JUDGMENT - M.F. SALDHANA, J.:—An important angle of procedural law has come into focus in this appeal. In a variety of prosecutions, notably corruption cases such as the present one, the law envisages that independent reliable evidence be forthcoming as a safeguard against witnesses who are interested in the success of the prosecution. It is for this purpose that the evidence of panchas assumes crucial significance and that evidence in turn rests heavily on the panchanama. It is, therefore, essential that the requisite procedural precautions be adhered to at all stages relating to the recording of the panchanama in question. 2. In trap cases, much more than any other ones, the complainant is in the position of an accomplice for, it is he who in offering the bribe. The raiding party is not present when the transaction takes place and, therefore, the pancha who accompanies the complainant is not a formal witness but is virtually the star witness for the prosecution for, it is he who is required to witness the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the public servant and it is he who is required to depose primarily about the presence of anthracene powder on the hands, clothes, etc., of the accused. The presence of the pancha right through the period when the incident takes place and more importantly, the importance for the physical presence of the pancha and the complainant when the panchanama is scribed, cannot be under-scored. Where it is demonstrated that the pancha has left the room where the trap was laid more than once during the transaction and it emerges at the trial that both the pancha and the complainant were absent at different points of time when the panchanama was recorded, a grave lacuna is disclosed. Such an infirmity is not a mere procedural error for it casts doubt on the very correctness of the panchanama which, in turn, happens to be the basis for the pancha's evidence and everything else. The evidence of the police officer however trustworthy, can never overcome the fatal defect in such cases because the police officer admittedly, was not present when the greater part of the transaction took place. A scrupulous observance of correct procedures in these cases is absolutely essential and the prosecution cannot be excused for such a lapse. First, however, the material details. 3. A scrupulous observance of correct procedures in these cases is absolutely essential and the prosecution cannot be excused for such a lapse. First, however, the material details. 3. The appellant in this case alongwith the appellant in the companion Appeal No. 696 of 1985 stood trial before the learned Special Judge, Thane, on corruption charges in respect of offences punishable under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 161 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Judge convicted both the accused and awarded them a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/- in default rigorous imprisonment for six months under the first charge and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default rigorous imprisonment for six months under the second head of charge. 4. The prosecution case is rather long winded but I shall summarise it to the extent that is relevant for the decision of these appeals. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel Mr. Chitnis, on behalf of the appellant in this appeal and Mr. Pitre, on behalf of the appellant in the companion appeal as also Mr. Patil, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. The appeals were heard together and I therefore, propose to deal with the cases of both the appellants in this judgment, though for the purpose of record, a separate order will be passed in the companion appeal. Both the accused at the relevant time were Public servants and were working at the office of the Khar Land Development Sub-Division, Bhivandi, which was under the Irrigation Department of the Government of Maharashtra. Accused No. 1 was a Junior Engineer and accused No. 2 was a Sub-Divisional Officer but in actual fact accused No. 2 was functioning in a role slightly superior to that of accused No. 1. The office in question at the relevant time was located at Thane, though the actual building in which it was situated was changed during the pendency of this case. That fact is however quite immaterial. The Board used to get its work executed, as is normally done, by awarding contracts. The complainant in this case Kachru Patil resident of Junandurkhi, was a Contractor who used to undertake jobs on behalf of the Board. That fact is however quite immaterial. The Board used to get its work executed, as is normally done, by awarding contracts. The complainant in this case Kachru Patil resident of Junandurkhi, was a Contractor who used to undertake jobs on behalf of the Board. The complainant had been entrusted with a contract in respect of a Bandh and it is his case that he had completed the job. It is the practice of the Department that the progressive running account bills are submitted by the Contractor and that the Department scrutinizes the same and passes them for payment after they are duly approved. There is also the final bill that is submitted which is ultimately paid after reconciling the amounts which have already been disbursed. 6. It appears from the record that in respect of this contract which was a relatively small one, of the value of approximately Rs. 41,000/- that the various bills had in fact been submitted and that the complainant used to visit the officer for the purpose of obtaining his payments. It is his allegation that on or about 23rd February, 1982 when he visited the office and met the two accused that he was informed that the bills of the value of Rs. 28,000/- had been passed and that the two accused demanded an amount of Rs. 9,000/- as their commission. There is some dispute with regard to what exactly the payment of Rs. 9,000/- pertained to, which I shall go into subsequently. According to the complainant, the accused refused to agree to any lower amount. The cheque in question had been handed over to the accused on that day. On 24-2-1982 the two accused are alleged to have visited the house of the complainant who in turn took them to the house of his partner Mr. Gopal Keni. As a result of the request of both the partners, the accused are alleged to have come down to a figure of Rs. 8,000/- and they were given a part payment of Rs. 2,000/- on that day, which they took and went away. Thereafter, the complainant alleges that he visited the office on 9th, 22nd and 23rd of March, and that in the course of these visits, the accused insisted on further payments. There is a reference to the complainant having parted with an amount of Rs. 2,000/- again on 19th March, 1982. 2,000/- on that day, which they took and went away. Thereafter, the complainant alleges that he visited the office on 9th, 22nd and 23rd of March, and that in the course of these visits, the accused insisted on further payments. There is a reference to the complainant having parted with an amount of Rs. 2,000/- again on 19th March, 1982. According to the complainant he and his partner once again went to the office on 29-6-1982 when the accused insisted on the payment of the balance amount of Rs. 4,000/- and ultimately it was decided that accused No. 2 would depute accused No. 1 to the house of the complainant on 2-7-1982 and that the complainant should hand over to him an amount of Rs. 1,000/-. There is some ambiguity with regard to the balance payment. 7. The complainant on 1-7-1982 contacted the Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged a complaint with them. In keeping with the instructions, the complainant was asked to produce a sum of Rs. 1,000/- which he did. The Anti Corruption Bureau Officer treated the notes with anthracene powder and handed them over to the complainant who in turn kept these notes in his inner vest. He had been instructed to hand over the money only on the accused demanding the same. As is a requirement, the raiding party stayed at some distance away and the complainant was accompanied by P.W. 2 pancha Jamdade. Instead of accused No. 1 coming alone, both the accused came to the house of the complainant on the morning on 2-7-1982. Some talk took place and tea was served. The complainant handed over the money to the accused No. 1 who in turn put it into a Rexine bag that he was carrying and on a signal from the complainant the raiding party entered the house. They apprehended both the accused and on examination with an ultraviolet lamp, anthracene powder was found on both the hands of accused No. 1. Nothing was found on the person of accused No. 2 but traces of anthracene powder were found on the Rexine bag belonging to the accused No. 1. At the instance of the Police who had been informed by the panchas that the money was in the rexine bag, accused No. 1 was asked to take out the money which he did. At the instance of the Police who had been informed by the panchas that the money was in the rexine bag, accused No. 1 was asked to take out the money which he did. On tallying the numbers, they were found to be the same notes which had been handed over to the complainant. The panchanamas etc. having been recorded, the investigations were completed and a complaint was filed before the Special Court. The learned Special Judge, accepted the prosecution evidence as far as the commission of both the offences were concerned and convicted and sentenced the two appellants as indicated by me above. It is against these convictions and sentences that the present appeals have been directed. 8. Since the trial was common, I have heard the appeals together and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as also the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor have referred in extenso to the evidence that was produced before the trial Court. Like all corruption cases, the prosecution heavily relies on the material relating to the trap and the learned trial Judge has accepted that this evidence conclusively establishes the receipt of the money by the accused persons. The learned Special Judge has also accepted the prosecution evidence in respect of the earlier amount of money i.e. in respect of the earlier payment of Rs. 2,000/- that the accused are alleged to have received on 24-2-1982. The charge in respect of the payment on 19-3-1982, has not been accepted and therefore the conviction is limited to the two amounts that had been paid, the first on 24-2-1982 and the second one on 2-7-1982. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has however pointed out to me that merely because, the trial Court has recorded a finding in respect of the charge relating to 19-3-1982 that nothing precludes this Court in appeal from coming to the conclusion, if the evidence so warrants that this charge has also been established. The necessity or otherwise of going into the aspect of the matter will be discussed by me subsequently. 9. I do not propose to reproduce the evidence either oral or documentary in this judgment because that has been done in great detail by the learned Special Judge. The necessity or otherwise of going into the aspect of the matter will be discussed by me subsequently. 9. I do not propose to reproduce the evidence either oral or documentary in this judgment because that has been done in great detail by the learned Special Judge. The evidence of the complainant who is P.W. 1, the evidence of the panch Jamdade, who is P.W. 2 as also that of Gopal Keni, P.W. 4 are to my mind the crucial pieces of deposition which require re-examination. Also, the post trap panchanama that was drawn up on 2-7-1982 is of considerable importance because it is this document that is crucial to the success or otherwise of the prosecution. 10. Mr. Chitnis, and Mr. Pitre, have commented about the evidence of the complainant and they have sought to capitalize on a few infirmities which are inevitable in such evidence. They had stated that the two accused in their official capacity had very little to do with the complainant or his payments. Undoubtedly, they were concerned with the aspect of the final measurement, tallying of the bills and it also appears that they were incharge of the final payments being sanctioned. The learned Counsel pointed out to me that the Government procedures which are prescribed by the P.W. D. Manual are unfortunately cumbersome and under these circumstances it is inevitable that delays occur and that almost every aspect of the matter relating to payment runs into dispute. They therefore, contended that the entire hostility of the complainant and his partner which is the genesis for the complaint was due to the fact that for no fault of the two accused, the contractors were required to make several trips and inspite of the lapse of considerable time, because of Departmental Procedures, the complainant did not receive his payments. That he had complained to the superior officer Joshi about this on one or two occasions, is admitted by the complainant. It is their case that the complainant and his partner were so annoyed with this situation that, they went to the Anti Corruption Authorities and lodged a false complaint purely on the assumption that it was the accused who are delaying the payment obviously with corrupt motives. With this background the learned Counsel contended that the evidence will have to be carefully scrutinised. With this background the learned Counsel contended that the evidence will have to be carefully scrutinised. They further pointed out that the two accused had gone to the house of the complainant to take him alongwith them for the final measurement, that there was absolutely no harm in their having had a cup of tea at the house of complainant and that they were totally unaware of the fact that the complainant was likely to implicate them. The learned Counsel also submitted that the notes in question were planted in the measurement Book and that the accused No. 1 inadvertantly put that book into his bag before leaving without knowing then that the money had been put into it. It is true that, in corruption cases the onus of disproving the charge does not rest on the defence. Having regard to the position in law, however, that if a public servant is shown to have been found with money for which there is no explanation, in that event it become necessary for the accused to satisfy the Court through a plausible theory or through an acceptable explanation that an offence has not been made out. It is further essential that the defence should come within the four corners of the material on record and under these circumstances I need to note if the defence is farfetched and if the defence does not appear to be probable from the evidence that is on record, then the Court is not obliged to accept the defence merely on the ground that it is a possible explanation. The back ground pleaded by the learned Counsels, is perhaps acceptable because undoubtedly a small contractor whose payments are held up would inevitably be driven to a point of desperation. The rest of the defence that is pleaded however, appears to my mind to be improbable in so far as the complainant who is a small contractor would not normally have dared to go to the higher authority and to lodge an absolutely false complaint unless there some was valid reason. However, I do not require to labour on the quality of the defence because it is the prerogative of an accused to even plead a false defence and merely because the defence is false, a conviction does not follow as of necessity. 11. The evidence of the complainant falls into two broad categories. However, I do not require to labour on the quality of the defence because it is the prerogative of an accused to even plead a false defence and merely because the defence is false, a conviction does not follow as of necessity. 11. The evidence of the complainant falls into two broad categories. The first part of the evidence which is required to stand on its own fact, is the evidence in relation to the background of what transpired prior to 1-7-1982. I need to examine this part of the evidence for the reason that there are two payments that are alleged to have been made during that period. The first is a payment on 24-2-1982 and the second one is the payment of Rs. 2,000/- on 19-3-1982. In respect of these two payments, it is the case of the complainant that the accused demanded these payments by way of commission and that under these circumstances, since they had promised that the bills would be accepted and the balance payments passed, that the complainant was required to agree to make these payments and that they were in fact done. Out of these two payments, the second one has been disbelieved by the learned trial Judge. It is true as pointed out by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that there is no bar in re-opening the same in so far as that finding cannot be treated as being on par with an acquittal. There is no law which requires a piece meal appeal against the acquittal and therefore, this Court would be entitled to reverse that finding if the evidence so warrants. An appeal Court however, will not disturb a finding arrived at by the trial Court if that finding appears to be just and correct and if it is based on due consideration of all the relevant facts and evidence. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the complainant is trust worthy and so also is his partner and if these two witnesses could have been believed and their evidence accepted in respect of the incident of 24th February, that there is no logical reason why the Court should refuse to accept their evidence in respect of the payment on 19th March. This argument is falacious because the learned trial Judge has adduced valid reasons for discarding the evidence in respect of the incident of 19th of March. This argument is falacious because the learned trial Judge has adduced valid reasons for discarding the evidence in respect of the incident of 19th of March. I have examined those reasons and I see no ground whatsoever on which the appeal Court can fault that finding in respect of the incident of 19th March. That finding of the trial Court stands confirmed. 12. As regards the incident of 24th February, is concerned, the learned Counsel before me have attacked it on a two-fold footing. Firstly, they contend that the evidence of the complainant is untrustworthy in so far as according to the learned Counsel the complainant was a relatively small contractor and there was no reason whatsoever why he should allow himself to be black-mailed by some of the subordinate officers of the Board. They contend that the complainant himself admits that he and his partner were willing to pay anything in the vicinity of Rs. 100/- or Rs. 200/- and this to my mind is in fact the truth. They have also attacked the evidence with regard to the circumstances in which the transaction took place. Mr. Patil, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on the other hand has vehemently submitted that no infirmity whatsoever has been made out with regard to the evidence of the complainant and his partner P.W. 4 Gopal Keni in respect of the payment of the amount. He further argues that the complainant and his partner were totally at the mercy of the accused in respect of the final measurement and receipt of their payments and under these circumstances having regard to their future payment and their future business transactions, though they were unwilling that they had no option except to have parted with the money. 13. On a very careful consideration of the evidence relating to this head of the charge I find that there are some inherent difficulties in accepting the prosecution evidence. In the first instance even though it is true that there are no contradictions or omissions in the deposition of the complainant and his partner what needs to be tested is the plausibility and the possibility and above all the probability of the entire charge. That the complainant and his partner were to some extent at the mercy of the accused is undisputed. That the complainant and his partner were to some extent at the mercy of the accused is undisputed. But what needs to be noted is that the two accused were subordinate officers and even if as is frankly admitted by the complainant that he and his partner were willing to part with a reasonable amount of money, to my mind to believe that they would have agreed to part of Rs. 8,000/- which was a substantial sum of money to the two of them having regard to their status on a total bill of hardly Rs. 41,000/- casts a certain amount of doubt. The complainant is a businessman and a man of the world. He had completed his job and if it was merely a question of somebody black-mailing him for parting with the cheque he would have redressed the situation by going to the higher authorities, and that in turn would have probably facilitated things for the future so there was really no reason why the complainant should have agreed to be black-mailed. Apart from this the position in law which is unambiguous makes the situation rather difficult. After the amendment of 165-A of Indian Penal Code, it is now conclusively held that the person who offers or gives illegal gratification is to be categorised as an accomplice in law. The learned trial Judge has committed an error of holding that the accomplice evidence which requires corroboration has in fact been corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 4. The learned trial Judge has over-looked the elementary aspect of the matter namely that P.W. 4 and the complainant are partners and that it is their own case that the two of them had agreed to the payment of the money and that they had parted with the money together and under these circumstances to hold that the evidence of one accomplice is corroborated by the evidence of another accomplice is an infirmity in law. It is in these circumstances, that I am unable to accept the finding of the learned trial Judge in respect of the charge relating to the payment on 24-2-1982. That finding will accordingly have to be set aside. 14. It is in these circumstances, that I am unable to accept the finding of the learned trial Judge in respect of the charge relating to the payment on 24-2-1982. That finding will accordingly have to be set aside. 14. As far as the main incident that has taken place on 2-7-1982 is concerned, undoubtedly the complainant and the panch have deposed to the fact that the demand was made and that the money was parted with as also that the money was recovered from the bag in possession of accused No. 1. The learned Counsel have argued in great detail and so also the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the evidence in relation to the incident that had taken place on 2-7-1982 has been microscopically analysed and examined. The learned Session Judge has also carefully scrutinised this evidence and he has held that it conclusively establishes the demand and acceptance of the amount of Rs. 2,000/-. At first flush, there appears to be nothing wrong with the finding of the trial Court. 15. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants had however drawn my attention to one or two aspects of some significance which do require serious examination as they go to the root of the matter. In the first instance they canvassed the proposition that admittedly the complainant is an accomplice and is interested in the success of the trap and therefore everything virtually rests on the panch Jamdade. The evidence of this panch does not disclose any serious infirmities but learned Counsel had drawn my attention to a significant aspect namely that as far as the crucial evidence relating to the demand is concerned that there is a material contradiction between what appears in the panchanama what is deposed to by the panch and what is deposed by the complainant. On this crucial aspect of the matter the complainant in a rather casual fashion alludes to the fact that both the accused made the demand. He however ascribes the major role to accused No. 1. The panch in his deposition has ascribed the role to accused No. 1 with some reference to accused No. 2, whereas the panchanama conclusively exonorates accused No. 2 and confines the charge to accused No. 1 only. The evidence in respect of the demand is one of the essential ingredients in a corruption charge. The panch in his deposition has ascribed the role to accused No. 1 with some reference to accused No. 2, whereas the panchanama conclusively exonorates accused No. 2 and confines the charge to accused No. 1 only. The evidence in respect of the demand is one of the essential ingredients in a corruption charge. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in this case has pointed out to me that no distinction can be made between accused No. 1 and 2 in so far as they had always been together, they had acted together and that even on the 2nd July, inspite of the original plan that only accused No. 1 was to come to the house of the complainant, that both the accused came there. He, therefore, submits that it is purely academic as to whether one made the demand or two made the demand or both made the demand and the Court will have to overlook the minor infirmities in this regard. To my mind the infirmities are not of minor or insignificant nature. There are two separate individuals on trial, two citizens' liberty is at stake and it is impermissible to either equate them or to treat their cases as having merted. No loose procedures, no laxity and no compromise can be permitted in cases where a corruption charge is sought to be established, and where the consequences of such a charge would mean life long ruination to the public servant concerned. Under these circumstances to my mind the infirmities that had been pointed out will have to be construed seriously and I am not prepared to brush them aside as suggested by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 16. A scrutiny of the evidence of these two witnesses, an examination of the panchanama and the deposition of the Police Officer indicate something else that is very disturbing. The complainant had been specifically informed at the time of the pre-trap panchanama that the panch Jamdade was being asked to accompany him because the law requires that an independent witness must see and hear everything that takes place in relation to the demand and acceptance of the bribe. Both the complainant and the panch witness Jamdade in their evidence and the pre-trap panchanama unequivocally record this. Both the complainant and the panch witness Jamdade in their evidence and the pre-trap panchanama unequivocally record this. Inspite of these specific directions, the complainant cheerfully states that after the accused came to his house, he put panch Jamdade incharge of the operation of serving tea to the two accused. The evidence unfortunately discloses that Jamade left the room in which the complainant and the two accused were sitting on several occasions for various periods of time that are uncertain. This to my mind will have to be viewed rather seriously because even though he solemnly deposes before the Court that he has seen and heard everything this was physically impossible if he had left the room on two or three occasions. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr. Patil has vehemently supported the prosecution by pointing out to me that admittedly the house was a very small one and that the kitchen where Jamdade was supposed to have gone to bring tea is virtually the next room and there is no door separating the two. Mr. Patil, therefore, submits even if Jamdade went to fetch the tea he had hardly gone for a short span of time and that he was within hearing distance. He further points out that the son of the accused had brought the tea from the kitchen and that therefore the absence of Jamdade was minimal. The admissions given by the complainant, however, do not appear to suggest this. The panch had, contrary to the instructions of the Police, left the room firstly to ask for the tea and it appears that he came back only with the tea. How long this operation took we are not aware of. From the sequence of events narrated by the complainant in his evidence, it is quite clear that the conversation between the accused and the complainant hardly took a couple of minutes because it related to the bills for the balance payment. Under these circumstances the main challenge that is presented by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that Jamdade could not have witnessed everything that had happened on that day and in that room. Under these circumstances the main challenge that is presented by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that Jamdade could not have witnessed everything that had happened on that day and in that room. The learned Counsel have thereafter contended that the post-trap panchanama very clearly states in the concluding portion thereof that the panch who is the main person on whose evidence the prosecution rests as also the complainant were present all through between 10.30 and 3.30 on that day, when the panchanama was written out. It has come in the evidence of the P.W. 2 that admittedly he had left for about half an hour in order to have his lunch. We are not aware as to whether it was only for half an hour and even if that was so, the fact remains that the Police had written out the panchanama during that period in his absence. He has clarified in his cross-examination that the recording of the panchanama was going on during this period and that it had not been stopped. He also admits that the complainant was nowhere to be found for a substantial period of time. Under these circumstances, learned Counsel for the appellants contend that even if one does not want to directly impute falsity that the accuracy and the evidenciary value of the panchanama gets completely destroyed. There is a distinct contradiction in the panchanama with regard to which of the two accused made the demand and the deposition before the Court of the witnesses. 17. Mr. Patil, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that these infirmities are insignificant. He states that the evidence of the two witnesses is quite conclusive and that the panchanama is only a paper record of the events. He therefore, submits that if the Police were only recording what had in fact happened then the physical presence of the complainant and the panch right through that period was not necessary. Though the submission canvassed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appears to be ingeneous I cannot over look the fact that it is a requirement of law, and strict one at that, the panchanama is not to be prepared by the Police in the absence of a panch. The fact assumes some more importance because the form in which the panchanama has been recorded in this case to my mind itself is defective. The fact assumes some more importance because the form in which the panchanama has been recorded in this case to my mind itself is defective. The panchanama is abnormally wrong and it is in the form of a narrative statement of all that transpired on that day. Admittedly, the Police officer has come on the scene after the complainant gave the signal and therefore, it is only the last part of the proceeding that he is aware of. Under these circumstances if the recording was done in the absence of the two crucial persons namely the complainant and the panch, one cannot attach to this panchanama the degree of credibility and sanctity, which one would normally attach to it. I am conscious of the fact that the charges in the present case are extremely serious ones and the repercussions of those charges to the accused are even more serious. A heavy responsibility therefore, rests on the prosecution to produce evidence that can pass the absolute test of credibility and if there are any infirmities particularly significant ones of the present type, the prosecution will have to suffer for that. I have already recorded that there appears some degree of doubt that is cast inter-se between these two witnesses and the panchanama with regard to who had made the demand. It is wrong for the learned trial Judge to have equated the two accused even if they were charged under section 34 of I.P.C. Under these circumstances, the errors that have been committed by the investigating agency in the course of recording of the Panchanamas are serious enough to shake the credibility of this document. 18. The scrutiny of the record of this case undoubtedly required me to examine the charge that has been framed. The charge is reproduced at page 11 of the paper book and it ends at page 15. The incidents in this case are confined to three simple demands and acceptance on three dates. There are only two accused and they are charged under two provisions of law. The charge proceeds almost like an essay. It is a laborious rambling charge which is nothing more than a summary of the entire prosecution case, the allegations and the evidence and concludes with a paragraph that in these circumstances the accused stand charged with the two offences. The charge proceeds almost like an essay. It is a laborious rambling charge which is nothing more than a summary of the entire prosecution case, the allegations and the evidence and concludes with a paragraph that in these circumstances the accused stand charged with the two offences. The requirements of a valid charge do not require to be reiterated by me, but to my mind, the charge that has been framed in the present case cannot be held to be a valid charge. While dealing with serious offences of the present type, one cannot over look the basic requirements of law that the charge is required to be specific and that the charge is required to be clearly intelligible to the accused to the extent that it must convey to them in no uncertain terms as to what exactly the law alleges against them and what is it that they have to meet. Where the charge is vague and ambiguous it cannot ever be contended that the prosecution has proceeded on the basis of a valid charge. 19. The rest of the evidence in this case is not of much significance. On the basis of the findings that I have arrived at, it would be hazardous to hold that the prosecution has established the charges beyond reasonable doubt. I have already held that the credibility of the crucial evidence does give rise to doubt and I would hold that this degree of doubt is well beyond a reasonable doubt. Under these circumstances, it would be impossible to sustain the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. 20. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court is set aside. Fine, if paid by the appellant is directed to be refunded to him. The bail bond of the appellant to stand cancelled. Appeal allowed. *****