G. L. OZA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against his conviction under section 161, Indian Penal Code and section 5 (J) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment on each count the sentences are to run concurrently, awarded by Special Judge, Rewa in Special Criminal Case No 3/78, decided on 20. 1. 1979. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case at the trial was that on 14-7-1975 the appellant was posted as Revenue Inspector in revenue circle Teonthar and in April 1977, the appellant was staying in a rented house in Teonthar. On 26-4-1977 Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) went to the house of the appellant at Teonthar. At that time the appellant was sitting in the front room doing some writing work. He was only putting on an underwear and had nothing on his upper part of the body, it being summer season and was sitting on the ground on a Jajam. After arrival of Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) at the house of the appellant, Ganga Prasad Dubey (P. W. 15), Jakir Hussain Hussaini (P. W. 6) and Ram Lakhan Singh (P. W. 14) also reached at the house. It is alleged that Ganga Prasad Dubey asked the appellant as to whether he had accepted illegal gratification from Sheoram Singh and the appellant denied the allegation. It is also alleged that thereafter the appellant picked up the currency notes in an Aala in the second room of the house and officer, Shri Ganga Prasad Dubey, out of that, returned Rs. 36/- to the appellant and seized the rest vide, Ex. P-3. It is alleged that the appellant refused to sign the seizure - memo. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, in the year 1975, under the rules the Revenue Inspector was authorised to dispose of the mutation proceedings in case in which there is no dispute. ( 4 ) IT is alleged by the prosecution that the land situated in village Maniks bearing survey No. 917 was recorded in the name of one Moujilal as Bhumiswami. Out of this survey number 56 acre was sold by Moujilal by mutual consent in favour of the father of Sheoram Singh, named Brajbhan and this sale was executed by a document. Out of this survey number 56 acre was sold by Moujilal by mutual consent in favour of the father of Sheoram Singh, named Brajbhan and this sale was executed by a document. It is alleged that Sheoram Singh submitted an application for mutation of the name of his father in the revenue records in respect of 56 acre of and this application was given to the Patwari of the village named Ramprasad. According to the prosecution, Ramprasad Patwari told Sheoram Singh that he should go and enquire about it to the Revenue Inspector as to whether the mutation can be done in the name of his father or not. Thereupon, it is alleged that Sheoram Singh went to the appellant and enquired from him about the mutation and it is alleged that the appellant asked him to pay Rs. 200/- then alone mutation will be done in the name of his father, and it is alleged that Sheoram Singh promised to pay Rs. 100/- on 25-4-1977. ( 5 ) IT is alleged that after making this promise on 25-4-1977, the witness Sheoram Singh went to Rewa and went to one Ram Lakhan Singh (P. W. 14) and he told Ramlakhan what the appellant had asked him. It is also alleged that Sheoram Singh sought the help of Ramlakhan to take him to the office of vigilance Department and next day, Sheoram Singh along with Ramlakhan went to the office of vigilance Department at 9 Oclock where Sheoram Singh gave a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shri Ganga Prasad Dubey about the matter. Sheoram Singh got the application written by Ramlakhan and produced it to Ganga Prasad Dubey which is Ex. P - 1. ( 6 ) IT is alleged that on receiving this application, Ganga Prasad Dubey called the Employment Officer, Shri Jakir Hussain Russaini (P. W. 6) to his office and this witness reached the office of Shri Dubey. He was introduced to Sheoram Singh and Ramlakhan and the application submitted by Sheoram Singh was read out to Shri Hussaini also. It is alleged that Shri Hussaini verified the facts written in the application from Sheoram Singh. ( 7 ) SHEORAM Singh also produced 10 currency notes of Rs. 10/- each and it is alleged that the clerk of the vigilance Department, Mahendra Singh applied phenolphthalein powder to these notes. It is alleged that Shri Hussaini verified the facts written in the application from Sheoram Singh. ( 7 ) SHEORAM Singh also produced 10 currency notes of Rs. 10/- each and it is alleged that the clerk of the vigilance Department, Mahendra Singh applied phenolphthalein powder to these notes. A search of Sheoram Singh was taken and it was found that he had no other currency notes except these 10 notes which were put in the pocket of his shirts by Mahendra Singh and he was instructed that he should not touch these currency notes with his hand except when he had to give these currency notes to the accused. It is also alleged that he was instructed that after giving the currency notes, he should not shake hands with the accused and that after he gave these currency notes to the accused, he should give a single by lighting a bidi which will be an indication to Shri Ganga Prasad Dubey and his other witnesses that currency notes have been given. ( 8 ) IT is also alleged that Ramlakhan was instructed to remain with Sheoram Singh so that he may he able to see the giving and taking of currency notes. It is also stated that it was demonstrated to these witnesses that when the phenolphthalein powder was mixed in sodium carbonate solution, its colour becomes red and the solution which was so demonstrated was kept in a bottle and sealed and all the steps taken in the vigilance office were recorded and were signed by the persons present, which is Ex. P-2. ( 9 ) IT is alleged that after these proceedings were recorded, Shri Dubey, Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1), Ramlakhan (P. W. 14), Jakir Hussain Hussain Hussaini (P. W. 6), Shri Ganga Prasad Dubey (P. W. 1), and some other members of the staff of the vigilance office left Rewa by bus and reached Teonthar at about 3. P-2. ( 9 ) IT is alleged that after these proceedings were recorded, Shri Dubey, Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1), Ramlakhan (P. W. 14), Jakir Hussain Hussain Hussaini (P. W. 6), Shri Ganga Prasad Dubey (P. W. 1), and some other members of the staff of the vigilance office left Rewa by bus and reached Teonthar at about 3. 15 P. M At the bus-stand, these people met one Ajaiblal (P. W. 2) and there it is alleged that Ramlakhan told Ganga Prasad Dubey that it will not be good for him to go along with Sheoram Singh to the house of accused and, therefore, he suggested that in his place, Ajaiblal should go along with Sheoram Singh to the house of the accused and to this Ganga Prasad Dubey agreed, Therefore, Ajaiblal was called and he was sent along with Sheoram Singh and it was indicated that when Sheoram Singh gave the signal by lighting a bidi, he should inform Ganga Prasad about it. Thereafter, Sheoram Singh and Ajaiblal were sent to the house of the appellant and the rest of the people remained at about 200 yards away from the house near the bus-stand. ( 10 ) SHEORAM Singh (P. W. 1) and Ajaiblal (P. W. 2) went towards the house of the appellant and when they reached near the Badi in front of his house. Ajaiblal remained outside the Badi and Sheoram Singh alone went inside the house. It is alleged that when he went inside the house, the appellant asked Sheoram Singh as to whether he had brought the money and Sheoram Singh said he has and then he took out the currency notes from the pocket of his shirt and handed them over to the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant took these currency notes by both his hands and thereafter put the currency notes in an Aala of the second room of the house and after keeping the currency notes in the Aala, the appellant came back and sat in the front rooms and started the writing work which he was doing. It is alleged that Sheoram Singh after talking to the appellant for 2 or 3 minutes went out of the house and lighted the bidi and seeing this, Ajaiblal informed Ganga Prasad Dubey and others. It is alleged that Sheoram Singh after talking to the appellant for 2 or 3 minutes went out of the house and lighted the bidi and seeing this, Ajaiblal informed Ganga Prasad Dubey and others. ( 11 ) WHEN the raiding party reached the house of the appellant and Ganga Prasad enquired from the appellant that he has accepted illegal gratification from Sheoram Singh, the appellant denied to have accepted. It is alleged that Ganga Prasad Dubey got the hands of the appellant washed by sodium carbonate solution and it became red. This was kept in a bottle and was sealed. It is alleged that the hands of Sheoram Singh also were washed by sodium carbonate and that also became red and that also was kept in a bottle. It is alleged that thereafter, Ganga Prasad Dubey asked the appellant as to where the money was kept. The appellant refused to have accepted any money and Sheoram Singh told Shri Dubey that the money is in the Aala of another room and the appellant was directed by Ganga Prasad Dubey to bring the currency notes. It is alleged that the appellant went inside and Ganga Prasad, Jakir Hussain Hussaini, Ramlakhan and others also followed him and he took out the currency notes from the Aala of the second room and placed them on the ground. It is alleged that the numbers of these currency notes tallied with the 10 notes of 10 rupee currency notes mentioned in the original Panchnama. They were kept in an envelope and sealed of these proceedings, Ex. P. 3 was prepared. Ganga Prasad Dubey prepared the First Information Report, without any number which was sent to Bhopal. ( 12 ) ON 28-4-1977, from the Patwari of village Manika, i. e. , Ram Prasad, the mutation register, Ex. P-14 and Jamabandi, (Ex. p 16 were seized vide, seizure. memo, Ex. P. 16 and the Tahsildar sent the daily diary of the appellant and the Patwari which are Exs. P. 4 and P. 5. After investigation, a sanction was obtained which was Ex. P. 7 and the prosecution was launched. ( 13 ) THE appellant denied the guilt and stated in his defence that Sheoram Singh never went to him for any mutation and he never demanded any illegal gratification from Sheoram Singh. P. 4 and P. 5. After investigation, a sanction was obtained which was Ex. P. 7 and the prosecution was launched. ( 13 ) THE appellant denied the guilt and stated in his defence that Sheoram Singh never went to him for any mutation and he never demanded any illegal gratification from Sheoram Singh. It was alleged that the Patwari of Gram Manika had made a complaint against the father of Sheoram Singh that he had occupied the Government land unauthorisedly, bearing survey No. 894/1 and the appellant had forwarded that application to the Tahsil and, therefore, Sheoram Singh was displeased with him and inimical to him. It was further stated that on 26-4-1977, when Sheoram Singh went to him, the Patwari of the village Manika by name Ram Prasad was sitting with him. Sheoram. Singh asked the appellant that he was feeling thirsty and the appellant told him to go in the inner room and take some water. Thereafter, Sheoram Singh went inside and after taking water came out and after sometime, Ram Prasad Patwari went away and Sheoram Singh remained sitting by his side and after some time the trap party arrived. ( 14 ) IT is also stated by the appellant that Shri Ganga Prasad Dubey also bears a grudge against him and alleged that when he refused to have accepted any illegal gratification, he was forced to go inside the room and at his instance, the appellant brought the currency notes lying in the Aala of the inside room and placed them on the ground and it is after that both his hands were washed. He also stated that Ajaiblal wanted the appellant to get improper things done and as he was not prepared to do it, he was displeased, It was also stated that Moujilal, Brajbhan Singh and Samaylal Singh are near relations of Sheoram Singh and Jakir Hussain Hussaini is a friend of Shri Dubey. Ramlakhan Singh wanted the appellant to do his party work which he did not do and was, therefore, displeased with him. ( 15 ) ON these facts, the appellant was prosecuted and convicted by the learned Court below. Ramlakhan Singh wanted the appellant to do his party work which he did not do and was, therefore, displeased with him. ( 15 ) ON these facts, the appellant was prosecuted and convicted by the learned Court below. ( 16 ) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that so far as the first part of the story is concerned, there is no evidence to support the case of Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) as Patwari has not supported his evidence nor there is any other material to indicate that any application was submitted by Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) to the Patwari for mutation nor the sale-deed has been produced nor the seller has been examined and even the scribe of the sale-deed has not been examined. The Patwari has denied anything about it and, therefore, it was contended that so far as this part of the story that the applicant had some mutation proceedings pending before him is concerned, there is no evidence in the case, as the evidence of Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) alone could not be relied on without any independent corroboration. ( 17 ) IT was also contended that only one witness has been examined who is Samaylal Singh (P. W. 5) to say that before him an application was given by Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) to the Patwari but his evidence is very casual. He does not know what was the paper. Although in examination-in- chief he attempted to support that it was a document from Moujilal in favour of Brajbhan about the sale but in cross-examination he admitted that he did not even read the paper and the questions put to him indicate that he knows nothing about it and it is interesting that even such a casual witness to support the evidence of Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) happens to be the cousin brother of Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) himself as in his cross-examination he admitted that he is the son of the brother of Brajbhan who is the father of Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1 ). It was, therefore, contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the first part of the story therefore is not established by any evidence at all. It was, therefore, contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the first part of the story therefore is not established by any evidence at all. ( 18 ) AS regards the recovery of currency notes, it was contended that about the transaction of giving of the currency notes, there and no evidence except that of Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) as apparently, Ramlakhan Singh (P. W. 14) who was supposed to go with Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) suggested to Ganga Prasad Dubey (P. W. 15) that for him, it will not be proper and he remained away and in his place, he suggested to carry Ajaiblal (P. W. 2) and the evidence of Ajaiblal (P. W. 2) also shows that he remained outside and did not go in. It was also contended that the evidence of Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1), therefore, about handing over of currency notes also does not find any support and the recovery of the currency notes is of no consequence and even the washing of hands of the appellant by sodium carbonate solution is of no consequence in view of the evidence of Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) himself who clearly stated that when the Police office Shri Dubey, asked the appellant, he refused having accepted any illegal gratification and ultimately, the Police Officer compelled the appellant to bring the currency notes from the Aala kept in the inner room and it is only after he brought the currency notes from that place that his hands were washed and, therefore, he had an occasion to touch these currency notes before his hands were washed. It was, therefore, contended that this change of colour of the solution also is of no consequence. ( 19 ) IT was contended, therefore, that the only evidence is of Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) who admittedly is an accomplice and there is the statement of the appellant denying his version which also finds corroboration from his immediate and spontaneous conduct which appears from his answer to the Police Officer and his refusal to sign the seizure - memo. It was, therefore, contended by the learned counsel that it has not been established that there was any matter pending before the appellant in which he could help Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1 ). It was, therefore, contended by the learned counsel that it has not been established that there was any matter pending before the appellant in which he could help Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1 ). There is no sufficient evidence to hold that the currency notes were handed by Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) to the appellant nor there is any evidence to come to the conclusion that this amount was demanded by him and so paid by Sheoram Singh (P. W. I) for purposes of getting the name mutated. It was, therefore, contended that in view of such evidence the mere finding of currency notes from the inner room of the appellant when, admittedly, Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) had gone inside the house could not lead to the only inference that the money was accepted as illegal gratification and it was in this view of the matter that it was contended that the offence has not been established against the appellant. ( 20 ) LEARNED Government Advocate frankly conceded that the Patwari has not supported the prosecution and during investigation neither the application nor the sale deed could be seized from the Patwari. Even the application submitted by the Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) to the Patwari for mutation has not been seized and could not be produced. He, therefore, frankly conceded that so far as the first part of the story is concerned, there is hardly any evidence in the case. But he contended that the currency notes which were given to Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) for being given to the appellant have ultimately been seized from his possession and this, according to the learned Government Advocate, is enough to draw an inference that he accepted the illegal gratification and on that basis, it was contended that the conviction is proper. ( 21 ) THE prosecution case he has been stated by Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) is that he had purchased some land from Moujilal in the name of his father and he wanted the mutation to be done and, therefore, gave a copy of the sale-deed and the application to the Patwari and Patwari told him to go to the appellant. It is not in dispute that Patwari has not supported the prosecution. He has denied that any such application was given to him. It is not in dispute that Patwari has not supported the prosecution. He has denied that any such application was given to him. He has also denied that he had referred Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) to the appellant and he has even denied that there was any sale-deed produced before him. Ganga Prasad Dubey (P. W. 15), the Police Officer conducting the trap and investigation also admitted that during investigation he seized the register of the Patwari but it does not have any entry of the application of Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) nor the application nor the sale-deed could be seized from the possession of the Patwari. It is, therefore, clear that so far as this part of the story is concerned, there is no other evidence except the evidence of Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1 ). ( 22 ) THE prosecution has examined one Samaylal Singh (P. W. 5) to say that Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) had given some application to the Patwari about the sale by Moujilal in favour of the father of Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1 ). This witness in examination-in-chief has, no doubt, attempted to say but in cross-examination had to admit that he has not even seen the paper what it was nor knew anything about it and still it is interesting that in his cross-examination he had to admit that he is the cousin brother of Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) as according to his own statement, he is the son of brother of Brajbhan who is the father of She or am Singh (P. W. 1 ). It is, therefore, clear that this evidence does not carry the case of prosecution any further so far as the first part of the story is concerned. ( 23 ) IT is interesting to note that even Brajbhan, the father of Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) also has not supported Sheoram Singh (P. W. I) fully. In his cross-examination, he has categorically stated that he has not purchased any land from Moujilal nor paid anything towards that purchase. What he says only is that his son had told him the story of purchase from Moujilal of 56 acre demand for Rs. 99/ -. Moujilal has not been examined nor the scribe of the sale deed has been examined, nor any document pertaining to the sale has been produced by the prosecution. What he says only is that his son had told him the story of purchase from Moujilal of 56 acre demand for Rs. 99/ -. Moujilal has not been examined nor the scribe of the sale deed has been examined, nor any document pertaining to the sale has been produced by the prosecution. It is, therefore, clear that so far as the first part of the story is concerned, there is no evidence except the evidence of Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) and it could not be doubted that only on the testimony of Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1), it could not be held that he had submitted some application to the Patwari for mutation and for that purpose he was asked by the Patwari to go to the appellant. ( 24 ) AS regards the trap, the evidence clearly indicates that originally when the trap was arranged it was thought bad that Sheoram Singh would be accompanied by Ramlakhan Singh (P. W. 14) to go to the house of the appellant but Ramlakhan Singh (P. W. 14) avoided it and ultimately he did not go along with him but substituted Ajaiblal (P. W. 2) to go with him. But this Ajaiblal (P. W. 2) also in his deposition, in examination-in-chief, categorically stated that he went upto the house and he stopped in front of the Badi which is in front of the house of appellant which is covered by a Tatta. He categorically states that he remained outside the Tatta and it was only Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) who went inside and he only learnt about tile matter when Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) came out and lighted a bidi. It is, therefore, clear from the evidence of this witness Ajaiblal (P. W. 2) that he does not support Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) so far as what transpired when Sheoram Singh reached inside the house of the appellant. Admittedly, there is no other witness present there except the Patwari and it is not disputed that the Patwari has not supported Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1 ). It is, therefore, clear that so far as giving of the currency notes to the appellant is concerned, the only evidence is of Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) and there is no corroboration at all. It is, therefore, clear that so far as giving of the currency notes to the appellant is concerned, the only evidence is of Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) and there is no corroboration at all. ( 25 ) SHEORAM Singh (P. W. 1) in his d position, no doubt, has stated that when he went inside the house of the appellant, the appellant took the currency notes and counted them and thereafter, he went inside and placed the currency notes in the Aala in the inner room. This witness in his examination-in-chief stated that when Ganga Prasad Dubey, the officer who laid the trap, came in and asked him as to whether he had given the currency notes to the appellant and he said, Tyest then he went inside the house of the appellant and made; him to take out those currency notes and it was only when the appellant was made to bring those currency notes from the Aala that his hands were washed by sodium carbonate solution. He categorically denied that it is not a fact that appellants hands were washed before he brought the currency notes from the Aala in the inside room. This evidence, therefore, clearly eliminates the evidential value of change of colour by sodium carbonate solution when the hands of the appellants were washed with it. ( 26 ) ON this basis, it could not be said that the appellant had received the currency notes and had handled them and, therefore, on washing the hands, the solution turned red, as hag been stated categorically by this witness Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1 ). If he had not received the currency notes, the Investigating Officer compelled him to handle those notes when he was forced to bring them from the Aala and, therefore, the change of colour is safely explained. ( 27 ) UNDER these circumstances, therefore, so far as the evidence of giving of the currency notes as illegal gratification to the appellant is concerned, there is the only evidence of Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) and the evidence of change of colour of the solution also is of no consequence. It could not be disputed that the appellant could not be convicted on the role testimony of Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) who admittedly is an accomplice. It could not be disputed that the appellant could not be convicted on the role testimony of Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) who admittedly is an accomplice. His statement is negatived by the evidence of Patwari who was present there and who states that this Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) went inside the house in the inside room and that is what the statement of the appellant is. ( 28 ) IT is also significant that when Ganga Prasad Dubey (P. W. 15), the officer-in-charge of the trap, questioned the appellant on his arrival, he refused to have accepted any gratification and refused to have any knowledge about the currency notes and therefore, Shri Dubey asked Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) and Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) stated that the currency notes are lying in the Aala in the inside room from where Shri Dubey compelled the appellant to bring the currency notes. These circumstances and the conduct of the appellant further corroborate his statement which also finds corroboration from the evidence of Patwari and the evidence of Sheo ram Singh (P. W. 1) is not corroborated at all by any evidence whatsoever. Under these circumstances, therefore, the only evidence is that 10 currency notes of rupee ten each were recovered from the house of the appellant. The evidence of giving of these currency notes as illegal gratification and acceptance by the appellant is not established. Therefore, merely on the basis of recovery of currency notes, when there is a plausible explanation given by the appellant that Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) asked him that he was thirsty and he asked him to go inside. the room and take water and, therefore, Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) went inside the room suggesting that he put these currency notes in the Aala in the inside room from where ultimately these currency notes were recovered. the room and take water and, therefore, Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1) went inside the room suggesting that he put these currency notes in the Aala in the inside room from where ultimately these currency notes were recovered. ( 29 ) IN the absence of any convincing evidence about the giving of the currency notes as illegal gratification and their acceptance by the appellant, the conviction of the appellant could not be maintained and in the background of such evidence, the absence of any evidence about the earlier part of the story also becomes significant that there is nothing to suggest that any mutation proceedings were pending or that there was anything for which the appellant could have helped the complainant Sheoram Singh (P. W. 1 ). In view of this, therefore, there is no evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. The prosecution has not been able to establish the offence against the appellant beyond doubt. ( 30 ) THE appeal is, therefore, allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted. He is on bail. His bail bonds are directed to be cancelled. Appeal allowed. .