V. GOPALASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 18-6-1983 of the Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months and further convicting him under Section 161, I. P. C. as well without imposing any separate sentence thereunder. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows : the appellant was serving as the Inspector of Police, Plant Site Police Station, Rourkela, from 19-2- 1979. P. W. 9 Md. Munna was doing iron scrap business since about 10 to 12 years prior to the date of occurrence and the licence of the business stood in the name of his nephew Md. Sabaj. On 3-3-1979 the appellant with his police staff raided the business premises of P. W. 9, seized scrap materials from the premises, arrested P. W. 9 and forwarded him to Court. On 5-3-1979 P. W. 9 was released on bail. On 13-3-1979 the appellant called P. W. 9 to the police station through a constable and P. W. 9 met the appellant at the police station between 4 p. m. and 5 p. m. when the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,000/- from him to submit a final report in the case. After some bargain between the parties, P. W. 9 agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/ -to the appellant within a week's time at his quarters. On 20-3- 1979 P. W. 9 paid the appellant a sum of Rs. 200/- at his quarters and promised to pay him the balance sum of Rs. 300/ - within 2 or 3 days. On 21-3-1979 as P. W. 9 was about to transport scrap iron in a truck to Raipur, S. I. Sri Pradhan of Plant Sita Police Station detained the truck and took it to the police station. On coming to know about it P. W. 9 went to the police station and on seeing him the appellant directed his staff to put him in the lock-up. After some time, the appellant called P. W. 9 to his room and demanded a bribe of Rs. On coming to know about it P. W. 9 went to the police station and on seeing him the appellant directed his staff to put him in the lock-up. After some time, the appellant called P. W. 9 to his room and demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,000/ -from him threatening him that in case he did not pay the bribe of Rs. 1,000/- he would not only arrest him but also seize the truck with the goods. P. W. 9 went home and brought Rs. 1,000/- and paid it to the appellant whereupon he released the truck and the goods. At that time the appellant reminded him about the balance sum of Rs. 300/- which he had promised to pay on 20-3-1979 and then P. W. 9 told him that he would pay the amount within 2 to 3 days and then the accused threatened him that in case he did not pay the amount of Rs. 300/-, as promised, he would submit a charge-sheet against him in the earlier case. P. W. 9 returned home and decided to report against the appellant to the Vigilance Police to avoid future harassment from the appellant. On 22-3-1979 P. W. 9 went to the Vigilance Office, Rourkela and met P. W. 10 Banamali Das, Inspector of Police, Vigilance, Rourkela, and made an oral report against the appellant which was reduced into writing by P. W. 10 and the same was subsequently treated as the F. I. R. in the case (Ext. 14 ). As the said report was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Sambalpur, he directed the registration of a case and further directed P. W. 10 to lay a trap for catching the appellant red-handed. On 23-3-1979 D. S. P. , Vigilance (P. W. 4), S. J. K. C. Jena (P. W. 7), P. W. 10, the Executive Magistrate (P. W. 5), P. W. 9, the complainant, and one Banamali Ray and the Supply Supervisor Pitabas Misra assembled at the Vigilance Squad Office at Rourkela. On 23-3-1979 D. S. P. , Vigilance (P. W. 4), S. J. K. C. Jena (P. W. 7), P. W. 10, the Executive Magistrate (P. W. 5), P. W. 9, the complainant, and one Banamali Ray and the Supply Supervisor Pitabas Misra assembled at the Vigilance Squad Office at Rourkela. After making the necessary preparations for laying the trap, all the above named persons who assembled there, except P. W. 7, proceeded to the Plant Site Police Station for laying the trap at about 8 p. m. Though the members of the trap party waited till 9 p. m. , as the appellant was not available at the police station, they could not lay the trap and so after taking a decision that they would be laying the trap on the following day evening they left the place. On 24-3-1979 at about 8 p. m. P. Ws. 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 and one Banamali Ray assembled at the squad office and as the Supply Supervisor Pitabas Misra had fallen ill, in his place P. W. 1 Dambarudhar Rath was called and asked to assist the trap party. The complainant narrated the facts of his case before the others who assembled there and produced the three hundred rupee G. C. notes before them which he proposed to give as a bribe to the appellant. P. W. 5 noted the number of the G. C. notes (M. Os. I, II and III) on a piece of paper and kept it with him. The three currency notes after being treated with phenolphthalein powder were given to P. W. 9. The accompanying witness Banamali Ray was instructed to accompany P. W. 9 to witness the payment of the bribe money by P. W. 9 to the appellant and to over-hear the conversation that would take place between them at that time and he was further instructed to give a signal by lighting a cigarette to indicate to the other members of the trap party that the bribe money was accepted by the appellant. P. W. 10 prepared the preparation report (Ext. 1) containing all the preparatory steps taken for laying the trap. Thereafter all the persons assembled there, except P. W. 7, proceeded to the Plant Site Police Station in two jeeps. P. W. 10 prepared the preparation report (Ext. 1) containing all the preparatory steps taken for laying the trap. Thereafter all the persons assembled there, except P. W. 7, proceeded to the Plant Site Police Station in two jeeps. The members of the trap party stopped their jeep at a place close to the Plant Site Police Station and thereafter constable B. Sahu was sent to the police station to find out if the appellant was present in his room and the constable after going to the police station returned and informed the trap party that the appellant was present at the police station. Then P. W. 9, the decoy, and the accompanying witness proceeded head on foot and reached the police station, while the other members of the trap party remained at a place by the side of the compound wall of the police station and from there the verandah of the police station was visible. While the accompanying witness stood below the verandah. P. W. 9 met a constable on the verandah and learnt from him that the appellant was inside his room with S. I. Sri Pradhan. Within 2 to 3 minutes S. I. Sri Pradhan came out of the room of the appellant. Thereafter P. W. 9 sent word through the constable intimating the appellant that he wanted to meet him. The constable went to the room of the appellant and informed him about the arrival of the complainant P. W. 9. Thereafter the appellant came out to the verandah and enquired from the complainant if he had brought the amount of Rs. 300/- and as the latter replied in the affirmative and then on the demand of the appellant, the complainant paid him the sum of Rs. 300/ -. The appellant kept the hundred rupee G. C. notes in his shirt pocket and then entered into his room. Benamali Ray then gave the pre-arranged signal by lighting a match stick whereafter the other members of the trap party rushed to the room of the accused. The D. S. P. (P. W. 4) and the I. O. (P. W. 10) saw the payment of the bribe money by the decoy to the appellant. On their way to the room of the appellant, the complainant also told them in a low voice that the appellant had accepted the bribe money and kept it in his shirt pocket. The D. S. P. (P. W. 4) and the I. O. (P. W. 10) saw the payment of the bribe money by the decoy to the appellant. On their way to the room of the appellant, the complainant also told them in a low voice that the appellant had accepted the bribe money and kept it in his shirt pocket. The members of the trap party, on entering the room of the appellant, saw him engaged in writing something and then P. W. 10 disclosed to the appellant the identity of the members of the trap party and demanded of the appellant to produce the sum of Rs. 300/ - which he had accepted as bribe. The appellant became perturbed and enquired from them as to who the complainant was and as to how a trap could be laid without the complainant. P. W. 10 told him that the complainant was there. At this stage as the appellant got up and attempted to go outside, he was prevented from doing so and P. W. 10 insisted on taking the appellant's hand wash. Then the appellant brought out from his pocket the three currency notes of one hundred rupee denomination, some other currency notes of smaller denomination, some coins and a piece of paper and threw them on the floor and thereafter shouted "pahara Pahara", whereupon 7 to 8 police officers entered his room and started assaulting the Vigilance Officers. As directed by the appellant, P. W. 10 and Daftary Sri Behera were put inside the lockup. The D. S. P. (P. W 4) somehow managed to escape and ran to the Superintendent of Police, Rourkela. Some time thereafter S. P. , Rourkela (P. W. 6) along with D. S. P. (P. W. 4) arrived at the police station and directed the release of P. W. 10 and Daftari Sri Behera from the lock-up and permitted the I. O. (P. W. 10) to proceed with the investigation of the case. The Magistrate (P. W. 5) picked up the hundred rupee currency notes lying on the floor and found that their numbers tallied with the numbers noted by him earlier on a piece of paper. The tainted currency notes were seized under Ext. 2. The Magistrate (P. W. 5) picked up the hundred rupee currency notes lying on the floor and found that their numbers tallied with the numbers noted by him earlier on a piece of paper. The tainted currency notes were seized under Ext. 2. The hand wash and the pocket wash of the appellant was taken and as the solution in each case turned pink the same were preserved in two separate bottles and the same were seized under Ext. 10. P. W. 10 prepared the detection report Ext. 3 and after the same was read over and explained to the witnesses they all signed. The appellant gave a written report to P. W. 6 complaining against P. W. 10 and others alleging that they tried to implicate him in a false trap case. P. Ws. 4 and 10 also made two separate reports to the S. P. (P. W. 6) regarding the occurrence which took place in the room of the appellant. On completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted against the appellant on 5-6-1980. ( 3 ) THE defence case may be briefly stated as follows : the appellant had not seized the goods from the premises of P. W. 9 on 3-3-1979 nor he had arrested P. W. 9 and he was not the I. O. in that case. He never demanded or accepted any amount as bribe from P. W. 9 on any day. The appellant did not demand Rs. 1,000/- from P. W 9 on 13-3-1979 nor was there any agreement on that day that P. W. 9 would pay him a bribe of Rs. 500/ -. The allegation that P. W. 9 paid a bribe of Rs. 200/- on 20-3-1979 is false and baseless. Likewise the allegation that P. W. 9 paid the appellant Rs.1,000/- on 21-3-79 for the release of his truck is equally false and baseless. As the appellant had initiated some criminal cases against P. W 9, the latter was inimically disposed towards him. As the appellant had earlier turned down the request of P. W. 10 to manipulate the investigation of a case in which he was the I. O. , P. W. 10 and the other Vigilance staff bore grudge against him. So P. Ws. 9 and 10 have falsely foisted the case against him. ( 4 ) THE prosecution has examined in all ten witnesses to prove its case. So P. Ws. 9 and 10 have falsely foisted the case against him. ( 4 ) THE prosecution has examined in all ten witnesses to prove its case. P. W. 9 Md. Munna the decoy, P. W. 4 the D. S. P. , Vigilance, P. W. 1 the Supply Supervisor, Panposh and P. W. 5 the Executive Magistrate, Panposh, were all members of the trap party. P. W. 6 was the S. P. , Rourkela, who arrived at the scene of occurrence subsequently on coming to know about the quarrel that took place in the room of the appellant between the appellant and his subordinates on the one hand and the Vigilance officers on the other. P. W. 7 Sri Jena is the S. I. of Police, Vigilance, who participated in the preparatory stages of laying the trap but he states that he did not accompany the other members of the trap party to the place of occurrence. P. W. 8 is the I. O. of Police who accorded the sanction for prosecuting the accused. P. W. 10 is the Inspector of Vigilance who investigated into the case and from him P. W. 2 had taken over the charge of the investigation of the case on 17-5-1979. P. W. 3 prepared the spot map. ( 5 ) IT is appropriate that the evidence of the P. Ws. regarding the major aspects of the prosecution case should be considered at the outset. It is in the evidence of D. W. 1 that the accused was posted as Inspector, Plant Site Police Station, on 19-2-1979. The evidence of P. W. 9 shows that he was doing iron scrap business since last about 10 to 12 years and the licence of his business stands in the name of his nephew. P. W. 9 admitted in cross-examination that in the year 1975 the accused, while working in the Plant Site Police Station, had seized his goods worth Rupees 70,000/- and started a case against him and that in connection with those goods the accused had started 2 or 3 cases against him. P. W. 9 admitted in cross-examination that in the year 1975 the accused, while working in the Plant Site Police Station, had seized his goods worth Rupees 70,000/- and started a case against him and that in connection with those goods the accused had started 2 or 3 cases against him. Considering this background of enmity between P. W. 9 and the appellant and as the trap was laid on the initiative of P. W. 9 wherein he figured as the decoy, the evidence of P. W. 9 merits careful scrutiny before the same is accepted, in Pannalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1191 : (1979 Cri LJ 936), their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed thus (Para 8) :". . . . . . . After introduction of S. 165-A of the I. P. C. making the person who offers bribe guilty of abatement of bribery the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that of an accomplice and corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon. "in Gulam Mahmood A. Malak v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 1558 : (1980 Cri LJ 1096), the Supreme Court held (Para 6) : ". . . . . . . . . . . . the complainant is in the nature of an accomplice, his story prima facie is suspect. " ( 6 ) THE evidence of the I. O. (P. W. 10) shows that on 24-3-1979 at about 8 p. m. Dambarudhar Rath (P. W. 1), D. S. P. (P. W. 4), Inspector Brahma, S. I. R. N. Bhatiria, Duftary, Constable, P. W. 10, the complainant and the accompanying witness Banamali Ray left the vigilance squad office and proceeded to the Plant Site Police Station in two jeeps and they stopped their jeeps at a short distance from the Plant Site Police Station. From the evidence of the members of the trap party it is seen that while P. W. 9 and the accompanying witness entered inside the police station premises, P. Ws. 1, 4, 5 and 10 together stayed at a place and from that place the verandah of the police station was clearly visible. P. W. 9 stated that as he went to the verandah, the accompanying witness Banamali Ray stood just below the verandah close to the Inspector's room. 1, 4, 5 and 10 together stayed at a place and from that place the verandah of the police station was clearly visible. P. W. 9 stated that as he went to the verandah, the accompanying witness Banamali Ray stood just below the verandah close to the Inspector's room. The evidence of P. W. 9 shows that on the verandah he met a constable and on his enquiry the constable told him that Inspector Pradhan Babu was with the accused in his room. P. W. 9 stated that as Pradhan Babu came out of the room of the appellant within 2 to 3 minutes, P. W. 9 told the constable to inform the accused that he wanted to meet him and then the constable entered into the room of the appellant and told him that he (P. W. 9) had come to meet him and on hearing this the accused came out of his room on to the verandah. P. W. 9 deposed that as the accused enquired from him if he had brought the amount of Rupees 300/-, he replied in the affirmative and then on his demand he paid the sum of Rs. 300/ - to the accused and the accused kept the three hundred rupee notes in his shirt pocket and thereafter as Banamali Ray gave the signal, the trap party rushed to the police station. So in the present case the other evidence on record should be carefully scrutinised to find out if there is any reliable corrborative evidence in support of the version of the complainant that the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 300/- as alleged by him. ( 7 ) FROM the evidence of the trap witnesses it is clear that at the relevant time the verandah was well lighted and it was visible from the place where they were standing. At the relevant time P. Ws. 1, 4, 5 and 10 were at one place at a short distance from the verandah of the police station and so all of them must have been attentively watching the movements of P. W. 9 and the accused on the verandah hoping that any moment the signal may be given by the accompanying witness Banamali Ray. 1, 4, 5 and 10 were at one place at a short distance from the verandah of the police station and so all of them must have been attentively watching the movements of P. W. 9 and the accused on the verandah hoping that any moment the signal may be given by the accompanying witness Banamali Ray. The D. S. P. (P. W. 4) and the I. O. (P. W. 10) deposed that they saw the complainant making over the bribe money to the accused on the verandah. As P. Ws. 1,4,5 and 10 were all standing together at the same place waiting to receive the signal from B. Ray, if really P. Ws. 4 and 10 had seen the giving of the bribe money by the complainant to the accused on the verandah, P. Ws. 1 and 5 must have also witnessed it, but strangely enough P. Ws. 1 and 5 do not state anything about their having seen the complainant giving the bribe money to the accused on the verandah. P. Ws. 1 and 5 have not stated even about the accused coming on to the verandah to meet P. W. 9. So the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 10 that they have actually seen the accused receiving the bribe money from the complainant is not corroborated even by P. Ws. 1 and 5 who were with them at the relevant time. In the absence of such corroboration from P. Ws. 1 and 5 it would not be safe to rely on the interested testimony of P. Ws. 4 and 10 that they had actually seen the accused receiving the bribe money from the complainant on the verandah of the police station. Ext. 3 is the detection report leisurely prepared in great detail by the I. O. containing all the material particulars as to what had taken place at the time of occurrence. So if P. W. 10 had actually witnessed payment of the bribe by the complainant to the accused, the same would have been mentioned in the detection report as well. But P. W. 10 admits that in the detection report he omitted about his having seen the payment of the bribe by the complainant and its acceptance by the accused and so the same is a material omission. But P. W. 10 admits that in the detection report he omitted about his having seen the payment of the bribe by the complainant and its acceptance by the accused and so the same is a material omission. P. W. 10 gave a report regarding the assault on him and in that report though he mentioned about some minor aspects relating to the laying of the trap, he omitted about his having seen the payment of the bribe and the acceptance of the same by the accused. P. W. 4 had given an F. I. R. regarding the assault on him. In cross-examination P. W. 4 admitted that though he had given some details regarding the trapping of the accused, yet he had not stated about his having witnessed the actual payment of the bribe amount by the complainant to the accused. In view of the above circumstances, it is difficult to believe the version of P. Ws. 4 and 10 that they had actually seen the complainant paying the bribe amount to the accused and the latter receiving the same. The very fact that P. Ws. 4 and 10 are not speaking the truth in this vital aspect of the prosecution case reveals that they are very much concerned in the success of the trap. ( 8 ) NOW I proceed to consider the evidence of the P. Ws. regarding another major aspect of the prosecution story as to what had taken place in the room of the accused when the members of the trap party entered his room to catch him red-handed. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 4, 5 and 10 shows that after receiving the pre-arranged signal from the accompanying witness they rushed into the room of the accused and the I. O. (P. W. 10), disclosing their identity, demanded of the accused to produce the bribe money of Rs. 300/- when the accused challenged him (P. W. 10) as to how there could be a trap without the complainant. It is in their evidence that on the pretext of finding out if the complainant was there outside the room, as he attempted to go out of the room, P. Ws. 300/- when the accused challenged him (P. W. 10) as to how there could be a trap without the complainant. It is in their evidence that on the pretext of finding out if the complainant was there outside the room, as he attempted to go out of the room, P. Ws. 4 and 10 prevented him from going out of the room and at that point of time the accused brought out some currency notes, some coins and some paper from his pocket and threw them on the ground. P. W. 10 stated that the accused had thus thrown the three currency notes of' the denomination of Rs. 100/-, some other currency notes of smaller denominations and some coins and some paper on the ground. In cross-examination of the I. O. the defence specifically put the suggestion to him that he had thrown the amount of Rs. 300/- (that is the three hundred rupee currency notes) and the notes of smaller denominations and the coins in the room of the accused. P. W. 4 stated in his chief-examination that the accused brought out from his shirt pocket three hundred rupee notes, some paper and three two-rupee notes and some coins and threw them on the ground. P. Ws. 1, 4, 5 and 10 have uniformly stated that the accused had brought out from his pocket, besides the three hundred rupee notes, some other notes of smaller denominations and some coins and threw them on the ground, though there is material variation regarding the denominations of the other notes. If the accused had thrown the three hundred rupee notes to the ground, as alleged by the prosecution, he must have done so in a great hurry and hence only, he must have thrown out the currency notes of smaller denominations as well as some coins and the same are indicative of the haste with which the accused wanted to get rid of the tainted currency notes from his person. So the very fact that while throwing the tainted currency notes to the ground he had also thrown other currency notes and some coins as well, is of considerable significance in the facts of this case and it is not expected that seasoned vigilance officers like P. Ws. 4 and 10 would have lost sight of it. So the very fact that while throwing the tainted currency notes to the ground he had also thrown other currency notes and some coins as well, is of considerable significance in the facts of this case and it is not expected that seasoned vigilance officers like P. Ws. 4 and 10 would have lost sight of it. So if the accused had really thrown three hundred rupee currency notes along with notes of smaller denominations and some coins and some paper from his pocket. The I. O. would not have omitted to mention about it in his detection report which was prepared by him liezurely and in detail running into several pages. The I. O. in his cross-examination admitted that in his detection report he has not mentioned about the accused throwing some coins, some G. C. notes of smaller denomination and some papers also along with the hundred rupee notes and the same is a material omission. Even in the F. I. R. given by the I. O. against the accused in relation to the occurrence of assault on him though he mentioned about other details regarding the trap he had not mentioned about the accused throwing some coins, paper and some notes of smaller denomination as well, besides throwing the tainted G. C. notes. Even in the seizure list (Ext. 2) regarding the seizure of the three hundred rupee G. C. notes, while describing the circumstances of the seizure, it has been mentioned that the said three G. C. notes were brought out by the accused from the chest pocket of his wearing shirt and thrown out in the presence of the witnesses on the floor and the same were lying on the floor and that the accused threw the three G. C. notes bringing them out from his shirt pocket when he (P. W. 10) demanded production of Rs. 300/- which he had received as bribe few minutes earlier. It is highly significant that while giving a detailed description of the circumstances of seizure there is no mention at all about the accused's throwing of currency notes of smaller denominations, some coins and some paper along with the three tainted currency notes in question. 300/- which he had received as bribe few minutes earlier. It is highly significant that while giving a detailed description of the circumstances of seizure there is no mention at all about the accused's throwing of currency notes of smaller denominations, some coins and some paper along with the three tainted currency notes in question. If the accused had really thrown out some currency notes of smaller denominations and coins along with the three G. C. notes in question, it is difficult to believe that a seasoned officer like P. W. 10 would not have mentioned about it in the seizure list. As earlier pointed out, in the evidence of P. Ws. there are material variations regarding the denominations of the other currency notes which the accused had allegedly thrown out along with the tainted G. C. notes. If really the accused had thrown the other G. C. notes of smaller denominations as well along with the 3 tainted notes in question, the witnesses would have definitely made it a point to remember about the denomination of those notes as well and thus, there is no scope for any variation in the versions of the P. Ws. regarding it. ( 9 ) THERE is another interesting feature regarding the other currency notes which the accused had allegedly thrown along with 3 tainted G. C. notes. While the I. O. P. W. 10 has not mentioned in his detection report anything about the other currency notes of smaller denomination and coins thrown by the accused and which were lying on the ground, he (P. W. 10) stated that as the chest pocket of his shirt was torn, his identity card and Rs. 55/- which were in his pocket were taken away by somebody and the balance of Rs. 7/- with coins were lying on the floor in the office room of the Inspector-in-charge. So according to the detection report Rs. 7/- along with some coins belonging to P. W. 10 were lying on the floor. The version of P. W. 10 in court that the accused pulled his shirt as a result of which his shirt was torn, is not corroborated by any of the other P. Ws. who were present at the scene of occurrence. From the evidence of the I. O. and the other P. Ws. The version of P. W. 10 in court that the accused pulled his shirt as a result of which his shirt was torn, is not corroborated by any of the other P. Ws. who were present at the scene of occurrence. From the evidence of the I. O. and the other P. Ws. it is seen that when the Superintendent of Police (P. W. 6) and P. Ws. 1 and 5 entered the room of the accused subsequently, they found three currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination and currency notes of smaller denomination and some coins lying on the floor of the room. If the other currency notes of smaller denominations and coins were also thrown by the accused along with the tainted currency notes as alleged by the prosecution, the I. O. ought to have seized the currency notes of smaller denominations as well as the coins. But peculiarly the I. O. did not seize the notes of smaller denominations and the coins lying along with the tainted G. C. notes and the prosecution does not come out with any explanation for such non-seizure. As the currency notes of smaller denomination and coins were allegedly thrown along with the tainted currency notes they too would have turned the sodium carbonate solution pink in colour. At the stage of investigation there was no version that the accused had thrown anything along with the three tainted currency notes. On the other hand the detection report discloses that Rs. 7/- along with some coins were lying on the floor of the room along with the tainted currency notes. In this context the evidence of P. W. 4 D. S. P. that along with the three hundred-rupee notes the accused had thrown three two-rupee notes and some coins, assumes considerable importance in that it greatly probabilises the defence plea that what was lying on the floor belonged to P. W. 10, as according to the detection report Rs. 7/- with some coins belonging to P. W. 10 were also lying on the floor of the room of the accused. At the trial stage P. W. 10 comes out with the version, that as his shirt pocket was torn he lost the entire sum of Rs. 62/-, which contradicts his version in the detection report that Rs. 55/- was taken away while Rs. 7/- was lying on the ground. At the trial stage P. W. 10 comes out with the version, that as his shirt pocket was torn he lost the entire sum of Rs. 62/-, which contradicts his version in the detection report that Rs. 55/- was taken away while Rs. 7/- was lying on the ground. Even in his F. I. R. lodged against the accused he stated that he lost Rs. 55/- and when his attention was drawn on it, he stated that by mistake he mentioned that he lost Rs. 55/ -. It is difficult to believe that if P. W. 10 had lost Rs. 62/ - he would have mentioned that he lost Rs. 55/- in his F. I. R. So when the I. O. materially contradicts himself by stating that he lost the entire sum of Rs. 62/- and not Merely a sum of Rs. 55/-, the only reasonable inference is that he is coming out with such a false version lest it should be taken that the currency notes of smaller denominations lying with the tainted hundred rupee currency notes belonged to him. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the very fact that the currency notes of smaller denominations and the coins lying with the tainted hundred rupee notes were not put to the phenolpthalein test is another suspicious feature of the investigation. ( 10 ) THE trap party went to the room of the accused for catching the accused red-handed. According to the members of the trap party they knew that the tainted currency notes were in the pocket of the shirt of the accused and so the attention of the members of the trap party must have been riveted to the shirt of the accused. In case the accused were to change his shirt after the throwing away of the tainted currency notes, such changing of shirt would have been immediately noticed by every member of the trap party. It is not the case of any of the P. Ws. that the accused had attempted to change his shirt. From the evidence of P. W. 5 it is seen that after the arrival of the S. P. , P. W. 10 complained that the accused had changed his wearing shirt and on his complaint P. W. 5 and P. W. 10 searched for the shirt earlier worn by the accused, but did not find any such shirt. From the evidence of P. W. 5 it is seen that after the arrival of the S. P. , P. W. 10 complained that the accused had changed his wearing shirt and on his complaint P. W. 5 and P. W. 10 searched for the shirt earlier worn by the accused, but did not find any such shirt. It is the case of the prosecution that when the pocket of the shirt of the accused was washed with sodium carbonate solution it turned pink in colour and so even according to the prosecution the accused did not change his shirt. Hence the evidence of P. W. 5 discloses that at one stage of the investigation P. W. 10 levelled a false allegation against the accused that he had changed the shirt earlier worn by him. The making of such a false allegation by the I. O. reveals the consciousness on the part of P. W. 10 that at that stage if the shirt pocket of the accused were put to the phenolphathalein test it may not indicate any contact with the tainted currency notes. This is a circumstances which lands support to the defence contention that as the I. O. had touched the shirt pocket of the accused, his pocket wash with sodium carbonate solution gave a pink coloured solution. ( 11 ) AT this stage I propose to consider the evidence regarding the conduct of the complainant P. W. 9. The evidence of P. W. 9 shows that on 24-3-1979, while the other members of the trap party were waiting outside the Police Station he and Benamali Ray entered the premises of the Police Station, and while Banamali Ray stood just below the verandah, P. W. 9 went on to the verandah and met a constable, who told him on his query that one Pradhan Babu was with the accused at that time. It is in the evidence of P. W. 9 that after Pradhan Babu came out of the room, he asked the constable to inform the accused that he wanted to meet him and accordingly the constable went to the room of the accused and told him that P. W. 9 had come to meet him and that thereafter the accused came out to the verandah. According to the complainant (P. W. 9) he had given bribes to the accused on two occasions only few days prior to the date of occurrence and on one of such occasions P. W. 9 had even gone to the quarters of the accused. It is the version of the complainant that the accused was freely demanding of him for payment of bribe money and that it was only on 21-3-1979 he had paid the accused Rs. 1,000/ - as bribe at the Police Station and it was at that time the accused had reminded him about the payment of the balance amount of Rs. 300/- threatening him with dire consequences if he failed to do so, and it is this sum of Rs. 300/- the complainant proposed to pay to the accused on 24-3-1979. If this background of facts as stated by the complainant were to be true then it is difficult to understand as to why the complainant had asked the constable to inform the accused about his wanting to see him, instead of straightaway going to the room of the accused as he was sitting alone in his room after Pradhan Babu came out of the room. It is the case of P. Ws. 1,4, 5 and 10 that the verandah was visible to them and yet none of them had stated anything about the complainant (P. W. 9) talking with a constable or about the constable going into the room of the accused before the accused came out of his room. For the purpose of laying stress on this aspect, P. W. 4 goes to the length of saying that from the moment they took up their positions for the purpose of witnessing what would take place, he had "not seen any other object (animate or inanimate) on the verandah except the accused and the complainant when the bribe amount was paid. " P. W. 4 stated in his evidence that they saw the complainant going to the entrance door of the room of the accused and according to him it was thereafter the accused came out of the room to the verandah. " P. W. 4 stated in his evidence that they saw the complainant going to the entrance door of the room of the accused and according to him it was thereafter the accused came out of the room to the verandah. From the evidence it is seen that at that time the accused was sitting in his office room and if the complainant had gone to the entrance door of the room, on seeing him at the door it was normally expected of the accused to call him inside the room and ask him for the bribe money of Rs. 300/ -. But in the present case even though the accused had opportunity for accepting the bribe in his office room while sitting alone in his own seat near the office table, the prosecution wants the Court to believe that the accused on seeing P. W. 9 1eft his seat, went to him and along with him come on to the verandah which was well lighted and exposing himself to the view of others had accepted the bribe money from P. W. 9. So this aspect of the prosecution case sounds inherently improbable. The version of P. W. 9 before the I. O. was that he and Banamali Ray stood near a Police vehicle close to the Inspector's room and some time after a constable came and enquired as to why they were standing there. But at the trial stage he resiles from that version and falsely denies having made such a statement before the I. O. When according to P. W. 9 he went to the Police Station on the relevant evening to pay the accused the sum of Rs. 300/- as repeatedly demanded by him, it is normally expected of him to go straight to the accused and pay him the bribe amount and there is no reason why he should be standing near a Police vehicle close to the Inspectors office room and waiting till somebody approaches him and enquires from him as why he was standing there. It is this awareness on the part of P. W. 9 that such conduct on his part may sound suspicious that he resiled from his earlier statement before the I. O. regarding his standing near a Police vehicle and what followed thereafter. It is this awareness on the part of P. W. 9 that such conduct on his part may sound suspicious that he resiled from his earlier statement before the I. O. regarding his standing near a Police vehicle and what followed thereafter. Normally in a trap case the decoy and the accompanying witness would be close to the accused by the time the other trap witnesses would be arriving at the scene in response to the signal given by the accompanying witness. In the present case though right from the time the accused was questioned by the I. O. about his acceptance of the bribe money, the accused was demanding for the presence of the complainant, the complainant did not enter the room of the accused at all, even though P. W. 10 stated that he asked the complainant to follow him to the room of the accused. From the prosecution evidence it is seen that after the other members of the trap party rushed to the room of the accused, the decoy,, and the accompanying witness were nowhere to be seen. From the evidence of P. W. 9 it is seen that his house as well as his businesses premises were close to the Police Station within a distance of about 150 yards. So P. W. 9 and the accompanying witness must have been closely keeping track of the events that followed after the scuffle between the vigilance staff and the Police in the room of the accused. P. W. 6, S. P. Rourkela, reached the Police Station by about 9. 30 p. m. After arrival of the S. P. on the scene of the occurrence, P. W. 9 and the accompanying witness should have volunteered to meet him. In spite of the assertion of the accused that he was being falsely implicated in a trap case by P. W. 10, it is really surprising that neither the S. P. nor the D. S. P. nor the I. O. made any attempt to call the complainant and the accompanying witness to the Police Station, so that the SP. (P. W. 6) would have had the first hand knowledge regarding the alleged acceptance of the bribe money by the accused, as P. W. 9 and the accompanying witnesses were the most competent persons to state about it. (P. W. 6) would have had the first hand knowledge regarding the alleged acceptance of the bribe money by the accused, as P. W. 9 and the accompanying witnesses were the most competent persons to state about it. There is no acceptable explanation from the side of the prosecution as to why P. W. 9 and the accompanying witnesses fled away from the spot of occurrence and did not bother to return to the Police Station even after the arrival of the S. P. From the prosecution evidence it is seen that the conduct of the complainant on the relevant night, before the alleged giving of the bribe to the accused and after the bribe money was allegedly accepted by the accused, is so highly suspicious that it would be unsafe to place any - reliance on his evidence. ( 12 ) IT is proper that in this context the evidence regarding the conduct of the accused merits consideration. It is in the evidence of P. W. 10 that as soon as he demanded the accused to produce the bribe money taken by him from P. W. 9 the accused spontaneously reacted to it and stating that there cannot be a trap case without a decoy he demanded of the presence of the complainant. From the evidence it is seen that the accused had immediately phoned to the S. P. complaining against P. W. 10 that he was falsely implicating him in a trap case and requesting him to come to the scene of occurrence. From the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 5 it is seen that they were sitting in an adjoining room as asked by the accused and the accused was all alone in his own room for a considerable time, when he had sufficient time and opportunity to destroy the tainted notes if only he wanted to do so. It is in the evidence that a toilet was attached to the room of the accused and thus the accused could have easily destroyed all traces of the evidence of trap if he chose to do so. It is in the evidence that a toilet was attached to the room of the accused and thus the accused could have easily destroyed all traces of the evidence of trap if he chose to do so. On the other hand, from the prosecution evidence it is seen that the accused was also very particular for the appearance of the S. P. on the scene of occurrence and the tainted currency notes were there on the floor of the room of the accused without being touched or disturbed in any manner. The prosecution evidence discloses that on being questioned about the bribe money, the accused got terribly annoyed and provoked and expressed his indignation against the Vigilance staff and this conduct of the accused is consistent with his plea that he was falsely implicated in the case. ( 13 ) THIS is the appropriate stage for considering the prosecution evidence regarding the acceptance of bribe by the accused from P. W. 9 on earlier occasions. From the evidence it is seen that P. W. 9 is a clever businessman and earlier he was an accused in some criminal cases. Admittedly in the year 1975 during his tenure of office at the very Plant Site Police Station the accused had initiated 2 or 3 criminal cases against P. W. 9 and so there must have been strained relationship between the parties on account of it. Hence when the accused was again posted at the Plant Site Police Station on 19-2-1979, in view of their past experience each of them must have been watchful about the other. According to P. W. 9 on 3-3-1979, i. e. within less than a fortnight from the date of his joining, the accused with his staff had raided his godown and seized his goods and arrested him and forwarded him to the Court. It is in the evidence that he was released on bail on 5-3-1979. It is not the case of P. W. 9 that the accused had demanded a bribe from him at any time prior to 13-3-1979. So from the evidence of P. W. 9 it is seen that on 13-3-1979 for the first time the accused had called him by sending a constable and took the initiative of suggesting to him (P. W. 9) that in case he paid Rs. So from the evidence of P. W. 9 it is seen that on 13-3-1979 for the first time the accused had called him by sending a constable and took the initiative of suggesting to him (P. W. 9) that in case he paid Rs. 1 ,000/ -, a final report would be submitted in the case (in which he was arrested on 3-3-1979) and so he agreed to pay Rs. 500/ - to him within a week's time and then the accused asked him to pay the amount in his quarters. If there is any truth in the said version of P. W. 9, the initiative taken by the accused to drop the criminal proceedings against him (P. W. 9) if only a sum of Rs. 500/ -was paid to him, was a clear indication to him (P. W. 9) that there was a sudden change in the attitude of the accused towards him and as a clever businessman he would have jumped at the offer made by the accused and promptly paid the sum of Rs. 500/- as it would have served the twin objects of dropping the criminal proceedings and also of creating friendly relationship with the accused. So the version of P. W. 9 that he took one week's time to pay Rs. 500/- and did not pay anything to him before 20-3-1979 by itself, would create a serious doubt whether at all the accused had made such an offer to him. P. W. 9 is not in a position to say as to who the constable was whom the accused had sent for calling P. W. 9 to the Police Station. The evidence of P. W. 9 shows that on 13-3-1979 the accused wanted P. W. 9 to pay him the bribe amount at his quarters and it is to be presumed that the accused made this suggestion as a precautionary measure. At the same time P. W. 9 wants the Court to believe that despite the background of hostility existing between them, the accused called P. W. 9 to the Police Station by sending a constable and suggested to him that if he pays a bribe amount of Rs. At the same time P. W. 9 wants the Court to believe that despite the background of hostility existing between them, the accused called P. W. 9 to the Police Station by sending a constable and suggested to him that if he pays a bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/- he would be dropping the case against him, without knowing how he (P. W. 9) would react to the suggestion and thereby take the risk of a scene being created by P. W. 9 in the Police Station itself and further rendering himself vulnerable to be abused by P. W. 9 as a bribe taker in the presence of others. So the version of P. W. 9 that on 13-3-1979 the accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,000/- and it was for dropping the criminal proceedings and that on that date it was agreed between the parties that P. W. 9 would pay him a sum of Rs. 500/- sounds inherently improbable. ( 14 ) IT is in the evidence of P. W. 9 that on 21-3-1979 one Pradhan Babu, S. I. of Police, brought his truck with the goods to the Police Station and that on coming to know about it when he went to the Police Station, the accused demanded of him to pay a bribe of Rs. 1,000/- for the release of the truck and then he went home and brought Rs. 1,000/-and paid the amount to him. Regarding the alleged payment of bribe by P. W. 9 to the accused on 20-3-1979 and 21-3-1979, excepting the statement of P. W. 9 on this aspect, there is no other independent evidence to corroborate the same. P. W. 9s' version before the I. O. was that on 20-3-1979 he paid the sum of Rs. 200/- to the accused at noon time. While deposing in the Court in cross-examination he stated in the first instance that he paid the bribe amount of Rs. 200/- on 20-3-1979 at about 5 p. m. and then corrected himself by saying that he paid the amount at about 3 to 4 p. m. Hence it is seen that regarding the approximate time of payment of the bribe amount on 20-3-1979, P. W. 9 makes materially discrepant statements. Exts. 200/- on 20-3-1979 at about 5 p. m. and then corrected himself by saying that he paid the amount at about 3 to 4 p. m. Hence it is seen that regarding the approximate time of payment of the bribe amount on 20-3-1979, P. W. 9 makes materially discrepant statements. Exts. J. J/1 and J/2 are statements dated 13-3-1979, 20-2- 1979 and 21 -3- 1979 contained in the personal diary of the accused wherein the entries were made by the accused in the discharge of his official duties. Copies of the said diary of the accused were sent to the S. P. in accordance with the rules and the same were duly received in the office of the S. P. as can be seen from the evidence of D. W. 2. The authenticity of Exts. J. J/1 and J/2 cannot be doubted and there cannot be any doubt regarding the reliability of the entries made therein, as all the entries were made prior to 24-3-1979, the date of laying of the trap. From the entries in the personal diary of the accused dated 13-3-1979 (Ext. J) it is seen that on that day during the period from 3 p. m. to 7 p. m. the accused moved in the town. So the recitals therein falsify the version of P. W. 9, that on 13-3-1979 he went to the Police Station at about 4 to 5 p. m. and entered into an agreement with the accused to pay him Rs. 500/- for dropping the criminal proceedings, as the entries in the diary disclose that the accused was away from the Police Station during that time. The personal diary entries of the accused dated 20-3-1979 would show that from 10 a. m. to 2 p. m. he had gone to the gate of the administrative Block of the H. S. L. and from 4 to 4. 30 p. m. he was in the office and from 4. 30 p. m. also he was engaged in official duties and not available at the quarters. So the payment of bribe money of Rs. 200/- on 20-3- 1979 could not have been made either at the noon time or at 5 p. m. The evidence of P. W. 9 shows that on 21-3-1979 the accused released the truck and the goods at about 6 p. m. after the bribe amount of Rs. So the payment of bribe money of Rs. 200/- on 20-3- 1979 could not have been made either at the noon time or at 5 p. m. The evidence of P. W. 9 shows that on 21-3-1979 the accused released the truck and the goods at about 6 p. m. after the bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/- was paid to him. The entries in the personal diary of the accused dated 21-3- 1979 (Ext. J/2) would show that from 3 p. m. to 8 p. m. on that day he was away from the Police Station engaged in other official duties. So the entries in the said Ext. J/2 creates a serious doubt about the version of P. W. 9 that the accused after accepting the bribe released his truck at about 6 p. m. on 21 -3- 1979. P. W. 9 stated that he had shown in his business account the expenditure of Rs. 200/- and Rs. 1,000/ - and he showed these entries to the I. O. But the said entries have not been produced or proved in the case. Before the other trap witnesses P. W. 9 was expected to state the events which had ultimately driven him to seek the aid of the Vigilance Police in trapping the accused. Before P. W. 1 P. W. 9 has not stated anything about the payment of Rs. 1,000/- to the accused. Though P. W. 9 stated before P. W. 1 that he had already paid Rs. 200/-, he has not stated the date or the time of such payment or as to why he made such payment. P. W. 4 has not expressly stated in his evidence that P. W. 9 had specifically stated before him about his having paid to the accused Rs. 1,000/and Rs. 200/- on earlier occasions. P. W. 5 deposed that P. W. 9 told before them that he had paid a sum of Rs. 200/-as bribe to the accused as he had helped him in a case and that he was going to pay another sum of Rs. 300/ - as bribe to him. So according to P. W. 5, Rs. 200/- was earlier paid by P. W. 9 to the accused as a quid pro quo for the help rendered by the accused in a case. 300/ - as bribe to him. So according to P. W. 5, Rs. 200/- was earlier paid by P. W. 9 to the accused as a quid pro quo for the help rendered by the accused in a case. There is nothing in the evidence of P. W. 5 to show as to why P. W. 9 agreed to pay bribe of Rs. 300/- to the accused. P. W. 5 stated that P. W. 9 told them that he had earlier paid Rs. 1,000/- to the accused for the release of a truck. But his evidence shows that P. W. 9 has not stated either about the date of payment of Rs. 1,000/- or about the time of such payment. Likewise the evidence of P. W. 5 does not indicate that P. W. 9 told others about the date, time and place of payment of Rs. 200/-to the accused. P. W. 10 stated in his evidence that the complainant narrated the facts of the complaint before them and did not expressly state on oath that P. W. 9 had told them about his payment of bribe to the accused on earlier occasions specifically giving the particulars of such payments. ( 15 ) EXT. 19 is the station diary entry dated 21-3-1979 made by the S. I. Shri Mohapatra and it shows that search of the truck was made at 12 noon and the truck in question ORR 2379 was released at 1 p. m. The entries in the station diary contradict the version of P. W. 9 that the truck was released at G. P. X. after payment of the bribe of Rs. 1,000/- to the accused. Merely because the said station diary entry Ext. 19 was made at 7 p. m. the trial Court was not justified in doubting the correctness of the recitals made therein. That the entry was made on 21-3-1979 is not disputed. So the said entry was made 3 days prior to the date of the trap. The S. I. Shri Mohapatra is the person who could have given the explanation as to why the entry was made at 7 p. m. and the prosecution could have very well examined him as a witness to elicit as to when exactly the truck was released and about the role played by the accused in the release of the truck. The driver of the truck could have been examined to state as to the time when the truck was released. Even the sanctioning authority has not accorded sanction with regard to the alleged acceptance of bribe of Rs. 1,000/- by the accused. P. W. 9 tried to give an impression as if his truck was seized and detailed unlawfully to provide an opportunity to the accused for extracting the bribe of Rs. 1,000/- from him. There is no evidence to show that the accused was in any way connected with the search or seizure of the truck. On the other hand, P. W. 9 stated that it was Pradhan Babu who brought the truck to the Police Station. If there was such unlawful detention and search of the truck without authority, P. W. 9 would have definitely complained about it to the superior authorities, but he made no such complaint. If such search of the truck was done with an ulterior motive and without authority it is not expected that the S. I. Shri Mohapatra would have made a station diary entry about it. From all the above circumstances it is difficult to believe the version of P. W. 9 that he paid a bribe of Rs. 1,000/- to the accused for the release of his truck. Excepting the version of P. W. 2 that the accused with his staff went to his godown and seized his goods on 3-3-1979 there is no other independent evidence to show in what way the accused was concerned with the proceedings initiated against P. W. 9 on 3-3-1979. P. W. 9 is a shrewd business man and so it is not normally expected of him to have paid any amount to the accused, unless he was assured that the accused was in a position to do something for him in return. There is nothing on record to show that the accused was in a position to submit the final report in the criminal proceedings initiated against P. W. 9 on 3-3-1979. So it is difficult to believe P. W. 9 that on the mere promise of the accused he paid him Rs. 200/- on 20-3-1979 without ascertaining whether at all the accused was in a position to submit the final report in that case. So it is difficult to believe P. W. 9 that on the mere promise of the accused he paid him Rs. 200/- on 20-3-1979 without ascertaining whether at all the accused was in a position to submit the final report in that case. Hence it is seen that the probabilities in the case also go against the truth of the version of P. W. 9 that he paid bribe moneys to the accused on 20-3-1979 and 21-3-1979. ( 16 ) ACCORDING to P. W. 9 he had willingly paid the bribe amount of Rs. 200/- on 20-3-1979 and was prepared to pay the balance amount of Rs. 300/ -also, as agreed to by him. From the evidence of P. W. 9 it is seen that he did not resent paying Rs. 1,000/ - to the accused for the release of his truck. But it was only when the accused reminded P. W. 9 for the balance sum of Rs. 300/ -and threatened him with dire consequences if he failed to do so, P. W. 9 felt righteous indignation against the accused and thought of reporting against to the Vigilance. So vide the allegations of P. W. 9 that there was an agreement between him and the accused on 13-3-79 regarding the payment of Rs. 600/- as bribe and that in pursuance thereof he paid Rs. 300/- on 20-3-79 and that further on 21-3-79 he paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - to the accused for the release of his truck are disbelieved, the question of P. W. 9 paying the accused the balance sum of Rs. 300/subsequent to 21-3-79 in pursuance of his demand does not arise for consideration. ( 17 ) IN a trap case normally an accompanying witness is sent with the decoy so that he would be an independent reliable witness. As observed by the Supreme Court in Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 91 : (1976 Cri LJ 172), 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 doubt as to whether or not any money was paid to the public servant by way of bribe. But in the present case, the prosecution has given to P. W. 9, the complainant, the choice of choosing his own accompanying witness and accordingly he chose one Benamali Ray. The accompanying witness is the most material witness in a trap case and very rarely we come across trap cases where the accompanying witness is not examined by the prosecution. In Gulam Mahmood's case (1980 Cri LJ 1096) (supra) the Supreme Court held that failure to examine independent witnesses present when bribe was offered and accepted may prove fatal to the prosecution case. In the present case the said accompanying witness Shri Ray was not examined by the prosecution and the prosecution does not come out but with any explanation for such non-examination. In the facts of the present case, the non-examination of the said accompanying witness without any acceptable explanation from the side of the prosecution is another circumstance which creates a serious doubt about the truth of the prosecution story. It is only after the arrival of the S. P. P. W. 6 on the scene of occurrence the material part of the investigation such as the seizure of the currency notes, taking of the hand wash and the pocket wash of the accused, etc. , had taken place. So P. W. 6 is also a material witness in the case. But strangely enough from the evidence of P. W. 6 himself it is seen that his statement under section 161, Cr. P. C. was recorded by the I. O. about two months after the date of occurrence. The very fact that the statement of such a material witness was recorded after inordinate delay without any explanation from the side of the prosecution is another suspicious feature about the manner in which the investigation was conducted. ( 18 ) P. W. 8 is the Inspector General of Police, Orissa, and he was the sanctioning authority. He admitted in cross-examination that prior to the incident the accused had a good service career. Superintendent of Police, Rourkela (P. W. 6) stated that as he administratively considered that the accused would be suitable for the Plant Site Police Station, he posted him there. He admitted in cross-examination that he was taken aback when he heard that the accused was trapped in a case of bribery and he had assaulted the Vigilance staff. Superintendent of Police, Rourkela (P. W. 6) stated that as he administratively considered that the accused would be suitable for the Plant Site Police Station, he posted him there. He admitted in cross-examination that he was taken aback when he heard that the accused was trapped in a case of bribery and he had assaulted the Vigilance staff. In Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 682 : (1965 (1) Cri LJ 608), the Supreme Court observed thus : (Para 31)"but, in any case, the character evidence is a very weak evidence; it cannot outweigh the positive evidence in regard to the guilt of a person. It may be useful in doubtful cases to tilt the balance in favour of the accused or it may also afford a back-ground for appreciating his reactions in a given situation. It must give place to acceptable positive evidence. . . . "in the facts of the present case, the fact that the accused had a clean service record, is another circumstance which weighs in his favour while considering the probabilities regarding the truth of the prosecution case. ( 19 ) THE prosecution case suffers from other minor infirmities as well. From the prosecution evidence it is not clear whether it was the lighting of a match or the lighting of a cigarette which was the pre-arranged signal to be given by the accompanying witness to indicate the acceptance of the bribe by the accused. The version of P. Ws. 9 and 10 that P. W. 9 told P. W. 10 and P. W. 5 in a low voice that the accused had kept the bribe amount in his left side chest pocket, is contradicted by the Magistrate (P. W. 5) when he admitted in his cross-examination that P. W. 9 did not tell him by any words that he had paid the bribe amount to the accused. Even on such an important aspect as the precise moment when the accused had allegedly thrown the currency notes, the prosecution evidence is not consistent. P. W. 5 stated in cross-examination that there were 14 to 15 persons inside the room when the tussle was going on and the accused had thrown the currency notes just before the tussle started. Even on such an important aspect as the precise moment when the accused had allegedly thrown the currency notes, the prosecution evidence is not consistent. P. W. 5 stated in cross-examination that there were 14 to 15 persons inside the room when the tussle was going on and the accused had thrown the currency notes just before the tussle started. If according to P. W. 5 the accused had thrown the currency notes just before the tussle started, by then there were already several persons in the room and in the melee there is every chance that one might not have correctly noticed as to who threw the currency notes. The evidence of P. W. 1 shows that the accused threw the currency notes as soon as the assailants of P. Ws. 4 and 10 entered into the room. So the possibility of one's attention being diverted by the sudden rush of the assailants into the room cannot be ruled out and due to this diversion one may miss to notice as to who threw the notes. In view of the incident that had taken place in the room of the accused, before the arrival of the Superintendent of Police, it is expected that the Superintendent of Police (P. W. 6) would be enquiring about it from the Magistrate (P. W. 5 ). But strangely enough P. W. 5 stated in cross-examination that after the arrival of the Superintendent of Police and till he (P. W. 5) left the Police Station, he (P. W. 6) had no talk either with the vigilance officers or with the Superintendent of Police (P. W. 6 ). ( 20 ) AS the accused was complaining right from the beginning that he was being falsely implicated and as he even phoned about it to the Superintendent of Police, when the investigation continued after the arrival of the S. P. , it would have been proper that the hand wash of the I. O. as well as of all the other members of the Vigilance staff should have been taken in the presence of the S. P. to clear them of all suspicion, but no such thing was done. P. W. 5 stated at the trial stage that Brahma took the hand wash of the accused. P. W. 5 stated at the trial stage that Brahma took the hand wash of the accused. When the defence had confronted P. W. 5 with his version before the I. O. that he did not state before the I. O. that Brahma took the hand wash of the accused and on the other hand be stated that the I. O. Bansmali Das took the hand wash of the accused, he denied having made any such statement. The evidence of P. W. 10 (the I. O.) that P. W. 5 stated before him that the I. O. took the hand wash of the accused reveals that P. W. 5 was out to suppress the truth on a material aspect of the prosecution case. In State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh, AIR 1958 SC 500 : (1958 Cri LJ 976), the Supreme Court observed thus : (Para15)". . . . . . . If a Magistrate puts himself in the position of a partisan or interested witness, he cannot claim any higher status and must be treated as any other interested witness. "brahma, who is supposed to have taken the hand wash of the accused is a material witness in view of the controversy as to who took the hand wash of the accused. It is the defence plea that the I. O. had taken the hand wash and the pocket wash of the accused with an ulterior motive. From the non-examination of the said Brahma as a witness in the case, an adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution in view of the background of the case. P. W. 6 has stated in cross-examination that he has not ascertained the name of the Vigilance Inspector who took the hand wash and the pocket wash of the accused even by the date of his deposition. P. W. 6 was confronted with his statement before the I. O. that he stated before him that it was the I. O. who took the hand wash and the pocket wash of the accused and that the seizure of the notes' took place prior to the hand wash. His statement before the I. O. is marked as Ext. 22. He denied having made any such statement before the I. O. , even though Ext. 22 shows that he has made such a statement. His statement before the I. O. is marked as Ext. 22. He denied having made any such statement before the I. O. , even though Ext. 22 shows that he has made such a statement. Admittedly the I. O. had seized the three currency notes of one hundred rupee denomination under the seizure list Ext. 2. It is significant that P. W. 10 had given it in writing to the S. P. (which writing is marked as Ext. D) to allow him to take the hand wash of the accused. P. W. 10 has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not mentioned either in the detection report or in the seizure list that inspector Brahma took the hand wash of the accused. P. W. 10 admits in cross-examination that M. Os. I to III are three G. C : notes of one hundred rupee denomination which were lying on the floor and the same were picked up by him. The said admission contradicts the version of P. W. 5 that he picked up the three currency notes M. Os. I, II and III from the floor. It is significant that P. W. 6 admitted in his cross-examination that he has not stated before the I. O. that the Magistrate (P. W. 5) picked up the notes from the floor. In view of the defence plea that the case is falsely foisted against the accused, the fact as to who took up the three G. C. notes, M. Os. I, II and III from the floor, assumes considerable importance and even on this aspect, the prosecution version is not free from contradictions. Ext. 10 is the seizure list in respect of the pocket wash. In Ext. 10, the appellant has noted his objection that the pocket of his shirt wash was handed by P. W. 10. In the detection report, Ext. 3, P. W. 10 admits to have handled the pocket, when he stated thus :". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT the time of detection, his shirt was touched by me with direction to Inspector, P. K. Brahma to take the wash of the shirt pocket. The upper portion of the shirt pocket and whose wash was taken was not touched by me. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT the time of detection, his shirt was touched by me with direction to Inspector, P. K. Brahma to take the wash of the shirt pocket. The upper portion of the shirt pocket and whose wash was taken was not touched by me. "while dealing with the method of catching the accused red-handed by using currency notes treated with phenolphthalein powder, in Moti Ram Jai Singh Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (1986) 2 Crimes 18, the Bombay High Court observed thus :". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT is a scientific and technical method of establishing the passing of powdered currency notes from one person to the other. It is for these reasons the prosecution is required to establish all aspects of this technical proof with great care. In the present case, the manner in which the pocket wash and the hand wash of the accused were taken, even if the solution turned pink in colour, does not give any reasonable inference as to the guilt of the accused. ( 21 ) EXT. E is the explanation dated 28-2-1979 submitted by the appellant in the departmental proceeding No. 39 of 1979 long before the date of the trap (i. e. 24-3-1979) where he made certain allegations against P. W. 10. So the defence plea that the accused was not pulling on well with P. W. 10 by the date of the alleged occurrence is true. ( 22 ) THE approach of the trial Court to the evidence on record is most superficial. The serious infirmities from which the prosecution evidence suffers were overlooked by the trial Court while assessing the evidence and, therefore, it grossly erred in its appreciation of evidence. On a careful analysis of the entire material on record, as discussed above, I have no hesitation in coming to a finding that the complainant has falsely foisted this case against the accused. Hence, I find that the accused is not guilty of any of the charges levelled against him. On a careful analysis of the entire material on record, as discussed above, I have no hesitation in coming to a finding that the complainant has falsely foisted this case against the accused. Hence, I find that the accused is not guilty of any of the charges levelled against him. ( 23 ) IN the result, the order of conviction under section 161, I. P. C. and the order of conviction and sentence under Sec. 6 (2) read with section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act passed by the trial Court against the appellant are hereby set aside and the appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Appeal allowed.