JUDGMENT : S. I. Jafri, J. 1. Charan Singh appellant has filed this appeal against his conviction u/Sec 161 CPC and sentence of 2 years R. I and also u/Sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentence of two years R. I. recorded by Sri R. P. Mathur, Special Judge (lllrd Additional Sessions Judge) Merrut, by his judgment and order dated 14-12-1984 in Crl. Case No 5 of 1982, 2. The appellant was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police at Police Station Kithore in the district of Meerut during the relevant period. there occurred some dispute between the complainant Eijaz (PW 2) and one Tilak Ram of the same village Nagla Salempur in connection with the discharge of water from the Paranalas of his house over the land which was recently purchased by Tilak Ram. Tilak Ram was adament to stop the discharge of water from the Parnalas of Eijaz complainant by constructing a wall on the aforesaid land on 27-2-1982 resulting in some altercation between him and the complainant Eijaz PW 2 aggrieved by the attitude of Tilak Ram lodged a report Ex. ka-4 at P. S. Kithore and he bad also sent two applications to the S. S P. Meerut Ex. Ka-5 and Ex. Ka-6. Charan Singh was entrusted with the enquiry of the aforesaid complaints. The appellant inspected the place of dispute and he demanded an amount of Rs. 100/- from the complainant Eijaz for initiating proceedings u/Sec 107/116 CrPC against Tilak Ram and others. Eiiaz complied with the demand made by the appellant and paid him Rs. 70/- at that time. The appellant asked the complainant to meet him after two days, and when the complainant met him after two days, he again demanded Rs. 2o0/- for instituting the proceedings under section 107/116 CrPC only against the party of Tilak Ram and others. The complainant agreed to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 200/- on the next morning. The complainant met the S P. Vigilance and submitted his complaint Ex.Ka-1 to him for taking action against the appellant. The S. P. Vigilance directed M. P Singh PW 1 Dy. S. P. Vigilance to lay a trap on the appellant. The complainant agreed to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 200/- on the next morning. The complainant met the S P. Vigilance and submitted his complaint Ex.Ka-1 to him for taking action against the appellant. The S. P. Vigilance directed M. P Singh PW 1 Dy. S. P. Vigilance to lay a trap on the appellant. He interrogated the complainant regarding the allegations mentioned in the complaint the complainant told him that bribe money is to be paid by him to the appellant next morning between 8 or 9 A.M. at the Tea shop of Prahlad in the town of Kithore. The Dy. S. P. directed the complainant to meet him at 7 A.M. on 11-8-i982 outside the town of Kithore of Purik shatgarh Road with the amount of Rs. 200/- for paying the same to the accused. The raiding party headed by Sri M. P. Singh, Dy. S. P. reached the appointed place outside the town of Kithore at about 7 A.M. next morning and Eijaz met him near the Gher of Haji Abbas. Public witnesses Insaf Ali PW 5 and Intizar Ali PW 3 who were passing on the road were picked up by the Dy. S. P. for witnessing the search. The Dy. S P. told the entire plan to Intizar Ali and Insaf Ali The complainant then handed over the currency notes of Rs. 200/- to the Dy. S. P. The 6 currency notes Ex. I to 6 were initialled by the Dy. S. P. and were treated with Phenolphtalein powder. The currency notes, then, were returned to the complainant with the directions that these very currency notes were to be given to the accused by him. A memo was prepared regarding the same According to the plan the complainant was to bring the appellant to the tea shop of Prahlad from the Police Station, and the raiding party along with the witnesses were to stand near the said shop. Accordingly, the raiding party along with the witnesses took their respective positions and sent the complainant inside the Police Station for bringing the accused with him. After a short time the complainant returned with the accused and they took their seats on the bench inside the tea shop of Prahlad. Accordingly, the raiding party along with the witnesses took their respective positions and sent the complainant inside the Police Station for bringing the accused with him. After a short time the complainant returned with the accused and they took their seats on the bench inside the tea shop of Prahlad. The complainant told the accused that he had brought the money as demanded by him He handed over 6 currency notes to the accused who kept them inside the left pocket of the pant which he was wearing. The Dy. S. P. appeared on the scene and after disclosing his identity took personal search of the appellant in the presence of the witnesses and the aforesaid currency notes were recovered from the pant of the appellant. The hands of the appellant were washed by the solution of sodium corbonate. The colour of the solution turned pink. The solution was kept in separate bottles in sealed cover. The pant of the accused was also taken into possession and it was kept in a sealed cover and the currency notes were also sealed. Recovery Memos were prepared regarding the same A copy of the recovery memo was given to the accused. The accused was taken into custody and he was brought to the Police Station along with the case property. 3. Sri M. P. Singh lodged the report regarding the occurrence at the Police Station, whereupon a case u/Sec. 161 IPC and u/Sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against the accused at 11 A.M. in the General Diary of the Police Station. The recovered property was deposited in the Malkhana and the accused was put behind the bars in the police lock- up 4. Police Station Kithore lies at a distance of 100 yards from the tea shop of Prahlad where the bribed money was said to have been recovered from the possession of the accused. The investigation of the case was handed over to Autar Narain Kunwar and it was later on entrusted to Harpal Singh Inspector who submitted the charge sheet after obtaining requisite sanction against the accused. 5. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and stated that he was falsely implicated in the case at the instant of Manzoor Saheb, M.L.A. and his brothers Mohd. Ilyas Khan as he ha,d refused to oblige them for doing illegal work as desired by them. 5. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and stated that he was falsely implicated in the case at the instant of Manzoor Saheb, M.L.A. and his brothers Mohd. Ilyas Khan as he ha,d refused to oblige them for doing illegal work as desired by them. However, the accused did not adduce any defence evidence. 6. The prosecution examined in all five witnesses in support of its case. Out of them Mehi Pal Singh P\V 1, Eijaz PW 2, Intizar Ali PW 3 and Insaf All PW 5 were examined as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Out of them Iniizar Ali was not relied upon by the trial court and likewise lnsaf Ali PW 5 was treated hostile as he did not support the prosecution case. Thus, the conviction rests on the testimony of complainant Eijaz PW 2 and Mehi Pal Singh PW 1 who was the Incharge of the raiding party and had recovered the bribed money from the possession of the accused after it was taken by the accused from the complainant Eijaz PW 2. Eijaz complainant has narrated the entire prosecution case in detail. As given above, he deposed that he belonged to Nagla Salempur situate within the Police Station Kithore and vacant plot of land adjacent to the western side of his house was purchased by Tilak Ram of his village. He further stated that the discharge water from inside of his house used to flow towards the western side of his house on the aforesaid plot purchased by the Tilak Ram. Tilak Ram constructed a wall on the said plot with the intention of stopping the flow of water from the Parnalas of his house. He further deposed that there has been some altercation between him and Tilak Ram in this connection and he had lodged a report Ex Ka-4 at the Police Station, Kithore. He had also given applications Ex.Ka-5 and Ka-6 to the S- S. P. regarding the same. It was further stated by him that the enquiry regarding the aforesaid dispute was entrusted to the appellant who demanded from him Rs. 100/- as bribe for initiating proceedings u/Sec 107/116 CrPC. He, however, paid Rs. 70/- to him. Thereupon, the accused had asked him to meet him after two days and when he met him again on the said date, the accused again demanded Rs. 100/- as bribe for initiating proceedings u/Sec 107/116 CrPC. He, however, paid Rs. 70/- to him. Thereupon, the accused had asked him to meet him after two days and when he met him again on the said date, the accused again demanded Rs. 200/- for initiating proceedings u/Sec. 107/116 CrPC only against Tilak Ram and others. He agreed to pay him the aforesaid amount of Rs. 200/- next day between 8 and 9 A.M. He, then, went to the Vigilance Office at Meerut next day and submitted an application Ex.Ka-1. He was interrogated by the Dy. S. P. in the office the same day. He told him about the demand of Rs. 200/- by the appellant. He had also told him that he had agreed to pay the aforesaid amount to him next day in the village on Parikh satgarh Road near the Gher of Haji Abbas between 8 and 9 A.M. The Dy. S. P. had directed him to meet him at aforesaid place next morning with Rs. 200/-. The inext day when be reached Gher of Haji Abbas in the village, he found the raiding party waiting for him there on a Jeep. The Dy. S P took the public witnesses Intizar Ali and Insaf Ali and told them the purpose of the trap. He then, handed over currency notes worth Rs. 200/- to Dy. S P. for putting his initials on them. The Dy. S. P. returned the same after initialling them with the direction to hand over the same currency notes to the appellant on his demand. He also stated that a Memo Ex.Ka-2 regarding the aforesaid notes were prepared there by the Dy. S. P. before the witnesses. It was decided that the bribe shall be given to the accused at the tea shop of Prahlad. Thereafter, he along with the raiding party reached the tea shop of Prahlad. He, then, went inside the Police Station and brought the accused Sub-Inspector with him inside the tea shop of Prahlad. He, then, told the accused that he had brought the money as demanded by him and he handed over the aforesaid currency notes of Rs. 200/- to the accused on his demand. The accused after taking the money kept it in the pocket of his pant whereupon on getting the signal by him the Dy. He, then, told the accused that he had brought the money as demanded by him and he handed over the aforesaid currency notes of Rs. 200/- to the accused on his demand. The accused after taking the money kept it in the pocket of his pant whereupon on getting the signal by him the Dy. S P. along with his members of the raiding party including the public witnesses appeared on the scene and after disclosing his identity took the search of the accused and recovered the same currency notes from the pocket of the pant of the accused. The Dy. S. P. then, got the hands of the accused washed with the solution in a glass whereupon the colour of solution became pink. The Dy. S. P. had also got his hands washed in separate glass with the result that the colour of solution became pink. The solution was kept in two phials in sealed covers The memo Ex.Ka-3 was prepared on the spot. The recovered currency notes were also sealed by the Dy. S. P. The pant of the accused was also taken possession and it was also sealed. Thereafter, the accused was brought at the Police Station by the Dy. S. P. and a report was lodged against the accused. The accused was put inside lock up and the recovered articles were deposited in the Malkhana. The evidence of complainant of Eijaz finds corroboration by the evidence of Mehipal Singh PW 1 who was the Incharge of the raiding party. Thus the conviction of the accused rests on the testimony of interested witnesses. 7. Sri P. N. Misra, learned counsel for the appellant contended that it will not be safe to place reliance on the testimony of only interested persons. It was submitted by him that the evidence of Eijaz lacks independent corroboration. He further submitted that the evidence of complainant who passed on the bribe to the accused has to be corroborated in material particulars by independent source. The position of such a witness is like that of an accomplice. 8. Reliance has been placed on Panna Lal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, 1980 SC (Crl.) 121. It was held therein "that evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particulars. The position of such a witness is like that of an accomplice. 8. Reliance has been placed on Panna Lal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, 1980 SC (Crl.) 121. It was held therein "that evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particulars. After introduction of section 165 A IPC making the person who offers bribe guilty of abetment of bribery, the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing then that of an accomplice and corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon." The learned counsel also placed reliance on 1972 CAR 344 (SC), Ram Prakash Arora v. State of Punjab, wherein it was said as under : " There was no search witness who was independent and there was no other evidence from which any corroboration could be found of the evidence given by the members of the raiding party including Joginder Singh and Dalbir Singh ". 9. In the above case, Supreme Court did not place reliance on the prosecution evidence and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the court below against the appellant and acquitted him. 10. The learned counsel also placed reliance on 1978 CAR (SC) 181, Jai Ram Lakhe v. State of Punjab wherein it was held : "that Public Members of the raiding party not proved to be disinterested or Independent witness-sufficient to raise serious doubt about the guilt of the appellant". The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the evidence of Intizar Ali PW 3 recorded by the trial court on 11-9-84 In cross-examination Intizar Ali has admitted that the writing business regarding the currency notes was done at the police station and hands were also washed at the police station. The relevant statement of the witness is quoted below:- "Thane par hi noton ki likha parhi huee thi aur Thane par hi hath Dhulai they". 11. From the record of the case it is quite clear that thereafter the cross-examination of the witness was closed and the witness was discharged on 11-9-84. 12. The relevant statement of the witness is quoted below:- "Thane par hi noton ki likha parhi huee thi aur Thane par hi hath Dhulai they". 11. From the record of the case it is quite clear that thereafter the cross-examination of the witness was closed and the witness was discharged on 11-9-84. 12. The record also shows that an application 55-Ka was submitted by the D. G. C. before the trial court on 16-10-84 praying that Intizar Ali PW 3 be recalled for cross-examination by the prosecution, ft was mentioned in the aforesaid application that on account of in competency of junior State Counsel who had conducted the case on 11-9-84, an application for recalling the witness for cross-examination by the prosecution could not be filed before the court on that date the trial court invited objection on the application 55-Ka and fix 17-10-84 for orders. However, on 19-10-84 after heating the parties passed an order recalling Intizar Ali for cross-examination by the prosecution. Intizar Ali was ultimately cross-examined by the prosecution on 21-11-84 and thus in this manner he was treated hostile. The learned counsel further pointed out that on 19-9-84, the case was taken up by the trial court in the presence of the learned counsel for the accused and the A. D. G. C. as is apparent from the order-sheet of the said date and the case was adjourned on the request of the A. D. G. C. as other witnesses were not available but no application for recalling Intizar Ali for cross-examination was moved by the A. D. G. C. on that date. 13. The learned counsel had rightly urged that the trial court was clearly fallen in error in recalling Intizar Ali prosecution witness for cross- examination by the prosecution at a very belated stage i.e. after more than a month of the date when the witness was discharged by the trial court. 14. I have given my utmost consideration to the submissions made by the learned defence counsel and I am of the view that the aforesaid statement of the witness in cross-examination to the effect that the recovery memo of Currency notes was prepared at the Police Station on 11-9-84 cannot be brushed aside by getting the witness recalled for cross-examination by the prosecution after a month of 'he date of the discharge of the witness. Under the circumstance, I hold that the admission of Intizar Ali regarding the preparation of recovery memo at the Police Station has to be taken into consideration in judging the guilt of the accused. The trial court should have acted wisely by dismissing the application filed by the D. G. C. for recalling the witness for cross-examination after the evidence of the witness was closed and he was also discharged before one month of the filing of the application. However, the said admission of Intezar Ali regarding the preparation of recovery memo and the washing of the hands of the accused is worth reliance inspite of the witness was declared hostile by the Court It is the settled law that even a part of the evidence of a hostile witness can very well be relied upon by the Court in determining the guilt of the accused. It is, thus, difficult to believe that the recovery memo regarding the bribed money was prepared on the spot as stated by the witnesses Eijaz and Mahi Pa! Singh- The learned counsel further submitted that from the evidence of Intezar Ali, it is apparent that the recovery memo regarding the bribed money was prepared at the Police Station which is admittedly situated at a distance of 100 yards from the tea shop of Prahlad where according to the complainant Eijaz and Mahipal Singh the bribe was taken by the accused and it was recovered from the possession of the accused. The learned counsel has placed reliance on 1990 (1) Essential Commodities Cases E. F. R. and Excise and Food Adulteration Report (125) Shafiq Ahmad v. State of U. P. wherein it was held : "Generally, preparation of recovery memo follows shortly after the arrest and personal search of the accused in order to lend assurance to the factum of recovery and the testimony of the recovery witnesses Once the prosecution fails to prepare recovery memo of the recovered articles from the accused shortly after the arrest and personal search and if the recovery memo is prepared later on at a place other than the place of arrest and recovery from the accused, a reasonable doubt takes birth rendering the oral testimony of the recovery witnesses regarding the recovered articles, tainted". 15. 15. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, I am fully satisfied that the non-preparation of the recovery memo regarding the alleged bribed money shortly after the arrest and search of the accused at the alleged place of arrest of the accused has renderred the factum of recovery as tainted and unreliable. 16. The learned counsel has further pointed out that according to the prosecution case the alleged recovery was made at an open place in the Tea stall of Prahlad at 8.20 A.M. in the town of Kithore but the report of the occurrence was lodged by M. P. Singh at the Police Station situate at a distance of 100 yards at 11 A.M. The learned counsel submitted that this long gap of about 3 hours is unexplained by the prosecution evidence and as such the recovery of the alleged bribed money at 8.20 A.M. also becomes highly doubtful. I have given my utmost consideration to this aspect of the matter also and I feel that the undue delay in lodging the FIR throws lot of suspicion regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, I am fully satisfied that the prosecution has totally failed to bring home the charges against the appellant and, thus the order of the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court cannot be sustained. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded by the trial court are set aside. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellant. Appeal allowed.