JUDGMENT S.I. Jafri 1. Mohd. Abbas has filed this appeal against his conviction under Section 161 IPC and sentence of one year's R, I. and also under Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentence of one year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 2. The prosecution case has gleaned from the FIR and the evidence adduced in the case is to the effect that Complainant Brij Kishore who is originally resident of village Siwal Khas also had some land belonging to him at village Jani including the land of Khasra No. 233 measuring five Bigha, 8 Biswa. In the north of the aforesaid land, there were certain Sheesham trees belonging to the complainant and the complainant had auctioned those Sheesham Tree to one Aslum of village Jani. Out of the set of Sheesam trees, certain trees had been slashed by the person to whom the trees had been auctioned. It is the case of the prosecution that a report to the effect that trees had been slashed was made at Tahsil Meerut against the complainant as a result of which a notice u/Sec. USD was issued against the complainant fixing 20-3-1980 for appearance of the complainant before the Tehsildar Meerut. Upon receipt of notice aforesaid, the complainant approached Mohd. Abbas appellant who was serving as Patwari of the area. It is alleged that Mohd. Abbas, appellant put forth a demand of Rs. 800/- to the complainant as a consideration assuring that he would bring the case to a close. Brij Kishore, complainant along with Hirdesh Kumar Sharma resident of village Makri P. S. Swana Distt. Bulandshahr went to the office of Shyam Pratap Singh Chauban, Dy. S. P. (vigilance) on 17-3-1980 and gave an application containing the facts to the aforesaid effect and also mentioning that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 700/- has been settled to be paid to the appellant on 28-3-1980. The aforesaid Dy. S. P. (vigilance) recorded the statement of Brij Kishore. The complainant gave Rs. 700/- to the aforesaid Dy. S. P. (vigilance) in the denomination of Rs. 100/- each which were initialled and treated with phenopthaline powder. Thereafter, requisite formalities were observed as mentioned in the judgment of the court below. The aforesaid Dy. S. P. (vigilance) recorded the statement of Brij Kishore. The complainant gave Rs. 700/- to the aforesaid Dy. S. P. (vigilance) in the denomination of Rs. 100/- each which were initialled and treated with phenopthaline powder. Thereafter, requisite formalities were observed as mentioned in the judgment of the court below. According to the plan, on 18-3-1980 Shyam Pratap Singh PW 1 along with Prithvi Pal Singh, Inspector S. I. (M) Pyare Lal and constable Anand Prakash started for Police Station Jani at 11 A.M. where Brij Kishore was present at the Police Station Jani. The complainant informed the Police party that appellant Mohd. Abbas was present at the office in the aforesaid Block in connection with some meeting Leaving the Jeep behind, the Raiding Party proceeded towards the Block office. From Jani Bus stand, Davendra Kumar PW 4 and Jeevan Kumar PW 5 were picked up to witness the occurrence. On reaching the block office, entire raiding party stopped short of the Block office and Brij Kishore was instructed to go to the office for contacting the appellant. A little after Brij Kishore complainant came out with Mohd. Abbas appellant and both the complainant and appellant walked upto the hand-pump installed near the western wall of the block where they began to talk to each other. The complainant Brij Kishore reiterated his request for giving a favourable statement whereupon the appellant demanded the settled amount. The complainant delivered the currency notes to the appellant which the appellant accepted in his left hand. On witnessing that the appellant had accepted the bribe, Shyam Pratap Singh, Dy. S P. (Vigilance) came out of the hiding and disclosed his identity to the appellant. He recovered the bribe money from the appellant. Thereafter, the finger wash of the hands of the appellant and complainant was obtained and collected in two separate bottles which were duly sealed. Recovery memo was also prepared on the spot whereupon signatures of the witnesses were secured. Thereafter the appellant was taken to the Police Station where he was challaned. The investigation was conducted by Raj Pal Singh, PW 7 and after concluding the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted in the court against the appellant. 3. Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and took the defence that he was falsely implicated in the case. 4. Thereafter the appellant was taken to the Police Station where he was challaned. The investigation was conducted by Raj Pal Singh, PW 7 and after concluding the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted in the court against the appellant. 3. Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and took the defence that he was falsely implicated in the case. 4. Prosecution examined in all seven witnesses out of them, Brij Kishore, PW 2. Hirdesh Kumar Sharma PW 3, Devendra Kumar PW 4 and Jeevan Kumar PW 5 and Shyam Pratep Singh PW 1 were examined as witnesses of the fact. Brij Kishore PW 2 is the complainant of the case. Hirdesh Kumar Sbarma PW 3 is the person who had; accompanied the complainant to the office of Shyam Pratap Singh PW 1 and was a witness to the extent of the application being given by the complainant to the aforesaid Dy. S. P. (Vigilance). Devendra Kumar PW 4 and Jeevan Kumar PW 5 were introduced in the case at the stage when the party had reached the Block office in order to decoy the appellant. Admittedly the aforesaid two witnesses were waiting at the Bus stand for boarding the Meerut bound Bus. 5. Brij Kishore has dwelt in detail on the prosecution case. He deposed that he had certain Sheesham tree on the land comprising plot No. 233 of village Jani which had been auctioned to one Aslum of the same village. Some of the trees had been slashed by the aforesaid Aslum and a report in connection with the cutting of the aforesaid tree had been made to Tahsildar Meerut as a result of which a notice u/Sec 115 (D) of UP ZA and LR Act was issued against the complainant It is alleged by the witness that he had approached the appellant to help him out of the trouble and the appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 700/- as a consideration For the sake of brevity I do not propose to reiterate all the events subsequent to it which have already been mentioned at the initial stage in the instant judgment. 6. Now I take up the evidence of Hirdesh Kumar Sharma PW 3. According to this witness, he joined the company of the complainant from Baghpat Bus stand of Meerut and accompanied the complainant to the office of aforesaid Dy. S. P. (Vigilance) PW 1. 6. Now I take up the evidence of Hirdesh Kumar Sharma PW 3. According to this witness, he joined the company of the complainant from Baghpat Bus stand of Meerut and accompanied the complainant to the office of aforesaid Dy. S. P. (Vigilance) PW 1. In his evidence, he testified to the fact that the complainant narrated the entire facts to the aforesaid Shyam Pratap Singh Chauhan PW 1 and also handed over an application containing all those facts therein. He also testified that the complainant had given the currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 100/- each to the tune of Rs 700/- which were treated with some chemical etc. It is useful to add here that Hirdesh Kumar is not a witness of recovery and his evidence does not lend any corroboration to the prosecution case or for matter of fact to the evidence of the complainant with regard to giving of bribe money to the appellant and acceptance thereof by the accused. The next in the array of witnesses of fact are Devendra Kumar PW 4 and Jeevan Kumar PW 5. Both these witnesses were secured from the bus stand Jani where they were waiting for Meerut bound bus. Both the witnesses were explained the purpose and they were requested to accompany the Party in order to witness the occurrence According to them, the entire party excepting complainant Brij Kishore, stayed back behind the building of the Block office while the complainant went inside the office to contact the appellant. Both the witnesses have deposed that after a short while, complainant Brij Kishore came out alone and after an interval of 15 minutes, appellant Mohd Abbas also came out of the office Both complainant and the appellant stood near the hand pump talking to each other. Both these witnesses testified that bribe money was delivered by the complainant to the accused which the accused accepted in his left hand, Thereafter, Shyam Pratap Singh Chauhan PW 1 appeared at the scene and after disclosing his identity, recovered the bribe money from the possession of the appellant. 7. The last witness is Shyam Pratap Singh PW 1 himself who was the Incharge of the Raiding Party. He has lent full corroboration to the version set up by the prosecution in all material particulars. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that appellant Mohd. 7. The last witness is Shyam Pratap Singh PW 1 himself who was the Incharge of the Raiding Party. He has lent full corroboration to the version set up by the prosecution in all material particulars. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that appellant Mohd. Abbas had no motive springing therefrom the demand of bribe by the appellant from the complainant. Reliance has been placed on paper no. 48 Kha which is a report dated 15-2-1980 given to Tahsildar by Mohd. Abbas appellant against Brij Kishore complainant stating therein that the plot No 199 belonged to Gram Sabha of village Jani Buzurg and Brij Kishore was liable to be ejected from the said plot. On this report, Tehsildar issued notices to Brij Kishore for his appearance before him on 28-2-1980 to put in objection. In consequence of the notice, the complainant filed objection on 20-2-1980 Thereafter the case was deferred on to 20-3-1980. What the learned counsel for the appellant has sought to deduce that once the appellant had submitted the aforesaid report to the Tehsildar re commanding action stated supra, it is incomprehensible for the appellant to demand illegal gratification from the complainant inasmuch as that the appellant had no way out except to stand by the contents of his report submitted to Tahsildar. It would be a case of living in fool's paradise to except of the appellant going against, the contents in his report submitted to the Tehsildar in the proceedings pending before the Tahsildar. Upon a consideration, I feel that motive attributed to the appellant by the prosecution is not of inspiring nature and hence it would be appropriate to deduce in the conspectus of the facts and circumstances above that the appellant had no motive for demanding bribe from the complainant. On the other hand, it was complainant, who became annoyed with the appellant on account of the report submitted against him by the appellant. It is useful to mention here that the report dated 15-2-1980 submitted by the appellant to the Tahsildar against the complainant was accepted by the Tahsildar who by his judgment and order dated 2919 of 1980, had ordered ejectment of Brij Kishore from the aforesaid plot no. 199 and damages to the tune of Rs. 1350/- were also imposed on him for his illegal use and occupation of the land. 199 and damages to the tune of Rs. 1350/- were also imposed on him for his illegal use and occupation of the land. The factum of the case ending in his ejectment has been admitted by the complaint and also that even the appeal pereferred against the judgment and order of the Tahsildar has been dismissed. The inescapable conclusion emerging from the above discussion is that the complainant was annoyed with the appellant from before and on the other hand, the appellant had no motive to demand illegal gratification as a consideration for a favourable statement in the proceedings aforesaid as to redeem the complainant of the clutches of appellant's report. Now I proceed to examine the truthfulness of the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case To start with, I may observe that the quality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution cannot be adjudged to be such as to inspire confidence about the veracity of the prosecution case, inasmuch as that the two witnesses namely, Devendra Kumar PW 4 Jeevan Kumar PW 5 are chance witnesses according to the own showing of the prosecution, for these witnesses had been procured from the bus stand where they were to board the Meerut bound bus In the present set up of the prosecution case, a reasonable doubt rankles in the mind as to how an unconnected person who was waiting for a bus to board for onward journey would readily agree to stand witness in the case by mere pursuasion of the Deputy Suptd of Police (Vigilance) vis-a-vis the fact that other local people could also be pursuaded for the purpose. In the chain another disquieting feature has emerged eroding further the veracity of the prosecution version. Brij Kishore complainant has admitted in his evidence that Mohan is his brother-in-law (Sala). Devendra Kumar PW 4 has admitted in his evidence that his father's sister is married to aforesaid Mohan, brother-in-law of Brij Kishore complainant. Jeevan Kumar PW 5 has admitted in his evidence that Devendra Kumar PW 4 is a friend of him. Both the above witnesses have also admitted that they are resident of place which is at a distance of 23 to 30 Kms from the place of occurrence. 9. Another circumstance which also creates a reasonable doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case, is regarding their presence on the spot. Both the above witnesses have also admitted that they are resident of place which is at a distance of 23 to 30 Kms from the place of occurrence. 9. Another circumstance which also creates a reasonable doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case, is regarding their presence on the spot. According to both the witnesses, namely, Devendra and Jeevan, when the Raiding party had stayed back, the complainant was sent inside the office to contact the appellant, the complainant had returned alone and it was after an interval of 15 minutes that the accused appellant had come out of the office. This version stands contradicted by the evidence of the complainant Brij Kishore who had stated that he had come out of the office in the company of the appellant. This is a material contradiction which impinges on the claim of the prosecution that these two witnesses had witnessed the occurrence and the factum of recovery of illegal gratification from the possession of the appellant. Hence the story of recovery and the presence of the above two witnesses does not appear to be of inspiring nature. 10. The evidence of Shyam Pratap Singh, PW 1 also suffers from material infirmities. His conduct does not infuse life into the prosecution case- Being the Incharge of the Raiding party, it can safely be ascribed to him that he was interested in the success of the trap and, therefore, implicit reliance cannot be placed on his testimony. Besides the claim of the witness that he had secured Devendra PW 4 and Jeevan PW 5 from the bus stand, has already been discredited in the preceding part of this judgment According to the evidence on record, number of persons were forthcoming near the place of recovery. It is mysterious for the prosecution that it chose to rely on the witnesses for the purposes aforesaid who instead of being of any help to the prosecution case could erode its credit worthiness. It has been repeatedly observed by this Court that in cases of recovery, a duty is cast on the prosecution to collect witnesses from the locality and this having not been done, the veracity of the version set up by the prosecution is open to reasonable criticism. It has been repeatedly observed by this Court that in cases of recovery, a duty is cast on the prosecution to collect witnesses from the locality and this having not been done, the veracity of the version set up by the prosecution is open to reasonable criticism. Hirdesh Kumar PW 3 is not an eye witness of the occurrence as admittedly, his role was limited to his accompanying the complainant to the office of Shyam Pratap Singh PW 1. 11. Having regard to the above discussions I am of the view that the witnesses produced by the prosecution in support of its version, are not at all reliable and their evidence cannot be acted upon as being capable of bringing home the guilt to the appellant. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences recorded against the appellant by 5th Addl. Sessions Judge Meerut vide judgment and order dated 19-12-1985, cannot be sustained and are set aside. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed.