glasses, the water of the glasses turned some what Mst-mela. Similar facts were narrated in Ex.p.4, seizuremsmo also in respect of the colour of the water as well as the fact that the colour became Matmela in both the glasses and not in one glass alone. The prosecution Subsequently developed its ease at the stage of trial the colour of right hand wash of the accused turned pink while the water of the left hand wash did not change its colour. I have gone through the statement of p.w.3, Kachru, p.w.7 Namonarayan and Ex P.4 in this regard and I am clearly of the opinion that from a perusal of the aforesaid evidence it clearly transpires that till the stage of trial the story put forward by the prosecution was that the colour of both the glasses had turned Matmela and the prosecution tried to develop its case subsequently at the stage to trial to show that colour of one glass containing right hand wash turned pink and the other containing left hand wash did not change his colour. Namonarayan, P.W.7 has tried to show that Matmela in the local dialect meant pink, but his version in this regard cannot be believed in as much as he belongs to Sawai Madhopur district and we are more concerned with the local dialect of the place in question i.e. Dingarpur. The defence in this regard has examined DW.l Jawahar Lal who is a retired District Magistrate and practising advocate in the area in question since 1949. He has clearly stated that dialect popular in Dingarpur is Gjjrati mixed Mewari, which is called Bagrri, He had gone to different places in the country, apart from Dungarpur. The witness saw the bottle article I and stated that the colour of the water of the said bottle is Gulabi (Pmk) in his dialect this colour could not in any case he times as Mitmele (Saady). The witness further stated that in Rajasthan-Gujarat or U.P. where ever he had been, the colour of the water in the bottle article I could never be-called Matmela. It may further be observed in this regard, that P.W. 7 himself stated that in his own language Matmela was fainter while pink was a darker colour. According to him what he describes in his own language Matmela as light pink. He clearly admitted that the colour of the water in bottle article I was dark pink and that in bottle article- 2 it was clear water and not Matmela. In this regard he explained that as the motbirans and described this pinkish colour as Matmela as such he had recorded the same as Matmela and not pinkish. He of-course did not put any note either in the seizer memo, Ex.P 4 or the case diary that though the colour of article I was dark pink but he was mentioning it as matmela because it was stated in that manner by the Motbirans. In Ex.P 4 also it was clearly recorded that two glasses full of clean water were brought and soda was added to the water and then both hands of the S.I. were washed, the colour of the water turned some what Matmela. This was written by P.W 7 himself which clearly proved that when both the hands of the accused were washed the water of both hands turned Matmela. This was written by P.W 7 himself which clearly proved that when both the hands of the accused were washed the water of both hands turned Matmela. It clearly creates a doubt to before the prosecution story that only one glass of water turned deep pink which contains only right hand wash of the accused. P W.6 G.S Patwari, Additional S.P. has also clearly admitted that water in the Shishi (bottle) article-1 is of deep Pink colour and not Matmela. The trial court itself after perusing the water of article-1 has observed that it was deep rose colour. I had also called article-1 and examined myself and am clearly of the opinion that the colour of the water was deep pink and it cannot be termed as Matmela. I may further observe that according to the statement of Kachru, the accused at the time of accepting the notes had touched them only with his thumb and fingers of his right hand. It is no where his case that the accused had counted the notes by both the hands and under these circumstances there was no question of the colour of both the glasses turning Matmela as stated by the prosecution witnesses in their police statement and even as mentioned in Ex P.4. It is not understandable that if the notes as stated by Kachru had mere touch of the thumb and fingers of the accused and if such hand was dipped in water containing soda by carbonate, how could the colour of the water change to such a darkness as is seen in article-1 Even P.W.8 Prem Chand in this regard has stated has stated on seeing the water in article-1 that such colour called pink and not Matmela. 15. Then there is another serious infirmity in the prosecution case, which creates a suspicion in the prosecution story. According to P.W.7 Namonarayan. Sub Inspector Anti Corruption Department was with him during the trap proceedings. According to him he got the information regarding the demand of bribe by the accused and got the complaint Ex.P2, then he informed the superintendent of Police, ACD, Udaipur and he told him that as he was not well as such he was sending the Phenolphallen powder along with a Sub Inspector. The Sub-Inspector. ACD had come to the Bungalow of Namonarayan, Dungarpur is admittedly 65 miles from Udaipur. The Sub-Inspector. ACD had come to the Bungalow of Namonarayan, Dungarpur is admittedly 65 miles from Udaipur. Namonarayan clearly stated that the Sub-Inspector, ACD had not come to him a day before the trap. It is not explained by the prosecution as to how the Sub Inspector ACD could have reached Dungarpur on 6-12-1973 itself from Udaipur to hand over phenolphthalein powder and join the trap party, when Ex. P. 2 itself was lodged by Kachru at about 6 or 6.30 A.M. on 6-12-1973 to S.P. Shri Namonarayan and the raiding party had soon started to lay the trap at Sagweda which is about 22 miles from Dungarpur. The trial court called the Roznamcha of the Sub-Inspector ACD to find out the correct position and the trial court itself observed after perusing the same "it discloses that in fact ACD Sub-Inspector left Udaipur for Dungarpur on 5th morning. This according to the learned counsel for the accused leads to the correct probably that the S.P. was highly interested in seeing the accused entrapped, and so he manecuverd himself and the statement of the decoy Kachru that he made the report on 6th, tried to be corroborated by the statement of the S.P. is totally false one." However the trial court in this regard took the view that mere entries in the diary or in the daily Roznamcha of the ACD office Udaipur cannot conclusively decide this point unless Additional S.P. ACD might have cleared this position by his statement. It further observed that neither the prosecution nor the accused have examined the ACD sub-inspector said to be present at the time of the trap of the accused. It may be coincidence .as well that S.P. contracted ACD office Udaipur on 6th and Sub Inspector ACD might have reached him on the very morning of 6th. The trial court thus took the view that he did not think that much ice can be cut to the rescue of the accused on this point as well, and it cannot be said with certainty that S.P.s statement had been contradictory or was not in the true perspective of the events. 16. In my view the trial court was not right in taking the above view Namonarayan, P.W 7 has clearly deposed that he conveyed the news on receiving the information from Kachru that he will give a bribe to the accused on 6-12-73. 16. In my view the trial court was not right in taking the above view Namonarayan, P.W 7 has clearly deposed that he conveyed the news on receiving the information from Kachru that he will give a bribe to the accused on 6-12-73. The Sub-Inspector ACD could only have been called from Udaipur after receiving the complaint Ex. P/2 on 6-12-73. How could it be possible there for Sub Inspector ACD to travel a distance of 65 miles from Udaipur to Dungarpur and join the raiding party in early morning hours at 6.30 A M. or near about. On the other hand Rojnamcha discloses that he reached Dungarpur on 5-12-73 and brought phenolphthalen powder with him, in that case it appears that Kachru and others might have met S.P. Namonarayan on 5-12-1973 itself, which fact is not supported by Shri Namonarayan himself. Though I am in agreement with the trial in its observation that Namonarayan being a high police official holding the rank of Superintendent of Police would not stoop down to change the bottles in order to falsely implicate the accused, but I am convinced that there a e serious infirmities and lacunae in the prosecution case which go unexplained and the benefit of doubt must go to the defence. Dhyani Lal has not been examined who could have been an important witness. Prem Chand is not supporting the prosecution case. The fact of demand of bribe is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is no direct evidence of acceptance of bribe by the accused except the solitary statement of Kachru who is not a witness of sterling worth. There is doubt in the prosecution case whether the colour of both the glasses had turned Matmell or only one glass. If the colour was only Matmala, how it turned to deep pink as now found in bottle Article 1. Last but not the least as to how the S.I. ACD could have reached from Udaipur to Dungarpur to join the raiding party, if the statement of Shri Namonarayan is believed that he had a talk with the S.P. Anti corruption Department at Udaipur only after receiving the information that the bribe would be accepted by the accused on 6-12-1973. 17. 17. In the result I accept this appeal, set-aside the judgment of the Special Judge, ACD dated 16-10-1975 and quash the order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused appellant and be is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The appellant is on bail and he need not surrender and the bail bonds are discharged.Appeal Accepted. *******