K. K. BIRLA, J. Appellant Hari Om Scxena has been convicted for the offence under Section 161 I. P. C. and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant was Soil Conservation Officer, Ghatampur, District Kanpur. Mewa Lal (P. W. 3) who was the Contractor, had done the work of levelling the land under the contract. He was to receive Rs. 1575,00 for the first work order, Rs. 851. 00 for the second work order, Rs, 756. 00 for the third work order and Rs. 988. 40 for the fourth work order, total Rs 4170. 40 P. , Sri Budh Pal Singh (P. W. 2) was one of the Assistant Soil Conservation Inspector working under the appellant. The prosecution case is that the appellant had insisted his subordinate that he will permit payments of the contractors only on payment of commission of 3% to him. In the case of Mewa Lal as well, he insisted Budh Pal Singh that the payment of the contract will he made only on his getting 3% commission. Budh Pal Singh did not cooperate with the appellant in the practise and the appellant as such got him earlier transferred to other places and used to harass him. When the appellant did not agree to pass the bills of Mewa Lal, Budh Pal Singh and Mewa Lal planned to get the appellant caught red-handed when accepting bribe. Accordingly, Budh Pal Singh moved an application Ext. Ka 3 signed by Mewa Lal as well to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) Kanpur, in which numbers of the notes to be given as bribe were also mentioned. A trap was then laid. These notes, namely, one of Rs. 100. 00 two of Rs. 10. 00 and one of Rs 5. 00 denomination were treated with Phenolphthale powder. Due formalities were done and the notes were given to Mewa Lal. On 13th July 1976 Sri R. N. Pandey, Dy. S. P. (Vigilance), who was the incharge of the raiding party, reached to the Canal Inspection House, Ghatampur alongwith Inspector Surya Bhan Singh Chauhan (P. W. 4) and other police personnels. Public witnesses were also obtained. 2. At about 11. 00 a. m. Sri R. N. Pandey, Dy. S. P. (Vigilence) reached the office of the Soil Conservation Officer. He had formed four parties. They took possession out side the office. Public witnesses were also obtained. 2. At about 11. 00 a. m. Sri R. N. Pandey, Dy. S. P. (Vigilence) reached the office of the Soil Conservation Officer. He had formed four parties. They took possession out side the office. Budh Pal Singh (P. W. 2) and Mewa Lal (P. W. 3) went inside the office. Mewa Lal requested the appellant to pass the bills as he badly needed money for the tehrahim 13th day of death ceremony of his uncle which was to take place on the same day. The appellant enquired from Budh Pal Singh as to whether he had paid the commission or not. Rs. 125. 00 were given by Mewa Lal to Budh Pal Singh who in turn handed them over to the appellant. The appellant kept the money in his pocket. At that very time the police party entered the office. Sri. R. N. Pandey then searched the accused and found those notes, besides three more Rs. 10. 00 note and other articles with him. Recovery Memo Ext. Ka 18 was prepared on the spot. The accused was taken to the police station. After investigation by Sri Bahadur Singh (P. W. 5) charge-sheet was submitted. The prosecution examined the above three witnesses about the incident. Sri R. N. Pandey, Dy. S. P. had died and could not be produced. After sanction, the appellant was tried for the aforesaid offence. 3. The defence version is that Budh Pal Singh used to remain absent from his duties and did not work. For the period in which he remained unauthorised absent. He was marked absent and given forced leave and was also shifted to other project on account of which he was annoyed with him. Mewa Lal was his own person. Mewa Lal had to deposit the security money before the passing of the bills. They had planned false case against the appellant. The amount was paid as security money and the version of accepting and demanding illegal gratification is wrong. 4. After considering the evidence the trial court found the case proved against the appellant and the appellant was sentenced to RM. for one year under Section 161 I. P. C. and further R. I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 200. 00 under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 5. 4. After considering the evidence the trial court found the case proved against the appellant and the appellant was sentenced to RM. for one year under Section 161 I. P. C. and further R. I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 200. 00 under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 5. From the evidence it is clear that a trap was made and Rs. 155. 00 were recovered, out of which Rs. 125. 00 were treated with phenolphthale powder. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that from the evidence and circumstances of the case it is clear that a case is framed against the appellant by Budh Pal Singh and Mewa Lal and in fact, this amount was given by Mewa Lal towards security. Certain circumstances have been pointed out to discredit the prosecution evidence also to show that the appellants version was probable. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate. Considering the evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the contention on behalf of the appellant cannot be brushed aside lightly. 7. The appellants contention is that he has been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of Budh Pal Singh. Budh Pal Singh (P. W. 2) has stated that the accused asked him that he should get 3% commission on the bills which were to be paid to the contractor to which he did not agree and thereupon the accused started harassing him and put him on forced leave though he was present, and got him transferred to three places within three months. According to the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. Budh Pal Singh used to remain absent and he was negligent in the discharge of his duties and forced leave had to be sanctioned against him and was transferred to other place. This clearly shows that all love was lost between them. If it were so, it does not appear very probable that the appellant will try to get illegal gratification through him. On the other hand, on account of this treatment meted out to him by the appellant, Budh Pal Singh had a motive to teach him a lesson and involve him. If it were so, it does not appear very probable that the appellant will try to get illegal gratification through him. On the other hand, on account of this treatment meted out to him by the appellant, Budh Pal Singh had a motive to teach him a lesson and involve him. If the money was to be paid as security money, it was a genuine transaction and the presence of Budh Pal Singh at that time would not have raised any suspicion in the mind of the appellant. Therefore, the strained relation between the appellant and Budh Pal Singh go in favour of the probability in the defence version. 8. It is amply made out that it was Budh Pal Singh, and not Mewa Lal who was the main person behind the trap. The application Ext. Ka 3 had been moved by Budh Pal Singh though Mewa Lal had also signed the same. Accordingly to this application, it was Budh Pal Singh who had produced those notes to the S. P. (Vigilence) which were to be given in Bribe. Mewa Lal (P. W. 3) had stated that he had given Rs. 125. 00 to Budh Pal Singh 4,6,8 days before the incident. According to him, Budh Pal Singh had given the money to the Dy. S. P. (Vigilence ). On the other hand according to Budh Pal Singh this amount was paid by Mewa Lal. From the statement of Mewa Lal it appears that he had aleardy paid Rs 125. 00 to Budh. Pal Singh a few days earlier. This shows that till then he was not interested in any trap. Further his statement shows that the application Ext. Ka 3 was written by Budh Pal Singh before, but he showed ignorance whether it was written at Ghatampur or Kanpur. According to him, it was Budh Pal Singh who had gone inside the vigilance office and after-wards he was only required to sign the application. Therefore, it was Budh Pal Singh (P. W. 2) who was mainly interested in this trap. It is admitted to Mewa Lal (P. W. 3) in his cross examination that Budh Pal Singh had resided with a member of his family (Khandani) of his village. Therefore, it was Budh Pal Singh (P. W. 2) who was mainly interested in this trap. It is admitted to Mewa Lal (P. W. 3) in his cross examination that Budh Pal Singh had resided with a member of his family (Khandani) of his village. Therefore, it is not a case where the relation between Budh Pal Singh and Mewa Lal were that of a Department Inspector and a contractor only but were much more than that. Therefore, the defence contention that Mewa Lal acted at the behest of Budh Pal Singh, has force. 9. Public witnesses were also present at the time of search but no public witnesses had been examined. Therefore, the independent witnesses which could have been produced about the search had also not been examined. There are some other aspects which need consideration in this regard. According to the prosecution case, Rs. 125. 00 were to be paid to the appellant which is 3% of the amount of the bill to be paid. In Ext. Ka 4 also it is mentioned that it was represented to Dy. S. P. by Budh Pal Singh that he had assured Sri Saxena (appellant) to get Rs. 125. 00 paid as bribe. According to Budh Pal Singh (P. W. 2) and Inspector Sri Surya Bhan Singh (P. W. 4) Rs. 125. 00 were paid by Mewa Lal to Budh Pal Singh who then gave them to the appellant. On the other hand, according to Mewa Lal, this amount was given by Budh Pal Singh. It may be termed as minor contradiction. However, Mewa Lal had further stated in his cross- examination that the accused had told at that time that the money was insufficient and more money would be needed. He denied the suggestion that the accused had asked for Rs. 32. 00 more towards security. He also denied that he had paid Rs. 30. 00. However, he showed ignorance whether Budh Pal Singh paid Rs. 30. 00 or not. It may be pointed out that according to the defence version Rs. 30. 00 were paid by Mewa Lal when asked by the appellant towards further amount of security. This ignorance on the part of this witness is not easy to accept and lends strength to the defence version. It may be pointed out that if it was agreed to be paid Rs. 125. 30. 00 were paid by Mewa Lal when asked by the appellant towards further amount of security. This ignorance on the part of this witness is not easy to accept and lends strength to the defence version. It may be pointed out that if it was agreed to be paid Rs. 125. 00 there could not have arisen any situation of demanding more money by the appellant at that time. Inspector Surya Bhan Singh Chauhan (P. W. 4) had stated that some more bribe to be paid to the other members of the staff including Deputy Director was also asked and it was for this amount that Mewa Lal had said that he will pay after he received the payment of the bill. It may be pointed out that the statements of Mewa Lal and Budh Pal Singh are quite silent on this point. 10. It is also in evidence of Mewa Lal (P. W. 3) that a notice was also issued to him for the payment of the security amount. It is admitted to Mewa Lal that Sri Onkar Singh had told him that unless he does not deposit the amount of security, he will not get the payment. It is also clear that the security money had not been deposited by Mewa Lal earlier and that the security money ought to have been deposited before the actual payment was made to him. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the defence version was probable and in any case the prosecution case had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by any cogent and reliable evidence. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is quashed and the appellant is acquitted of the charges against him. He is on bail. He need not surrender and his bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed .