JUDGMENT : S. L. Talati, J. The appellant is an Assistant Security Officer working in S.T. Corporation and he is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I. for two months for each count, prosecution case in brief is as 2. The accused-appellant was working as Assistant Security Officer in S.T. Corporation and his duty was to check the buses for the purpose of finding out as to whether proper tickets are issued by the conductors or whether the persons are allowed to travel without tickets or whether moneys are misappropriated by the conductors and he had also to check as to whether the conductors perform their duty in the manner laid down by S.T. Corporation. These duties might as well include whether the conductors are in proper dress, they are carrying licence and so many other small details. He was in a squad where he was not expected to check all buses or he was not a person who was expected in routine to do things but he was given a particular programme and according to that programme he was expected to check only those buses on those routes he was asked by order to do so. The complainant in this particular case Chatrabhu (D.W. 1) is working as conductor and on 9-10-1981 the accused had checked the bus of this particular conductor. It was found that one passenger had not purchased the ticket in Rajkot city. The fare was 20 paise only. The passenger was fined ten times the amount meaning thereby Rs.2/- were collected from the passenger. Now the case of the complainant was that the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 250/-and told him that if that amount was given to him he would not check his bus for one year. This amount was often demanded from the complainant and ultimately the last demand was made on 27-11-1981 at about 8.00 P.M. when the accused had come to Rajkot from Dhrangadhra and ultimately the complainant agreed that the amount would be paid to the accused on the next day at 12-00 noon in Bhaktinagar Chowk. This amount was often demanded from the complainant and ultimately the last demand was made on 27-11-1981 at about 8.00 P.M. when the accused had come to Rajkot from Dhrangadhra and ultimately the complainant agreed that the amount would be paid to the accused on the next day at 12-00 noon in Bhaktinagar Chowk. Thereafter the complainant on 28-11-1981 went in a rickshaw to A.C.B. office and lodged the complaint. He produced currency notes of Rs. 250/- which were treated with anthracene powder in presence of the two panchas who were called and all formalities which were required to lay down the trap were completed and the preliminary panchnama was drawn. Thereafter the members of the raiding party went to Bhaktinagar Chowk where the complainant and panch No. 1 were together and panch No.2 with Inspector of A.C.B. and other members of the raiding party remained at some distance. The prosecution case is that after waiting about few minutes the accused came there on a cycle. The complainant told him that he was waiting for him. At that time the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 250/- which according to the prosecution the accused accepted and the complainant told him that he should not now harass him and as soon as those words were spoken by the complainant the prosecution case is that the accused demanded money which was paid. The signal by lighting a bidi was made and the members of the raiding party with panch No. 1 rushed at the place. Thereafter in a jeep-car they all went to A.C.B. office where the accused was taken. With the help of ultra violet lamp in presence of the panchas the hands of the accused, the currency notes, the pocket of the accused were seen and blue light emanated and the currency notes were seized from the pocket of the bush-shirt of the accused and the members tallied with the numbers which were noted in the preliminary panchnama as a result final panchnama was completed at that place. Police Inspector Dave thereafter recorded certain statements and ultimately after obtaining the sanction to prosecute the accused, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge. 3. In the court of Special Judge at Rajkot the prosecution examined four witnesses. The accused denied the guilt. Police Inspector Dave thereafter recorded certain statements and ultimately after obtaining the sanction to prosecute the accused, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge. 3. In the court of Special Judge at Rajkot the prosecution examined four witnesses. The accused denied the guilt. According to him the conductor was doing business of selling stainless utensils which he was bringing to Rajkot in S.T. bus itself. According to the accused he wanted to purchase a drum (peep) and for that purpose in May, 1981 he had given him Rs. 250/-, as the complainant could not bring the drum in question the amount was returned to him at 12.00 noon on 28-11-81 and he was falsely implicated. He also in his defence examined himself and gave evidence. He examined three witnesses to establish that some of them had purchased the utensils from the complainant and a labourer was examined to establish the fact that the utensils were being brought to Rajkot which the labourer took from S.T. bus stop to the house of the complainant. The learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that it was established that the accused accepted the amount. Thereafter the learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that as the amount was accepted presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act would arise and it was for the accused to prove that he had given the amount for purchasing the drum and that it was that amount which was repaid to him. The learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that aspect of the case’s not proved by the accused and the reasons given by the learned Special Judge arc that the complainant did not know that on 28-11-1981 the accused would be present at 12-00 noon at Bhagtinagar unless the two persons met on 27-11-1981. Therefore, when the complainant filed the complaint in the morning of 28-11-81 it would be natural that both persons had met some time on 27-11-1981 and the accused had agreed to accept the amount at 12-00 noon and, therefore, only the complaint could be filed arid the trap could be arranged. Further the learned Special Judge thought that an Assistant Security Officer would not give a sum of Rs. 250/- to a conductor who was dealing in utensils. Further the learned Special Judge thought that an Assistant Security Officer would not give a sum of Rs. 250/- to a conductor who was dealing in utensils. He would only pay when the drum which he required was given to him because it would be a transaction of purchase and sale. There was no question of depositing or giving amount prior to the purchase or giving the amount for the purpose of purchasing. If one looks in this particular way in a normal transaction prima-facie one would believe that such a situation would normally not exist. But here the case was required to be examined in a more careful manner. The reason is that here was a conductor working in S.T. Corporation itself. As many as 13 cases were made out against him during the period between 1974 and 1981. He was fined and his increments were required to be stopped. Now this person who is working in S.T. Corporation committed so many defaults during his career; that he was not a person who could be implicitly trusted upon and one has to read his evidence with greater care and caution. Though of course merely because there were 13 cases against him during the period, his evidence without scrutiny cannot be thrown away, so also it cannot be accepted. What we say is that one should be careful in regard to such person before accepting his evidence. Thereafter if one tries to read his evidence it would be clear that on several points he was not willing to tell the truth. His case is that in the morning of 28-11-1981 he went to the A.C.B. office and one police constable Naran Trivedi was present at the A.C.B. office and he told him that he wanted to file the complaint and Naran Trivedi thereafter asked him to wait and he called Police Inspector Dave and thereafter the complaint was filed. A show was being made as if this complainant never knew Narayn Trivedi. Thereafter when cross-examined he hesitatingly admitted that he knew Naranbhai Trivedi. Ultimately it came out that Naranbhai was a member of Sardar Patel Yuvak Mandal. He thereafter admitted that he was also a member of that Organisation for the last five or six years. Ultimately he admitted that he knew Naran Trivedi very well. In the beginning his stand was that he never knew Naran. Ultimately it came out that Naranbhai was a member of Sardar Patel Yuvak Mandal. He thereafter admitted that he was also a member of that Organisation for the last five or six years. Ultimately he admitted that he knew Naran Trivedi very well. In the beginning his stand was that he never knew Naran. Thereafter his stand was that he was knowing him very well and both the persons were members of an organisation in Rajkot. Thereafter he admitted that in December, 1981 he had become a member of the Executive Committee of which Naranbhai was also a member. Now Naran also ultimately became the Secretary of the Organisation. It is true that this election took place in December, 1981 while this particular transaction took place in November, 1981 but one could easily assume from the evidence if read that Naran and the complainant knew each other very well. Now to know Naran very well is not a ground for rejecting the evidence of the complainant but if he knew Naran Trivedi very well and if he was a witness of truth he would not begin by saying that he did not know Naran Trivedi. Now that, therefore, though he knew Naran Trivedi he wanted the Police Inspector to believe and ultimately the Court to believe that he did not know' Naran Trivedi that he was thoroughly innocent, knew nothing and went to file a complaint and if he met Naran for the first time in his life such a falsehood was not required to be stated unless there was a reason for it. Now this Naran is a friend of one Nathalal who was serving in Municipal Corporation and who after resigning from that post had become Corporator. This Nathalal got himself elected in Municipal Corporation from Ward No. 11. Now this Nathalal is also a member of Sardar Patel Yuvak Mandal. Now Naran and Nathalal are also friends and so also the complainant who knows them very well. They are all members of Sardar Patel Yuvak Mandal. There is nothing wrong if one becomes a member of a social organisation and works for it but then one has to come out openly that he is the person who is the member and doing social work. One should not be shy about it and deny the fact. They are all members of Sardar Patel Yuvak Mandal. There is nothing wrong if one becomes a member of a social organisation and works for it but then one has to come out openly that he is the person who is the member and doing social work. One should not be shy about it and deny the fact. This witness also started saying that he did not know Police Inspector Dave. Ultimately it transpired that he knew Dave very well. This fact again was required to be admitted and the witness admitted that he knew Police Inspector Dave for the last one year. Now that, therefore, we are dealing with a person who is a conductor in S.T. Corporation. The accused who is an Assistant Security Officer of S.T. Corporation has made out a case by checking the bus. Departmental inquiry was pending. When this departmental inquiry is pending the complainant filed complaint before the A.C.B. and at the time of giving evidence he narrated several things which were patently false Apart from the fact that the complainant in law is an accomplice and his evidence requires corroboration, here we are dealing with the person who is not only an accomplice but a liar. On the evidence of such a person it would be absolutely unsafe to rely. The reason is this: In a corruption case the whole case depends upon the credibility of only two persons, the complainant and the panch. The career of a public servant depends on the evidence of the two persons and when examined carefully ultimately it would depend upon one person and then that one person would be a person who would be a panch witness in the case. Creditworthiness of that person would be most important criteria. One unscrupulous complainant if could find out one person to support him the career of any public servant could be put to an end. Under these circumstances caution demands that the evidence of the complainant and the panch should be such by which no doubt is left in the mind of a Judge in regard to the credibility and ultimately, therefore, acceptability of the evidence of those two persons. Under these circumstances caution demands that the evidence of the complainant and the panch should be such by which no doubt is left in the mind of a Judge in regard to the credibility and ultimately, therefore, acceptability of the evidence of those two persons. Here was a conductor who was trying to trap his own officer, a person against whom 13 cases were made out, a person who was not telling truth in regard to the most important aspect of the case. Such a complainant has filed the complaint. Primarily it would appear that he was not filing the complaint but making out a case to save himself in a departmental inquiry. He was perhaps more interested in that. He naturally, therefore, could find out the persons who could be helpful to him. One such person was Naran Trivedi. The witness goes to the extent of saying that he never knew where the A.C.B. office was. Pie stated in the Court that he told the rickshaw driver to take him to A.C.B. office because he never knew the address. Thereafter he paid him Rs. 3/- and ultimately could locate the office of the A.C.B. Ultimately when cross-examined it transpired that Naran Trivedi was on several occasions found travelling in a bus where the complainant was conductor, and Naran was getting down at A.C.B. office and at times at some other place where perhaps his house was situated. Therefore, this complainant very well knew where the A.C.B. office was and yet he was not willing even to admit such an innocuous fact because he wanted to make a show that he never knew where the A.C.B. office was, he never knew as to who Naran is and he was such a person as if he for the first time had to go to the A.C.B. office to lodge the complaint because he was asked to pay such a large amount for one year for only work that he would not be harassed for one year only and under these pitiable circumstances he had no other alternative but to file the complaint. He tries to have sympathy in his favour which he did not deserve any. 4. Thereafter Police Inspector within few minutes could locate the two panchas from a Pan shop where the persons were standing. According to him he just went in search of two panchas. He tries to have sympathy in his favour which he did not deserve any. 4. Thereafter Police Inspector within few minutes could locate the two panchas from a Pan shop where the persons were standing. According to him he just went in search of two panchas. He saw one gentleman at the Pan shop and he asked him as to where he was working and he told him that he was a clerk in Municipal Corporation. Thereafter he asked second person, he also told him that he was a clerk in Municipal Corporation. He never bothered whether they were serving in one department or in two departments of the Municipal Corporation. He never bothered to know whether they were friends. He took them as panchas without bothering to know their credibility. Ultimately it transpired that one of the panchas was residing at a distance hardly 140 ft. from the A.C.B. office. Police Inspector Dave stated that he came to know only when panch gave his address when preliminary panchnama was being written. It was not difficult for him to send him away and call another panch. This could have been done. The prosecution wants this Court to believe that these two persons who resided at different places met together because one of them had gone to other man’s house and they both thereafter had come to the Pan shop and that by chance they were standing at the Pan shop perhaps waiting for the A.C.B. Inspector and thereafter they were taken as Panchas. Now, therefore, the prosecution wants us to believe that it was all co-incidence that one Nathalal was the Municipal Corporator who was the member of Sardar Patel Yuvak Mandal, it was also a co-incidence that Naran Trivedi was a member of the Organisation and it was also a co-incidence that the complainant was a member of that Organisation and it was also a co-incidence that Panch No. 2 was a member of that Organisation. Now panch Nos. 1 and 2 are friends. That is also an admitted position. Now, therefore, the prosecution wants us to believe that is also a co-incidence. We do not expect that Police Inspector had to choose the panchas in a particular manner only. Now panch Nos. 1 and 2 are friends. That is also an admitted position. Now, therefore, the prosecution wants us to believe that is also a co-incidence. We do not expect that Police Inspector had to choose the panchas in a particular manner only. We are conscious of the fact that when a trap has to be laid the time is the essence and in the shortest possible time the panchas are to be found. But it is a heavy responsibility because on the credibility of the pancha alone the whole case hangs and, therefore, a reliable creditable person has required to be found out. It is required to be borne in mind that he is not connected in any manner whatsoever with the complainant. It is required to be borne in mind that he is not connected in any manner whatsoever with the other members of the raiding party who are normally considered to be interested. Therefore, it is not only the creditworthiness but the necessities of an independent panch witness, independent in the sense that he is independent in regard to capacity to act as a panch and that he will not be liable to any pressure particularly from the complainant side or from the side of the investigating agency. He must be thoroughly independent so far as these two sides arc concerned. Thereafter his credibility must be such by which implicit reliance could be placed on that particular person. Now in this particular case we are conscious of the fact that it is an admitted position that the accused accepted the money. The learned Public Prosecutor wants us to raise a presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Now the case is required to be examined as a whole. We cannot isolate and choose sentences from the evidence either of the complainant or the panch and come to a conclusion that the accused demanded money for a particular purpose and that the accused accepted the amount for that purpose alone. This would be so because there is another version put by the accused. If the accused had not put any version in regard to the acceptance, perhaps the question of raising presumption would arise. But that version is put from the beginning while cross-examining the prosecution witnesses. This would be so because there is another version put by the accused. If the accused had not put any version in regard to the acceptance, perhaps the question of raising presumption would arise. But that version is put from the beginning while cross-examining the prosecution witnesses. Another version is put at the time of giving statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. For that purpose the accused entered the box. He gave evidence on oath. He established beyond doubt that this complainant was dealing in utensils. It is required to be rioted that he is not expected to deal with any utensils unless he was committing breach of discipline and conduct rules. The conductor serving in Corporation is not expected to deal with utensils, to bring utensils without paying freight. He is not expected to enter into such transaction. If that person wants to save himself from the departmental inquiry and goes to file the complaint and the accused from the beginning comes out with a clear case that he wanted to purchase the drum which though the complainant was selling, might not be keeping with him because it was not an article which could be sold every day. Under these circumstances if the accused gave a sum of Rs. 250/- he was entitled to receive that amount back. The argument that they did not meet on 29-11-81 and, therefore, the complainant could never have known that the accused might be in Rajkot on that particular day, is not an argument which could be accepted and the presence of the Security Officer in Rajkot city would be known to every conductor serving in Rajkot city as soon as he arrives. Every conductor will be informed about it that “today the Assistant Security Officer is in Rajkot city” and all conductors would be alert on the arrival of the Assistant Security Officer at Rajkot, it may be that he arrived from Dhrangadhra or from Ahmedabad or from anywhere. In order that he may succeed in the departmental inquiry the complainant chose time and place. This he could manage with the of his friends who were in A.C.B. department and one such friend was Naran Trivedi. It was not difficult for Naran Trivedi to gather two panchas who were serving in Municipal Corporation and one of them was also a member of the Organisation to which he belonged. This he could manage with the of his friends who were in A.C.B. department and one such friend was Naran Trivedi. It was not difficult for Naran Trivedi to gather two panchas who were serving in Municipal Corporation and one of them was also a member of the Organisation to which he belonged. The accused in this particular case, therefore, has proved his version because he has to prove it by probabilities only. He has probablised his defence. That is one aspect of the case. The another aspect of the case is that when the complainant cannot be believed no question of corroborating the complainant would ever arise. Merely because the accused admitted that he accepted the amount it would mean nothing because it was not an unequivocal statement but it was coupled with so many other things. If the accused’s statement is accepted it is to be accepted as a whole and the prosecution cannot take shelter of the statement of the accused and choose some part of that statement ignoring the other part. Either the statement of the accused is required to be accepted as a whole or thrown away as a whole. If the statement of the accused is taken out there is no reliable evidence that the accused accepted the amount because the complainant is thoroughly unreliable, he is not only accomplice but also a liar. The panch is a chosen panch. In this situation if the statement is taken out, even the acceptance is not said to have been proved, the only alternative for this Court is to allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused. 5. The result is that the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accused are set aside and the appellant is ordered to be acquitted. He is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other offence. Fine if paid to be refunded. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Appeal allowed.