JUDGMENT : B.K. Behera, J. - The Appellant stands convicted u/s 165-A of the Indian Penal Code for having offered Rs. 20/- in the shape of a currency note (Ext. 2) which more appropriately should have been marked as a material object by the Trial Court) on November 27, 1977, at the southern octroi check-gate of the Nowrangpur Municipality, by putting the amount in the pocket of Nabin Nayak (P.W. 1). then attached to the Office of the Civil Supplies section of the Sub-Divisional Office at Nowrangpur, who was on duty as Anti-Smuggling Guard at that check-gate and had detected the Appellant carrying 40 bags of rice in the truck bearing registration No. ORK 1653 being driven by another person with a third occupant in the truck, in order that P.W. 1 would not make any report regarding the transport of rice lest he (P.W. 1) might be held criminally liable for the movement of rice. The order of conviction has been recorded on the basis of the sole testimony of P.W. 1, unsupported by the evidence of Kamalalochan Majhi (P.W. 3), who was in charge of the Municipal octroi check-gate at the relevant time and had been examined as a witness to the occurrence and by Voona Satyanarayana (P.W. 5) owner of a tea stall near the octroi gate and which evidence, the learned Sessions Judge held to be sufficient to sustain the charge and discard the defence of the Appellant that he had not offered any money and that he had nothing to do with the transport of rice for which the Appellant had chosen to examine five witnesses including his elder brother (D.W. 1), the owner of the truck, to show that the rice was being transported by them as if he was facing a charge in respect of an offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of any Order with regard to the movement of the rice. The Appellant, then a student, being indicated of the offence, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. Taking me through the relevant evidence on which the prosecution sought reliance and which, according to the learned Judge, was sufficient to sustain the criminal charge, Mr. The Appellant, then a student, being indicated of the offence, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. Taking me through the relevant evidence on which the prosecution sought reliance and which, according to the learned Judge, was sufficient to sustain the criminal charge, Mr. Rao for the Appellant has submitted that the evidence of P.W. 1 was not only inconsistent with itself, but had not also been supported by other evidence and could not form the basis of conviction. While it is true, as has been submitted before me by Mr. Das on behalf of the State, that the evidence in a criminal trial is to be weighed and not counted and the evidence of a solitary witness can form the basis of an order of conviction, it must be kept in mind that in order that the sale testimony of a witness is made the foundation and the basis for finding a person guilty of the charge, the evidence must be clear, cogent and consistent and should be of an unimpeachable character. For the reasons to fellow, it would be seen that the evidence of P.W. 1 was not of t ha t character In this witness stood self-condemned having made prevaricating and inconsistent statements in the First Information Report (Ext. 1) lodged by him, on the basis of which the investigation commenced and his evidence in the Court and further his evidence, which could be, had not been corroborated and in my view, the story presented by this witness was too unreal to be accepted and merely because the defence had not been able to say as to how and why a case had been instituted against the Petitioner or some witness had been deposing against him, which law does not require the defence to show, as has been observed in several reported cases including the case of Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit Vs. State of Maharashtra, the case of the prosecution was not to be accepted as true and reliable. 3. The learned Judge, after referring to the evidence of P.W. 1 and discussing the other evidence, observed in paragraph 10 of the judgment that there being no other witness except P.W. 1 who had stated about the payment of Rs. State of Maharashtra, the case of the prosecution was not to be accepted as true and reliable. 3. The learned Judge, after referring to the evidence of P.W. 1 and discussing the other evidence, observed in paragraph 10 of the judgment that there being no other witness except P.W. 1 who had stated about the payment of Rs. 20/- to P.W. 1 by Appellant, the question falling for consideration was as to whether it would be possible to place reliance on the sole testimony of P.W. 1 and hold the Appellant guilty of the charge. Posing this question, the learned Judge answered it in the affirmative for the reasons recorded by him in paragraphs 11 and 12 of his judgment a reading of which would give an indication that the learned Judge was more swayed away by the absence of reason for P.W. 1 to falsely implicate the Appellant than by the intrinsic worth of his testimony without giving due consideration to the weaknesses in the prosecution evidence and the probabilities in favour of the defence. The evidence of a witness, if found to be otherwise unreliable and untrustworthy, cannot be accepted merely because no reason is shown as to why he has implicated an accused person. The important consideration is as to whether the evidence of a witness is credible and can be accepted. If the evidence is worthy of credence the fact that the witness has no axe to grind against an accused person or has no interest otherwise to involve him in a case may lend further assurance to his testimony. But absence of interestedness, by itself, cannot stamp his evidence with truth. 4. While there could be no doubt from the evidence that the Appellant was an occupant of the truck, there was no satisfactory evidence that he had been transporting the rice. While P.W. 1 had testified that when he stopped the truck at the check-gate and noticed the transport of 40 bags of rice therein and the Appellant failed to produce any permit or transit pass, the latter (Appellant) offered Rs. 2/- to him and asked him to allow him to proceed with the rice, this statement about the offer of Rs. 2/- to him and asked him to allow him to proceed with the rice, this statement about the offer of Rs. 2/- at that stage was conspicuous by its absence in the First Information Report (Ext.1) and there could thus be no doubt that this evidence had been introduced at a later stage in order to bolster up the case of the prosecution and was the product of afterthought and deliberation. 5. P.W. 1 had deposed that he proceeded on a bicycle towards the Nowrangpur town to inform the Inspector about the occurrence and the Appellant followed him and when he (P.W. 1) reached the Municipal Office, about a kilometre from the checkgate, the Appellant caught hold of his bi-cycle and stopped it and wanted him to proceed to the house of his (Appellant's brother) at Nuabandhasahi, did not allow him to 'proceed further and for that, P.W. 1 informed Biswanath Mohanty (P.W. 4), who, was then passing on the road to inform the Inspector of Supplies about the occurrence. P.W. 1 had further gone on to say that by that time, the driver of the truck had brought the truck to that place and when he (P.W. 1) reached back the octroi gate, the driver drove the vehicle back to that place and on getting an opportunity to cross the check-gate as the gate was opened in order to allow a bus corning from Bhawanipatna, the driver of the truck drove it away with the rice. According to P.W. 1, the Appellant stayed back, put a twenty-rupee Government currency note in his (P.W. 1's) shirt pocket telling him not to make a report relating to the incident and he (Appellant) also put a two-rupee Government currency note on the table near which Kamalalochan Majhi (P.W. 3), a peon of the Municipal Office in charge of the octroi check-gate was sitting and then picked up his (P.W. 1's) bi-cycle and proceeded towards Nowrangpur and later sent back the bi-cycle with a boy. In the First Information Report, P.W. 1 had a different story to tell. In the First Information Report, P.W. 1 had a different story to tell. He had stated therein that when he proceeded on his bi-cycle to report the matter to the Inspector, the Appellant pulled him from the back side and telling him that he would accompany him to the Inspector, drove the bi-cycle while he (P.W. 1) was sitting on the rod of the bi-cycle and on the way, he (P.W. 1) applied the brake and got down from the bi-cycle. While P.W. 4 had given evidence that he had been called by P.W. 1 who asked him to report the matter to the Supervisor of Supplies and not to the Inspector of Supplies, as deposed to by P.W. 1, P.W. 4 had not stated to the Investigating Officer that he had been called by P.W. 1 and stopped near the Municipal Office. 6. While in his evidence in the Court, P.W. 1 had made a definite statement that the Appellant put the twenty rupee currency note in his shirt pocket and put a two-rupee currency note on the table, he had not stated so in clear terms in the First Information Report wherein he had stated that the Appellant forcibly put Rs. 20/- and Rs. 2/- on the table of the octroi office. Thus in this report, P.W. 1 had not stated that the Appellant put Rs. 20/- in his shirt pocket. If all that had been deposed to by P.W. 1 had happened, normally and naturally it would not be expected of the Appellant to pick up the bi-cycle of P.W. 1 and proceed towards Nowrangpur after the truck carrying rice crossed the check-gate and certainly P.W. 1 would not allow his bi-cycle to be taken by the Appellant. If the sole intention of the Appellant was to see that the truck passed the check-gate so that detection of carrying rice without a permit could be avoided and the truck did cross the check-gate, it was highly unlikely that the Appellant, instead of corning away in the truck, stay on at Nowarangpur and further would offer Rs. 20/- to P.W. 1. The story put forward by P.W. 1 that the Appellant kept Rs. 20/- to P.W. 1. The story put forward by P.W. 1 that the Appellant kept Rs. 20/- in his shirt pocket so that he would not make a report regarding the incident would not stand to common sense, much less to reason, as, on his own showing, P.W. 1 had by then told P.W. 4 in the presence of the Appellant to go and inform the Inspector of Supplies about the occurrence. If steps had already been taken by P.W. 1 to inform the Inspector of Supplies about the incident to the knowledge of the Appellant, he would not offer money with a request not to report the matter. 7. P.W. 3 had spoken about the offer of Rs. 2/- by the Appellant to him for which the Appellant was not charged and of which P.W. 1 had not spoken. The evidence of P.W. 1 was that the Appellant left Rs. 2/- on the table of the check-gate. P.W. 3 had been examined as a witness to depose about the factum of offer of Rs. 20/- by the Appellant who allegedly kept this amount in the shirt pocket of P.W. 1. Although this witness was confronted with such a statement said to have been made by him to the Investigating Officer when he was cross-examined by the prosecution, he had not stated about it in his evidence in Court. He was functioning as a peon in the Municipal Office and was in charge of the octroi check-gate and nothing had been shown as to why he would suppress the truth to support the Appellant and go against the case of the prosecution. P.W. 5, owner of the tea-shop, had not spoken about the Appellant's offering Rs. 20/- to P.W. 1 and requesting him not to report about the incident. 8. P.W. 1 had stated in his cross-examination that a boy, Hari by name, had seen the Appellant keeping the currency note in his pocket and he had asserted that no other person had seen it. According to him, Hari was the son of an electric line-man who had his house near the check-gate and was aged about 10 to 12 years. He was not examined by the prosecution. Thus the evidence of P.W. 1 could be, but had nor been corroborated. The Inspector of Supplies (P.W. 6) had testified that he had recorded the statements of P.Ws. He was not examined by the prosecution. Thus the evidence of P.W. 1 could be, but had nor been corroborated. The Inspector of Supplies (P.W. 6) had testified that he had recorded the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 3 to 5. These statements had not been produced and proved at the trial. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, it would not be reasonable and proper, in my view, to accept unreservedly the evidence of P.W. 1 and allow it to form the sole basis of the conviction of the Appellant, as had been done by the learned Sessions Judge without taking into consideration the infirmities and improbabilities in the story of the prosecution and the evidence led by it. The order of conviction cannot, therefore, be allowed to stand. 10. I would allow the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant. The currency notes shall be confiscated to the State. Final Result : Allowed