JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated December 5,1977 passed by the Special Judge. Anti-Corruption. Jaipur by which appellant Jagdish Kishore was held quality under section 161 I.P.C. and under Section 5(1) (d) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was sentenced to one years S.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/ in default of payment of fire to undergo one months S.I. on each count with an order that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case leading to the trial of the appellant and the present appeal are that on April 3, 1975 Niranjan Singh complainant went to the out post Anti Corruption Department Shri Ganganagar and filed an application before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption mentioning therein that three or four years back, villagers had instituted a false case under section 376 I.P.C. against him in which he was acquitted but the Court had bound him for Rs. 1000/ to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. That, because of enmity the villagers instituted a false case under section 325 I.P.C. against him and then filed an application in the Court of Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar for forfeiting his bail bonds of Rs. 1000/- furnished in the first case. That, in those proceedings Jagdish Kishore, Reader of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sri-Ganganagar was harassing the complainant and had taken from him ten or fifteen rupees a number of times. That, on the date of hearing proceeding the date of hearing of April 3, 1975 Jagdish Kishore, Reader demanded Rs 15/- from him That, the complainant gave Rs. 5/- on that day and assured to give Rs. 10/- on the next day At this, the Reader warned him the it if he would not bring the money, he would get his bail-bonds forfeited. Mangilal (P. W. 2) and Mohanlal (P W. 3) motbirs were also there when the trap-proceedings were started by Additional Superintendent of Police Baboo Lal Sharma (P. W. 8). Two currency notes of Rs. 5/- denomination each were given by the complainant to the Additional Superintendent of Police The Additional Superintendent of Police initialed those notes and applied phenolphthalein powder on them. Those notes were given to the complainant to be given to Jagdish Kishore Reader. Two currency notes of Rs. 5/- denomination each were given by the complainant to the Additional Superintendent of Police The Additional Superintendent of Police initialed those notes and applied phenolphthalein powder on them. Those notes were given to the complainant to be given to Jagdish Kishore Reader. On April 3, 1975, the case of Niranjan Singh was called and the appellant demanded the money and the complainant gave the money to him. He then gave the signal and the trap-party reached there and apprehended Jagdish Kishore. The Additional Superiendent of Police asked Jagdish Kishore to dip his hands in the glass of water. The water turned pink. On being asked to give notes of Rs 5/- each the appellant took out the notes from the pocket of his pant and gave them. The numbers of the notes tallied with the numbers mentioned in the memo prepared at the time of the notes being entrusted to the complaint for being given to the appellant. The pockets of the pant of the appellant was dipped in the water and the colour of the water turned red. The report of the Chemical Examiner was that the samples sent were found to contain sodium carbonate and phenophthalein. Charge-sheet against the appellant was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Sri Ganganagar. The required sanction for prosecution was obtained and the learned trial Judge charge-sheeted the appellant for the aforesaid offence and on his denying the charge and claiming to be tried, proceeded with the trial. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution The appellant in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the allegations of demanding or accepting any illegal gratification from the complainant and stated the Mukna Ram L.D.C. (D.W.I) of the Munsif Court, Raisinghnagar had borrowed Rs. 10/ from him on March 27, 1975 at the shop of Matu Kam Barbar and on March 31, 1975 when Niranjan Singh complainant was coming to Ganganagar Matu Ram sent that amount with him to be given to the appellant. Eight witnesses were examined from the defence side to substantiate the defence version. The learned trial Judge placed reliance on the prosecution case evidence and discarded the defence version and passed the judgment under appeal. 3. I heard Mr. M.L. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.K. Soni, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. Eight witnesses were examined from the defence side to substantiate the defence version. The learned trial Judge placed reliance on the prosecution case evidence and discarded the defence version and passed the judgment under appeal. 3. I heard Mr. M.L. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.K. Soni, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. There is no dispute on the point that at the time of the incident, appellant was holding the post of a Public Servant It is also not in dispute that the case regarding forfeiture of bail bonds of the complainant was pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. It is also in dispute that April 3, 1975 was the date of hearing in the said case Recovery of the amount of Rs. 10/- from the pocket of the appellant is also not disputed. 5. The pertinent question arising for determination is whether the prosecution case that Rs 10/- where given as illegal gratification or the defence version that the amount was sent by Mukna Ram is to be believed The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that there was no reason for the Reader to demand money because he was not in a position to pass any order against the complainant The argument is not appealing because being a Render of the Court in which the case of the complainant was pending a demand for accommodating the appellant in fixing the hearing may be natural Another argument advanced by Mr. Garg is that the complainant, was acquitted for the charge under section 376 I.P.C. but was convicted under section 354 I.P.C. and for that reason he was directed to furnish bail bonds for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and thereafter another case under section 325 I.P.C. was instituted against him which shows that the complainant was not a person of good character and his statement should not be believed in absence of cogent convicting corroboration. 6. The character and nature of the complaint requires no consideration in such matters. All that the Courts have to see is whether the evidence of the complainant and that of the members of the trap-party and the motbirs inspire confidence. Yet another argument advanced by Mr. 6. The character and nature of the complaint requires no consideration in such matters. All that the Courts have to see is whether the evidence of the complainant and that of the members of the trap-party and the motbirs inspire confidence. Yet another argument advanced by Mr. Garg in that the defence version is plausible and the motbirs have also stated that at the time of the recovery Jaghish Kishore had told that the money was sent to him by Muknaram The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that because Mukna Ram was of the same Department, the appellant had taken a false plea and Mukna Ram and other defence witnesses have tried to help him. 7. In order to appreciate the argument advanced from both the sides, a careful scrutiny of the statement of the witnesses from both the sides requires consideration- The complainant has stated that the demand was made on the previous hearing i.e. on February 17, 1976 and on that date the Session Judge was sitting in another room. He admitted that on that day he did not make any complaint of the Reader to the Session Judge for demanding illegal gratification. It is important to note that Niranjansingh has stated that before receiving the money, the appellant had taken his file and on the case being called, he went inside. He had a talk with the appellant and the appellant asked him to bring bis Munshi. That, he then brought his Munshi Ganeshilal, That, at the time of his giving the currency notes to the appellant, his Munshi Ganeshilal as well as the Munshi of the opposite side were present. The witnesses then stated that the appellant had demanded the money before the arrival of the Munshi but he had given the money after the Munshi bad come. A little while thereafter the complainant stated that when he for the first time met the appellant on that day, he simply asked him to call the Munshi and did not demand the money. It appears strange that instead of taking money from he complainant when he was alone, the appellant would have asked him to bring his Munshi as if he wanted to have some evidence against him accepting illegal gratification. Bhanwai Bingh (P.W. 6), ASI. It appears strange that instead of taking money from he complainant when he was alone, the appellant would have asked him to bring his Munshi as if he wanted to have some evidence against him accepting illegal gratification. Bhanwai Bingh (P.W. 6), ASI. of the Anti-Corruption Department, who had accompanied the complainant in the Court and was silting on the bench has also given similar statement He stated that the complainant had gone to the accused and had a talk with to him That, when the complainant was coming out he (the witness) asked him as to what had happened and was informed by the complainant that the accused had asked him to bring the counsel. The witness further stated that the complainant come back with the Munshi and thee were four persons present when the complainant passed Rs. 10/- to the accused. 8. From the evidence of these two witnesses, it is clear that the Reader did not ask for money when the complainant had gone to him alone and at that time he had asked him to bring counsel or the Munshi of the counsel and mat it was only after Ganeshilal Munshi of the counsel for the complainant had leached there that Rs. 10/- were given by the complainant to the accused Ganeshilal Munshi has been examined as D.W.3 and has stated that Niranjansingh had given Rs. 10/- to Jagdish Kishore telling him that the money was sent by Mukna Ram from Raisinghnagar. Mukna Ram (D.W.l) has stated that he had sent Rs. 10/- with Niranjanshingh with whom he was acquainted, to be given to Jagdish Kishore. Matu Ram (D. W. 3) has stated that Mukna Ram had taken Rs 10/- from the appellant. Mangilal (P. W. 2) and Mohanlal (P.W.3) are the motbirs to the trap-proceedings and the memos prepared after the appellant being entrapped Mangilal has stated that Jagdish Kishore, on being asked by the Addl. S.P. took out the money from the pocket of his pants and gave it to the Officer and stated that he had taken no illegal gratification but the money was sent by Mukna Ram to him. The witness has not been disowned by the prosecution. Similar is the statement of Mohanlal (P. W. 3). S.P. took out the money from the pocket of his pants and gave it to the Officer and stated that he had taken no illegal gratification but the money was sent by Mukna Ram to him. The witness has not been disowned by the prosecution. Similar is the statement of Mohanlal (P. W. 3). This witness has been discovered by the prosecution and it is in the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor that he has stated that when the money was given by the accused, he a tonce told that the money has been sent by Mukna Ram (P.W. 1) From the defence witnesses, and from the statements of the motbirs, it is established that it was the immediate version of the appellant that the money given by Niranjansingh was sent by Mukna Ram. This type of evidence coupled with the statement of Niranjansingh that when he for the first time went to the appellant he did not demand the money and rather asked him to bring the Munshi, shows that for adjourning the case because of the Presiding Officer not being there, the appellant wanted the complainant to bring his counsel or the Munsi Baboolal, A.S.I. has also stated that the complainant told him that he had not given the money because the accused had asked him to bring his counsel. The prosecution case is that it was after Ganeshilal Munshi had come that the complainant passed the money to the appellant As observed by me earlier, it appears to be very strange that the accused would ask the complainant to bring the Counsel or the Munshi first and then take the money so as to create evidence against him- In such circumstances, the immediate explanation by the appellant that the money has been sent by Mukna Ram, as stated by two motbirs is also of much help to the appellant. The defence version stands supported by Matu Ram. Ganeshilal is a very important witness in the case because be was Munshi of the Counsel for the complainant. There is no reason to disbelieve him and the two motbirs In such circumstances, the defence version appears to be plausible and the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. 9. Consequently, the appeal filed by Jagdish Kishore is allowed. His conviction and sentences are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is on bail. 9. Consequently, the appeal filed by Jagdish Kishore is allowed. His conviction and sentences are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. The judgment of the trial Court relating to the disposal of the property is to however, maintained.Appeal allowed. *******