JUDGMENT (ORAL) Ashok Agarwal, J.- The appellant is original accused No. 2. He, alongwith original accused No. 1, was charged, in the Court of the Special Judge, Thane, in Special Case No. 12 of 1982 for offences under Section 5(1) (d) and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In additional accused No. 2, was also charged under section 165 A of the Indian Penal Code. At the material time, accused No. 1 was an unarmed Police Constable, and accused No. 2 was an unarmed Head Constable: Both were attached to the Wagale Estate Police Station. The complainant in the case is P.W. 2 Richard Standli Lobo. On the 16th of February, 1982 he lodged a complaint at the Anti Corruption Bureau, Thane. The complaint (Exhibit 28) was recorded by P.W. 7 P.S.I. Dashrath Kishan Kotkar. Since no other senior officer was present at that time, Kotkar took Lobo and the complaint (Ext. 28) to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane. He submitted report (Exhibit 46) alongwith the complaint. He also produced Lobo Before him. Permission to investigation (Exhibit 45) was granted in favour of Kotkar. Kotkar sent a request letter to the office of the Collector to spare two members of the establishment to act as Panchas. Accordingly, two persons, who include P.W. 1 Purushottam Bhoir, attended and volunteered to act as Panchas. On the Very day i.e. on the 16th of February, 1982 a pre-trap panchanama (Ext. 20) was prepared and the raiding party proceeded for a trap. After the trap, certain documents were seized. They include the copies of the warrants of arrest (Exhibit 23 and 24). A chit (Exh. 25) purported to have been scribed by accused No. 2 was also seized. 2. During investigation, statement of P.W. 3 Pralhad Joshi, who was then the Police Inspector of the Wagale Estate Police Station, was recorded. He deposed to the distribution of duties on the Wag ale Estate Police Station. According to Joshi, accused No. 2 was entrusted with the duty of serving summonses and executing warrants which were issued by the Court and sent to the Wagale Estate Police Station for being served on the witnesses and accused. In addition, the statement of P.W. 6 Hari More, a head Constable attached to the said police station, was also recorded. According to Joshi, accused No. 2 was entrusted with the duty of serving summonses and executing warrants which were issued by the Court and sent to the Wagale Estate Police Station for being served on the witnesses and accused. In addition, the statement of P.W. 6 Hari More, a head Constable attached to the said police station, was also recorded. According to him, though his name appears on the bailable warrant (Exhibit 23), the same was never entrusted to him for service. According to him, accused No. 2 was entrusted with the job. P.S.I. Kotkar on the 22nd of June, 1982 vide his application (Exhibit 32), applied to the Commissioner of Police for sanction to prosecute. The police commissioner, P.W. 4 Satish Sahani, on the 14th of July 1982, accorded sanction (Exhibit 35). Katkar, thereafter, lodged his complaint (Exhibit 50) which has given rise to the present prosecution. The facts of the case may be summarised as under. 3. The complainant, P.W. 2, Lobo, is a resident of Kisan Nagar, Thane. He was involved in the commission of an offence of Gambling and also an offence of indecent assault. Non-bailable warrants were issued against Lobo. The warrants were made returnable on 24th of February, 1982 and 3rd of May, 1982. 4. At the material time, accused No. 2 was a head constable attached to the Wagle Estate Police Station and was assigned the duty of execution of warrants. Accused No. 1 was a police constable who was assigned the duty to assist accused No. 2 in executing the warrants. The area under the jurisdiction of the Wagale Estate Police Station was divided into four parts in order to facilitate the work of execution of warrants and service of summonses. Four head constables attached to the police station were given the duty of executing the warrants and serving the summonses. Accused No. 2 was a senior Head Constable, who was distributing the work of executing the warrants and serving the summonses amongst four head constables. P.W. 6 Head Constable More was incharge of section 3 under which the Kisan Nagar areas falls. The warrants (Exhibits 23 and 24) were, however, not entrusted to him but were retained by the accused. 5. According to the prosecution, on the 14th of February, 1982 at about 8.30 p.m. accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to the house of complainant, Lobo. The warrants (Exhibits 23 and 24) were, however, not entrusted to him but were retained by the accused. 5. According to the prosecution, on the 14th of February, 1982 at about 8.30 p.m. accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to the house of complainant, Lobo. Accused No. 1 appraised Lobo of the fact that non-bailable warrants have been issued against him. He told Lobo that if an amount of Rs. 100/- was paid he would not be arrested. Lobo expressed his inability to pay, whereupon accused No. 1 threatened him that he will put him in the lock-up. Accused No. 1 instructed Lobo to meet him on the next day with the amount of Rs. 100/-. 6. On the next day, i.e. on the 15th of February, 1982 at about 11.30 a.m., accused no. 1 went to the house of Lobo. Lobo was unable to raise the amount as demanded by the accused. Accused No. 1 took Lobo to the Wagale Estate Police Station and gave him two blows on his right ribs. He made him sit under a tamarind tree in front of the police station and went in the police station stating that he will return after seeing the Sahab. After 15 minutes accused No. 1 came back and informed that Sahab was not in the police station and he would not put him in the lock up. Accused No. 1 asked Lobo to make arrangement of the money till 5 P.M. Till 5 p.m. Lobo could not collect any amount. At about 8.30 p.m. Lobo came to Kisan Nagar area for purchasing cigarettes. There he met a friend P.W. 5 Arun Gayakwad. While he was with him, accused No. 1 came and asked whether the amount has been arranged. Lobo replied that he could, not arrange for the full amount but had arranged for Rs. 25/- The said amount of Rs. 25/- was handed over by Lobo to accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 took out papers from his bag. He asked Lobo to bring one person to stand as a surety. Since Arun Gayakwad was present at that time, he got his signature on a paper which Was taken out by accused No. 1 from his bag. 25/- was handed over by Lobo to accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 took out papers from his bag. He asked Lobo to bring one person to stand as a surety. Since Arun Gayakwad was present at that time, he got his signature on a paper which Was taken out by accused No. 1 from his bag. Accused No. 1 thereafter asked Lobo to make arrangements for the balance of the amount and that Lobo should come near Durga Hotel at about 7.30 p.m. on the next day. 7. On the 16th of February, 1982 Lobo took an amount of Rs. 75/- from a friend Gangadhar Jadhav. He, thereafter, went to the Anti Corruption Bureau at Thane and lodged his complaint with P.S.I. Kothar As already stated a complaint (Exhibit 28). was lodged and the pre-trap panchanama (Exhibit 20) was prepared after demonstration of the application of anthracene powder on the concurrency notes of Rs. 75/- and after following the due procedure. The raiding party, thereafter, proceeded towards the Durga hotel. Lobo had an amount of Rs. 77.25 Rs. on his person. Anthracene powder was applied to one note of Rs. 50/-, one note of Rs. 20/- and one note of Rs. 5/-Lobo was given the balance amount of Rs. 2.25 Rs. which he kept separately. Lobo had a cigarette packet containing four cigarettes and a match box on his person. It was arranged that when the accused would meet Lobo he should open the topic of the warrants which would prompt accused No. 1 to make a demand of the amount of the bribe. After the accused had received the amount Lobo was asked to make a signal by lighting a cigarette whereupon the raiding party would arrive at the spot. Panch witness P.W. 1 Bhoir was asked to accompany Lobo and watch the proceedings. Lobo an Bhoir came near Durga Hotel at about 7.30 p.m. and they kept waiting for the arrival of the accused till 8.30 p.m. At 8.30 p.m. both the accused came near Durga hotel. They wished Lobo and Bhoir. Before Lobo could open the topic accused No. 1 asked him "what about my work". Lobo then stated that why were they talking on the road. He invited them in the hotel for a cup of tea. In the hotel, Lobo and Bhoir Sat on one bench while accused Nos. They wished Lobo and Bhoir. Before Lobo could open the topic accused No. 1 asked him "what about my work". Lobo then stated that why were they talking on the road. He invited them in the hotel for a cup of tea. In the hotel, Lobo and Bhoir Sat on one bench while accused Nos. 1 and 2 set on another bench across a table which lay between the two benches. Lobo placed an order for two cups of tea. Accused No. 1 asked the complainant Lobo to hand over the money. Lobo accordingly took out the currency notes of Rs. 75/ - and handed them to accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 took the currency notes in his right hand, unfold them, Counted the notes with both the hands. He folded the notes and placed them on a rexine bag which was on his laps. Accused No. 1 then opened the bag, took out a bundle of papers from the bag and pulled out two warrants which were issued against Lobo, from that bundle. Besides, he showed one bail bond. At that time, accused No. 2 wrote a chit, giving the details of the case number and the date5 on which Lobo was expected to attend the Court. The chit (Exhibit 25) was handed over by accused No. 2 to Lobo with a direction that Lobo should attend the court on these dates. After Lobo, Bhiorand the accused had consumed tea. Lobo proceeded to the Counter; paid for the tea and took out a cigarette and lit it thereby giving the pre-determined signal. At this, the rest of the raiding party which was standing at some distance await, arrived at the spot. A post trap panchanama (Exhibit 21) was prepared. Amongst others the chit (Exhibit 25) which was handed over by accused No. 1 to Lobo was seized On the aforesaid allegations, both the accused were charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences. 8. The prosecution has come up with a case of demands being made by the accused on three different dates. On the 14th of February, l082 at about 8.30 p.m., both the accused Nos 1 and 2 are alleged to have gone to the house of Lobo and demanded a sum of Rs. 100/-. 8. The prosecution has come up with a case of demands being made by the accused on three different dates. On the 14th of February, l082 at about 8.30 p.m., both the accused Nos 1 and 2 are alleged to have gone to the house of Lobo and demanded a sum of Rs. 100/-. On 15th February, 1982 accused No. 1 is alleged to have made two demands one in the morning at about 11.30 a.m. near at the Janata Ration shop and the other at about 8.30 p.m. at a Pan Shop near Kailash Tailor's shop when an amount of Rs.25/- was paid by Lobo to accused No. 1. For the demands and acceptance of Rs. 25/- on the 15th February, 1982, accused No. 2 was absent. The third and the final demand and acceptance of the amount was on the 16th of February, 1982 at about 8.40 p.m. near Durga Parmeshwar hotel when Lobo paid Rs. 75/ - to accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 wrote down a chit (Exhibit 25) informing Lobo the dates when he was expected to attend the court. According to the prosecution. On 16th February, 1982 accused No. 1 was absent from duties and accused No. 2 was on his weekly off. Hence, both the accused were not on duty at the Wagale Estate Police Station. 9. Both the accused pleaded not guilty. According to accused No. 1, Lobo placed the currency notes of Rs. 75/- on the rexine bag when it was on his laps, below the table. The currency notes, therefore, fell on the ground. In substance, he contended that he had not made any demand but the currency notes were planted on him.' He claimed that he was falsely involved. 10. Accordingly to accused No. 2, one Nandu Daba was conducting a gambling house within the limits of the Wagale Estate Police Station and accused No. 2 had raided the said house on 2 or 3 occasions. Lobo was in service of Nandu Daba, and Nandu Dada had instigated. Lobo to involve him in the case. Accused No, 2, however conceded that he was present in the company of accused No. 1 on the 16th of February, 1982 when the raid was affected. 11. Lobo was in service of Nandu Daba, and Nandu Dada had instigated. Lobo to involve him in the case. Accused No, 2, however conceded that he was present in the company of accused No. 1 on the 16th of February, 1982 when the raid was affected. 11. On an appraisal of the above evidence the learned Special Judge, by his judgment and order dated 27th of October, 1986, declined to place reliance on the demand raised on the 14th of February, 1982 on the ground that the same was deposed only by P.W. 2 Lobo. According to the learned Judge, Lobo was in a position of an accomplice and hence it was improper to place reliance on his testimony since the same was not corroborated in material particulars. As far as the demands of the 15th of February, 1982 and the receipt or Rs. 25/- by accused No. 1 on the 15th of February, 1982 concerned the learned Judge is accepted the case of the prosecution, similarly, the learned judge accepted the version of the prosecution in regard to the raid which took place on the 16th of February, 1982. He found that accused No. 2 was not guilty of the offence of abatement of receiving the bribe. He, therefore, proceeded to pass an order of acquittal under section 165 A of the Indian Penal Code in favour of accused No. 2. He however, held accused No. 1 guilty under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(1) (d) and 5(2) of prevention of corruption Act. He further found accused No. 2 guilty under Sections 5(1) (d) and 5(2) of the prevention of corruption act read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Each of the accused are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Taking exception to the above order of conviction and sentence, accused No. 2 alone has preferred the present appeal. Accused No. 1, it appears, has not impugned the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence recorded against him. 12. Even though the present appeal concerns the role played by accused No. 2 only, I have been taken through the entire evidence on record by Shri Pradhan, who appears in support of the appeal. Accused No. 1, it appears, has not impugned the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence recorded against him. 12. Even though the present appeal concerns the role played by accused No. 2 only, I have been taken through the entire evidence on record by Shri Pradhan, who appears in support of the appeal. I have heard both Shri Pradhan and Shri Rupwate, the learned public prosecutor. As regards the demand made by accused Nos. 1 and 2, on the 14th of February, 1982 is concerned, the learned Special Judge has declined to rely on the testimony of P.W. 2 Lobo on the ground that the same is not corroborated in material particulars. As far as the demand on the 15th of February, 1982 and the acceptance of an amount of Rs. 25/ - on the 15th of February, 1982 Shri Pradhan has legislatimately urged that it is not even the case of the prosecution that accused No. 2 was present. He, therefore, has proceeded to attack the evidence which relates to the events which have taken place on the 16th of February, 1982 when a trap was laid and an amount of Rs. 75/- is alleged to have been paid by Lobo and accepted by the accused. Shri Pradhan has placed reliance on the post-trap panchanama (Exhibit 21). He has pointed out that within the bracketed portion the Panchanama recites the list of the articles which were found on the person of Lobo after the amount is alleged to have been paid over to accused No. 1. He has pointed out that the list mentions sundry articles like cigarette packet containing three cigarettes, a match box and coins of 75 paise. He has next pointed out, from the evidence of the investigation officer, P.W. 7 P.S.I. Kotkar, where he has admitted that whatever that transpired after Lobo was called in the hotel and his clothes and hands were examined in the ultra violet rays is mentioned in the red bracketed portion marked. 'A' in the panchanama (Exhibit 21). He pointed out that Shri Katkar admitted that when the hands of Lobo were being examined in the ultra violet rays, no chit was found in his hand. Till the chit (Exhibit 25) was attached, the chit was with the complainant Lobo. He did not remember on that day from where the complainant Lobo produced the chit (Exhibit 25). The chit (Exh. Till the chit (Exhibit 25) was attached, the chit was with the complainant Lobo. He did not remember on that day from where the complainant Lobo produced the chit (Exhibit 25). The chit (Exh. 25) was produced when the examination of the complainant Lobo in the ultra violet rays was in progress. 13. Shri Pradhan referred to the evidence of the panch witness, P.W. 1 Bhoir. In respect of the chit (Exhibit 25) the witness has deposed that after writing on the chit, it was given to the complainant. He, however, does not remember where the complainant Lobo kept that paper. When the complainant was called in the hotel after the trap and after his search was taken, Cigarette packet containing three cigarettes, a match box and coins of75 paise only were found on the person of Lobo. The witness has further proceeded on to state the chit (Exhibit 25) was attached from the complainant Lobo. According to him, it is stated in the panchanama (Exhibit 21) that the chit (Exhibit 25) was attached from the complainant Lobo. On going through the panchanama (Exhibit 21) however he found that it was not stated in the panchanama that when the personal search was taken the chit (Exhibit 25) was found with him. He admitted that the contents regarding the articles found on the personal search of the complainant, written in the panchanama (Ext. 21) are as per the articles found with him. He could not tell, from where the chit (Exhibit 25) was attached by the police when the said chit was not found with the complainant Lobo at the time of his personal search. Shri Pradhan has further pointed out the evidence of P.W. 2 complainant Lobo and has criticised his claim that he had kept the chit (Exhibit 25) in a cigarette packet. He submitted that the said claim is not supported either by the panch witness Bhoir as also the panchanama (Exhibit 21). He has pointed out that the panchanama (Exhibit 21) makes a clear recital as to what was found in the cigarette packet. It states that the packet contained three cigarettes. There were no reference to the finding of the chit (Exhibit 25). He has pointed out that the panchanama (Exhibit 21) makes a clear recital as to what was found in the cigarette packet. It states that the packet contained three cigarettes. There were no reference to the finding of the chit (Exhibit 25). Shri Pradhan referred to the evidence of P.W. 7 Dashrath Kotkar, the Investigating Officer, and has pointed out that as per his version when the complainant Lobo was called in the hotel after the raiding party had arrived and had found traces of anthracene powder on the hands of the accused, the complainant was found to possess a cigarette packet, a match box and an amount of Rs. 2.25 Rs. in his left pant packet. Anthracene powder was seen on the cigarette packet and on the match box in the ultra violet light. They were/returned to the complainant Lobo. Referring to the above evidence. Shri Pradhan pointed out that P.S.I. Kotkar has not made any reference to the finding of the chit (Exhibit 25). He has further pointed out that as per the Panchanama (Exhibit 21) the complainant was found to possess coins of only 75 paise where according to the version of Kotke, he possesse Rs. 2.25 Rs. Shri Pradhan next pointed out that, the recording of evidence of the aforesaid witness was adjourned on the 2nd of September, 1986 as the Courts time was over. The recording continued on the next day. It is only on the-adjourned date that the witness deposed to one chit being attached from the complainant. The said evidence, according to Shri Pradhan, is an improvement and an after thought. He submitted that as .per the pre-trap panchanama (Exhibit 20) the complainant was possessing Rs. 77.25 Ps. Out of that amount, an amount of Rs. 75/- was kept aside for the purpose of handing over to the accused and an amount of Rs. 2.25 ks. ought to have remained with the complainant. However, as per panchanama (Exh. 21) only 75 paise are found with him. Laying stress on the aforesaid discrepancies Shri Pradhan submitted that it would be hazardous to hold that the chit (Exhibit 25) which is alleged to have been scribed by accused No. 2 was found with the complainant in order to implicate accused No. 2 in the instant crime. Wednesday, 23 June, 1993. 14. Laying stress on the aforesaid discrepancies Shri Pradhan submitted that it would be hazardous to hold that the chit (Exhibit 25) which is alleged to have been scribed by accused No. 2 was found with the complainant in order to implicate accused No. 2 in the instant crime. Wednesday, 23 June, 1993. 14. It is next contended by Shri Pradhan that the case of the prost1Cutibn that accused No. 2 was entrusted with the duty of serving summonses and executing the warrants and its further case tl1at he had executed the warrants (Exhibits 23 and 24) on the complainant on the fateful day is highly doubtful. He pointed out that the warrant (Exhibit 23) contains the name of More. In view of his name appearing on the said warrant Shri Pradhan submitted that the same was entrusted to P.W. 6 head constable Hari More and the same must have been actually executed by him on the complainant Lobo. Shri Pradhan next pointed out that as per the version of P.W. 3 Police Inspector Pralhad Joshi, he did not know personally who was incharge of warrants (Exhibits 23 and 24) during the period between 13th February 1982 and 16th of February, 1982. In view of this evidence, Shri Pradhan submitted that the case of the prosecution that the warrants (Exhibits 23 and 24) were executed by accused No. 2 on the complainant Lobo on the fateful day cannot be relied upon. 15. Shri Pradhan next submitted that on the showing of the prosecution accused No. 2 was not concerned with the meetings held on the 15th of February, 1982. Accused No. 2, therefore, had no means of knowing about the appointment scheduled for the 16th of February, 1982. 16th of February, 1982 was a weekly off of accused No. 2. He was proceeding with kerosene tin. He was, thus, on his domestic cores. If at all he met the complainant and accused No. 1, it was a chance meeting. He had, therefore, in means of knowing that the meeting was for the purpose of receiving the bride amount. In the circumstances, it would not be legitimate to draw inference that accused No. 2 shared the common intention with accused No. 1 for receiving the bribe. As far as the meeting of the 14th of February, 1982 is concerned, the trial court has declined to place reliance. In the circumstances, it would not be legitimate to draw inference that accused No. 2 shared the common intention with accused No. 1 for receiving the bribe. As far as the meeting of the 14th of February, 1982 is concerned, the trial court has declined to place reliance. Hence it cannot be found that accused No. 2 was a party to the demand made by accused No. 1 on the 14th February, 1982. Hence, even if the demand made by the accused No. 1 on the 16th of February, 1982 were to be held as proved it cannot be held that accused No. 2 had any knowledge that the demand pertained to receiving an illegal gratification. In any event, on the 16th of February, 1982 the warrants are taken out by accused No. 1 and are served on the complainant Lobo after the acceptance of money. Accused No. 2, in the circumstances, could not be attributed with the knowledge that the amount was in any way Connected with the warrants which were executed on the complainant Lobo. Shri Pradhan finally submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution in so far as it seeks to implicate accused No. "2 is far too descripant to place reliance for bringing home the guilt against him. 16. While appreciating the aforesaid submissions advanced by Shri Pradhan One has to bear in mind the following observations which are contained in a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirajibhai v. State. of Gujarat1 which has been relied upon by Shri Rupwate the Ld. Public Prosecutor. This is what the Supreme Court has observed. " Overmuch importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious: (1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. (2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. 1. A.I.R. 1983 SC 753. (3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. 1. A.I.R. 1983 SC 753. (3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. (4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversion and reproduce and the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to except a witness to be a human tape recorder. (5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess-work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot except people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individual which varies from person to person. (6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which taken place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. (7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the Court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by Counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him-perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment. 6. Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses, therefore cannot be armexed with un due importance. More so when the all important "probabilities factor" chooses in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses." 17. In regard to the chit (Exhibit - 25) we have the evidence of the panch witness P.W. 1 Purushottam Bhoir. More so when the all important "probabilities factor" chooses in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses." 17. In regard to the chit (Exhibit - 25) we have the evidence of the panch witness P.W. 1 Purushottam Bhoir. He has stated that the writing on the chit (Exhibit 25) was made before the tea was brought while they were sitting in the Durga Parmeshwari hotel. After writing on the chit it was given to the complainant Lobo. He does not remember where the complainant Lobo kept that chit. When the complainant was caned in the hotel, after the trap and after his search was taken, cigarette packet with three cigarettes, a match box and coins of 75 paise were found on his person. He has further stated that the chit (Exhibit 25) was attached from the complainant Lobo. He stated that it is mentioned in the panchanama (Exh. 21) that the chit (Exhibit 25) was attached from the complainant Lobo. When he was confronted with the panchanama (Exhibit 21) he stated that it is not in the panchanama that when the personal search was taken the chit (Exhibit 25) was found with him. Contents regarding the articles found on the personal search of complainant written in the panchanama (Exh. 21) are as per the articles found with him. He is unable to ten from where the chit (Exhibit 25) was attached by the police when the chit ws not found with the complainant Lobo at the time of the personal search. I find that the Panch witness is obviously confused and has, therefore, made certain inconsistent statements. This would be apparent if one peruses the panchanama (Exh. 21). What appears to have been pointed out to the witness is the bracketed portion which makes a reference to certain articles which were found on the person of the complainant Lobo. Apparently, the witness was not shown the further portion of the panchanama (Exh. 21). At serial No. 4, there is a clear reference to the chit (Exh. 25) being found with the complainant. The recitals states as under: "5.00 One chit bearing the contents as Cri. Case No. 145180 u/s. 12(a) Date 24/2/1982. It was in complainant Mr. Richard Lobo's hand. The contents and this chit was in the handwriting of P.H.C. She wale and H.C. She wale had identified handwriting of the chit. 25) being found with the complainant. The recitals states as under: "5.00 One chit bearing the contents as Cri. Case No. 145180 u/s. 12(a) Date 24/2/1982. It was in complainant Mr. Richard Lobo's hand. The contents and this chit was in the handwriting of P.H.C. She wale and H.C. She wale had identified handwriting of the chit. There was anthracene powder on this chit. You and both of us panchas had attached the said chit for investigation purposes." 17 A) The Panch witness had made a positive statement that the chit (Exh. 25) was attached from the complainant Lobo. He is, thereafter, shown the bracketed portion of the panchanama. That portion does not make any reference to the chit. His attention is not drawn to the further portion in the panchanama which makes a specific reference to it. He is obviously confused. It is in these circumstances that he is persuaded to make certain inconvenient and inconsistent statement. In my view if one views his evidence as a whole in conjunction with the other evidence on record, one would find a ring of truth in his testimony that the chit (Exh. 21) was found on the person of the complainant Lobo. As far as the evidence of the complainant P.W. 2 Lobo is concerned he has stated that after the amount of Rs. 75/- was paid by him to accused No. 1, accused No. 1 took out two papers from the bundle from his rexine bag. Apparently this refers to the two warrants (Exhibit 23 and 24) which were served upon him. Lobo has further proceeded to state that accused No. 2 wrote two numbers on a paper and told that the date of the Court is written on the paper 'and that he should attend the court on those days. The said paper was given to him. That paper which was given to him by the accused was attached by the police from him. In cross-examination Lobo stated that he made inquiry as to for what matter the paper on which writing was made was given to him. According to him, he had kept that paper in his cigarette packet. He had kept the paper in the cigarette packet when he went near the Counter to pay the bill. In cross-examination Lobo stated that he made inquiry as to for what matter the paper on which writing was made was given to him. According to him, he had kept that paper in his cigarette packet. He had kept the paper in the cigarette packet when he went near the Counter to pay the bill. When the examination of his hands, clothes and other articles was made in ultra violet rays, the cigarette packets was with him. The outer portion of the cigarette packet was not opened to see the contents. He denied that on opening the cigarette packet only three cigarette packet were found in it. He further stated that inquiry was made with him about the paper on which writing was made and at that time he produced that paper by taking it out of the cigarette packet. What appears to have happened is that complainant Lobo had kept the chit (Exhibit 25) in the cigarette packet as has been deposed by him. When his initial search was taken nobody had thought about the significance of the chit and hence the same had not surfaced during the initial search and A animation of the complainant. As recording to the panchanama appears to have progressed greater details were sought from the complainant. When the complainant was asked further questions he appears to have made a reference to the chit (Exhibit 25) having been handed over to him by accused No. 2 When called upon to produce the same he appears to have removed it from the cigarette packet and produced it before the investigating officer. It is at that stage that a reference is made to the production of the chit (Exhibit 25) in the panchanama (Exhibit 21). The reference in the panchanama that the chit was in the hand of the complainant when it was seized is not inconsistent with his having removed the chit from the packet and produced it before the panchas. Hence, I do not find much turns upon the trifling discrepancies pointed out in respect of the finding of the chit (Exhibit 25) on the person of the complainant. Similarly, I do not find that much turns on the discrepancy in regard to the amount which was found on the person of the complainant Lobo. An amount of Rs. 77.25 Ps. was a total amount with the complainant. An amount of Rs. Similarly, I do not find that much turns on the discrepancy in regard to the amount which was found on the person of the complainant Lobo. An amount of Rs. 77.25 Ps. was a total amount with the complainant. An amount of Rs. 75/- was kept apart for the purpose of giving it to accused. The complainant, thus, had an amount of Rs. 2.25 Ps. with him. Out of the said amount of Rs. 2.25 Ps. the complainant had paid the bill for the tea which they had in the Durga Parmeshwari Hotel. He, thus, had 75 paise remaining with him. In my view, not much capital can be made out of the version ofP.S.1. Kotkar when he stated that an amount of Rs. 2.25 Ps. was found with the complainant. He has apparently deposed to the balance which was expected to be with the complainant after the amount of Rs. 75/- was paid to accused No. 1. He has obviously over-looked the payment, the complainant made, for the tea they had in the Durga Parmeshwari Hotel. 18. In regard to the criticism that complainant Lobo did not follow the instruction which were given in the anti Corruption Bureau office, P.W. 1 Panch witness Bhoir, has admitted that instruction was given in the Anti Corruption office that on arrival of accused No. 1 talk regarding warrant should be opened with him. He has admitted that it was necessary to comply with the instructions. He further admitted that since the accused No. 1 and 2 come near them and till the raiding party effected the raid no talk was opened by complainant Lobo with accused No. 1 regarding the warrant. The answer to the above conduct of the complainant is apparent The evidence on record unmistakably shows that the accused did not give any opportunity to the complainant to open the topic. The moment the accused met the complainant, accused No. 1 immediately demanded the money by stating that 'be quick: give the money. Complainant Lobo, in the circumstances, had no opportunity and had no occasiol1 to open the topic of the warrants as instructed by the investigating officer. 19. Similarly, I do not find that such turns on the finding of the name of More on the warrants (Exhibit 23). Complainant Lobo, in the circumstances, had no opportunity and had no occasiol1 to open the topic of the warrants as instructed by the investigating officer. 19. Similarly, I do not find that such turns on the finding of the name of More on the warrants (Exhibit 23). The warrant in question pertains to Kisan Nagar area which falls in section No. 3 of the Wagale Estate Police Station. We have, in the regard, positive evidence of the Police Inspector, P.W. 3 Joshi, as also P.W. 6 Head Constable More. Police Inspector Joshi had a stated that accused No. 2 was assigned the work of execution of the warrants. From 1st of February, J 982 accused No. 1 was appointed to assist accused No. 2 in executing the warrants. In cross-examination he has reiterated that the accused No. 2 was to receive all summonses and warrants of the Wagale Estate Police Station and he has distributing warrants and summonses amongst other Head Constables, four in number, who were working in four parts of Wagale Estate Police Station. He has further stated that Kisan Nagar area was under the charge of Head Constable More. He could not tell whether accused No. 2 handed over warrants to head Constable More or kept them with him. The work of execution of warrants is to be executed by the Police Officer of the grade of Head Constable and superior officers. 20. It, thus, appears that accused No. 2 was a senior Head Constable attached to the Police Station. He was distributing the warrants and summonses amongst other Head Constables are a and section wise. Since the instant warrant partianed to section No. 3the name of Head Constable More, who was then incharge of executing warrants of Section No. 3, appears to have been scribed. Accused No. 2, however, does not appear to have handed over the warrant to Head Constable More. He has continued to be in possession of the warrants till the same was served by accused No. 1 on the complainant. The above position is confirmed by P.W. 6 Head Constable More. When shown the warrant (Exhibit 23) he stated that the same was never entrusted to him for execution at any time. When shown the warrant (Exhibit 24) he stated that, that also was never entrusted to him for execution at any time. The above position is confirmed by P.W. 6 Head Constable More. When shown the warrant (Exhibit 23) he stated that the same was never entrusted to him for execution at any time. When shown the warrant (Exhibit 24) he stated that, that also was never entrusted to him for execution at any time. He has asserted that accused No. 2 was summonses and warrants duty incharge and was distributing summonses for serving and warrants for executing amongst four head constables of four sections. When shown, the portion. More bearing on Exhibit 23, he has stated that the same does not constitute his signature. He has further stated that it is the practice to write the name of that head constable to whom warrant is entrusted for execution. He has denied that the warrant (Exhibit 23) which was pertaining to his section was entrusted to him for execution. He was denied that his name was written on the warrant because it was entrusted to him for execution. In my view, the above evidence is cogent and trustworthy I do not find any reason to disbelieve the same. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that thought the warrant (Exhibit 23) contains the name of More, the same was not entrusted to him but continued to be with the accused till the time it was served on the complainant Lobo. In any case, one cannot over look the fact that the warrants (Exhibits 23 and 24) were found to have been taken out by accused No. 1 from his rexine bag. Accused No. 1 has, there after, handed them over to the complainant and the said warrants are found on the person of the complainant Lobo during his search at the time of the raid. 20. As far as the meeting of the 14th of February, 1982 is concerned, the learned judge of the trial court has declined to place reliance on the same as he found that the evidence of complainant Lobo was in the nature of accomplice evidence. He, therefore, declined to place reliance on that meeting as, according to him the evidence was not corroborated in material particulars. He, therefore, declined to place reliance on that meeting as, according to him the evidence was not corroborated in material particulars. In my view, had the prosecution rested merely on the evidence in respect of the meeting of the 14th of February, 1982 it would not have been possible to pass an order of conviction solely on the testimony of complainant Lobo. We have, in the instant case, further evidence in respect of two meetings held on the 15th of February 1982 and the crucial meeting held on the 16th of February, 1982. The meetings of the 14th, 15th and the 16th of February, 1982 are inter-Connected and inter-linked. If the evidence in respect of the meetings of the 15th and the 16th of February, 1982 are found to be cogent and reliable, the same would lend material corroboration to the meeting which is alleged to have been held on the 14th of February, 1982. It is futile, in the circumstances, to contend that accused No. 2 had no means of knowing about the appointment on the 16th of February, 1982 merely on the ground that he is shown to be absent in the meeting of the 15th of February, 1982. The ignorance which is tried to be feigned by accused No. 2 proceeds on the hypothesis that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had no meeting with each other after accused No. 1 had met the complainant on two occasions on the 15th of February, 1982. 16th February, 1982 it is to be remembered, was the weekly off as for as accused No. 2 is concerned. As far as accused No. 1 is concerned, the muster roll in regard to the police station shows that he was absent on that day. In the circumstances, it was too much of a co-incidence to find accused Nos. 1 and 2 meeting the complainant Lobo on the 16th of February, 1982, at about a time which was fixed between accused No. 1 and the complainant If accused No. 2 was present on the meeting of the 14th of February 1982, as I am inclined to hold, he was a party along with accused No. 1 when the letter made demands of bribe. It is futile, in the circumstances to contend that accused No. 2 may not be knowing what money was demanded by accused No. 1 when they met on the 16th of February, 1982. After the money passed hands, accused No. I delivered the warrants to the complainant. Thereafter accused No. 2 has done positive overt act of writing on the chit (Exh. 25) the case numbers in which the complainant has been impleaded and the dates on which he was expected to appear in Court. Accused No. 2 wrote a chit in his own hand and has delivered the same to the complainant. 21. Another piece of evidence is in respect of the immediate conduct of the accused soon after the raiding party arrived at the scene. We have it in the evidence of the Panch witness P.W. 1 Purshottam Bhoir that after the signal was given by the complainant the raiding party arrived within four or five minutes. At that time kerosene had fallen down from the kerosene box which was being carried by accused No. 2 and the notes of Rs. 75/- which had also fallen on the ground had become wet with kerosene. He has further stated that when P.S.I. Kotkar and another person from, the raiding party came In the hotel facial expression of accused Nos. 1 and 2 indicated the confused state of mind. Similarly, in the panchanama (Exhibit 21), it is mentioned that when asked his name and designation accused No. 2 was frightened. The immediate conduct of the accessed after the arrival of the raiding party thus lends further assurance to the evidence led by the prosecution. 22. In view of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in upholding the order of conviction and sentence impugned in the present appeal. In the result, the appeal fails. The order of conviction and sentence passed on the 27th of October, 1986 by the learned Special Judge, Thane, in Special Case No. 12 of 1982, is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. The appellant-original accused No. 2 is directed to surrender to his bail. Four weeks' time is granted to the accused to surrender to his bail. Certified copy be expedited. Appeal dismissed.