KUNDAN SINGH, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment and order of Sri M. P. Tripathi the then Special Judge, Deoria, dated 6. 2. 1978, in Session Trial No. 2 of 1976, holding accused-respondent Hardwar Singh not guilty of the offences under Section 161, I. P. C. and Section 5 (2) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also accused Ram Raksha Pandey, of the offence punishable under Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code and acquitting both of them of the aforesaid charges. ( 2 ) THE facts, in brief, as disclosed by the prosecution are that there was a fair price shop of food-grains and sugar in the name of Balli Prasad, father of Ramayan Prasad complainant (P. W. 6), in Village Koilasawa Buzurg within Police Station Pataharawa, District Deoria. That shop was being looked after by his son Ramyan Prasad the complainant. Licence of the shop was suspended in the year 1974 at the instance of accused Hardwar Singh, who was then posted as Supply Inspector of the area of the complainant but that licence was restored subsequently on or about 6th of June, 1975. The area of the complainant was declared as flood-affected area, hence a special quota of 90 quintals of Bazra and 10 quintals of sugar was allotted to the fair price shop of Balli Prasad for distribution to the persons of the flood-affected area from his shop. On 25. 1. 1975 at about 6. 00 p. m. Hardwar Singh, Supply Inspector, visited the shop of the complainant and in his absence had taken away the relevant registers from the shop directing Balli Prasad, father of the complainant, to send Ramayan Prasad to Padrauna. Accordingly the complainant met the Supply Inspector next day, who demanded Rs. 1,000/- as illegal gratification otherwise he would get his licence cancelled. He asked the complainant to pay that amount by 28. 1. 1975. He also told that he would be available upto noon at Padrauna and thereafter in the evening he would leave for Kasia by bus. The complainant next day brought Rs. 1,000/- and consulted Chhedi Lal Sharma (P. W. 8), a Press Reporter of Newspaper Khabar, for getting the Supply Inspector arrested red-handed and for making a complaint to the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of police, Deoria. The complainant next day brought Rs. 1,000/- and consulted Chhedi Lal Sharma (P. W. 8), a Press Reporter of Newspaper Khabar, for getting the Supply Inspector arrested red-handed and for making a complaint to the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of police, Deoria. Both the complainant and Chhedi Lal Sharma for this purpose met the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police Deoria on 27. 1. 1975. The District Magistrate directed them to meet him the next day at the Inspection House in Deoria where he would be available on that date. Consequently on 28. 1. 1975 they both met the District Magistrate at the Inspection House, Deoria, who after consultation with the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Padrauna, Sri B. S. Lall (P. W. 11) asked the complainant to make a complaint in that regard. The complainant then drafted the complaint ext. Ka2 and affixed his signature thereon and then met the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Padrauna, at his residence with the complaint and Rs. 1,000/ -. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate after having noted the number of the currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- sealed the application and the currency notes in an envelope and asked the complainant to meet the District Magistrate with that envelope. The District Magistrate opened the envelope and made some endorsement to the Superintendent of Police and directed the complainant to hand over the same to the Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police, in his turn, asked the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sri Udai Raj Singh, to arrange a trap. The said Deputy Superintendent of Police compared the number of currency notes and called the Station House Officer and other police personnel. Mahatam Tewari, Rajender Prasad Gupta and Lal Babu Singh were also called as public witnesses. Sri Udai Raj Singh then prepared a supurdginama Ext. Ka 7 and got it signed by the witnesses and handed over the money to the complainant with an instruction to all the witnesses that Hardwar Singh, Supply Inspector of, was to be arrested red handed, who would reach Kasia Bus Stand. The complainant was also instructed to hand over the said currency notes to Hardwar Singh after talking about the illegal gratification. Then all of them reached the Bus Stand, Kasia, at about 4 p. m. and waited for the arrival of Hardwar Singh, who in the company of another accused Ram Raksha Pandey, came in a Bus at about 6. The complainant was also instructed to hand over the said currency notes to Hardwar Singh after talking about the illegal gratification. Then all of them reached the Bus Stand, Kasia, at about 4 p. m. and waited for the arrival of Hardwar Singh, who in the company of another accused Ram Raksha Pandey, came in a Bus at about 6. 45 p. m. The complainant met both of them and took them towards the shop of Rajendra Prasad Gupta where a Jeep was standing. On one side of the Jeep, the complainant was talking with Hardwar Singh and Ram Raksha Pandey, while on the other side the members of the Police Party and Public Witnesses were present. Hard was Singh asked for the money but the complainant requested to accept lesser amount. Hardwar Singh insisted that the lesser amount would not serve the purpose and the licence would be cancelled. The other accused Ram Raksha Pandey asked and insisted the complainant to pay the amount demanded. Then the complainant handed over the money in the hands of Hardwar Singh, who, in his turn passed on the money to Ram Raksha Pandey for counting. Meanwhile, the raiding party arrested them and recovered the currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- from the possession of Ram Raksha Pandey. A recovery memo Ext. Ka 8 was then prepared by Sri Udai Raj Singh (P. W. 7) and got it signed by the witnesses present on the spot. Thereafter both the accused with the recovered money were taken to the Police Station Where Sri Udai Raj Singh lodged a F. I. R. at 7. 45 p. m. and a case under sections 161/109, I. P. C. and section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against both the accused. ( 3 ) INITIALLY the investigation was entrusted to Sri Raj Bahadur Singh (P. W. 3) but later on it was transferred to Sri Ram Deo Singh, Inspector, Crime Branch C. I. D (P. W. 13) on the basis of the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, who after completing the investigation submitted charge sheet against both the accused. ( 4 ) BEFORE trial court the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 5 ) THE prosecution examined three witnesses of fact. Ramayan Prasad, the complainant, is P. W. 6. ( 4 ) BEFORE trial court the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 5 ) THE prosecution examined three witnesses of fact. Ramayan Prasad, the complainant, is P. W. 6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sri Udairaj Singh, who arranged the trap is P. W. 7 and Sri Chhedi Lal Sharma, the Press Reporter, is P. W. 8. Ram Deo Singh, the Investigating Officer, is P. W. 13, and all others are formal witnesses. ( 6 ) THE defence has not examined any witness. However, accused Hardwar Singh staged that in the year 1974 the shop of Balli Prasad was inspected by him and some irregularities were detected, hence he had reported the matter to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in pursuance of which the licence of the shop was suspended on 25. 1. 1975. Again, he went to inspect the shop but he could not inspect it as balli Prtasad was not available. The residents of the village made a complaint to him that Juar and Sugar had been sold in black market and diverted to Bihar. He assured them that if anything of that sort is detected, then the licence of the shop would be got cancelled. Chhedi Lal Sharma is a friend of the complainant and he was a Press Reporter. He used to harass the official and blackmail them hence they were scared of him. Chhedi Lal Sharma pressurized the Officers and got a false case registered and arrested him, while Ram Raksha Pandey stated that he was on inimical terms with the complainant on account of some money transaction and he has been falsely implicated in this case in collusion with the police. ( 7 ) THE trial court after having considered the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against both the accused persons beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt and acquitted the accused from the charges leveled against them inter alia on the following grounds:1. Prosecution has not examined any of the independent witnesses namely Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Mahatma Tiwari and Lal Babu Singh in whose presence the illegal gratification is said to have been accepted by the accused persons. 2. Prosecution has not examined any of the independent witnesses namely Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Mahatma Tiwari and Lal Babu Singh in whose presence the illegal gratification is said to have been accepted by the accused persons. 2. The presence of the jeep at the spot was also round doubtful where on one side of the jeep the conversation between the complainant and the accused persons regarding bribe was going on, while on the other side the raiding party had taken position to hear the conversation and see the money transaction. 3. Udai Raj Singh is said to have over heard the talks of the complainant and Ram Raksha Pandey accused, but Chhedi Lal Shlpma could not overhear the same. Even if it is assumed that Chhedi Lal Sharma was making favour of Ram Raksha Pandey as he was also resident of his village, then his evidence was not fully reliable. Moreover, it was noisy and busy locality having loudspeakers near the place of occurrence. It was not possible for the witnesses to overhear the talks of the accused and the complainant. Hence the statements of Chhedi Lal Sharma and Udai Raj Singh were inconsistent. 4. It is also difficult to place reliance upon the evidence of P. W. 6 Ramayan Prasad as he had a grudge against accused Hardwar Singh, the Supply Inspector. He wanted to wreck vengeance and the possibility of his planning to commit some mischief against Hard war Singh can not be ruled out. Chhedi Lal Sharma (P. W. 3) admitted that he wanted to get Hardwar Singh arrested red-handed any how hence he is also not an independent witness. Dy. S. P. , Udai Raj Singh (P. W. 7) was a police officer who was directed by S. P. to lay the trap. Hence he was more keen to have the trap successful any how. Hence he also can not be said to be an independent witness. In the absence of corroborative evidence of independent witnesses the ocular testimony of the P. Ws. 6, 7 and 8 would not be safe to be accepted, particularly when their evidence was found to be suspicious, unconvincing, unsatisfactory and contradictory. 5. In the town of Kasia, a large number of respectable persons were residing and evidence of such persons could have been available but the Dy. S. P. , Udai Raj Singh had made no effort to procure their evidence. 5. In the town of Kasia, a large number of respectable persons were residing and evidence of such persons could have been available but the Dy. S. P. , Udai Raj Singh had made no effort to procure their evidence. 6. There was no justification for Udai Raj Singh, Dy. S. P. not to arrange the application of phenolphthalein powder as required in Supreme Court case A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 989. Thus the prosecution suffers adversely on this score also. 7. It was not understandable as to why Hardwar Singh accused passed on the money to Ram Raksha Pandey on the spot only for counting. ( 8 ) EVEN according to the prosecution, the accused Hardwar Singh had taken away two registers of the complainant from the shop but the complainant had never made any report and had not requested any authority for the return of those registers. 8. I have considered the reasonings of the trial court recorded for passing the verdict of acquittal and I find that those reasonings of acquittal are supported by the evidence and only the conclusion which comes from the evidence on record is that the reasonings of the trial court are perfectly justified. Application of phenol ph that in powder on the currency notes to be offered and to be accepted as illegal gratification in such cases is not required in a rule of law, but by the rule of prudence in order to detect as to which of the persons came into the contact of such currency notes and it could be ascertained whether the money was actually accepted or not. In some special cases, the prosecution agency can postpone the use of the same if this chemical is not available and can not be arranged due to paucity of time when the money is to be offered and the time of trap can not be postponed. However, in such case, the court has to see the explanation of the prosecution why such chemical could not be used. If in such case, the chemical was not available, the time of trap could not be postponed and the chemical could not be arranged by that time of trap then this court should dispense with the application of such chemical. In the present case, Udai Raj Singh (P. W. 7) Dy. If in such case, the chemical was not available, the time of trap could not be postponed and the chemical could not be arranged by that time of trap then this court should dispense with the application of such chemical. In the present case, Udai Raj Singh (P. W. 7) Dy. S. P. admitted in his statement that he had not made any effort to make the aforesaid powder available, though he had admitted that he was head of the trap and he had to take all the precautions in order to make the trap successful. He also admitted that he knew respectable persons of Kasia but in spite of that no respectable person of the locality has been examined. Thus non-application of Phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes offered and accepted adversely affected the prosecution case. So far as the independent witnesses are concerned, admittedly Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Mahatma Tiwari and Lal Babu Singh were also present in the trap, but none of them had been examined in order to prove the prosecution case. Therefore an adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for withholding of the evidence of the independent witnesses. The P. W s. 6 and 8 were admittedly had a grudge against accused Hardwar Singh and they wanted to get him arrested any how red-handed. The respectable persons could have been procured by the Dy. S. P. but he did not do so. Admittedly the place of occurrence was noisy and busy having loudspeaker of shopkeepers and lottery sellers and it was not possible for the witnesses to overhear the talks of accused and the complainant. At least it appears that the prosecution, has not come with clean hand and the evidence of ocular witnesses, P. Ws. 6, 7 and 8 is not truthful. The trial court doubted the presence of jeep in as much as P. W. 7. Udai Raj Singh had instructed the complainant to have talks with the accused near the shop of Rajendra Prasad Gupta. Hence, he had already visited the place of occurrence and it is not understandable why he had chosen such place from where he could not see the actual transaction of money and could not have overheard the talks. He also expressed his ignorance as to whether the jeep where the transaction of money took place was in a running condition or whether anybody was sitting therein. He also expressed his ignorance as to whether the jeep where the transaction of money took place was in a running condition or whether anybody was sitting therein. In the evidence it has come that the police personnel were in plain dress so the accused may not have suspect upon them and the transaction of money may be done in the open place. At that time all the witnesses could have seen and some of them could have overheard the talks. Thus the manner of the arrest at the place of occurrence after the money transaction and conversation between the accused and the complainant do not appear to be plausible. ( 9 ) IN my opinion, the learned Special Judge was fully justified in acquitting the respondents. On the evidence on record, one cannot come to any other conclusion except that the prosecution failed to prove its case. Appeal dismissed. .