FAIZANUDDIN, J. ( 1 ) IN this Criminal Appeal, the appellant has challenged his conviction under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code as also under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for which he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on each count by the Special Judge (Second Additional Sessions Judge) Rewa, in Special Criminal Case No. 2 of 1979. ( 2 ) IT is an admitted fact that the appellant Visheshwar Singh was working as a Reader in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rewa since 1976 and was entrusted with the duties to deal with records of criminal cases of that court. It was one of his duties to examine and check up the bail bone papers filed in criminal cases and than after the necessary compliance put up the same before the Presiding Officer of the Court. It has also not been disputed that one Ramlal Patwari had filed a complaint under section 107/117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the complainant Chandramani Prasad Mishra (P. W. T.) and 18 others which was pending in the Court of Sub- Divisional Magistrate Husar, and 30th November, 1977 was fixed for appearance of the 19 non- applicants out of which only nine persons including the complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) had appeared and submitted their bail bond papers to the appellant whose table and chair were situated just adjacent to the dias of the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate. It is also an admitted fact that on 30 November, 1977 at about 3. 00 p. m Shri Ganga Prasad Dubey (P. W. 6) Dy. S. P. Vigilance Department and the Inspector Shrivastava and some other persons of that Department went to the Court of Sub-Divisional ,magistrate and commanded the appellant to take out the currency notes which were alleged to have been given to him by Chandramani (P. W. 1) but the appellant replied that he had not taken money from Chandramani. Thereafter Inspector Shrivastava caught hold both the hands of the appellant by his wrist and the fingers of both the hands of the appellant were dipped in the glass full of water Shri Gangaprasad Dubey (P. W. 6) then again commended the appellant to take out the currency notes but the appellant again repeated to Same reply that he not taken any more from Chandramani. The Pyjama of the appellant was taken off and the left pocket thereof was dipped into the water mixed with sodium carbonate. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case was that on 30th November, 1977 complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) and 8 others who had attended the Court that day in Criminal Case No. 303/77 in proceedings under section 107/ 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had submitted their bail bond papers by about 12 in the noon to the appellant who was the Reader of the Court and thereafter the complainant Chandramani had approached the appellant and requested him to complete the formalities of their bail bond papers so that they may return to their village soon. Thereupon the appellant told Chandramani (P. W. I) that necessary work would be done only when he and all the other 8 members of his party paid him Rs. 51- each. But as Chandramani was not prepared to pay the said bribe, he, therefore, came out of the Court room and took Gangaprasad (P. W. 2) who had also come that day to the Court along with Chandrarnllni and others and proceeded to the Vigilance Office where he told about the incident to the Dy. S. P. Shri Gangaprasad Dubey (p. W. 6) and made a written complaint(Ex. P. 2) to him. Shri Dubey (P. W. 6) then called Shri Shriram Shrivatava, Accounts Officer (P. W. 7) of the Office of Vigilance Commissioner and handed over the complaint (Ex. P. 2) to him. Thereafter the complainant Chandramani Prasad (P. W. 1) took out one two rupees currency note and 3 notes of Rs. 1/- each (total Rs. 5/-) and paid the same to Shri Ganga Prasad (P. W. 6 ). Peon, Naresh Kumar was required to apply Phenolpathalein powder in the said currency notes and kept them in the right front pocket of the pant of Chandramani. Then Chandramani (P. W. 1) was asked to go and offer the said money to the appellants with -the instructions to give a signal to Ganga Prasad (P. W. 2) after the same were handed over to the appellant and Gangaprasad (P. W. 2) was instructed to given onwards signal to trap party. For this plan a panchnama (Ex,p. 3) was recorded in the Vigilance Department itself. For this plan a panchnama (Ex,p. 3) was recorded in the Vigilance Department itself. ( 4 ) THEREAFTER, complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) and his companion Ganga Prasad (p. W. 2) proceeded to the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, followed by the trap party consisting of Dy. S. P. Ganga Prasad Dubey (P. W. 6) Shriram Shrivastava (p. W. 7) and Inspector K. K. Shrivastava (P. W. 9) of the Vigilance Department and Clerks R. B. Singh, Mahendra Singh and R. P. Tripathi of the Vigilance Department. The trap party stayed about 100 steps away from the Court of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, waiting for the signal Chandramani (P. W. 1) entered the Court room of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate where the appellant asked him whether he has done the work and on affirmative reply by the complainant Chandramani, the appellant extended his left band and received the illegal gratification of Rs. 5/- from Cbandrarnani Chandramamani (P. W. 1) then gave a signal to Ganga Prasad (P. W. 2) that he bad passed over the money to the appellant and in turn Ganga Prasad (P. W. 2) gave further signal to the trap party. Consequently the trap party arrived in the Court room of Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Dy. S. P. Ganga Prasad Dubey (P. W. 6) gave out his identity as also the identity of the members of the trap party. Inspector Shrivastava (P. W 9) caught hold both the hands of the appellant by his wrist. The fingers of both the bands were dipped in a glass of water and the water turned pink. Shri, Dubey (P. W. 6) required the appellant to take out the currency notes of Rs. 5/-which he had received as bribe from Chandrarnani but the appellant denied to have received any amount from Chandramani. According to the prosecution story the appellant dropped the currency notes of Rs. 5/- from left pocket of his pyjama on the dias of the Court room of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which were picked up by Shriram Shrivastava, Accounts Office, an (P. W. 7), the numbers of which tallied with the numbers of the currency botes recorded in the Panchnama (Ex. P. 2 ). The said currency notes were seized as per seizure memo (Ex. PA ). The left pocket of the Pyjama of the appellant was washed in water which turned pink. Written report (EX. P. 2 ). The said currency notes were seized as per seizure memo (Ex. PA ). The left pocket of the Pyjama of the appellant was washed in water which turned pink. Written report (EX. P. 17) of the incident was sent by the Dy. S. P. Vigilance G. P. Dubey (P. W. 6) to the Police Station, Special police Establishment, Bhopal on the basis of which First Information Report (Ex. P. 17) was recorded. ( 5 ) ARTICLES A to F seized water which had turned purple on washing of the trouser, pockets and hands etc. was sent for chemical examination. The report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex. P. 21-B) indicated that all the bottles contained solution of Solum Carbonate and Phenolphthalein. ( 6 ) AFTER obtaining the sanction (Ex. P. 1) charge sheet was presented against the appellant under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. ( 7 ) AT the trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication due to litigation and enmity. The appellant took the plea that after the tea-break when the Sub Divisional Magistrate Shri Dabey (P. W. S) was hearing arguments of lawyers in a case and the appellant from his seat adjacent to the dias was showing some khasra. entries to the Presiding Officer of that Court, at that time the complainant Chandramani touched the left pocket of his trouser which was brushed aside by the appellant. After the trial, the learned Special Judge relying on the prosecution evidence found the appellant guilty of the offence for which he was charged with and, therefore, convicted and sentenced him accordingly against which this appeal has been directed. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant first contended that there is no reliable and independent illegal gratification from the complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) or that any money was passed as bribe to the appellant and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant could not be sustained. In my opinion there is substance in this submission. But before I discuss the evidence on the point I shall first refer the law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in that behalf. In my opinion there is substance in this submission. But before I discuss the evidence on the point I shall first refer the law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in that behalf. ( 9 ) IN Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab1 their Lordships observed that in a bribery case the complainant is an interested witness and his evidence must be considered with great caution and it can be accepted when it is corroborated in material particulars by other evidence adduced by the prosecution. Similar view was expressed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in R. P. Arora v. State of Punjab wherein it has been observed that the evidence of interested and partisan witnesses who are concerned in the success of the trap must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. It has been further observed that in a proper case the Court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused persons. ( 10 ) ADVERTING to the evidence on the question of demand of illegal gratification and the payment thereof I find that there is the solitary evidence of complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) himself who is not corroborated by any other independent evidence or otherwise. According to the statement of Chandramani (P. W. 1) when the appellant demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5/- from him and other persons who had - appeared that day in proceedings under section 107/117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he went out of the Court room with the determination that he will not be a party to the corruption. In paragaraph 5 of his deposition Chandrmani (P. W. 1) stated that he took with him his associated Ganga Prasad (P. W. 2) and went to the Vigilance Department where he told to the Dy. S. P. Shri Dubey (P. W. 6) about the demand of bribe by the appellant and made a written report (Ex. P. 2 ). From this statement it is clear that none else was present when the alleged bribe was demanded by the appellant from Chandramani who proceeded to state that after his return from the Vigilance Department he handed over the currency notes of Rs. P. 2 ). From this statement it is clear that none else was present when the alleged bribe was demanded by the appellant from Chandramani who proceeded to state that after his return from the Vigilance Department he handed over the currency notes of Rs. 5/- to the appellant in which phenolphthalein powder was applied and the appellant took the same and kept in the left pocket of his trouser (See paragraph 11 and 47 of his deposition ). In paragraph 12 Chandramani (P. W. 1) deposed that his associate Ganga Prasad (P. W. 2) was on the gate of Court room while he passedover the money to the appellant who gave signal to the trap party and than the trap party arrived in the Court room of Sub Divisional Magistrate Shri Dubey (P. W. 8 ). The companion of the complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1), Ganga Prasad (P. W. 2) in paragraph 4 of his deposition stated that OD their return from the Vigilance Department with the currency notes applied with phenolphthalien powder the complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) went to the Court room of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and he (Gangji Prasad P. W. 2) remained standing on the door of the Court-room while Chandramani (P. W. 1) went inside the Court room and after 5 minutes Chandramani gave him a signal by raising his hands indicating that the money had been passed and then Ganga Prasad (P. W. 2) gave signal to the trap party. These facts clearly indicate that even Ganga Prasad (P. W. 2) had not seen the actual passing of the alleged bribe by Chandrmani to the appellant and Ganga Prasad (P. W. 2) gave a gesture to the trap party only on the basis of the signal having been received from the complainant about passing of the money to the appellant. There was thus neither any corroboration from any independent evidence regarding the demand of bribe by the appellant from Chandramani (P. W. 1) nor about passing of alleged bribe to the appellant. There was thus neither any corroboration from any independent evidence regarding the demand of bribe by the appellant from Chandramani (P. W. 1) nor about passing of alleged bribe to the appellant. Complainant Chandramani (P. W. 19) is an interested and partisan witness directly concerned with the success of the trap against the appellant as he was not happy with the appellant because the appellant did not oblige him by obtaining the signature of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on their bail bonds papers so that the complainant and his party may be relieved early and return to their village soon. ( 11 ) OTHER attending circumstances also did not support the version of the complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) that the appellant told him that their work can be done and, they may be relieved soon only when he and his other associates pay him Rs. 5/- each. Admittedly the complainant, Chandramani (P. W. 1) and his other associates were represented by their counsel Shri Anirudh Singh, Advocate in proceedings ,under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. In paragraph 38 of this deposition, the complainants companion Ganga Prasad (P. W. 2) categorically stated that when Anirudh Singh, Advocate came out of the Court Room of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate before the tea break the appellant had completed and prepared the bail bond papers of Chandramani (P. W. 1) and his party and kept them on the table of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The duty of the appellant was only to prepare and complete the formalities of the bail bond papers and place them before the Presiding Officer and that was done. There was no occasion for the appellant to say that their work could be done only when they pay the bribe of Rs. 5/- each. Almost similar is the evidence of Shri Anirudh Singh ,advocate, who was examined as defence witness (D. W. 3 ). In these circumstances, in the absence of any corroboration to the interested testimony of the complainant alone, it is difficult to rely on the sale testimony of the complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) about the demand of bribe and payment thereof to the appellant. In my opinion the evidence of Chandramani (P. W. 1) is not free from doubt and the benefit of doubt must go to the appellant. In my opinion the evidence of Chandramani (P. W. 1) is not free from doubt and the benefit of doubt must go to the appellant. ( 12 ) THIS brings me to the next question whether the currency notes of Rs. 5/ duly applied with phenolphthalein powder which were taken from the complainant Chandramani (P. W. I) as per Panchnama (Ex. P. 3) were in fact recovered from the possession of the appellant so as to sustain his conviction. On this point there the evidence of the complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) his companion Ganga Prasad (P. W. 2) Dy. S. P. Vigilance Shri Ganga Prasad Dubey (P. W. 6) and the Accounts Officer of that Department Shriram Shrivastava (P. W. 7 ). I shall, therefore, scrutinize their evidence on the point. Admittedly the alleged currency notes of Rs. 5/- were not recovered or seized from the possession of the appellant. The prosecution story is that the appellant had dropped those currency notes of Rs. 5/- from the left pocket of his trouser on the ground at the dias of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. It has, therefore, to be seen whether it was the appellant who will fact had dropped those currency notes, from the pockets of his trouser which were seen by any of the prosecution witness. Complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) himself stated in paragraph 14 that Shri Dubey (P0 W. 6) required the appellant to take out the currency notes. The appellant took out two notes from the pocket of his shirt and said that he ,had no other money. He further deposed in that said paragraph that Shri Dubey then again commanded the appellant to take out those notes which were given to him by Chandramani (P. W. 1) and then the appellant while sitting on his chair dropped the currency notes from the pocket of his pyjama on the ground. He proceeded ,to state that as the currency! notes dropped he, saw them and Dubey (P. W. 6) asked the Inspector Shrivastava (P. W. 9) to pick up those notes who picked up and delivered to Shri Dubey. On tallying, the said currency notes were the same as these of the Panchnama (Ex. P. 3 ). He proceeded ,to state that as the currency! notes dropped he, saw them and Dubey (P. W. 6) asked the Inspector Shrivastava (P. W. 9) to pick up those notes who picked up and delivered to Shri Dubey. On tallying, the said currency notes were the same as these of the Panchnama (Ex. P. 3 ). Here it may the pointed out that though the complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) had seen as stated by him in paragraph 11 of his deposition, that the appellant had kept the money in the left pocket of his trouser yet, when in his presence Dy. S. P. Dubey (P. W. 6) commanded the appellant to take out the currency notes given to him by Chandramani and which fact was denied by the appellant, the complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) did not say or point out if he at all paid the money, that the appellant had kept the same in the pocket of his trouser. Not only this but in paragraph 41 of his deposition Chandramani (P. W. 1) deposed that the notes were lying under the chair of the appellant but nowhere in his long statement he deposed that he pointed to the trap party or to anyone else that it was the appellant who dropped the currency notes from pocket. If in fact Chandramani (P. W. 1) had seen the dropping of the notes by the appellant his natural conduct would have been to immediately point out that the appellant was dropping the currency notes. Ganga Passed (P. W. 2) the complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) categorically admitted in paragraph 6 of his Jeposition that when the Dy. S. P. Dubey (P. W. 6) very to Shri Dubey. On tallying, the said currency notes were the same as those of the Panchanama (Ex. p. 3 ). Here it may be pointed out that though the complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) had seen as stated by him in paragraph 11 of his deposition, that the appellant had kept the money in the left pocket of his trouser yet, when in his presence Dy. p. 3 ). Here it may be pointed out that though the complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) had seen as stated by him in paragraph 11 of his deposition, that the appellant had kept the money in the left pocket of his trouser yet, when in his presence Dy. S. P. Dubey (P. W. 6) commanded the appellant to take out the currency notes given to him by Chandramani and which fact was denied by the appellant, the complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) did not say or point out if he at all paid the money, that the appellant had kept the same in the pocket of his trouser. Not only this but in paragraph 41 of his deposition Chandramani (P. W. 1) deposed that the notes were lying under the chair of the appellant but nowhere in his long statement he deposed that the notes were lying under the chair of the appellant but nowhere in his long statement he deposed that he pointed to the trap party or to anyone else that it was the appellant who dropped the currency notes from pocket. If in fact Chandramani (P. W. 1) had seen the dropping of the notes by the appellant his natural conduct would have been to immediately point out that the appellant was dropping the currency notes. Ganga Prasad (P. W. 2) the complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) had seem the dropping of the notes by the appellant his natural conduct would have been to immediately point out that the appellant was dropping the currency notes. Ganga Prasad (P. W. 2 ). the complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) cate- gorically admitted in paragraph 6 of his deposition that when the Dy. S. P. Dubey (p. W. 6) was writing something, some employee of the office of Shri Dubey or some one else said see the currency notes were dropping. If at all Chandramani himself had seen that the currency notes dropping and it was the appellant who had dropped the currency notes Chandramani was bound to point out the same. Then in the same paragraph Ganga Prasad (P. W. 2) clearly admitted that at least he had not seen as to who had dropped those currency notes which were lying under the chair of the appellant. ( 13 ) A persul of the Dy. Then in the same paragraph Ganga Prasad (P. W. 2) clearly admitted that at least he had not seen as to who had dropped those currency notes which were lying under the chair of the appellant. ( 13 ) A persul of the Dy. S. P Shri Dubey (P. W. 6) goes to show that in paragraph 8 he deposed that when he required the appellant to take out the currency notes offered to him by Chandframai (P. W. 1) the appellant took out 2 rupees from the pocket of his shirt and at the same time the appellant dropped currency notes from the left pocket of his trouser at the dias and, therefore, he asked the Accounts officer, Shrivastava to pick up those notes. In paragraph 37 he deposed that not only he but almost all the employees present there had seen the appellant dropping the currency notes from the pocket of his trouser and said that the currency notes were being dropped. But it may be pointed out here that Ganga Prasad (P. W. 2) did not depose that Shri Dubey (P. W. 6) had himself seen the dropping of the notes by the appellant of that Shri Dubey (P. W. 6) asked Shri Shrivastava (P. W. 7) to pick up the notes. Shri Dubey (P. W. 6) in paragraph 39 admitted that he had az asked Shri Shrivatava (P. W. 7) to pick up the currency notes who went behind the chair of the appellant and picked up. He has nowhere stated that he himself pointed to anyone present there that appellant was dropping the currency notes. If Shri Dubey (P. W. 6) was writing something and at that very moment the currency notes had dropped, he could not have seen the dropping of the notes. Accounts Officer, Shriram Shrivastava (P. W. 7) in paragraph 29 of his deposition categorically admitted that he had not seen the appellant dropping the currency notes. There is no other evidence regarding the dropping of currency notes besides the evidence discussed above. The position that emerges out on security of the entire evidence in this regard is that (i besides the statement of complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) himself there is no evidence of demand of bribe by the appellant or the payment there of to him. (ii) if the complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) or Dy. The position that emerges out on security of the entire evidence in this regard is that (i besides the statement of complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) himself there is no evidence of demand of bribe by the appellant or the payment there of to him. (ii) if the complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) or Dy. S. P. Dubey (P. W. 6) had in fact seen the dropping of the notes by the appellant from his pocket ordinarily they would have pointed it out that very moment that the appellant was dropping the currency notes but it was not done so which is a cir5cumstance against the common course of human conduct; and (iii) that there is no doubt that the currencdy notes of Rs. 5/- were found on the ground undere the chair of the appellant but there is no convincing satisfactory or conclusive evidence that the said currency notes were dropped by the appellant. ( 14 ) THE complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) in paragraph 12 admitted that he and Ganga-prased (P. W. 2) were standing just in front of the appellant at a distance of about 6 feet when the said party come. The evidence on ecord goes to snow that the chair and table of the appellant was situated just adjacent to the dias of the Presiding Officer attached with railing of his dias. There is also evidence that the complainant, the trap party and other persons were in the court room and most of the persons were on the dias from where the currency notes were seized. In the absence of any direct and convincing evidence regarding the dropping of the currency notes by the appellant, the possibility could not be ruled out that the complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) or someone else from his party had dropped those currency notes. In this view of the matter appellant deserves the benefit of doubt. ( 15 ) AGAIN the prosecution evidence goes to show that as soon as the trap party came the Inspector Shrivastava (P. W. 9) caught hold both the hands of tae appellant by his wrist, Inspector Shrivastva (P. W 9) is from the Vigilance Department. Dy. In this view of the matter appellant deserves the benefit of doubt. ( 15 ) AGAIN the prosecution evidence goes to show that as soon as the trap party came the Inspector Shrivastava (P. W. 9) caught hold both the hands of tae appellant by his wrist, Inspector Shrivastva (P. W 9) is from the Vigilance Department. Dy. S. P. Shri Dubey (P. W. 6) admitted in paragraph 22 of his deposition that neither the hands of Accounts Orucer (P. W. 7) nor the hands of Inspector Shrivastava were washed before he caught hold the hands of the appellant. Both these persons were members of the trap party and interested with the success of the trap. The evidence of Dubey (P. W 6) and Shrivastava (P. W. 7) goes to show that Shnvastava (P. W. 7) was chosen as a witness in 2-3 other trap cases tie further appears to be a pet witness in trap cases. It may be Just possible that the hands of these two persons were stained with pnenolphthalein powder by reason of which the water turned pink on washing the appellants hand which make the case further doubtful. The appellants case is that complainant Chandramani (P. W. 1) had touched the pocket of his trouser which he had brushed aside the defence evidence of respectable lawyers also supports that version. (See D. W. 3 and D. W. 5 ). In these circumstances if the pocket of the trouser had turned pink on washing, it is hardly of any consequence. For these reasons it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellant. ( 16 ) IN the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction of the appellant visileshwar Singh under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5 (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act-with sentence there under is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offence charged with. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Appeal allowed. .