VIRENDRA SARAN, J. ( 1 ) MANNI Singh son of Sri Ganga Singh has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 29/5/1981 of Sri T. P. Gupta, Special Judge, Kanpur in S. T. No. 6 of 1980 convicting the appellant under section 161, I. P. C. to one years R. I. and U/s. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to one years R. I. The learned Special Judge has directed that the two sentences shall run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that in May, 1978 suit No. 806 of 1975 Dwarika Prasad v. Nagar Mahapalika was pending in the court of Munsif, Kanpur. Sri Rayazuddin was the presiding Officer of the court till 16/3/1978 and thereafter on 11/5/1978 Sri. S. K. Nagqvi became the presiding Officer, According to the prosecution case the appellant was the reader of the court. It is alleged by the prosecution that several dates were fixed in the case but the Nagar Mahapalika did not file any written statement. Dwarika Prasad was anxious that the case may be decided exparte. The appellant was the reader of the court. Hence Dwarika Prasad approached the appellant who demanded Rs. 50/- to get the case decided exparte in his favour. On the next date that is on 20/5/1978 Dwarika Prasad moved an application Ext. Ka. 1 to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance to the effect that the appellant was demanding Rs. SOlas bribe, Sri D. K. Pande, S. P. Vigilance, (P. W. 4) wrote out the statement of Dwarika Prasad on the back of the application Ext. Ka. 1. Sri Panda Passed an order Ext. Ka. 1. A in the name of Rajveer Singh Inspector. Vigilance to lay a trap and introduced Dwarika Prasad to Rajveer Singh. The date fixed in the suit was 20. 5. 1978 and Inspector Rajveer Singh alongwith the Inspector Bahadur Singh, constable Ram Autar and Dwarlka Prasad arrived in the court campus. There they took public witness. Naseem and Chandra Shekhar (Naseem has not been examined at the trial while Chandra Shekhar has not supported the prosecution Version ). The trap party collected in front of Kaushik Garden. Dwarika Prasad gave five ten rupees currency notes to Inspector Rajveer Singh who made his initials on the currency notes and returned the same to Dwarika Prasad. The currency notes were also treated with phenolphthalein powder. The trap party collected in front of Kaushik Garden. Dwarika Prasad gave five ten rupees currency notes to Inspector Rajveer Singh who made his initials on the currency notes and returned the same to Dwarika Prasad. The currency notes were also treated with phenolphthalein powder. The hands of Bhadur Singh Inspector were washed in sodium carbonate solution and the solution turned pink and the same was sealed and a memo was prepared. All these proceedings were completed at about 2. 45 P. M. ( 3 ) THE trap party proceeded towards the civil Court. Dwarika Prasad went to call the appellant for payment of bribe at a hotel near Bar Association. Swarika Prasad came back and told Inspector Rajveer Singh that court proceedings were going on and at that time Manni Singh could not came out and saying so Dwarika Prasad went back to the court and the trap party kept on waiting. At about 4. 45, P. M. Swarika Prasad come and told that next date was 13/7/1978. He further gave out that the appellant had told him that due to rush of work his work could not be done but on the next date that is 13/7/1978 the work would be certainly done. The appellant, however, insisted that the bribe money may be paid at that very day. At about 5 P. M. Dwarika Prasad along with the appellant and one boy were seen coming out the court room and they proceeded towards Tripti Restaurant and entered the restaurant which is situated in civil lines, Kanpur. The trap party followed the appellant at some distance. The appellant and that boy seated themselves on the chairs near the northern wall facing towards south and Dwarika Prasad sat on a small sofa facing the appellant across the table. The trap party went in the restaurant and sat at home distance towards the west on a sofa. Constable Ram Autar Tripathi also went inside and sat on a sofa. The appellant on and the boy were busy in taking refreshments. After about half an hour dwarika prasad paid the bills of the refreshments and requested the appellant to get the case decided exparte in his favour and he gave the five ten rupee currency note to the appellant who took the money in his left hand and not in his bush shirt. After about half an hour dwarika prasad paid the bills of the refreshments and requested the appellant to get the case decided exparte in his favour and he gave the five ten rupee currency note to the appellant who took the money in his left hand and not in his bush shirt. The appellant assured that the work of the Dwarika Prasad was to be certainly done without loosing any time Inspector Rajveer Singh introduced himself to appellant and asked the appellant to give him the currency notes received from Dwarika Prasad. The appellant took out the notes and gave out to the Inspector Rajveer Singh. These were the same currency notes on which the initials of Inspector Rajveer Singh existed. On the personal search of the appellant a sum of Rs. 324/ - and a chit of paper regarding the domestic wiring and decoration and the cyclostyled tender form dated 29. 4. 1978 of cantonment Board, Kanpur along with a receipt in the name of the appellant of Rs. 1/- were found from his left pocket and from the right pocket of shirt two keys and a fountain pen and one dot pen were found and one old wrist watch was also found on the person of the appellant. The boy who accompanied the appellant was the son of the appellant. The left hand of the appellant was washed in the solution of the sodium carbonate and the solution turned pink. The solution was sealed in a bottle similarly the pocket of the appellant was dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate which turned pink. The said solution was also sealed on the spot. The recovery memo was prepared. All these formalities were completed by 6 P. M. ( 4 ) AN F. I. R was lodged by Sri Rajveer Singh Inspector on 20/5/1978 at P. S. Kotwali, Kanpur at 10. 10 P. M. The distance of Kotwali is only 21h furlongs. The case was investigated by P. W. 7 Inspector Ram Kirath Singh who after obtaining the requisite sanction filed a charge sheet against the appellant. At the trial the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 5 ) THE appellant filed a written statement in which he stated that he had given an old Roamer wrist watch to P. W. 1 Dwarika Prasad for repairs in January, 1978. At the trial the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 5 ) THE appellant filed a written statement in which he stated that he had given an old Roamer wrist watch to P. W. 1 Dwarika Prasad for repairs in January, 1978. The writest watch was lost by Dwarika Prasad. A Panchayat was held in which Mahesh Singh and Ravender Dixit acted as Panehas and it was decided in the Panchayat that Dwarika Prasad would pay to the appellant Rs. 85/ - for the loss of the wriest watch. Dwarika Prasad paid Rs. 35. 00 immediately and promised to pay the balance of Rs. 50/- after a month but he did not pay, on 20/5/1978 the appellant had called his son as he had to purchase some electrical goods. The appellant and his son went to take refreshment in Tripti Restaurant. At that very time Dwarika prasad came and told the appellant that he had brought Rs. 50/- the balance due on him. The appellant took the money and soon thereafter he was arrested by the Vigilance Inspector. The appellant pleaded with the Vigilance Inspector that the amount was due against Dwarika Prasad on account of the loss of wriest watch and that a paper relating to writing of panchayat was at the house. The plea of the appellant fell on the deaf ears of the vigilance Inspector who booked the appellant on charge of bribery. It was further pleaded in the written statement that Inspector Rajveer Singh used to reside in front of the house of the appellant as well as the maternal uncle of the appellant, near Balkhandeshwar Mandir There had been frequent quarrels between the children of the appellants maternal uncle and the children of vigilance Inspector Rajveer Singh and this has led bad blood between them. The appellant further pleaded in his written statement that Bahadur Singh Inspector Vigilance was well acquainted with the appellant and they countenanced each other several times in court. The police Officers were inimical towards the appellant and they falsely booked the appellant for dacoity for which the appellant filed a suit for malicious prosecution which was decreed by the coon. The appellant has also filed the decree of the civil coon in support of his case besides several other documents. The police Officers were inimical towards the appellant and they falsely booked the appellant for dacoity for which the appellant filed a suit for malicious prosecution which was decreed by the coon. The appellant has also filed the decree of the civil coon in support of his case besides several other documents. ( 6 ) IN support of its case the prosecution examined P. W. 1 Dwarika Prasad P. W. lchandra Shekhar, P. W. 3 Rajveer Singh, Vigilance Inspector. P. W. 5 Bahadur Singh Vigilance In spector as the witnesses of fact. P. W. 4 is Sri D. K. Ponds, S. P. vigilance. P. W. 6 Kailash Nath Yajik was Ahalmad of the Munsifs coon and lastly P. W. 7 Ram Kirath Singh Inspector Vigilance, is the Investigating Officer, the appellant has not examined any witness in his defence. The learned special judice after appraisal of the evidence has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above and the appellant has now come up in appeal before this court. ( 7 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned State counsel and have gone through the evidence on the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution case regarding payment of Rs. 50/- as bribe to the appellant foot getting the suit decreed exparte by the presiding Officer that is the learned Munsif is pure conception. There is much force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. It was not within the power of the appellant to get the case decreed exparte as the case was to be decided by the learned Munsif Magistrate, Dwarika Prasad stated in his statement made to the S. P. Vigilance on 20. 5. 1978 that his case was in the coon of Sri Ryazuddin and the appellant was demanding Rs. 50/ -. This statement is on the back of the application given by Dwarika Prasad in which he has added that the appellant has assured him that he would get an ex parte judgment from the presiding Officer. In other words the appellant has assured Dwarika Prasad that he would get the exparte decision from Sri Ryazuddin. It is significant to note that on the relevant date Sri Ryazuddin was not ever the Presiding Officer. Sri Naqvi has taken charge on 11. 5. 1978. In other words the appellant has assured Dwarika Prasad that he would get the exparte decision from Sri Ryazuddin. It is significant to note that on the relevant date Sri Ryazuddin was not ever the Presiding Officer. Sri Naqvi has taken charge on 11. 5. 1978. Hence the story that the appellant had promise to get the case favourably decided exparte by Sri Ryazuddin has no legs to stand. Even otherwise, the reader of the coon may help a patty in getting small work done like giving of dates but the reader of the coon cannot prevail upon the presiding Officer for deciding a case exparte and that too for a pretty sum of Rs. 50/- only, In my opinion, the amount of Rs. 50/- is too meager for a job which was to be done and it appears that there was some other reason for payment of Rs. 50/- P. W. 1 Dwarika Prasad is the sole witness who has been put by the prosecution in the witness-box to depose regarding the reason for payment of Rs. 50/- to the appellant. P. W. 1 Dwarika Prasad does not at all support the prosecution version. In para 2 in his examination-in- chief he stated that he had not talked with the appellant regarding his case. He stated that one Rajendra prasad Sinha was the clerk of his counsel. Sri Laxmi Shanker Shukla Advocate who told him to spend some money and demanded Rs. 100/- from him. The clerk told him that after payment of Rs. 50/- the case would and because he had lot of acquaintenance. The witness went on to state that he brought Rs. 100/- on 20. 5. 1978 gave the same to the clerk (Rajendra Prasad Sinha ). The witness then accompanied the said clerk in some Mohalla of Kanpur at about 9. 30 hours. The clerk told him that the appellant was demanding Rs. 50/- due on the witness on account of loss of the wrist watch of the appellant by the witness. P. W. 1 Dwarika Prasad further stated that, therefore, Rajendra Prasad Sinha clerk got application Ext. Ka. I written by him on the dictation of Rajveer Singh and the application was given to Sri Pan de, S. P. Vigilance. 50/- due on the witness on account of loss of the wrist watch of the appellant by the witness. P. W. 1 Dwarika Prasad further stated that, therefore, Rajendra Prasad Sinha clerk got application Ext. Ka. I written by him on the dictation of Rajveer Singh and the application was given to Sri Pan de, S. P. Vigilance. In para 3 of his examination- in - chief P. W. 1 Dwarika Prasad stated that the peon of the court told him that the appellant was demanding Rs. 50. 00 of his lost watch mentioned above. Thereupon, the witness told that he had already given Rs. 100. 00 to the clerk of his lawyer. The witness at another place stated that he asked the clerk of the lawyer to give Rs. 50. 00 for being paid to the appellant for the loss suffered by the appellant on account of the loss of the wrist watch when the witness taken for repairs. The witness stated in para 4 of his evidence that Rs. 50. 00 were paid by him to the appellant to square to the accounts regarding the loss of the watch but the police arrested the appellant and the witness as well as the appellant gave out that the amount was not paid as bribe but it was on account of the loss of Roamer wrist watch belonging to the appellant. The witness was cross examined by the public prosecutor and he stated that in January, 1978 the appellant had given his Roamer wrist watch to the witness for repairs. The watch was stolen away probably by certain boys who came to the shop of the witness. at that time the price of a new Roamer wrist watch was Rs. 250/- but the watch which was stolen away was an old watch. The witness further stated in his cross examination when appellant Manni Singh demanded his watch a quarrel ensured between Manni Singh and the witness but certain respect able persons got the dispute settled on the condition that P. W. I Dwarika Prasad would pay Rs. 85/ - to appellant Manni Singh. In para 11 of his cross-examination the witness stated that he had paid Rs. 35/- to the appellant immediately and Rs. 50/- was to be paid after a month. The appellant Manni Singh had also executed a receipt of Rs. 35/ -. During the cross-examination Ext. Ka. 85/ - to appellant Manni Singh. In para 11 of his cross-examination the witness stated that he had paid Rs. 35/- to the appellant immediately and Rs. 50/- was to be paid after a month. The appellant Manni Singh had also executed a receipt of Rs. 35/ -. During the cross-examination Ext. Ka. 2 the writing of a compromise by the Panch was shown to the witness who admitted that the same was signed by the witness. The public prosecutor again cross-examined the witness and the witness denied that Ext. Ka. 2 has been prepared later on. Thus the evidence of P. W. 1 Dwarika Prasad takes wind out of the sails of prosecution. I am or the view that the prosecution evidence regarding the payment of Rs. 50/- as bribe forgetting the suit decided as exparte is not all convincing. The defence has come with a positive case that Rs. 50/ - had been paid to the appellant on account of the fact that the, watch of the appellant given to the witness for repairs had been stolen and Rs. 50/ were due to be paid on this account to the appellant appears to be nearer truth. P. W. 2 Chandra Shekhar is the only public witness of recovery. In para 4 of his evidence he stated that Manni Singh along with another man was sitting in the restaurant. The man who accompanied the appellant told the appellant that he has brought the money for the loss of the watch to finally square up his accounts. In the meanwhile the police party arrested the appellant. This witness did not at all support the prosecution Case and has been declared hostile by the prosecution. The witness was also cross examined by the defence and he stated that appellant had told on the spot that money was paid to him for his watch (which had been lost by Dwarika Prasad ). It is-surprising to note that the prosecution has not examined seven a single public witness who was present in the restaurant at that time. Even the sales man of the restaurant and other servants who were serving refreshments could have been examined. It is-surprising to note that the prosecution has not examined seven a single public witness who was present in the restaurant at that time. Even the sales man of the restaurant and other servants who were serving refreshments could have been examined. ( 8 ) IT is a settled law that the defence is not required to prove its case affirmatively by the strict standard of proof but it is sufficient that the explanation given by the defence is reasonably probable. My attention has been drawn to strict Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which states that if the accused accepts any gratification other than his legal remuneration or any valuable thing from any person it shall be presumed unless contrary is proved that he has accepted or obtain or agree to accept or attempted to accept that gratification or that valuable thing as the case may be as a motive or reward of such as is mentioned in the said section 161 or as the case may be without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. In the instant case on perusal of the evidence on record I am of the view that the prosecution evidence itself and the probabilities of the case go to support the defence of the appellant a long way. In the Man Singh v. Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court has held that for dislodging a criminal charge strict standard or proof is not necessary. It is sufficient that the accused Officers probable explanation as he is not required to prove his defence by strict standard of proof of reasonable doubt. In the present case the appellant has not only offered an explanation but the same is supported by attending circumstances and admissions made by Dwarika Prasad P. W. 1 Himself. ( 9 ) WE are now left with the evidence of P. W. 3 Vigilance Inspector Rajveer Singh and P. W. 5 Inspector Bahadur Singh. Both these witnesses are trap witnesses and their evidence requires closer scrutiny because they are interested in the success of the trap. In a recent case of Ram Babu Sharma v. State of U. P. , it has been held that the trap witnesses are high interested in the success of the trap. Both these witnesses are trap witnesses and their evidence requires closer scrutiny because they are interested in the success of the trap. In a recent case of Ram Babu Sharma v. State of U. P. , it has been held that the trap witnesses are high interested in the success of the trap. In the case of Peer Bux v. State, P. N. Goel has gone to the extent of holding that the evidence of all the police witnesses has to be construed as evidence of one man. The same view has been subsequently followed by S. R. Bhargava, J. In my opinion, the words one man mean a common interest between the two police witnesses to see that the case results in the conviction. I have closely scrutinised the evidence of P. W. Rajveer Singh and P. W. Bahadur Singh and I am of the opinion that their evidence is full of infirmities. When cross-examined P. W. Rajveer Singh admitted that he made no inquiries from Dwarika Prasad on any material point. He did not ask Dwarika Prasad whether Dwarika Prasad knows the appellant from before or not. He also did not enquire as to who was the clerk of the counsel of Dwarika Prasad, Rajveer Singh did not enquire Dwarika Prasad as to where and when the bribe was demanded by the appellant. He also did not care to ask Dwarika Prasad as to who was defendant in the suit, Rajveer Singh further admits that he did not ask the public witness Naseem and Chandra Shekhar as to why they had come to court. He also did not make any inquiry about the antecedents of the witnesses. When further cross examined P. W. Rajveer Singh admitted that he had been living in a house near Balkhandeswar Mandir at Shisa Mau, Kanpur and that he was also posted at P. S. Cantt, Kanpur. The witness, however, feinted that he had appeared in the court of Sri V. C. Jam, Additional Sessions Judge. Further cross-examination of the witness makes it highly doubtful whether the trap party in fact entered the restraint and took refreshments near the table where the appellant and P. W. Dwarika Prasad were taking their refreshments. In para 26 of his cross-examination P. W. Rajveer Singh stated that he was unable to tall the amount of the bill for refreshment which he took at the hotel. In para 26 of his cross-examination P. W. Rajveer Singh stated that he was unable to tall the amount of the bill for refreshment which he took at the hotel. The witness further admitted that he never presented the bill for payment in his department. The witness was also unable to tell regarding the bill of refreshments which the appellant had taken. ( 10 ) AN important fact which stores at the prosecution is that this witness Rajveer Singh states that he remained at restaurant for about 5 hours. It is not understandable what the witness was doing for nearly 5 hours at Tripati. Restaurant. The distance of the police station is hardly two and Half furlongs and the F. I. R. could have been lodged within half an hours of the incident. No explanation has been offered by the Inspector Rajveer Singh for staying for 5 hour at the restaurant. To my mind this false explanation has been given in order to explain the delay in lodging of the F. I. R. As mentioned earlier. Inspector Rajveer Singh is a highly interested witness in seeing success of the trap of the prosecution case. Similarly inspector Bahadur Singh P. W. 5 who was also a highly interested witness as he, too, was interested in the success of the trap of prosecution case, inspector Bahadur Singh P. W. 5 has also stated that he had been the reader of the Superintendent of Police, and station Officer, Billaur and Sachandi. He was Station Officer of P. S. Gwaltoli and P. ST Bazaria in 1972 and 73. He further stated that he used to visit various courts in connection with the cases during his tenure as Station Officer. It is note worth y that the appellant is also resident within the jurisdiction of P. S. Bazariya and the appellant was posted as the reader in the court of Munsif Magistrate for a long time. As such the appellant would have come across the Inspector Bahdur Singh P. W. 5 on more than one occussion. In such a situation it was most unlikely that the appellant would accept any bribe in the presence of the Inspector Bahadur Singh. P. W. 5 Bahadur Singh has also stated that he cannot tell that on a Jai Narain was the Station Officer Sachandi. In such a situation it was most unlikely that the appellant would accept any bribe in the presence of the Inspector Bahadur Singh. P. W. 5 Bahadur Singh has also stated that he cannot tell that on a Jai Narain was the Station Officer Sachandi. He feigned ignorance if the appellant was booked in a dacoity case from P. S. Sachandi but later on a final report was submitted. He further stated that he did not know that the appellant filed a suit for malicious prosecution which was decreed. Ext. Kha. 12 the copy of the plaint of the suit No. 1434 of 75 filed by the appellant IJ the court of Munsif city, Kanpur in which he stated that he was the Abalmad in the court of 5th Additional District Judge, Kanpur and that he was arrested on a false charge but later on a final report was submitted. The appellant prayed for a decree of the damages for malicious prosecution. Ext. Kha 14 is the judgment of the suit which goes to show that damages were awarded to him by the judgment dated 8. 5. 1978 of the Munsif Magistrate, Kanpur. The appellant has also filed the judgment of the special Trial No 7/76 State v. Sarda Prasad in which P. W. 5 Bahadur Singh was examined as a prosecution witnes3. The copy of the statement of Bahadur Singh is Ext. Kha 3. In this very special Trial Inspector Rajveer Singh was also examined as a witness. The copy of the statement of Rajveer Singh is Ext. Kha. 4. The Special Trial was decided by the learned special Judge (Anti Corruption), Kanpur and the copy of the judgment has been filed as Ext. Kha. 5 S. T. No. 7/77 was also a case of trap in which Inspector Rajveer Singh was the Investigating Officer and Bahadur Singh was examined as a witness. The learned special judge, Kanpur held that the prosecution case was untrue. At one place the learned Judge observed. Thus in view of the statement of Ganga Prasad P. W. 4 no reliance can be placed on the statement of Bahadur Singh P. W. 5 The case resulted in acquittal and the learned special judge adversely commented on the statement made by Rajveer Singh and statement OT Bahadur Singh Ext. At one place the learned Judge observed. Thus in view of the statement of Ganga Prasad P. W. 4 no reliance can be placed on the statement of Bahadur Singh P. W. 5 The case resulted in acquittal and the learned special judge adversely commented on the statement made by Rajveer Singh and statement OT Bahadur Singh Ext. Kha-7 is another copy of the judgment of the 10th Additional Sessions Judge Kanpur dated 29/5/1989 which will go to show that the Inspector Bahadur Singh had led a trap and in which Ram Kirath Singh the Investigating Officer of the present case was also one of the trap witness. The case resulted in acquittal and the learned Judge disbelieving the prosecution case observed: The story as put forward also does not seem natural and in these circumstances the statement of the two Inspectors of the Vigilance Department is not enough to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is very difficult from the evidence on record as to why this trap took place and how the money was handed over to Ram Das Singh. Considering all these facts I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. The defence has also filed copy of judgment dated 20. 12. 1980 of Sri O. K. Trivedi the learned Special Judge, Kanpur in S. T. No. 81m of 1978. It this case Ram Kirth Singh the Investigating Officer of the present case and Inspector Rajveer Singh had laid the trap against the reader of the Civil Court, Bhagnipur. Their evidence was disbelieved and the learned Sessions Judge passed the following strictures: The conduct of the Inspector Sri Ram Kirath Singh in relation to this case has been highly objectionable During his cross-examination in the court, he has exhibited scant regard for truth. I think that the authorities concerned may like to give a second thought to the continuance of the Inspector Sri Ram Kirath Singh in the Vigilance department with a view to inspire confidence in the activities of the Vigilance Establishment. A copy of the judgment be sent to the State Government for their information. The above case was case where the reader of the court had been caught for accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 1/- only, Ext. Kha. A copy of the judgment be sent to the State Government for their information. The above case was case where the reader of the court had been caught for accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 1/- only, Ext. Kha. 2 is yet another judgment of the special judge (Anti corruption) Kanpur dated 20/11/1979 in which Harsh Narin was acquitted for the offence u/s. 161, I. P. C. and section 5 (2) provision of Corruption Act. In this case also Inspector Ram Kirath Singh (Investigating Officer of the present case) was a trap witness and was examined as P. W. 2 in the said case. His evidence was not accepted by the court. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that vigilance Inspector Rajveer Singh and Bahadur Singh and Ram Kirath Singh had formed a causes and waned to demoralise the reader and other officials of the courts at Kanpur for ulterior purpose. The submission of the learned for the appellant cannot be said to be without foundation. At any rate adverse comments on these trap witnesses have been made by various courts and their trap evidence was rejected. This detracts the credibility of the trap witnesses produced in the present case. After closely scrutinising the evidence of P. W. Rajveer Singh and P. W. Bahadur Singh I am not inclined to accept their testimonies as truthful. In my opinion, the defence of the appellant is reasonable and probable and nearer to truth. I am of the view that in all probability the amount of Rs. 50. 00 was due on Dwarika Prasad because the wrist watch belonging to the appellant was lost by him and the amount of Rs. 50. 00 was to be paid to the appellant on that score. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant, who is entitled to the clear acquittal. ( 12 ) IN the result, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are set aside. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed. .