H. C. MITTAL, J. Panch Lal has preferred this appeal against his convic tion and sentence under Section 161, I. P. C. and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to one year and three years R. I. respectively as well as a fine of 1000 and in default six months R. I. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant Panch Lal was posted as Marketing Inspector at Jahanabad district Fatehpur and in exercise of his duties he used to check various trucks of foodgrains which used to pass. It is alleged that the complainant Ram Kishun Gupta (PW 4) used to carry food grains in his truck No. USF 5575 to Kanpur, that the appellant used to demand bribe at the rate of 50 paise for each bag of foodgrains and that on a truck about 100 bags were carried and the appellant made a demand of Rs. 50 per truck which the complainant refused to pay and thereupon the appellant had not permitted the truck No. UPG 2094 belonging to another person us be had not paid the bribe to the appellant; that the appellant hid demanded from him Rs. 800 regarding the trucks which he had earlier per mitted and Rs. 50 for 100 bags which he intended to carry to Kanpur; that the appellant had asked him to pay Rs. 850 on 17-2-1979 to be paid by the evening of 21-2-J979. Thereupon the complainant reported the matter to S. P. Vigilance through complaint (Ex. ka 1) whereon PW 1 J. Sri N. Sharma, Deputy S. P. (Vigilance) was directed by the S. P. to lay a trap. PW 1 Sri J. N. Sharma then talked to the complainant and prepared a plan according to which on 21-2-1979 he collected S. I. Ram Tirath Singh, PW 5 Sri Dhar Awasthi and police constables Rajendra Prasad Tewari and Ram Baran Singh and reached Ghatampur Chauraha. There along with Ram Tirath Singh and witness Maheshi Daen, the complainant went to the roam of Panch Lal appellant at about 7. 15 p. m. to offer the bribe. Deputy S. P. Sri Sharma had already noted the number of the currency notes, had applied phanolphthalein powder to them and also obtained the solution of sodium carbonate. There along with Ram Tirath Singh and witness Maheshi Daen, the complainant went to the roam of Panch Lal appellant at about 7. 15 p. m. to offer the bribe. Deputy S. P. Sri Sharma had already noted the number of the currency notes, had applied phanolphthalein powder to them and also obtained the solution of sodium carbonate. It is alleged that in the presence of S. I. Tirath Singh, police constables and other witnesses the currency notes were offered to the appellant Panch Lil by the complainant Ram Kishun Gupta. Thereupon the appellant asked Ram Kishun to handover the money to his Chaukidar Ram Kumar Shukla who was sitting there. Ram Kumar Shukla was handed over the currency notes and imme diately thereafter on getting hint Deputy S. P. Sri Sharma entered to room and arrested the appellant and Ram Kumar Shukla and recovered currency notes from the pocket of the Pajama of Ram Kumar Shukla. The hands of Rim Kumar Shukla and the pocket of his Pajama were dipped in the solution of the sodium carbonate which became pine in colour and it was sealed in different phials. The currency notes were also sealed and recovery memo was also prepared by Deputy S. P. Sri Sharma. The appellant with Ram Kumar Shukla were taken to the police station. FIR was lodged at P. S. Jahanabad at 11. 50 p. m. After investigation chargesheet was submitted and the appel lant was tried, alongwith Chaukidar Ram Kumar Shukla. 3. To prove its case the prosecution examined in all pine witnesses. PW 1 Sri J. N. Sharma was the Deputy S. P. (Vigilance) who had laid the trap and had arrested the appellant. PW 2 Sri Ram Ratan Ram was Regional Food Controller, Allahabad and had given sanction for prosecution of Ram Kumar Chaukidar. PW 3 Head Constable Afsar Hussain was pasted as Constable Clerk at P. S. Jahanabad on 21- 2-79, had registered the case on rceipt of FIR from Deputy S. P. Sri J. N. Sharma and had kept the sealed bundles of case in the Mai Khana. PW 4 Ram Kishun Gupta, the com plainant had offered Rs. PW 3 Head Constable Afsar Hussain was pasted as Constable Clerk at P. S. Jahanabad on 21- 2-79, had registered the case on rceipt of FIR from Deputy S. P. Sri J. N. Sharma and had kept the sealed bundles of case in the Mai Khana. PW 4 Ram Kishun Gupta, the com plainant had offered Rs. 850 as bribe to the appellant PW 5 S. I. Ram Tirath Singh, PW 7 Bora a public witness have corroborated the testimony of Ram Kishun and Deputy S. P. Sri J. N. Sharma regarding taking of bribe and apprehension of the appellant. PW 7 Ram Narain Singh and PW 8 Om Prakash Shukla are the Investigating Officer of the case. PW 9 Hirdaya Ram Verma was Senior Assistant in the Office of the Food Commissioner, Lucknow and he proved the sanction to prosecute the appellant given by Shri Manohar Subramaniam, I. A. S. Food Commissioner Lucknow. 4. The version of the appellant was that he has been falsely implicated ; that Sri Laxmi Narain Gupta real brother of the complainant Ram Kishun Gupta had one huller machine and the appellant as Marketing Inspector had checked it on 2-9-1978 and submitted a report to the R. F. C. , Kanpur on 6-9-78. Thereupon Laxmi Narain Gupta was fined Rs. 100. Rs. 100 were further got deposited in the bank ; that on that account the complainant being brother of Laxmi Narain Gupta got him falsely impli cated in the case. He further stated that S. I. Ram Tirath had falsely implicated his relation Sri R. G. Bharti in a case in the year 1976-77. He knew Sri Ram Tirath Singh from before and had also an altercation with him and, therefore, he had given false evidence against him, that when he already know S. I. Ram Tirath Singh, there could be no question of accepting any bribe in his presence, that public witness Bora was a pocket witness of the police. In defence the appellant, however, did not adduce any evidence. 5. The learned special Judge, however, believed the prosecution evidence, hence convicted and sentenced the appellant. He has, however, acquitted Chaukidar Ram Kumar Shukla on the ground that the sanction to prosecute him was not strictly in accordance with law. Hence it was not a proper sanction and that according to the prosecution evidence itself he had not demanded any bribe. The learned special Judge, however, believed the prosecution evidence, hence convicted and sentenced the appellant. He has, however, acquitted Chaukidar Ram Kumar Shukla on the ground that the sanction to prosecute him was not strictly in accordance with law. Hence it was not a proper sanction and that according to the prosecution evidence itself he had not demanded any bribe. The Government has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal, of Chaukidar R, K. Shukla. On being aggrieved Panch Lal has preferred this appeal. 6. On behalf of the appellant it was urged that besides the fact that the prosecution evidence was not worthy of credance, it was apparent that the complainant Ram Kishun had an axe to grind with the appellant. It is admitted that Laxmi Narain Gupta is the real elder brother of the complainant Ram Kishun Gupta. In his cross-examination Ram Kishun has further admitted that he, Laxmi Narain and his elder brother Sri Ram all lived jointly and carried on joint business. He also admitted that prior to the occurrence Laxmi Narain had a huller machine. He, however, expressed his ignorance that in September, 1987 the appellant had submitted a repport against his brother Laxmi Narain whereon R. F. C. Kanpur had sentenced Laxmi Narain to pay a fine of Rs. 130. He, however, further admitted that besides Panch Lal appellant then another person was Marketing Inspector in Jahanabad area. On the record there is paper No. 97a-1 a certified copy of the report by the Senior Marketing Inspector to R. F. C. Kanpur against M/s Laxmi Narain having Omar Huller licence No. 75 regarding his factory. 7. Paper No. 100a-1 is order of the R. F. C. Kanpur dated 13-7-79 forfeiting an amount of Rs. 100 from the licence fee of Laxmi Narain and there is also paper No. 101 A-l report of the Deputy Regional Food Controller Allahabad that the amount of Rs. 100 were got deposited to the State Bank of India Ltd. Fatehpur. From these documents it has been specifically estab lished that on the report of the appellant, Laxmi Narain brother of the complainant (,pw 4) Ram Kishun was penalised and, thus, the complainant had a motive to implicate the appellant even falsely. 8. 100 were got deposited to the State Bank of India Ltd. Fatehpur. From these documents it has been specifically estab lished that on the report of the appellant, Laxmi Narain brother of the complainant (,pw 4) Ram Kishun was penalised and, thus, the complainant had a motive to implicate the appellant even falsely. 8. Now coming to the prosecution evidence in support of the case regarding the alleged demand of the bribe and its payment to the appellant on 21-2-79 there is evidence of PW 1 Jai Narain Sharma, PW 4 Ram Kishun Gupta, PW 5 Ram Tirath Singh and PW 6 Bora alias Rasool Baksh PW 4 Ram Kishun Gupta has admitted that on earlier occasions he had carried grains on truck No, USF 5575 in regard to which Rs. 800 were demanded by the appellant and he had further demanded 50 per truck for future trans portation of grains. He did not want to pay any bribe. Hence he contacted the District Magistrate Kanpur, who directed him to contact the vigilance officer. Thereafter he contacted the vigilance officer to lay a trap Thereupon PW 1 Jai Narain Sharma Deputy S. P. (Vigilance) was directed to lay the trap. He met PW 1, Sri Sharma at Ghatampur and thereafter he alongwith the raiding party went to the compound of P. S. Ghatampur where the complainant gave eight currency notes of Rs. 100 each and one of Rs. 50 which were got treated with phenolphthalein powder. PW 5 Ram Tirath Singh, the Trap Inspector (Vigilance) was directed by PW 1 Sri Sharma to call two independent witnesses and consequently PW 6 Bora alias Rasool Bukhsh and Masiruddin were called. Thereafter the raiding party came to Jahanabad Bus stop at about 5 p. m. He went to find out whether the appellant was present or not who was absent and he told that he would come around 7 p. m. Hence there after he along with the raiding party went to the room of the appellant at about 7. 15 p. m. He sat down on his cot. Ram Kishun told the appellant that he had brought Rs. 15 p. m. He sat down on his cot. Ram Kishun told the appellant that he had brought Rs. 850 which he had demanded whereupon the appellant had said that he should continue to pay like that and his work would go on without any difficulty and directed his Chaukidar co-accused Ram Kumar Shukla to take the money which Ram Kumar counted and put in the right side pocket of his Pajama. Then immediately Maheshi Deen witness who had accompani ed the complainant Ram Kishun went out of the room to give indication that money had been passed and immediately thereafter Deputy S. I. Sri Sharma alongwith four persons entered there and seized the money from the pocket of Chaukidar Ram Kumar and then recovery memo etc. were prepared. The right hand of the Chaukidar Ram Kumar was washed which became pink and then it was kept in a sealed phial. He has also stated that Ram Kumar was asked to take out his Pajama and thereafter the right pocket of the Pajama was also dipped in the solution and that also became pink and it was kept in a separate sealed phial which was Ex. 14. 9. The above prosecution evidence can be classified under the following heads : (1) Appellant had demanded bribe of a Rs. 850 for permitting the complainant to carry his grains in the truck. (2) The aforesaid amount of Rs. 850 was treated with phenolphthalein powder and handed over to the complainant and was returned to his for offering it to the appellant. (3) Complainant had offered the bribe saying that he had brought the money demanded by his and the same was taken by the appel lant not in his own hand but it was taken by Ram Kumar Chauki dar at his intance. (4) The amount of Rs. 850 was subsequently recovered from the pocket of the Pajama of Ram Kumar Chaukidar immediately thereafter Know I proceed to discuss the prosecution evidence point wise. 10. (1) There is solitary statement of Ram Kishun on the point. He does not say that any other witness was present in whose presence the money was demanded as bribe by the appellant. 850 was subsequently recovered from the pocket of the Pajama of Ram Kumar Chaukidar immediately thereafter Know I proceed to discuss the prosecution evidence point wise. 10. (1) There is solitary statement of Ram Kishun on the point. He does not say that any other witness was present in whose presence the money was demanded as bribe by the appellant. His bald statement prima facie in difficult to be beleived in view of the fact that he had an axe to grind with the appellant as his elder brother Laxmi Narian was fined by the R. F. C. on the complaint of the appellant and also because earlier the appellant had never demanded any bribe when his sixteen trucks had already passed. It appears improbable that subsequently the appellant would have demanded the bribe. (2) There is evidence of PW 1 Jai Narain Sharma, PW 4 Ram Kishun Gupta and PW 5 Ram Tirath Singh that after Ram Kishun Gupta was directed by S. P. (Vigilance) to approach Jai Narain Sharma to lay the trap, eight currency notes of Rs. 100 each and one of Rs. 50 were given by Ram Kishun Gupta which were got treated with phenolphthalein powder ; that after the treating the notes with phenolphthalein powder the same were returned to Ram Kishun Gupta for offering the appellant as bribe. Evidence to this effect prima facie would not be challenged as well that transaction had not taken place in presence of the appellant. (3 & 4) On both these points there is evidence of PW 4 Ram Kishun Gupta, PW 5 Ram Tirath Singh and PW 6 Bora alias Rasool Bukhasb. Accord ing to PW 6 Bora alias Rasool Bukhsh alongwith Ram Kishun Gupta, one Inspector and Maheshi Din, he was sent into the room of the appellant and there in his presence Ram Kishun Gupta had said that he had brought Rs 850 regarding the bribe. Thereupon the appellant had said that it be handedover to the Chaukidar and Ram Kishun Gupta had handed over (he money to the Chaukidar and the Chaukidar had kept the money in the pocket of his Pajama. Then Maheshi Din went out and called Deputy S. P. and another Inspector inside the room. Thereupon the appellant had said that it be handedover to the Chaukidar and Ram Kishun Gupta had handed over (he money to the Chaukidar and the Chaukidar had kept the money in the pocket of his Pajama. Then Maheshi Din went out and called Deputy S. P. and another Inspector inside the room. PW 4 Ram Kishun Gupta has also stated that he alongwith Inspector and two witnesses had gone into the room of the appellant and there he had offered the money which were, demanded by him and the appellant had said that it be handedover to the Chaukidar which the Chaukidar had taken and then kept in the pocket of his Pajama. In his cross-examination he stated that a Charpai was lying in the room of the appellant whereon he himself and two witnesses who had gone with him and sat. Ram Tirath Singh PW 5 who was an Inspector in the Vigilance Depart ment had also accompanied the complainant has stated that on the cot he himself, the complainant and two other witnesses had sat. He has also corroborated the statement of the complainant that Rs. 850/- which he had taken were offered to the appellant and he had told to hand over the same to the Chaukidar who had accepted the same and kept in the pocket of his Pajama. 11. On behalf of the appellant the testimony of these witnesses has been seriously challenged. As regards the testimony of Bora (PW 6) it was pointed out that he was a pocket witness of the police. In his cross examination he was confronted with various certified copies of the statemants (Ex. kha-1 to kha-7), but he expressed his ignorance that the had ever given evidence in those cases. However, he has stated that prior to this case he had given evidence in several cases on behalf of the police and that is sufficient to con demn him as a pocket witness of the police. 12, As regards PW 5 Ram Tirath Singh who was also an Inspector in the Vigilance Department had also taken part in a trap for the offence under Section 161, I. P. C. and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against one Bharati, a relation of the appellant. 12, As regards PW 5 Ram Tirath Singh who was also an Inspector in the Vigilance Department had also taken part in a trap for the offence under Section 161, I. P. C. and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against one Bharati, a relation of the appellant. The witness, however, ex pressed his ignorance that Bharati was a relation of Panch Lal and that Panch Lal used to do pairvi in the case of Bharti and that Panch Lal knew him. He also expressed ignorance and stated that he did not know that Bharti was sola of Panch Lal, appellant. The veracity of this witness was also challenged by confronting that in many earlier cases of such offences he was disbelieved and even structures were passed, the witness, however, expressed ignorance and stated that those cases were acquitted for want of sufficient evidence. Ex. kha 9, a certified copy of the judgment of Bharati dated 5-11-1981 has been filed and in that case Ram Tirath Singh was witness. Hence on behalf of the defence it was argued that in view of the fact that this witness had participated in the arrest of Bharati, a relation of Panch Lal appellant the latter knew him very well and, therefore, in his presence he could not have demanded or accepted any bribe. The contention cannot be said to be without any sub stance. 13. That apart, admittedly the appellant himself had not accepted any bribe, but it is alleged that the alleged currency notes were taken by Ram Kumar Chaukidar on his behalf. Ram Kumar Chaukidar was also prosecuted alongwith this appellant and he has already been acquitted. On behalf of the State it was, however, pointed out that the learned special Judge had acquitted Ram Kumar because there was no proper sanction against his prosecution. 14. That apart, the contents of the hand-wash of accused Ram Kumar and wash of pocket of his trouser were not sent to the chemical examiner. Hence there was no positive evidence to prove that the wash contained the phenolphthalein powder alleged to have been applied to the currency notes which were given to Ram Kumar Chaukidar by Ram Kishun Gupta at the instance of the appellant. Hence there was no positive evidence to prove that the wash contained the phenolphthalein powder alleged to have been applied to the currency notes which were given to Ram Kumar Chaukidar by Ram Kishun Gupta at the instance of the appellant. There is another very serious short-coming in the prosecution evidence that hands of Ram Kishun Gupta were also not got washed in the solution of sodium corbonate. This fact had been admitted by P. W. 5 Ram Tirath Singh also, and thus, it is clear that no scientific test had been applied in this case and it has not been proved to the hilt that the alleged currency notes were given by PW 4 Ram Kishun Gupta to co-accused Ram Kumar Shukla. 15. Lastly, it was highly improbable that the appellant would have demanded and accepted the bribe in the presence of PW 5 Ram Tirath Singh (Vigilance Inspector) a stranger, as has been observed by Honble Supreme Court in the case of G. V. Nanjudiah v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1987 SC 2402 : 1987 CAR 294 SC. 16. On a consideration of the above facts and circumstance of the case, the prosecution evidence is not of such character as to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court, and there are various other circumstances which clearly militate against the veracity of the prosecution case. The prosecution has failed to bring home guilt to the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, hence conviction and sentences recorded against him are set aside and he is acquitted of the offences charged against him. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged. Appeal allowed. .