JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has filed this appeal against the judgment of the Special Judge, A.C.D. Cases, Rajasthan, Jaipur dated 16-7-74. 2. A challan under Section 161, IPC and Section 5(1)(d)(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act was put up against the respondent. who was working as Land Record Inspector, Tehsil Nagar, District Bharatpur. One Suresh Chand lodged a report with the Additional S.P., A.C.D., Bharatpur, on 23-1-71 to the effect that the S.D.M. had ordered the Girdawar and Patwari to measure his land bearing Khasra No. 213. Expenses amounting to Rs. 22/- had already been deposited by him, but the Girdawar Ghisaram, the respondent, was demanding a sum of Rs. 50/- as bribe for doing this job. Suresh Chand did not want to pay this bribe, therefore he reported the matter to the Addl. S.P., A.C.D., Bharatpur. The Addl. S.P. on this report signed the currency notes of Rs. 50/- applied phenolphthalien powder those notes and gave them to the informant directing him to give the amount to the respondent and to give signal to him; Suresh Chand and Babulal want to the room of the Patwari where he was collecting Lagan. Suresh Chand gave Rs. 50/- to the accused-respondent who placed on the floor (Durie) and asked Ramsarup Patwari to keep them. Ramsarup kept them in the bag in which he was keeping the Lagan money. The pro-arranged signal was given to Babulal, who gave signal to the Addl. S.P. and the party arrived at the spot. The notes were recovered from the bag of Ramsarup Patwari. The hands of the respondent and Ramsarup Patwari were washed in water mixed with Soda-Carb, and it is stated that the colour of the water turned pink. This water was not preserved by the Addl. S.P. Necessary memos were prepared and a case was registered against the accused-respondent. After obtaining sanction from the Collector, Bharatpur for prosecuting the accused-respondent, and completing the investigation, a challan was submitted against the accused-respondent. Charges were framed against the respondent u/s 161, IPC and s. 6(0(d)(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act. The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined its witnesses and after hearing argument the learned Special Judge did not find the respondent guilty of the charges levelled against him and acquitted him. Against this Acquittal, the State Government has preferred this appeal. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined its witnesses and after hearing argument the learned Special Judge did not find the respondent guilty of the charges levelled against him and acquitted him. Against this Acquittal, the State Government has preferred this appeal. 3. Learned P.P. during the arguments laid more stress on the point that the trial Court has erred in disbelieving the testimony of Suresh Chand complainant. The statement of Suresh Chand has been dealt with in detail by the learned special Judge. I have also gone through the said statement. The allegation of Suresh Chand is that for measuring his land, as ordered by the S.D.M., the accused demanded a sum of Rs, 50/-. The point for consideration before the learned Special Judge was, whether the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 50/- from Suresh Chand. In this respect, there is the solitary statement of Suresh Chand on record. He alone has said that the accused demanded Rs. 55/- from him, his statement before the Court he has stated that he met the accused about ten times, sometimes he demanded Rs. 100/-, sometimes Rs. 80/- and at the other times Rs. 50-. According to Suresh Chand, he was prepared to pay Rs. 20/- only, but the accused was not ready to accept this amount. Thus, according to the witness, he approached the accused about ten times. It is strange that on no occasion none accompanied the complainant and always he went to the accused all alone. The statement that the accused was sometimes demanding Rs. 100/- and sometimes Rs. 80/- and at the other time Rs. 50/- is not reliable statement. When the accused was demanding Rs. 100/- why the complainant did not make any complaint to the S.D.M. and why he did not approach the A.C.D. authorities. For ten times he approached the accused to reduce the amount and accept Rs. 30/- only. His version is that he had no faith in the accused, and as such he requested the S.S.M. to direct Nihalsingh and Amichand to measure his land. Therefore, the complainant did not want to get the land measured from the accused and he requested the S.D.M. to direct Nakul Singh and Amichand to measure his land. 30/- only. His version is that he had no faith in the accused, and as such he requested the S.S.M. to direct Nihalsingh and Amichand to measure his land. Therefore, the complainant did not want to get the land measured from the accused and he requested the S.D.M. to direct Nakul Singh and Amichand to measure his land. Somehow or the other,Nakulsingh and Amichand could not measure the land and ultimately order was given to the accused to measure the land in these circumstances, then the complainant was not willing to get the land measured from the accused, who had demanded bribe from him a number of times why the complainant kept silent. This witness was not found of sterling worth by the learned Special Judge and I see no reason to disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Special Judge. 4. Another argument of the learned P.P. is that the lower Court has erred in not accepting the prosecution cases that the said money was received by the accused. According to the P.P. it has been proved on the record that search was made immediately after the payment of the bribe amount and the currency notes were seized. The hands of the accused as well as of Ramsarup Patwari were washed and the colour of the water turned pink. The pink water was not preserved by the Addl. S.P. and on this ground the learned Special Judge has disbelieved the direct testimony of the prosecution witnesses, which is not correct. 5. I have considered this argument. There is no proof on the record that when the complainant Suresh Chand made a complaint to the Addl. S.P. and the phenolphthalein powder was applied to the currency notes, there was demonstration of the effect of the powder. Actually the law requires that when phenolphthalein powder is applied to the currency notes, it is the duty of the Addl. S.P. or the person to whom the complaint is made to demonstrate before the witnesses the quality and effect of applying phenolphthalien powder. The Addl. S.P. should have demonstrated in the Dak Banglow where the powder was applied to the currency notes and should have explained the quality as to how the water would turn pink. Apart from this, the pink water is a very essential material. The Addl. S.P. should have demonstrated in the Dak Banglow where the powder was applied to the currency notes and should have explained the quality as to how the water would turn pink. Apart from this, the pink water is a very essential material. Unless it is proved in the Court that by washing the hands of the accused, the water became pink, and this is that water, it is not safe to believe the story of the prosecution. Apart from this, the hands of Ramsarup Patwari and the accused were washed, but it cannot be said that the water turned pink after washing the hands of the accused or Ramsarup. This not only lacking but a great mistake on the part of the prosecution. The learned Special Judge has correctly disbelieved the testimony of the witnesses who have said that the hands of the accused were washed with water and the water became pink. The statements of these witnesses should have been corroborated and that could have been by producing the pink water. As the prosecution has failed to produce that pink water, the learned special Judge has correctly disbelieved the testimony of the witnesses and I see no reason to disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Special Judge. 6. It is also in the evidence that the amount was recovered from the bag which was with Ramsarup Patwari. When the Addl. S.P. demanded the money from the accused and said that he had just accepted the bribe, the accused-respondent refused. The money was not with the accused. As such, the amount was recovered not from the possession of the accused respondent but from Ramsarup Patwari. It creates a doubt whether the accused-respondent accepted the bribe or Ramsarup Patwari accepted it. 7. I, therefore, see no reason to disagree with the learned special Judge, who has discussed the evidence in detail, and has correctly acquitted the accused-respondent. 8. The appeal of the State has no force and it is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******