JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal filed by the accused-appellant against the judgment of Special Judge, ACD Cases, Jaipur dated 27-1-1981 by which he convicted the accused-appellant of offence under Sections 161 IPC and Sec 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (here in after referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced for each of the offence to one year's RI and a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three month's RI. 2. The learned Judge, how ever, ordered that the substantive sentences pasted under both the offences shall run concurrently. 3. Accused appellant Kailash Chand on 10-10-1976 was a Patwari of Halka Lalpura and in his jurisdiction wag a field belonging to complainant decoy, Rokar Chand in village Chahaka Bas. Rokar Chand filed a written application Ex P1, before Dy. S.P. Anti Corruption Department, Alwar on 11-10-1976 where in it was alleged by him that he is resident of Pratapgarh Tehsil Thanagaji having his agricultural land in Chahaka Bas in Patwar Circle Lalpura. He wanted to get entry of this land in his name because Patwari Halka Lalpura has shown the cultivation of his sister Kamla on his Stand while in fact on the spot he was in cultivatory possession and mutation had also been done in her name and in name of his brother. He, therefore, wanted to file a suit for correction of entry in the Court of SDO, Rajgarh for which he wanted copy of Jamabandi of Sumvat years 2028 to 2032 and for taking copy of Intkaf, he contacted Patwari i.e. the accused appellant in Patwarghar, Pratapgarh on 10-10-1976 i.e. the previous day and Patwari in turn asked him to pay him Rs. 50/- for issuance of the copy of Intkaf and lamabandi. Since he is a poor man, and considers giving bribe as a sin, does not want to pay and wants Patwari to be caught red banded hence he is submitting Rs. 50/- along with the application. This application, Ex. 1 was presented before the Dy. S.P., ACD, Alwar, Shri S.H. Johri (PW 12) at 12.30 p.m. on 11-10-1976. Since he is a poor man, and considers giving bribe as a sin, does not want to pay and wants Patwari to be caught red banded hence he is submitting Rs. 50/- along with the application. This application, Ex. 1 was presented before the Dy. S.P., ACD, Alwar, Shri S.H. Johri (PW 12) at 12.30 p.m. on 11-10-1976. He requisitioned a jeep from Collector, Alwar and within next 15 minutes, he also had two motbirs in his office viz, Shri Subhash Chand Jain and Babulal, both employees of Commercial Taxation Department who had come to his office in connection with the same preliminary enquiry against some other person. They were asked if they wanted to be witnesses to which they agreed and, therefore, the Dy. SP gave demonstration of use of phenolphthalein powder and prepared document in this respect, He also initiated the currency notes in presence of these persons and started at 1.30 p.m. for Pratapgarh where the Patwar Circle Office is situated. At 300 p.m. the Dy. SP along with the entire party, which besides police official, consisted of two motbirs and the decoy stopped the vehicle about a mile earlier to Pratapgarh and directed the decoy motbir witnesses and one Ibrahim Khan to get down and go separately. He, bow ever, had already instructed the motbirs to be in close vicinity and see and hear what transpires between the accused and the decoy. At 4 00 pm. decoy Rokar Chand (PW 1) and accused Patwari, Kailash Chand, were seen entering the office i.e. Patwar Khana together and Ibrahim Khan and Subhash Chand also stood nearby. It was almost thereafter for more than a couple of hours that they remained standing there till 7.00 pm. when Dy. SP went inside on a signal from decoy and on reaching there, he introduced himself to the Patwari and demanded the money of the bribe he had received. Patwari refused to have accepted any bribe but the complainant said that he has kept the money in his shirt's pocket, thereafter the amount was got recovered and necessary formalities were completed. After doing all the formalities and verifying that the band wash to accused-appellant contained phenophthalein and Sodium carbonate, Patwari Kailash Chand was again asked how he came in possession of Rs. After doing all the formalities and verifying that the band wash to accused-appellant contained phenophthalein and Sodium carbonate, Patwari Kailash Chand was again asked how he came in possession of Rs. 50/- on which it was stated that Rokar Chand had gone to him 2-3 days earlier and that time he had asked some money as loan from him Rokhar Chand had told him that he would pay within 2 4 days and today he had paid him the same money. Rokar Chand, how ever, denied this fact. 4. Investigation was conducted and during investigation several record of the Patwarghar was seized. Copy of the Girdawari, which is alleged to have been issued to the decoy, was also produced. It was also the case of the prosecution that at the time when Dy. SP had entered the office accused Kailash Chand had passed ever an application purported to Lave been given by Rokarchand to him for issuance of copy to one Hanuman Sahai who, in turn turned it off and threw the pieces on the ground. After completion of investigation and obtaining sanction for prosecution, a charge sheet was, submitted against the accused-appellant in the Court of Special Judge, ACD. A charge was framed against him to which he denied and claimed and to be tried Prosecution, therefore, examined 12 witnesses in support of its case Accused denied the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. His case is that Kamla had been cultivating the land, and, therefore, there was an entry in her name in Khara Girdawari and registers, from before his taking over as Patwari of the circle. He states that the copy of the Girdawari had already been taken long back by decoy after putting his signatures in Ghatna Bahi. His case is that he has returned a sum of Rs 50/- which was as a repayment of part of the loan he had taken from Rokair Chand. He has stated that story of 10-10-1976 regarding payment of bribe is a fake story as he had gone to a different village on that day. His case is that he has returned a sum of Rs 50/- which was as a repayment of part of the loan he had taken from Rokair Chand. He has stated that story of 10-10-1976 regarding payment of bribe is a fake story as he had gone to a different village on that day. His case is that decoy suspected that be was having illicit relations with decoy's sister Kamla, hence he was annoyed with him and also that he wanted his name to be inserted in place of Kamla in the Gast-Girdawari and since accused refused to do it, he made a plan and, obviously, implicated him in this case by inventing a story. He also examined Hanuman Sahai (PW 1) and Kanhaiya Lal (DW 2) as his witnesses. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, relying on the statement of the decoy and the Motbir, Subhash Chand also seeking corroboration from the part statement of Babu Lal (PW 4) and the Investigating Officer, came to the conclusion that prosecution has proved its story and, therefore, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated above. It is against this conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been preferred. 6. Mr. Tibrewal, appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant, submitted that the trial Court has erred in not appreciating the case placed by the accused before him His case is that his defence is even borne out by from the prosecution story and that he has been victim of circumstances because decoy wanted to evaporate him from his way so that he could easily succeed in a suit for correction of entry which he wanted to file against his own real sister in the Court of SDO. It is submitted that the decoy even in the FIR has come out with the story that he wanted the copy for filing the suit in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer for correction of entry into the revenue record as Patwari has wrongly entered name of his sister Kamla in those records and for that he wanted the copy of the revenue record. Submission of the learned Counsel is that decoy had already in his possession the copies of these revenue records as is borne out from the record of the Patwarghar seized at the time of trap and placed on record. Submission of the learned Counsel is that decoy had already in his possession the copies of these revenue records as is borne out from the record of the Patwarghar seized at the time of trap and placed on record. Coupled with this fact, it has now been proved and established that decoy Rokar Chand did file a suit against his own sister, Kamla, in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer wherein he has not only narrated the fact of wrong entry but has levelled bald allegation against the accused-appellant in as much as he did not feel shy in assessing the character of his own sister. He mentioned in the plaint that he suspects illicit relations between the accused-appellant and his sister Kamla and that the accused-appellant would, therefore, help her in the litigation and now he has even been trapped, in a criminal case. Thus, it is submitted that it was in the mind of the decoy from the very beginning that accused-appellant can be a tumbling-block in his way in the proceedings of the suit, therefore, he should first be removed from his way and, therefore, he had planned the whole case with the assistance of the officers of the Anti Corruption Department who may be in their benefits, fell in a prey to the evil-plan prepared by the decoy. It is submitted that there is over whelming documentary evidence on record to substantiate that Kamla was cultivating the land and her name had been entered as early as in the years 1975 by Kanhaiya Lal (PW 7) in the register vide entry Ex P. 17 in Article 13. Besides this, it is also borne out from the prosecution's own evidence that Ghatna Bahis are changed every year on 1st October of each year and closes on 30th September of the year Thus, no inference can be drawn from the fact that the entry about the issuance of the copy is the lost entry in Ghatna Bahi ending with the day. It is further submitted that prosecution has not chosen to have independent motbirs and Investigating Officer has acted contrary to the settled law that interested persons should not be called as Motbirs It is submitted that it is an admitted that both these witnesses had come to the Anti Corruption Department in connection with some other work and, therefore, they were the witnesses under the influence of the Anti-Corruption Department and could not be branded as independent witnesses. It is also submitted that so far as the evidence of demand is concerned, there is no corroboration to the statement of Rokar Chand (PW 1). One the contray, the same is contradictory by the statement of Rameshwar Dayal (PW 10) Accused has categorically denied that he had demanded any amount and has even stated that he was in a different village on 10-10-1976 at 9 00 pm. then Pratapgarh while it is established beyond any manner of doubt that accused was in Thanagaji at 9 00 p.m. on 10-10-1976.It is then submitted that trial Court has erred in holding that the explanation given by the accused on the spot has not been the consistent defence of the accused. It is submitted that throughout it was a story of loan which the accused had taken and he stuck to it till end. Besides this, it is submitted that even assuming for a moment, there was a variation between the two statement still then the prosecution story is such which clearly exhibits a strong basis of the decoy against the accused-appellant in as much he is prepared to be dragged into sexual relationship with his sister and in these circumstances, the story put forth by him cannot be taken to be a gospel truth. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court and vehemently argued that in this case there is overwhelming evidence to substantiate that accused demanded and accepted as bribe Rs 50/-. His submission is that preparation of the document on that day and issuance of the copy coupled with the pieces of application recovered from the room of the Patwari are strong circumstances to show that the decoy had approached the accused-appellant for the purposes of supply of copy and for which be had demanded a sum of Rs. 50/-. His submission is that preparation of the document on that day and issuance of the copy coupled with the pieces of application recovered from the room of the Patwari are strong circumstances to show that the decoy had approached the accused-appellant for the purposes of supply of copy and for which be had demanded a sum of Rs. 50/-. It is submitted that no explanation is needed for the fact that copies had earlier been also supplied of the same document to the decoy. It submitted that filing of the suit is a subsequent action and this fact of illicit relation has also been subsequently mentioned, therefore, on the strength of that, the bias of the decoy cannot be said to be against the accused-appellant. It is then submitted that since the recovery is established, the presumption under Section 4 of the Act is available in the instant case. 8. I have carefully considered the submission advances by the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire record. 9. In this appeal, most of the story between the prosecution and the accused is the same because it is admitted by the either side that name of Kamla is entered into the revenue record with which the decoy is aggrieved. It is also an admitted case of both the sides that decoy intended to file a suit for correction of the entries. It is also established that Rs. It is also an admitted case of both the sides that decoy intended to file a suit for correction of the entries. It is also established that Rs. 50/- has been passed by the decoy to the accused in the manner suggested by the prosecution yet there is a difference as to whether this amount was illegal gratification obtained by the accused-appellant as a motive or reward to do some favour to the decoy or that this money was returned in garb of some loan and this was a part of the game which the decoy wanted to play in this case since he was very much annoyed with the behaviour and attitude of the accused-appellant and have a strong suspicion in his mind that accused appellant would help his sister in the litigation in respect of the land and for that he wanted to remove this obstacle, therefore, the most important aspect which has to be looked in this case is the conduct of the decoy and the documentary evidence in respect of the land and for that it is essential to go through the entire statement of Rokar Chand. He, in his examination in chief has stated that he wanted the copy of the Gastgirdawari and Khata Jamabandi with effect from 2028-2032 for which he contacted accused on 10-10-1976 at 9.00 p.m. at Pratapgarh, Patwargar and the accused demanded Rs. 50/-for issuance of the copies. He states he went on 11-10-1988 in morning along with money to Dy. SP Anti Corruption Department. He does want to pay bribe and lodged the written report Ex. P 1. According to him, both the Motbirs, Subhash Chand and Babu Lal, employees of the office of the CTO were sitting at that point of time in the office of Dy. SP. He then states about all the formalities as I have mentioned above while mentioning the facts of the case. According to the story, he has given he made an improvement that it was at 5.30 p m that he reached Patwarghar and met the Patwari i.e. the accused near bus-stand and he told him at the bus stand to issue him the copies He states that, he thereafter wrote an application which Patwari kept in the Ghatna Bahi. He thereafter prepared the copy of the Gast Girdawari and handed it over to him after taking Rs. 50/-. He thereafter prepared the copy of the Gast Girdawari and handed it over to him after taking Rs. 50/-. He states that Hanuman Sahai, at that time, entered the office and the accused handed over the copy to him which he torned to pieces. He states in the examination in chief itself that when the Deputy Superintendent of Police asked the accused about the money, he stated that he has returned to Rokar Chaad the amount of loan he had taken. He states that he wanted to put a date of 11-10-77 below his signatures in his Ghatna Bahi which the accused did not permit. He submits that Ex. P. 6 is the copy which was given to him by the Dy. S.P. and Ex P 7 are his signatures in Ghatna Bahi Article 10. In cross-examination, this witness admits that he had studied upto 10th Class and that Kamla is his real sister. He admits that accused was Patwari in his village only for last four to five months and his house is only 100 yards away from the Patwarghar. He admits that he was knowing the accused from before and meets him at times in market. He states that the Khetedari of this land is in the name of his father but he is in possession. He has shown the grievance that accused had entered the possession of his sister in Gast Girdawari and for that he wanted to file a suit so that there may be no trouble in future He states that Kamla never told him that she is in possession of the land. He bow ever, admits that she is living in the same village. He has denied the knowledge of that the entry about the Kamla's possession had been done by the previous Patwari in record. He then states that it was about 15 or 16 days prior to the trap that he bad learnt for the first time about the entry of the name of Kamla in Gast Girdawari He then states that he had a doubt that an entry might have been made. Why he got the doubt, he could not assign the reason. He stated that he had not obtained the copy of the Gast Girdawari earlier but in further cross-examination, he admitted that he had taken a copy earlier also. Why he got the doubt, he could not assign the reason. He stated that he had not obtained the copy of the Gast Girdawari earlier but in further cross-examination, he admitted that he had taken a copy earlier also. He how ever states that he does not know when he had obtain the copy. He states that he had taken the copy from the accused only. He was then confronted with Ex D. 1 in Article 11. He first stated that he cannot say when he learnt about anything of Kamla's name in Gast Girdawari, but he admitted his signatures on these documents at Ex D. 1 and Ex D 2 which is an entry in Ghatna Bahi. These entries show that he had obtain a copy of Khasra Girdawari on 19-11-1975. He had made the accused subsequently to his already taking the copies on 19-11-1975. He admits that he is distributing mail in the village and is working in part time in post office. He also admits that he used to visit Patwarghar very often He had very good relation with the Patwari i.e. Accused. He, how ever, denies that he had taken the loan from the accused. He then stated that had no hatredness even when he came to know about illicit relations with accused of Kamla. He denies the suggestion that he had any doubt about her character or that she had any illicit relation with other person. He also denies that he had strain relation with Kamla because of her character. He categorically states that he never knew about the illicit relation of the accused with his sister Kamla or that for thin reason accused might have got the entry made in his favour. He how ever, admits that he had filed a suit subsequently but he denies the knowledge that he said some thing about his sister's character in the plaint. He, how ever, was confronted with his previous statement Ex.D. 3 at certain points and then he slated that he had already decided to pay the excess money for obtaining the copies, if the need be. He could not assign reason why he did not file the suit for correction even when he learned in 1975 about the name of Kamla. He admits that there was no person when the accused demanded money from him. He could not assign reason why he did not file the suit for correction even when he learned in 1975 about the name of Kamla. He admits that there was no person when the accused demanded money from him. He does not know for what reasons the Motbir had been called in the office of the Anti Corruption Department. He states that ha had not made any complaint about the accused demanding the bribe and also denies the suggestion that accused might have given him the copy on 13-9-76. Decoy was confronted with portions of the plaint which he had filed against his sister. Ho, after reading that, stated that the statement he had made on the previous date was false. He maintained that he was not annoyed with the accused even when he bad illicit relation with his sister. He, how ever, admitted that he got annoyed with the Patwari because he got an entry made in revenue record in favour of his sister. He admits to have given application Ex.D. 5 by Nayab Tehsildar but admits that accused did not ask for money prior to 20th March, 1976 but he had given the application. 10. A perusal of the aforesaid statement of this witness shows that he is too sharp to be relied on He is a dubious type of person who can go to any length for his self interest. He has laid on almost all aspects as is borne out from the documentary evidence on record. Regarding issuance of the copy earlier, he first stated that he had not received the copy and then he half-heartedly agreed to it but there are various documents on record which substantiate that copy has been issued to him In Article 10, Ghatna Bahi Register, there is an old entry dated 19-11-1975 which has been marked as Ex D 2. This entry is in respect of issuance of the copy to Rokar Chand, Decoy of Khasra Girdawari with effect from 2029 to 2032 supplied to him on payment of 64 paise. The entry is signed by Rokar Chand and admitted by him. This entry is further corroborated with the entry in the despatch register, Article 11 where in at Ex D 1 item No. 57, there is entry to the same effect also signed by Rokar Chand, decoy. The entry is signed by Rokar Chand and admitted by him. This entry is further corroborated with the entry in the despatch register, Article 11 where in at Ex D 1 item No. 57, there is entry to the same effect also signed by Rokar Chand, decoy. So far as the signatures are concerned, decoy has admitted them in his cross-examination. These entires show that he had in possession of the copies of Khasra Girdawari with effect from Samvant years 2029 to 2032. These copies have been obtained from the register of Khasra Girdawari of Khasra No. 384 in a bounded register, Article 13. On page 48 of this register, there is an entry regarding this filed. Khasra No. 384, which is in name of the father of the decoy Birdi Chand and in column No. 34 and 40 there is categorically mentioned that cultivation have been done in 'Rabi' crop by Kamla daughter of Birdi Chand . These entries have not been found in the record of Revenue Department copies of which had been issued as early as 1975, it could not be believed for a moment that decoy was not in knowledge that Kamla's name had been entered in the revenue record or not as stated by him in the cross examination. Similarly, about the copy which has been delivered subsequently, there is an entry on 13-9-1976 to the effect that on that day copy was delivered to decoy, Rokar Chand PW 1. He has, how ever, stated that this entry was made on 11-10-1976 and he wanted to put a date but he was not permitted and, therefore, something has been left I am not persuaded to accept the statement of the witness obviously for two reasons one is, that the trial Court has not considered it to be an entry of 13-9-1976 on the ground the last entry in the register. In my opinion, the approach was not proper and runs counter to the evidence on record. Prosecutor witness Nand Ram PW 8 who is another Dy. S.P. has clearly stated that when he had interrogated the accused and asked him as to why there is no entry in Article 10 on 1-10-1976, he stated that new Ghatna Bahi had been opened on that day, the charge of which had been given to Thumar Mal. Prosecutor witness Nand Ram PW 8 who is another Dy. S.P. has clearly stated that when he had interrogated the accused and asked him as to why there is no entry in Article 10 on 1-10-1976, he stated that new Ghatna Bahi had been opened on that day, the charge of which had been given to Thumar Mal. This answer, which had been given to Nand Ram, finds support from the statement of Ranvijai PW 9, who was Tehsildar in Thanagaji. He has admitted that Ghatna Bahi starts from 1st October each years closes on 30th September of the next year. Thus the entry of 30th September has to be the last entry in the Ghatna Rahi To the same effect is the statement of Rameshwar Dayal, who was office Kanoongo in Tehsil Thanagaji. He has also stated that all Patwaris starts new Ghatna Bahi on 1st October each year and closes on 30th September of next year. Thus, merely because the entry in the Ex P 7 is the last entry in the register, Article 10, it cannot for a moment be inferred that this was actually made on 11-10-1976 and anti-dated. On the contrary, the fact that it was actually prepared on 30-9-1976 is corroborated by entry Ex. P 20 in Article 11 where on 30-9-1976 there is an entry at No. 229 showing issuance of copy. There are several other entries in the said register besides this which are even subsequent to this date. Thus, on this count also, I find that the statement of Rokar Chand PW 1 is not reliable. Again, regarding his conduct, it may be mentioned that his attitude towards his sister's character is extremely bad on that count also he has given three different statements in the same cross-examination as mentioned by me above. In Ex. D 4 which is plaint filed by me in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, he has used the following words. Again, regarding his conduct, it may be mentioned that his attitude towards his sister's character is extremely bad on that count also he has given three different statements in the same cross-examination as mentioned by me above. In Ex. D 4 which is plaint filed by me in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, he has used the following words. " ;g gS fd izfroknh dh pky pyu [kjkc gS] vkSj mlus iVokjh gYdk Jh dSyk'kpUnz ls uktk;t rkYyqdkr dk;e djds vkjkth eqrfcdjk okyk ckcr [kljk fxjnkokjh laor~ 2030 esa tksr dk bUnzkt cgSfl;r iq=h jscM nks pUnz firk oknh ,oa rjrhch izfroknh ua0 02 dk f[kykQ ekSdk ,oa f[kykQ dkuwu fcuk dCtk gksrs gq, djk fy;k ftl ckcr oknh orjrhoh izfroknh ua0 2 us iVokjh gYdk ds fo:) f'kdk;r U;k;ky; ,l0Mh0vks0 lkgc jktx< eq0 vyoj esa dj j[kh gS vkSj xyr bUnzkt dks gVk;s tkus ckcr Hkh mtznkjh dj j[kh gS tks tsj rtcht gSA iVokjh gYdk dks fj'or ds vkjksi esa fxjQ~rkj fd;k tk pqdk gSA blh jaft'k dh otg ls iVokjh gYQk us eq0 deyh dks cgdkdj vkjkth eqrfcdjkokyk ij >xM+k djuk 'kq: dj fn;k gSA " This narration of decoy Rokar Chand PW 1 against his own sister and the accused is sufficient to infer his bias against the accused, As I have already stated above that from the record it is clearly borne out that the entry had been made much prior to the date of demand & date of the bribe, obviously, it must have been haunting in the mine of the decoy that it is the accused who is responsible for depriving him of the land at all. If it was true and for that if he had in mind to file a suit for which he wanted a copy, he certainly would have been making a plan to remove an obstacle from his way he could be none less then the accused-appellant and at time there are persons who are master mind in scheming and framing the plots to falsely get some body entrapped and Rokar Chand PW 1 cannot be said to be an exception to this. After perusing his statement and the entire documentary evidence, as mentioned above, I am fully convicted that the story put forth by him in his FIR is totally a creation for the purpose of getting the accused entrapped in the case else he had twice obtained the copies of the Khasra Girdawari in the past for which he has no explanation to offer. This fact further finds support from the fact that it took three hours in success of the trap-Prosecution itself has come with the story that the Patwarghar at 4.00 p.m. but the amount could not be passed over till 7.00 p.m. There is no explanation forth coming for waiting for these three hours. 11. I am also surprised at the conduct of the Investigating Officer who has not chosen to call the independent Motbirs in the case but has asked those two persons to becomes the motbirs, who could be under his influence at any time. It is submitted that they had been to the office of the Anti Corruption Department in respect of some departmental enquiry, may be directly concerned with some department enquiry or not, but it cannot be denied for a moment that such persons, who are likely to be the witnesses in some other case or involved in some other case of the Anti Corruption Department of the same office, could be so free so that implicit reliance could be placed on their statement. Even then, the case put forth by the motbirs supports the version of the defence so far as his offering the explanation on the spot is concerned. 12. Subhash Chand (PW 3) has, in unequivocal terms, stated that in his hearing, the accused-appellant had asked the decoy to pay him the amount due as loan the accused had thereafter taken the money. He has stated the something repeatedly in his statement This witness is not a hostile witness and there is no reason to disbelieve his version. Similar is the statement of Babu Lal (PW 4) who has stated that in side the Patwarghar decoy and the accused were talking something about the loan amount and decoy was telling the accused that he has brought Rs 50/- which was a loan and he then paid Rs. 50/-. Similar is the statement of Babu Lal (PW 4) who has stated that in side the Patwarghar decoy and the accused were talking something about the loan amount and decoy was telling the accused that he has brought Rs 50/- which was a loan and he then paid Rs. 50/-. The learned trial Court has rejected this defence on the ground that story was in the reverse way given in the document prepared on the spot as according to Dy. S P. the explanation was other way round that accused wanted a loan from the decoy which was advanced. It may be a slip at some stage but once Rokar Chand (PW 1), decoy, himself in his court statement has accepted that accused had given the same explanation which has been stated by Subhash Chand (PW 3) and Babu Lal (PW 4), there remains no doubt that there is an error in mentioning in the documents or that same explanation could have been otherwise available had the same been put to the witnesses. Document Ex. P. 1, to that extent, is not admissible in law and should not have been used by the trial Court until and unless that part of the statement was brought on record on this Court as the same otherwise hits Section 162 Cr. PC. 13. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the accused had given an explanation on the spot and which is his defence even at trial. This defence found corroboration from the prosecution's own witnesses. 14. Regarding the demand part of the case, suffice it to mention that it hardly requires any detail dealing in this judgment because I have already commented upon the conduct of the decoy. I have already came to the conclusion that he was out and out to remove an obstacle from his way, whom he was considering i e. the accused appellant. He first made friendly relations with him because he was in a position to do so because he was a mail distributor and a neighbour also. After having earned that confidence, he planned to get him removed from his way and for that he made out a story of the demand of bribe of Rs. He first made friendly relations with him because he was in a position to do so because he was a mail distributor and a neighbour also. After having earned that confidence, he planned to get him removed from his way and for that he made out a story of the demand of bribe of Rs. 50/- Besides this, his story is negatived about demand by the statement of the prosecution witness, Rameshwar Dayal (PW 10) who has stated that accused was with him in Thanagaji on 10-10-76 at 9.09 p.m. Thanagaji is at a distance of 25 miles from Pratapgarh and, therefore, he could not have been in Pratapgarh for demanding the money on that day. 15. Looking from any angle, I am of the opinion that prosecution story does not inspire confidence that the amount given by the decoy to the accused was an illegal gratification as a motive or reward for doing some favour to him. 16. The result of the aforesaid discussions is that this appeal is allowed, the judgment of the trial Court is set aside and so also the conviction and sentence of the accused Kailash Chand. The accused-appellant is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds.Appeal allowed. *******