JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6th December. 1978, passed by the learned Special Judge (A.C.D) Rajasthan Jaipur, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, Srimam Narain, as under: U/s 161, IPC - 1 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, 3 months simple imprisonment U/s 5 (l) (d) r/w Section 5 (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - 2 years rigorous a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, 3 months simple imprisonment Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.Facts : The appellant on the relevant date was working as Enforcement Inspector in Food and Supplies Department, Nadbai town in Bharatpur district. Haribhagwan Gera and his brother, Mohanlal, were carrying on business in the name and style of M/s Shyamdas Manoharlal, being authorised dealer of cement. On July 9, 1975, the appellant being Enforcement Inspector came to the shop of Haribhagwan and Mohanlal, and inspected the same and thereafter as alleged the appellant stated that the distribution of the cement by the aforesaid firm %as not in order though the complainant Haribhagwan claimed that the distribution was made according to the prescribed norms and there was no irregularity or illegality in distribution of the cement. It was further alleged that although there was no irregularity in the distribution of the cement even then the appellant in the capacity of the Enforcement Inspector seized two distribution registers and one cash book; and at that time the appellant is alleged to have stated that the godown for keeping the stock of the cement, is not declared one. On this, the complainant informed the appellant that the godown was quite old and it has been used for keeping cement for a long time. The aforesaid registers #and the receipt were taken away by the accused-appellant. 2. Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) stated that after two hours of the inspection, h; went to the appellant in order to take back the registers, receipts etc. and requested him for the same but appellant is alleged to have directed him to meet him (accused) at his residence in the evening, on 9.7.75. Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) is B alleged to have again gone to the residence of the appellant and asked for return I of the registers etc. and at that time, the accused is alleged to have demanded Rs. Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) is B alleged to have again gone to the residence of the appellant and asked for return I of the registers etc. and at that time, the accused is alleged to have demanded Rs. 500/- as bribe - then Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) is alleged to have told lie accused that he would come in the morning of July 10. 1975 on which date, Hari Bhagwan is also alleged to have gone to the residence of the accused in the morning and again repeated the request for the documents 3. Further the case of the prosecution is that Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) did not want to pay the bribe to the accused and so, he decided to get the accused trapped by the anti-corruption department Thus, the informent alongwith Ramlal (PW 2) and one Jagdish Prasad went to Bharatpur and their they contacted Dy. Superintendent of Police of the anti-corruption department, and presented written report to him along-with five G. C notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- and who after necessary formalities fulfilled, arranged a trap. The informant alongwith the witnesses and the police party went to Nadbai. Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) took his brother Mohanlal (PW l) with him, and went inside the house of the accused while others were standing outside. It has been further alleged that when the informant went inside, he was sitting in the courtyard alongwith Sujan Singh, co-tenant of the house The accused went inside room, alongwith informant and brother, where the money is alleged to have been paid to the accused which was received by the accused and the same was kept by the accused beneath the pad on his table. The accused is alleged to have returned registers receipts etc- to Mohanlal After this, the informant gave signal on which police party and motbirs entered the house of the accused. The G C. notes were recovered and the seizure memo of the Registers etc. was prepared. The hands of the appellant-were dipped in sodium carbonate mixture. The hand wash of the accused appellant was found positive for phenolpthale in powder. The band wash water was preserved in a clean glass bottle and sealed in the presence of the motbirs. 4. After usual investigation, the challan was filed against the accused-appellant in the Court of Special Judge (A.C.D.) Rajasthan, Jaipur, for the offences under Section 161, IPC. The hand wash of the accused appellant was found positive for phenolpthale in powder. The band wash water was preserved in a clean glass bottle and sealed in the presence of the motbirs. 4. After usual investigation, the challan was filed against the accused-appellant in the Court of Special Judge (A.C.D.) Rajasthan, Jaipur, for the offences under Section 161, IPC. and Section 5 (1) (d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, (for facility hereinafter to be referred to as `the Act). 5. The learned trial Judge tried the accused appellant for the aforesaid offences. The appellant in his statement during trial denied the admission as well as acceptance of the bribe from Hari Bhagwan and, pleaded that he did inspect and check the shop of Hari Bhagwan but he did not ask for any bribe, Further, it has been stated by the appellant under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that the witnesses for the prosecution have wilfully levelled false allegations against him because the witnesses are related to Hari Bhagwan. The accused-appellant further stated that at the time when he alongwith Sujan Singh was sitting in the courtyard, Haribhagwan came to his residence and did shake-hand with him and took him inside the room that, after sometime, he (appellant) came out of room leaving behind there Hari Bhagwan at that time, the police personnel came inside his residence. 6. The prosecution in all produced six witnesses in support of the charges levelled against the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant did not produce any witness in his defence. 7. Before I discuss the evidence on record. I would like to state that it is allied principle of taw that in the cases of trap raids, the Officers functioning in the anti-corruption department must seriously endeavour to secure really independent and respectable witnesses so that the evidence in regard to raid inspires confidence in the mind of the Court and the Court is not left in any do out as to whether or not any money was paid to the public servant by way of bribe. They would insist on observing this safeguard for the protection of public servants against whom a trap may have been laid For the above observations, reliance cube placed on the decision in Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1976 SC 91 ) . 8. They would insist on observing this safeguard for the protection of public servants against whom a trap may have been laid For the above observations, reliance cube placed on the decision in Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1976 SC 91 ) . 8. To begin with narrating the evidence in brief of the prosecution, I like up that of PW 1 Mohanlal who is brother of Hari Bhagwan (PW 3). Monanlai (PW 1) in his statement deposed that their shop was inspected by the accused-appellant on 9.7.75 and the registers etc. were seized by the accused-appellant that, next day on 10.7.1975, he alongwith his brother Hari Bhagwan went to the quarter of the accused-appellant and there, they requested to the accused-appellant to return the registers etc. upon this, the accused demanded Rs.500/- thereafter he (PW 1) alongwith his brother went to Ramtal and Jagdish Prasad and made aware of the bribe having demanded by the accused; that, on the very day. his brother Hari Bhagwan, Ramlal and Jagdish Prasad went to Bharatpur and he came back to Nadbai alongwith Dy. S.P. (ACD) - at the time, he (PW1) was at bis shoo wherefrom he was called and he also had accompanied the raiding party The witness (PW1) further deposed that than he had his brother Hari Bhagwan went to the appellant who was sitting in courtyard along-with one Sujan Singh - the accused took him and his brother in an inner room and there the appellant asked as to whether they brought the money or not - at ibis, Hari Bhagwan told that he has brought money and then he (Hari Bhagwan) banded over Rs. 500/- (five notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- which were taken by the accused and put beneath the pad on the table and then the accused returned the registers etc. to him (PW 1), Thereafter, the witness stated that on the signal of Hari Bhagwan, Dy. S.P. (ACD) alongwith Ramlal (PW2) and Jagdish Prasad came inside the residence of the accused and at that time, Dy. S.P. asked the accused as to whether or not he (accused) has accepted bribe, to which the accused bad admitted that he had taken Rs. 500/- as bribe and had tola that the same (money) has been kept by him beneath the pad According to the witness (PW1), then Dy. S.P. asked the accused as to whether or not he (accused) has accepted bribe, to which the accused bad admitted that he had taken Rs. 500/- as bribe and had tola that the same (money) has been kept by him beneath the pad According to the witness (PW1), then Dy. S.P. lifted the pad and seized the currency notes. 9. In cross-examination, the witness (PW 1) also deposed that except Ramlal Hari Bhagwan and Jagdish Prasad, no other persons were kept as motbirs of the trap proceedings. According to the cross-examination of the witness (PW 1), the accused did not ask for money in the courtyard where initially he accused) was found sitting with one Sujansingh where the witness (PW 1) in his police statement (Ex-D.1) had stated that the accused asked for the money in the courtyard where he was sitting When the witness was asked for the above narrated police version, the witness replied that query with regard to the money was made by the accused-appellant in the courtyard and not in the room. In the police statement (Ex- D 1), this witness did not state that the money alleged to have been received as bribe by the accused was kept beneath the pad on the table; but he had stated that after receiving the money the accused kept money in his band and concealed in bis palm (Mutthi). 10. Ramlal VPW 2) has stated that Hari Bhagwan came to him and informed about the demand of bribe by the accused and further that he (Haribhagwan) wanted to rape the accused-upon this, he (PW 2) alongwith him Hari Bhagwau went to Bharatpur at 12 noon by a bus and there, they had found Jagdish Prasad (Chairman Municipal Board, Nadbai) who had also accompanied them and all the three went to the Office of the anti-corruption department and there a trap was arranged. Ramlal also stated that after taking written report from Hari Bhagwan Dy. S.P. directed the witnesses i.e. Ramlal and Jagdish Prasad that Hari Bhagwan would give currency notes to the accused and they (PW2 and Jagdish Prasad) would watch and hear about handing over of the money to the accused. Ramlal also stated that after taking written report from Hari Bhagwan Dy. S.P. directed the witnesses i.e. Ramlal and Jagdish Prasad that Hari Bhagwan would give currency notes to the accused and they (PW2 and Jagdish Prasad) would watch and hear about handing over of the money to the accused. The witness also deposed that he alongwith other persons, Hari Bhagwan and Jagdish Prasad came back to Nadbai in the jeep of the anti-corruption department and after coming to Nadbai Hari Beagwan was directed by the Dy. S.P. to call his brother Mohanlal (PW 1) and thereafter, Hari Bhagwan and Mohanlal were sent inside the residence of the appellant in order to pay the bribe. The witness further deposed that he and Jagdish Prasad remained outside the I residence of the accused The witness (PW 2) further deposed that on the signal of Hari Bhagwan he (PW 2) and Dy. S.P. alongwith Jagdish Prasad and two other police employees went inside the house and, there, Dy S.P. asked the accused as to whether or not he has accepted bribe, to which the accused had replied that he did not accept any money from Hari Bhagwan; and that, it was Hari Bhagwan who had told the Dy. S.P. that the money received by the accused-appellant was kept beneath the pad on the table. The Dy. S.P. then had seized the currency notes. The witness admitted that he is the real uncle (Phoopa, husband of fathers sister) of Hari Bhagwan and Mohanlal. 11. Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) deposed that his shop was checked and inspected by the accused on 9-7-1975, and took his distribution registers and receipt etc. after seizure Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) further deposed that after two hours of the inspection he went to the accused in order to take back the registers but the accused-appellant called him (PW 3) at his residence in the evening. Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) also deposed that he went to the residence of the accused in the evening of 9-7-1975 and at that time, the accused bad demanded Rs. 500/-as bribe-upon this, he (PW 3) replied that he would come in the next morning and again, on 10-7-1975 he went to the residence of the accused and at that time, also, the accused demanded Rs. 500/- as bribe. 500/-as bribe-upon this, he (PW 3) replied that he would come in the next morning and again, on 10-7-1975 he went to the residence of the accused and at that time, also, the accused demanded Rs. 500/- as bribe. The witness further deposed that he did not want to give bribe to the accused-appellant and he decided to catch the accused red hanned by the A.C.D. and for that purpose, he contacted Ramlal and Jagdish Prasad and narrated the aforesaid circumstance to him also and the fact of demand of bribe by the accused-then he alongwith Ramlal, Jagdish Prasad went to the Office of the anti-corruption department, Bharatpur where contacted the Dy. S.P. who asked for written report and accordingly, a written report was presented to the Dy. S.P. alongwith Rs. 500/i. e. five G.C. notes of of the denomination of Rs 100/-, According to the witness (Pw3), thereafter, Dy. S.P. alongwith two other police employees. Hari Bhagwan, Ram Lal and Jagdish Prasad came to Nadbai and at the railway station, he (PW3) was dropped by the Dy. S.P. to call his brother-thus, he took his brother Mohanlal from his house in order to accompany with him and then they reached outside the house of the accused. He (Pw3) alongwith his brother Mohanlal, as stated by P.W. l went inside the residence of the accused and there, they saw the accused having sat alongwith Sujansingh in the courtyard. The accused took them inside room from the courtyard and there he handed over Rs. 500/-to the accused which was received by him and the same were put beneath the pad and on his signla, Ramlal, Jagdish Prasad and Dy. S.P. & two other police employees came inside the residence of the accused-appellant. Two of the police employees are alleged to have caught hold of the appellant, and then Dy. S.P. asked the appellant about the acceptance of the bribe The witness deposed that the accused denied to have M accepted the amount as bribe and he (witness) informed Dy S.P. that the amount received by the accused has been kept by him beneath the pad, upon this Dy. S.P. recovered the currency notes To cross-examination, the witness (PW3) admitted that perhaps he did shake hand with the accused. S.P. recovered the currency notes To cross-examination, the witness (PW3) admitted that perhaps he did shake hand with the accused. A suggestion was put to B the witness by the learned counsel for the accused to the effect that the accused came outside room and he (witness) remained inside there, then the witness replied that he did not know. The suggestion that the currency notes were put by him beneath (witness) the pad, was denied by the witness. The witness confronted with the police statement (Ex. D. 2) wherein it has not been mentioned that the amount received by the accused-appellant was kept by him beneath the pad. Id the police statement, the witness simply stated that after receiving the bribe the currency notes were kept by him in his band and were concealed in his palm (Mutthi main daba liye). The witness admitted that Ramlal is his real uncle (husband of his fathers sister). 12. Sujan singh (PW4) deposed that on 10-7-75 he was co-tenant of the house wherein the accused also resided as co-tenant that, he was sitting in courtyard of the accused alongwith him. at that time two persons came inside house and talked with the accused which talk not heard by him, the witness added. According to the witness one boy who was tall took the accused inside room and other one being small left the place-thereafter one Dy. S.P. came inside room and called the accused. At that time, he saw that the persons were catching hold of the accused-appellant and the Dy. S.P. was sitting on the chair and the currency notes of Rs. 500/-were lying on the table, the witness added. 13. The witness (Pw4) in his examination-in-chief has admitted that a tal boy who took the accused in the room, remained there but the accused came outside room. 14. Hari Kishan (PW5) is a fromal witness is of no use to discuss and narrate herein, what has been deposed by him in his statement. 15. Mool Singh (Pw6), Dy. S.P. (ACD) who arranged the trap, is last witness whose evidence I would appreciate a little later during dealing with the controversy in the case. 16. 14. Hari Kishan (PW5) is a fromal witness is of no use to discuss and narrate herein, what has been deposed by him in his statement. 15. Mool Singh (Pw6), Dy. S.P. (ACD) who arranged the trap, is last witness whose evidence I would appreciate a little later during dealing with the controversy in the case. 16. In order to prove the offence under Section 161, IPC, it is for the prosecution to prove that the public servant accepted, obtained, agreed to accept, or attempted to obtain from any person, form himself or for any other parson, any gratication whatever other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour to any person, or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person. 17. In view of the aforesaid ingredients of the offence under Section 161, IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that there was a demand of illegal gratification from the side of the accused and the same was paid by some one, which was accepted by the accused while functioning as a public servant. In these circumstances, it is to be seen as to whether the accused-appellant while working as public servant inspected the shop of the decoy and demanded illegal gratification which was paid by the decoy and the same was accepted by the accused-appellant. 18. In the instant case, it has been admitted that the accused-appellant was a public servant on the day when he inspected the shop of the decoy and that shop was inspected by him. Now only thing which remained to be proved by the prosecution was whether the accused-appellant had demanded the illegal gratification and whether it was given to him by the decoy and further, whether that gratification was accepted by the accused. 19. In order to find out whether the prosecution has proved the demand of bribe by the accused-appellant from Hari Bhagwan it is necessary to scrutinise the prosecution case with a great cautions and precaution. 19. In order to find out whether the prosecution has proved the demand of bribe by the accused-appellant from Hari Bhagwan it is necessary to scrutinise the prosecution case with a great cautions and precaution. The prosecution has been able to produce two witnesses in order to prove that the demand was made by the accused and they are Mohanlal (PW 1) and Haribhagwan (PW 3) Hari Bhagwan (PW 3), nowhere stated in his statement before the trial Court that at the time when the demand was made by the accused-appellant, Mohanlal (PW1) was also with him. The witness (PW3) has clearly stated that after seizure of his register and receipt etc. he all alone went to the accused-appellant after two hours of the inspection of the shop and then in the evening at his residence and then third time on 10.7.1975 at the residence of the accused appellant in the morning- It is thus clear that Mohanlal (PW 1) has given false statement with regard to the demand of illegal gratification by the accused-appellant and this witness (PW 1) cannot be relied upon, and by bis statement, it cannot be said that any demand of illegal gratification was made to his brother Hari Bhagwan. 20. A careful look and reading at the statement of Mohanlal (PW 1) in my opinion, makes it explicit that Mohanlal had given contradictory and false statement with regard to the other facts also. In statement, the witness (PW 1) has stated that he alongwith his brother Hari Bhawan went to Ramlal and Jagdish Prasad but this statement has not at all been corroborated by other evidence of the prosecution witnesses either of Hari Bhagwan or Ramlal who are near relatives of the witness. His evidence (PW ls) that be was called from his I shop before the raid, is also falsified by the evidence of Haribhagwan (PW 3) who has deposed that after coming to Nadbai from Bharatpur he was dropped at the railway station in where he had went to his house and from there, be took his brother, Mohalal, with him. His evidence (PW ls) that be was called from his I shop before the raid, is also falsified by the evidence of Haribhagwan (PW 3) who has deposed that after coming to Nadbai from Bharatpur he was dropped at the railway station in where he had went to his house and from there, be took his brother, Mohalal, with him. Mool Singh (PW 6 nowhere in his statement has given description about the presence of Mohanlal though he has deposed that at the time of payment of money, Monanlal was also present but he did not at all explain or clarify as to how Monanlal reached there at the residence of the accused. Throughout his statement, he never claimed that Mohanlal was also the witness for the trap or raid. 21. One more reason to disbelieve the statement of Mohanlal (PW1) is that he is the only witness who has stated that a query by Dy. S.P. the accused admitted that he had received the amount and the same was put by him beneath the pad. The other two witnesses i.e. Ramlal (PW 2) and Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) in their statements have deposed that initially the accused-appellant refused to accept any illegal gratification from Hari Bhagwan. Sujan Singh (PW 4) in his statement has deposed that two boys came to their residence but one of them who was a tall person only remained and other left the place of their residence. In view of the statement of Sujan Singh, the preset of Mohanlal becomes too much doubtful when the currency notes were recovered or seized. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, in my opinion, the statement of Mohanlal (PW 1) is highly doubtful and untrustworthy and his presence cannot be believed at any stage of the prosecution story. 22. Now only witness with regard to the demand of bribe is of Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) who is the decoy. It is settled principle of law that the evidence of the decoy should be corroborated by an independent witness but as stated earlier, in the instant case, the evidence of Haribhagwan (PW 3) has not at all been corroborated by any witness with regard to the factum of demand of bribe. In these circumstances, there is no potion but to scrutinise the evidence of Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) on the point. 23. In these circumstances, there is no potion but to scrutinise the evidence of Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) on the point. 23. Haribhang (PW 3) in his statement has deposed that the demand was made by the accused appellant but he nowhere stated that the alleged demand by the accused-appellant was accepted The witness (PW 3) did not at all state that on the demand he agreed to fulfil the demand and had assured the accused-appellant to pay the same. In these circumstances it is not possible that Haribhagwan (PW 3) could have gone at the residence of the accused-appellant with the money alleged to have been demanded by him. After going through the entire statement of Haribhagwan (PW 3), I am also of the opinion that he has given a very susceptible statement before the trial Court and no reliance can be placed on his statement. 24. In Hari Rudra Bhavan v. State of Rajasthan (1982 RLW P. 676) , this Court observed that in the presence of any trustworthy evidence from the side of the prosecution relating to the demand and acceptance of bribe, the Court would be unable to uphold the conviction and sentences of the accused. 25. In Suraj Mal v. State of Delhi Admin (1981 CAR (SC) 30) , it has been observed that it is well settled that where witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses It has also been held that mere recovery of money from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. Moreover, the appellant in his statement under Section 354 has denied the recovery of the money and has stated that he had been falsely implicated. Thus, mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the appellant, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the appellant voluntarily accepted the money. 26. Thus, mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the appellant, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the appellant voluntarily accepted the money. 26. In Ram Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (1982 Cr-L R. Raj p. 259) , this Court observed that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove and establish the acceptance or the agreement to accept the gratification other than legal remuneration. It was further observed that such a burden is not displayed by section 4 (1) of the Act which has introduced an exception to the general rule as to the onus of proof in criminal cases and shifted the burden on to the accused requiring him to prove that it was not as a motive or a reward that the gratification was obtained. 27. In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court and this Court, it can be said that it is necessary that the statement of decoy cannot be believed on its face value unless it is corroborated by other evidence. As stated earlier, in the present case, the statement of decoy with regard to the demand of bribe has not been corroborated by any other witness and because there are other infirmities in the evidence of Han Bagwan (PW 3) which would be pointed out a little latter herein, lam of the opinion that the evidence of this witness (PW 3) on the point of demand of bribe cannot be accepted. 28. Haribhagwan (PW 3) in his statement stated that after the alleged demand made by the accused-appellant, he contacted Ramlal and Jagdish Prasad Nadbai but Ramlal (PW 2) in his statement has deposed that Jagdish was found by them in Bharatpur city and he did not accompany him or Haribhagwan from Nadbai Thus, the evidence of Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) is discrepant to one of Ramlal (PW 2) on this point also that after coming from Bharatpur to Nadbai he was dropped by the Dy. S. P. at railway station and from there, he went to his house, whereas Ramlal (PW 2) stated that just near the house of the accused-appellant, Haribhagwan was sent to call his brother, Mohanlal. 29. S. P. at railway station and from there, he went to his house, whereas Ramlal (PW 2) stated that just near the house of the accused-appellant, Haribhagwan was sent to call his brother, Mohanlal. 29. Mool Singh (PW 6) no where in his statement has stated that Hari Bhagwan was sent to call Mohanlal or that that Hari Bhagwan had gone to his house from the railway station or that he was dropped at the railway station. It is thus clear that the evidence of Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) having not been corroborated either by Ramlal (PW 2) or Surjan Singh (PW 4) or Mool Singh (PW 6) is full of infirmities and contradictions to each others 30. As regards the acceptance of the bribe of Rs. 500/- from Haribhagwan (decoy), it may be observed that the evidence led by the prosecution to prove (his factum is highly discrepant and unsatisfactorily explained. In this context, the prosecution produced only two witnesses i.e. Mohanlal (PW 1) and Haribhagwan (PW 2) Mohanlal (PW 1) has already been disbelieved in earlier part of this judgment. Now only evidence yet to be slightly considered on the point of acceptance is of Hari Bhagwan (PW 3). 31. It is admitted case of the prosecution that at the time when Haribhagwan (PW 3) went inside the house of the accused-appellant, he was sitting in court yard alongwith one Sujan Singh (PW 4). Haribhagwan (PW 3) in his statement has deposed that the accused-appellant asked him as to whether he has brought money or not to which the witness had replied in affirmative and then the witness and the accused-appellant are alleged to have gone inside room. But, this fact has not at all been corroborated by Surjan Singh (PW 4) who is responsible person being as an Education Extension Officer in the Panchayat Samiti, Nadbai. Sujan Singh (PW 4) in his statement deposed that two boys came to the accused-appellant and they talked with the accused which was not heard by him. But, this fact has not at all been corroborated by Surjan Singh (PW 4) who is responsible person being as an Education Extension Officer in the Panchayat Samiti, Nadbai. Sujan Singh (PW 4) in his statement deposed that two boys came to the accused-appellant and they talked with the accused which was not heard by him. Mohanlal (PW I) though has been disbelieved has stated that the accused did not ask about the money while sitting in the court yard in the company of Sujan Singh (PW 4) Mohanlal (PW 1) in his statement initially, stated that the aforesaid talk with regard to money the place in the room and in the court yard but subsequently, on being confronted with the police statement he also admitted that the talk about money took place in the court yard and not in the room On the point of acceptance of money, this fact is also relevant as to where the amount alleged to have been accepted by the accused-appellant was kept, and whether the same was recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant. On this point, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is too much discrepant and contradictory. Sujan Singh (PW 4) in his statement admitted that the accused-appellant refused to accept the money on the inquiry by Dy. S.P. and where about of the currency notes were not known by the accused-appellant but were known through Haribhagwan (PW 3), It is the defence case of the accused-appellant that the currency notes were planned to be kept beneath the pad on his table, and this appears to be probable on account of the circumstance that the money was shown not by the accused-appellant but was shown by Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) as is admitted by Ramlal (PW 2). 32. Mool Singh (PW 6) in his statement though deposed that the currency notes were recovered at the instance or information of the accused-appellant but no such thing or fact is mentioned in the recovery memo (Ex P 3) In these circumstances, this much is clear that the currency notes recovered were not seized at the instance of the accused-appellant and had also refused to accept any money from Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) inasmuch as he had shown his ignorance about the whereabouts of the currency notes. 33. 33. Then, next question remains to be considered is, how the currency notes were recovered from the table of the appellant inside the room and whether it was kept by him. The accused appellant in his statement has given explanation that money was planned by the Hari Bhagwan at the time when Hari Bhagwan (PW3) took the accused-appellant inside room, the appellant came out of the room while Hari Bhagwan (PW3) remained all alone there in the room, this circumstance has been admitted by Sujan Singh (PW 4). In these circumstances, this can not possibly be ruled out that the laying of the money was planned by Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) at the time when the accused-appellant came rat of that room and he all alone remained inside it In the police statement liter receiving the money .the currency notes were accept" by the accused-appellant a his hand while concealing the same in his palm (Mutthi) But, before the trial Court, the witness (PW 3) stated that after receiving the money, the currency cotes were put by the accused-appellant beneath the pad which was lying on the able. This is material contradiction on a material fact which further likes the testimoney of Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) unworthy of credence and it cannot be said 1 that the currency notes which were recovered by the anti corruption department, Kiekept beneath the pad by the accused. Ramlal (PW 2) is admittedly in near relations being uncle (Phupha-husband of fathers sister) of Mohanlal and Hari Bhagwan. In these circumstances, because he (Ramlal) is a closed relative of the decoy it cannot be said that he is independent witness Here, at the cost of repetition, it may be reiterated that it has been observed in Raghvir Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) that the officers functioning in the anti-corruption department must seriously endeavour to secure really independent and respectable witnesses. 34. In the present case, the Officer of the anti-corruption department, Wool Singh (PW 6) did not care to collect the independent evidence Jagdish Prasad who was the Chairman of the Municipal Board at the relevant time could f have been an independent person but the prosecution failed to present him in the witness-box. Moreso, no explanation is forthcoming from the side of the prosecution about his non-production. Moreso, no explanation is forthcoming from the side of the prosecution about his non-production. fail to understand as to why such a witness could not be produced by the prosecution In these circumstances, a presumption was to be drawn against the prosecution to the effect that if the witness would have been produced in the witness box, he could not have supported the prosecution version. Moreover, the statement of Ramlal (PW 2) is not believable due to the reason that he has stated that Jagdish Prasad did not accompany him and Hari Bhagwan from Nadbai whereas he (Jagdish Prasad) was there in Bharatpur city and he accompanied them to the office of the anti-corruption department. On the other hand, Hari Bhagwan (PW) has stated that Jagdish Piasad accompanied from Nadbai town, inasmuch as there is evidence of Mool Singh (PW 6) that Ramlal (PW 2) and Jagdish Prasad were directed to watch and hear the trap proceedings to be done at the instance of Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) at the house of the accused-appellant, bat. Ramlal (PW 2) nowhere claimed in his statement that he was a witness for that purpose. If the statement of Moolsingh PW 6) is believed on this point, the question arises as to why Ramlal (PW 2) did tot follow the instructions of Mool Singh (PW 6). This makes it explicit that the evidence of the prosecution is unworthy of credence and very susceptible to be doubtful one. 35. As I have already observed, Mohanlal (PW 1) is an untruthful witness and he was not at all present through-out trap proceedings but Ramlal (PW 2) admitted his presence. It is thus clear that the witness had tried to shurk his responsibility of being a truthful witness which makes the testimony of Ramlal (PW 2) as doubtful and thus, the evidence of Ramlal (PW 3) is also not reliable. 36. As stated earlier, Jagdish Prasad and Sujan Singh (PW 4) could be un-dependent witnesses but Jagdish Prasad unfortunately has not been produced by the prosecution; and Sujan Singh (PW 4) has not supported the prosecution story he merely stated that two boys came inside the house - one tall boy went inside the room and other one left the place first one remained inside the room accused came outside the room etc. On the point of recovery, Sujan Singh (PW4) has not supported the prosecution story. On the point of recovery, Sujan Singh (PW4) has not supported the prosecution story. He (PW 4) deposed that the Dy. S.P. came outside the room. The witness did not give any detail as to how Dy. S.P. reached inside room when the witness (PW 4) was occupant of the house where the raid took place. If the evidence of Sujan Singh (PW 4) is believed on its face value taken he makes the presence of Moolsingh (PW 6) as doubtful and by these circumstances.it is possible to say that a concocted and false case has been planned against the accused-appellant. Sujan Singh (PW 4) did not support the fact of recovery because in his statement he has deposed that at the time when he was called by Dy S.P. two persons caught bold the accused-appellant and the currency notes were lying on the table. When the witness was called to attest the recovery then why recovery memo was not prepared in the presence of the witness (PW 5). In there circumstances, only inference which can be drawn is that the money was not recovered beneath the pad but the same were lying on the table and this fact completely demolishes the prosecution story. 37. Now, the next only circumstance which is claimed to have head proved by the prosecution is that the hand of the accused-appellant was and coloured. The accused-appellant in his statement has stated that he did shake his hands with the decoy In this view of the matter, it was argued on behalf of the accused-appellant that the phenolphthalein power on the hands of the decoy had exchanged to the hand of the accused-appellant on account of shake-hand with the decoy. As stated earlier, the specific suggestion was given to the witness (PW 3) that he shaked his hands with the accused-appellant. On this question, the witness replied that at the time with in he met the accused-appellant inside the room, perhaps he had shaken hands with the accused-appellant. As stated earlier, the specific suggestion was given to the witness (PW 3) that he shaked his hands with the accused-appellant. On this question, the witness replied that at the time with in he met the accused-appellant inside the room, perhaps he had shaken hands with the accused-appellant. In view of this statement of Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) it cannot be ruled out that the powder exchanged In the hand of the accused-appellant and, because of this reason when the hand of the accused-appellant was dipped in the water, his hand was found red coloured In these circumstances, no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused-appellant with regard to colour which was found on his band. 38. Though, I have already discussed the evidence of Mool Siagh PW 6) the only direct evidence which he has been given is of recovery of the currency notes but in the aforesaid circumstances, this recovery becomes very susceptible lobe doubtful It is the prosecution evidence of Ramlal (PW 2) and Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) that the currency notes were shown to the Dy. S.P. by Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) whereas Mool Singh in his statement claimed that the currency notes were not shown by the accused-appellant but also the same were recovered at the instance and information of the accused-appellant. In view of the contents in Ex. P. 3, I am of the opinion that the witness has given a false statement and being responsible officer he has given statement against the contents of Ex. P.3 which, itself, was prepared by him, In these circumstances, though he is Dy. S.P. in anti-corruption department but no reliance can be placed on the statement of Dy. S.P. because of the reason that there are so many infirmities in his statement. 39. Mool Singh (PW 6) in his statement has stated that the witnesses were present inside the residence of the accused-appellant at the time of trap but none of the witnesses except Mohanlal and Hari Bhagwan have claimed as such. The witnesses were directed by Mool Singh (PW 6) that they would see and watch the trap proceedings but none of the motbirs have deposed about such a direction by Mool Singh (PW 6) because one of the motbir witnesses namely Ramlal (PW 2) only appeared in the witness-box. The witnesses were directed by Mool Singh (PW 6) that they would see and watch the trap proceedings but none of the motbirs have deposed about such a direction by Mool Singh (PW 6) because one of the motbir witnesses namely Ramlal (PW 2) only appeared in the witness-box. Mool Singh (PW 6) in his statement has stated that after coming to Nadbai they straight away went to residence of the accused-appellant but Ramlal (PW 2) and Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) in their statement has given out a different version which has already been discussed by me. The conduct of Mool Singh (FW 6) becomes doubtful due to the reason that he did not care to collect independent motbirs for the trap proceedings and why only relative witnesses choosen by him as motbirs. 40. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the view that the prosecution could not succeed in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant admitted or accepted illegal gratification from Hari Bhagwan (PW 3). In the absence of trustworthy evidence from the side of the prosecution relating to the demand and acceptance of bribe I am unable to uphold the conviction and sentences of the appellant for the offences with which he was charged during trial 41. In the result, I allow this appeal; acquits the accused-appellant, Sriman Narain, of the offences under Section 161. IPC. and Sections 5(1) (d) r/w Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and hereby set aside the impugned judgment dated 6.12.1978 passed by the Special Judge (A.C.D.) Jaipur in cr. case No 74/76. The appellant is on bail and need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******