JUDGMENT Surya Prasad, J. - This is a Government appeal on behalf of State of U.P. against the judgment and order dated 29th September, 1983 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut in Criminal Case No. 11 of 1981 State v. Jangpal Singh acquitting him of the offence punishable under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that the complainant Kripal Singh was running a fair price shop in his village Sathla in Tahsil Mawana, District Meerut. The accused Jangpal Singh was posted as a Supply Inspector in Tehsil Mawana in January, 1981. It is alleged that the accused used to charge Rs. 300/- from Kripal Singh every time when he used to take the quota of sugar of his shop saying that he had a share of Rs. 100/- only in that amount and the remaining sum of Rs. 200/- had to be paid to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. It is further alleged that in January, 1981 after giving a sum of Rs. 100/- the complainant Kripal Singh made up his mind not to give the balance of Rs. 200/- to the accused. Consequently on 22.1.91 he approached the District Magistrate, Meerut and moved an application Ex. Ka-1 to get the accused Jangpal Singh trapped while taking Rs. 200/- as illegal gratification from him. The District Magistrate entrusted the matter to the Vigilance Inspector Sri Mansha Ram Rathi P.W. 4, who was available at his resident at that time. Sri Rathi contacted the complainant Kripal Singh and after ascertaining the necessary facts, he asked the complainant' Kripal Singh to meet him at the Sunita Medical Store, Mawana at about 2.00 or 2.30 p.m. Thereafter he proceeded to Mawana with two police constables, namely Radhey Shyam and Atar Singh and met Kripal Singh at the Sunita Medical Store at about 2.00 p.m. Two public witnesses namely, Aquil Ahmad P.W. 2 and Shri Krishna P.W. 3 were called and after their arrival the complainant Kripal Singh produced two currency notes (Exts. 1 and 2) of Rs. 100/- each. The Vigilance Inspector Sri Rathi took these notes and initialled them. He treated these notes with phenolphthalein powder and returned them to the complainant Kripal Singh with the direction that these notes were to be given to the accused as bribe. A memo Ex. 1 and 2) of Rs. 100/- each. The Vigilance Inspector Sri Rathi took these notes and initialled them. He treated these notes with phenolphthalein powder and returned them to the complainant Kripal Singh with the direction that these notes were to be given to the accused as bribe. A memo Ex. Ka-2 to that effect was prepared by him. Kripal Singh along with Sri Rathi and others went to Tehsil Mawana to give the money to the accused, who was, however, not available there. Kripal Singh was informed that the accused had gone to his house. The raiding party returned from the Tehsil and at about 6.00 P.W. Kripal Singh informed the Vigilance Inspector Sri Rathi that the accused was available at Rajesh Mishtan Bhandar situated on the Hastinapur Road as Mawana. According to the plan the complainant Kripal Singh went to the Rajesh Misthan Bhandar and met the accused. The other members of the raiding party also reached there afterwards. In their presence the complainant told the accused that he had brought Rs. 200/- for him and consequently he requested the accused to deliver his sugar permit. The accused thereafter too two currency notes of Rs. 100/- each and kept the same in the pocket of his woollen coat Ex-5 put on by him at that time. On hearing and seeing all this, the Vigilance Inspector arrested the accused while introducing himself to him and recovered the currency notes of Rs. 200/- from the pocket of his coat and on examination he found the said currency notes were the same, which were initialled by him their numbers were mentioned in the same prepared by him. Thereafter he got the hands of the accused and the complainant washed by sodium carbonate, which had become light purple. The Vigilance Inspector observed all the formalities necessary for this purpose on the spot. The accused was ultimately taken to the police station Mawana, where the written report Ex. Ka-4 about the incident, which was already prepared by Sri Mansha Ram Rathi, was handed over to the police official concerned. The accused and the sealed bundle and phials were also handed over to the police official concerned. As the investigation of this case was to be made by the Vigilance Department, the memos were retained by the trap Inspector for that purpose. The accused and the sealed bundle and phials were also handed over to the police official concerned. As the investigation of this case was to be made by the Vigilance Department, the memos were retained by the trap Inspector for that purpose. The Constable clerk Rishal Singh P.W. 5 had prepared the check report Ex. Ka-5 on the basis of the written report and ultimately a case was registered against the accused. The case was entrusted to the Vigilance Inspector Sri Ratan Singh P.W. 6 for investigation. After the completion of the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet against the accused. 3. The prosecution examined Kripal Singh P.W. 1, Aquil Ahmad P.W. 2, Shri Krishna P.W. 3, Mansha Ram Rathi P.W. 4, Ratan Pal Singh P.W. 5 and Ratan Singh P.W. 6 and relied upon certain documents in support of its case. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty. He had stated that all the allegations levelled against him are wrong and incorrect. He has also stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. He examined the Senior Supply Inspector Pali as O.W. 1 and relied upon certain documents in support of his contentions. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It has not been clearly and explicitly mentioned in the First Information Report as to who had actually sent for Aquil Ahmad P.W. 2 and Shri Krishna P.W. 3 at the Sunita Medical Store, Mawana. The complainant Kripal Singh P.W. 1 has stated that the Vigilance Inspector Mansha Ram Rathi P.W. 4 had sent for these witnesses through his constable. He was confronted with his statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. which shows that it was he, who had brought the other witnesses at the asking of Mansha Ram Rathi. He has, however, denied having given any such statement to the Investigating Officer. But he has not been able to assign any reason why his statement to this effect was recorded by the Investigating Officer. Ratan Singh P.W. 6 has, on the other hand, categorically stated that Kripal Singh P.W. 1 had given the above statement to him. He has further stated that Aquil Ahmad P.W. 2 and Shri Krishna P.W. 3 had given statements to the effect that Kripal Singh had called them. Ratan Singh P.W. 6 has, on the other hand, categorically stated that Kripal Singh P.W. 1 had given the above statement to him. He has further stated that Aquil Ahmad P.W. 2 and Shri Krishna P.W. 3 had given statements to the effect that Kripal Singh had called them. Similarly he has further stated that Mansha Ram Rathi had given his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. to the effect that he had sent for two witnesses through Kripal Singh. The statements of Kripal Singh P.W. 1 Agil Ahmad P.W. 2 and Mansha Ram Rathi, P.W. 4 to the contrary cannot, therefore, be believed. 7. Sunita Medical Store, Mawana belongs to Pratap Singh, brother of the complainant Kripal Singh P.W. 1 Shri Krishan P.W. 3 is said to have his own barber shop quite adjacent to the said Medical Store. Aqil Ahmad is a resident of the village of the complainant Kripal Singh himself. Therefore, the possibility of these witnesses having been under the influence of the complainant Kripal Singh for his brother Pratap Singh cannot altogether be ruled out. 8. There is a distance of one furlong in between the Rajesh Misthan Bhandar and the Mawana Tahsil. The complainant Kripal Singh and the accused Jangpal Singh had gone together from the Tehsil to the Rajesh Misthan Bhandar. The accused had ample opportunity to demand the bribe money from the complainant on way to the Misthan Bhandar. But he did not do so. This is something surprising. There were certain persons in the said Misthan Bhandar besides the members o? the raiding party. The complainant and the accused had talked to each other loudly with regard to the giving and the taking of the bribe. Not only this but the complainant had also handed over the said two currency notes to the accused in the presence of a large number of other members of the public besides those of the raiding party. This act and conduct of the complainant and the accused both does not appear to be a natural one particularly in view of the facts and circumstances as mentioned above. 9. This act and conduct of the complainant and the accused both does not appear to be a natural one particularly in view of the facts and circumstances as mentioned above. 9. The Vigilance Inspector Mansha Ram Rathi P.W. e did not ask any of the members of the public present in the said Misthan Bhandar to be a witness to the incident or to the recovery memo prepared by him in respect of the aforesaid two currency notes recovered from the possession of the complainant. There are, however, inconsistent and contradictory statements of the witnesses on this aspect of the matter. This indicates that their testimony to this effect cannot be believed. 10. Aqil Ahmad P.W. 2 has battered and shattered the prosecution case saying that the Fards etc. were prepared at the Sunita Medical Store, when they returned from the Rajesh Misthan Bhandar. However, he was declared hostile. A perusal of his statement in its entirety would show that he is not reliable. 11. Kripal Singh P.W. 1 has initially stated that he does not known one Narendra Kumar resident of village Nathina. But he has subsequently in the same continuation admitted that Narendra Kumar had made a complaint against him in connection with improper distribution of sugar from his shop. Harnam Pali P.W. 1 is a senior Supply Inspector and has been posted as such since 5th October, 1980 in Tehsil Mowana, District Meerut. He has stated that the aforesaid complaint was received in his office and that the S.D.M. Sri R.K. Singh and directed the accused to make an inquiry in respect of the same. He has further stated that the accused had given a notice to the complainant in connection with the said complaint. His statement goes unchallenged and unrebutted and therefore, there does not appear any reason why his statement should not be implicitly relied upon. The accused Jangpal Singh has stated under Section 313 Cr. P.C. that he had sent for the register from the accused in connection with the said complaint and that the accused has got him falsely implicated on account of the said inquiry against him. 12. The accused Jangpal Singh has stated under Section 313 Cr. P.C. that he had sent for the register from the accused in connection with the said complaint and that the accused has got him falsely implicated on account of the said inquiry against him. 12. The non-examination of the independent witnesses, the incredibility in the statements of the witnesses on account of inconsistencies and contradict ions therein on several material aspects of the prosecution case and the unnaturalness in the act and conduct of the complainant and the accused both in the Rajesh Mishtan Bhandar lead. to conclude that the possibility of the accused having been falsely implicated cannot altogether be ruled out. 13. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order is confirmed.