JUDGMENT 1. - The learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption), Bikaner has convicted Amar Nath of offences Os 161 163, IPC and of offence under section 5 (i) (d) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the Act'). He has sentenced the appellant with R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for three months for offence under section 161. IPC for offence under section 163, IPC, he has sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R I. for one month; and for offence under section 5 (i) (d) (2) of the Act, he has sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for six months. He has directed all the sentences to run concurrently. Aggrieved, Amar Nath has filed this appeal. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that PW 5 Ripudaman Singh is a resident of village 21 M.L He had an agricultural field in the said village with a tube well appurtenant thereto. Initially a motor of 30 H.P. was fitted at his tube well but he found the same to be expensive and got the same disconnected. lie, thereafter fitted a mono block motor of IS H.P. and applied for grant of fresh ,connection of 15 H.P. This application was moved before the Rural subdivision office of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short. RSEB') at Sri Ganganagar on 6.4 1977. He deposited a sum of Rs. 1853/ as security on 12.5-77 in this connection The case of the prosecution is that appellant Arnar Nath was Upper Division Clerk in the said office of R S.E B., Sri Ganganagar. It was the appellant who got Ripudaman Singh to fill the application form. He was also in charge of the relevant record pertaining to electricity connections in the said office. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 12-5-77 appellant told Ripudaman Singh that if he wanted electric connection at an early date. he shall have to pay Rs. It was the appellant who got Ripudaman Singh to fill the application form. He was also in charge of the relevant record pertaining to electricity connections in the said office. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 12-5-77 appellant told Ripudaman Singh that if he wanted electric connection at an early date. he shall have to pay Rs. 1000/ to the concerned Junior Engineer (for short 'J. En and Assistant Engineer (for 'short A. En') Appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 1000/- on this account. It is alleged that there was sonic bargaining between the appellant and Ripudaman Singh and the appellant is said to have agreed to payment of Rs. 9( 0'- It is alleged that Ripudaman. Singh paid a sum of Rs 450/-. to the appellant on 12-5-77 and a sum of Rs. 450/- was to he raid after the electric connection had beer-installed 4. The case of the prosecution is that necessary electric connection was not installed inspire of requests and Ripudaman Singh went to the appellant on 27-6-77. On that day appellant asked Ripudaman Singh to make payment of balance of Rs. 450/- but Ripudaman Singh told him that he would make this payment after he had sold his wheat-crop. The case of the prosecution is that Ripudaman Singh approached Shri Babulal Addl. S P. of Anti Corruption Department (for short .A.0 D.') on :0-6.7 and submitted a detailed report Ex. P. 15 detailing the circumstances under which the money was being demanded from him, On this written report Sbri Babulal arranged for a trap. He procured presence of PW Bakhtawar Singh and PW 2 Dasrath Kumar. In the presence of these witnesses Shri Babulal got applied phenolphthlein powder to a paper by Shri Peera Ram. He procured one glass of water and added one spoon of Sodilm Carbonate to the water. Peera Ram was made to put his hand in ibis watery solution which turned pink. This demonstration was given with a view to explain the effect of such a solution to witnesses Dashrath Kmar and Bakhtawar Singh. A memo Ex. P. 1 was prepared in this regard. The complainant Ripudaman Singh was asked to produce currency notes Rs. 450/-, bearing Nos. 6AD390697, AE/14 719684, AE/20 397307 and AD/E0 835950 each ore hundred rupee and five currency note of Rs. 10/-each bearing numbers 03E 108820, 2.1B 310353. A memo Ex. P. 1 was prepared in this regard. The complainant Ripudaman Singh was asked to produce currency notes Rs. 450/-, bearing Nos. 6AD390697, AE/14 719684, AE/20 397307 and AD/E0 835950 each ore hundred rupee and five currency note of Rs. 10/-each bearing numbers 03E 108820, 2.1B 310353. 42B 682798, 25K 240257 and 7IG 835503 who duly produced them. Shri Babulal initialled all these currency notes and asked Peera Ram, Head Constable (PW 3) to apply Pherolphalein powder to the notes. The powder was duly applied and these roles were handed over to Shri Ripudaman Singh. Ripudaman Singh was instructed to proceed to the office of the R.S.E.B. and was advised to pay all the aforesaid currency notes to Amur Nath on demand from Aral' Nath. Shri Babu Lal directed the witnesses Dasrath Kumar also to remain with Ripudaman Singh and watch passing of said illegal gratification. He further directed him to listen to the conversation that may be made between appellant and Ripudaman Singh. Some directions were given to L.C. Manak Chand. Ripudarran Singh was told that as soon as the appellant received the currency notes, he should move List hand on his head. After giving all these instructions, hands of Peera Ram were got washed with soap. A memo Ex. P. 2 was prepared in this regard. 5. The case of the prosecution is that Ripudaman Singh and Dasrath Kumar proceeded to the Rural Sub divisional office of the R.S.E.B. Sri Ganganagar along with L.C. Manak Chanel at 1.35 p.m. Babulal himself along with Bakhtawar Singh, Ripudaman Singh and police officials followed these persons at a distance in a jeep. 6. Shri Babulal and party had proceeded in a jeep, while Ripudaman Singh and his party went on foot. The case of the prosecution is that Babulal got the jeep parked out side the office of R.S E.B. He kept guard for few minutes. After eight or 10 minutes L.C. Manak Chand moved his hand over his head, upon which Babulal entered the office premises and reached near front veranda, where Dasrath Kumar was already sitting on a bench. Dasrath Kumar got up and accompanied Babulal to the Consumer Section of the said office of R S.E.B He found appellant Amar Nath and Ripudaman Singh standing in a room in the said section. Dasrath Kumar got up and accompanied Babulal to the Consumer Section of the said office of R S.E.B He found appellant Amar Nath and Ripudaman Singh standing in a room in the said section. Babulal introduced himself to Amarnath and told him that he had come for investigation regarding illegal gratification received by the appellant. According to the prosecution the appellant was nonplussed. Babulal asked Amar Nath to wash his hands with water and this water containing the hand wash of the appellant was collected in two glasses. One spoon of sodium carbonate was placed in each glass and thereupon the colour of water of both the glasses changed to pink. This pink water of the two glasses was poured in two separate bottles and the bottles were do sealed. Thereafter. Babulal asked the appellant as to where he had kept the money received from Ripudaman Singh. Upon this appellant told him that he had kept money in pocket of his pant. Thereafter, the appellant took out currency notes of Rs. 450/- from the right pocket of his pant. These notes were shown to the witnesses who had accompanied Babulal and were tallied with the numbers already noted. The currency notes so recovered carried initials of Babulal. The appellant was asked as to why he has received this money, whereupon he admitted before Babulal that he had received the amount of bribe on behalf of J.En. Shri Subhash Chand Jethi & A.En. Shri U S. Sharma. The appellant was thereafter arrested He on being asked. produced a file from a room of the Consumer Section pertaining to the electric connection of Ripudaman Singh The pant of the appellant was recovered and the pocket of the same was got washed with water and this wash was placed in a glass and one spoon of sodium carbonate was added to the same. The water turned pink, upon which the contents were poured in a bottle and the same was sealed. A detailed memo Ex.P. 4 was recorded in this regard. Babu Lal made necessary investigations, recorded statements of witnesses and sent the three sealed bottles to Central Public Health Laboratory (for short C.P.H.L.), Rajasthan, Jaipur for detection of Sodium Carbonate and Phenolphthalein. In this regard a report Ex.P. 18 was received and presence of Sodium Carbonate and Phenol pthlein in the bottles marked 'R', 'L' and 13' was detected. Babu Lal made necessary investigations, recorded statements of witnesses and sent the three sealed bottles to Central Public Health Laboratory (for short C.P.H.L.), Rajasthan, Jaipur for detection of Sodium Carbonate and Phenolphthalein. In this regard a report Ex.P. 18 was received and presence of Sodium Carbonate and Phenol pthlein in the bottles marked 'R', 'L' and 13' was detected. The papers were handed over to Super ending Engineer R S E.B.. Bikaner for according sanction for prosecution of the appellant for offences under sections 161. IPC and section 5(i)(d)(2) of the Act. He was the officer who was competent to remove the appellant from service Due sanction Ex P.19 was accorded by the Superintending Engineer in this regard. Thereafter, appellant was duly challaned to face trial for the aforesaid charges. 7. The learned Special Judge framed due charges against the appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. At the trial, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses, viz., PW 1 Bakhtawar Singh, PW 2 Dasrath Kumar, PW 3 Peera Ram, PW 4 Mahaveer Prasad, PW 5 Ripudaman Singh, PW E Shiv Hari and PW 7 Babulal. 9. In his statement recorded under section 313, Cr. PC, the appellant denied that he had received any illegal gratification from Ripudaman Singh as alleged. His case is that Ripudaman Singh forcibly thrust certain currency notes in the pocket of his pant which were subsequently recovered from the pocket of his pant. He stated that he was not dealing with the file pertaining to grant of electric connection to Ripudaman Singh or Surjaram. According to him he had told Addl. S.P. Shri Bhulal regarding forcibly thrusting of notes in his pocket. 10. He also submitted a detailed written statement wherein he stated that he had filled the application form of Ripudaman Singh but later on he came to know that Ripudaman Singh had signed the application form and other papers in the name of his son Surjaram. At this some quarrel took place between him and Ripudaman Singh regarding L Form. Ripudaman Singh wanted the same form to be accepted after interpolating the same. At this some quarrel took place between him and Ripudaman Singh regarding L Form. Ripudaman Singh wanted the same form to be accepted after interpolating the same. The concerned clerk refused to accept that L-Form & went to the Accountant & when Accountant was not available, the concerned clerk came to the appellant and appellant also declined to accept L-Form, upon which Ripudaman Singh had some quarrel with him and thereafter Ripudaman Singh went away threatening to see him. His case vies that Ripudaman Singh had very close relations with A En. U.S. Sharma and J.En. Subhash Ripudaman Singh on altercation regarding acceptance of L Form had threatened him with dire consequences. He has further stated that on 30.6-77 when he came out of his room to take lunch, he saw Ripudaman Singh talking to J.En. Jethi, both of whom were engaged in some conversation. J.En. Jethi went away and then Ripudaman Singh came to him and told him that a sum of Rs. 450/- was to be paid to Jethi and the appellant may receive these currency notes and may be delivered to Jethi. Upon this, the appellant enquired as to why the money was being paid He also said that Ripudaman Singh may give money directly to Jethi and he had nothing to do with the money. Upon this Ripudaman Singh forcibly thrust the currency notes in his pocket. Immediately thereafter police officials came there. That very time certain persons, viz., Janak Raj, Radhey Shyam, Mohan Lal and other also came there. His statement is that he did wash bis hands but water did not change to pink. However, after the pant was recovered and pocket was washed, the water had turned pink He further alleged that the relevant memo was not read over to him. He reiterated that he has been falsely implicated. According to him, the dealing clerk of Consumer Section at the relevant time was Shri Mahaveer Prasad, to whom he had already handed over charge on 17-9.76. He had nothing to do with electrical connection to be granted to Ripudaman Singh. He examined OW I Radhey Shyam in his defence.The learned trial Judge has relied on testimony of witnesses Ripudaman Singh, Babulal and Peera Ram to hold the appellant guilty and did not place credence upon the defence evidence or the explanation of the accused. He had nothing to do with electrical connection to be granted to Ripudaman Singh. He examined OW I Radhey Shyam in his defence.The learned trial Judge has relied on testimony of witnesses Ripudaman Singh, Babulal and Peera Ram to hold the appellant guilty and did not place credence upon the defence evidence or the explanation of the accused. He found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that Amar Nath had demanded a sum of Rs. 1000/- from Ripudaman Singh and the deal was settled at Rs. 900/-. Rs. 450/- had been paid on 12-5-77 and the balance amount was to be paid after connection was made. However, connection was not made for quite some time and on 27-6.77 Ripudaman Singh went to the appellant, who again demanded Rs. 450/-. Since Ripudaman Singh was not inclined to pay the balance amount of Rs 450/-, he went to Babulal and lodged written complaint Ex.P 15, upon which the appellant was got trapped as narrated above. Upon such findings, he convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated already. 11. In the present appeal, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and the defence of the appellant was highly probabilised by the prosecution evidence itself. It is submitted that appeal of the appellant should be accepted and he should be acquitted of all the charges and sentence passed against him should be set aside. 12. The learned P.P. opposes the appeal and supports the judgment of the learned trial Judge. He has urged that the corruption has permeated all walks of life and if the country is to be saved from the menace of corruption, this Court should come out with heavy hand on culprits who are responsible for demanding and taking illegal gratification. He submits that the appeal is devoid of merits and should be dismissed. 13. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions advanced before me and have perused the record of the learned trial 14. At the very out set, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since Ex. P. 19 has not been proved by the prosecution in accordance with the law and hence the entire trial of the petitioner was vitiated. It may be stated that Ex. At the very out set, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since Ex. P. 19 has not been proved by the prosecution in accordance with the law and hence the entire trial of the petitioner was vitiated. It may be stated that Ex. P. 19 had been admitted by the learned counsel of the appellant before the trial Judge Ex P. 19 recites that material and relevant papers were placed before the Superintending Engineer Shri Prakash Roop Rai, who was officer competent to remove the appellant from service Ex. P. 19 recites that the relevant facts were brought to the notice of Shri Prakash Roop Rai who was satisfied that sanction for prosecution of appellant should be accorded, and he finally accorded sanction for prosecution of the appellant. In my opinion in view of the provisions of section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code, once genuineness of Ex. P. 19 had been admitted, it did not lie in the mouth of the appellant to say that the sanction had not been proved in accordance with the law. Section 294 of the Code deals with dispensing of proof of certain documents. This section reads as under: "294. No formal proof of certain documents. - (i) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government. (3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed; Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved." A bare perusal of sub-section (3) of this section goes to show that where the genuineness or any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry; trial or other, proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed, provided that the Court may. in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. In my opinion, the learned counsel for the appellant was not right in contending that prosecution has failed to prove signatures of Shri Prakash Swaroop Rai on Ex. P. 19. Faced with this situation, Shri Singhi, learned counsel for the appellant withdrew this objection very gracefully. 1, therefore, do not find any substance in this contention. 15. This takes me to the merits of the case. The prosecution story as detailed already is based on the alleged demand made by the appellant from Ripudaman Singh for the first time on 12.5-77, i.e. on the date Ripudaman Singh had made a deposit of Rs. 1853/ - Shri Ripudaman Singh in his examination-in-chief deposed that he had submitted an application form in the name of his son Surjaram in the office of R.S E.B , Sri Ganganagar. Amar Nath told him that he would not get connection at an early date and if he wanted the electric connection at an early date. he must pay Rs. 1000/-. The deal was settled at Rs. 900/- and Rs. 450/- were paid to the appellant that very day, i.e. on the day the application was moved. In his statement Ripudaman Singh stated that he had paid Rs. 450/- to appellant on the date. he had filed the application of his son Surjaram for grant of electric connection. Upon this, he was confronted by his report Ex.P. 15 wherein he had stated that the initial demand was made on the date the security deposit had been made and it was on that very day that Rs. 450/- were paid. This date was specifically recited as 12-5-77 in Ex P.15. He on cross-examination resided from this story that Rs. 450/- had been paid on 12.5-77 i.e. on that date the security amount had been deposited. He admitted that by mistake he had stated in Ex.P.15 that Rs. 4f0/- had been paid on the date the security was demanded i.e. 12-5-77. He came out with the story that the demand and payment were both made on the date the application was initially moved. This date is given by him as 6-4-77. This testimony of Ripudaman Singh knocks out the bottom of the prosecution case that it was on 12-5-77 that the appellant had demanded a sum of Rs. 1000/- from the appellant and after bargaining the amount of Rs. This date is given by him as 6-4-77. This testimony of Ripudaman Singh knocks out the bottom of the prosecution case that it was on 12-5-77 that the appellant had demanded a sum of Rs. 1000/- from the appellant and after bargaining the amount of Rs. 900/- had been settled and a sum of Rs. 450/- was paid by Ripudaman Singh to appellant. He went to the extent of resoling from his previous statement Ex.D. 3 portion A to B, wherein he had stated that the sum of Rs. 450/-had been paid on 12-5-77, i.e. date on which security had been deposited. This shows that Ripudaman Singh has not stuck to the story that a sum of Rs. 1000/- was demanded on 12-5.77 and the amount of Rs. 900/- had been settled and on that day a sum of Rs. 450/- had been paid to the appellant. Rather he wants it to be believed that all this transpired when he moved his application for connection viz., on 6.4-77. This discrepancy is too vital to be ignored and then it has not been established at all that any demand was made on 6.4-77 or 12-5-77 and a sum of Rs. 450/- was paid on either of these dates. 16. It may be stated that it has been established from the prosecution story itself that appellant was not in charge and was not concerned in grant of electric connection on 18-4-77 or on 12.5-77, when the deal is said to have been struck. PW 6 Shiv Hari has stated that the application for connection was processed by him and he had made 'nothings' Ex.P.10 in this regard. It was then sent to Mahaveer Prasad (PW 4). Mahaveer Prasad (PW 4) was the in charge for dealing with these papers, as admitted by Mahaveer Prasad. Mahaveer Prasad has deposed that he had dealt with Ex.P.8 and Ex,P. 9 and Ripudaman Singh had deposited Rs 10/- in this regard. Order regarding estimate for grant of connection was made on 8.4.77 by J.En. Shrn Subhas Chand Jethi on Ex.P.8. The estimate was received on 14-4-77 and on 15-4-77 he produced these papers before the Accountant. On 15.4-77, Accountant placed these papers before A.En. Upon which A.En. called for a report from the Revenue Assistant. On 10 -5-77, the A En. issued the sanction and on 11-5.77, the demand note was issued. Shrn Subhas Chand Jethi on Ex.P.8. The estimate was received on 14-4-77 and on 15-4-77 he produced these papers before the Accountant. On 15.4-77, Accountant placed these papers before A.En. Upon which A.En. called for a report from the Revenue Assistant. On 10 -5-77, the A En. issued the sanction and on 11-5.77, the demand note was issued. If all these proceedings were over by 11-5-77, there could have been hardly an occasion for appellant to ask for any bribe. 17. This is true that according to Mahaveer Prasad application form Ex. P/8 had been filled in by the appellant. But in cross-examination he has admitted that there were orders that forms of illiterate persons may be filled by the clerks of RSEB. Thus, merely filling of the form by the appellant does not advance the case of the prosecution in any way. The evidence of Mahaveer Prasad goes to show that L Form was presented by the consumer on 17-6-77. Ripudaman Singh deposited a sum of Rs. 1853/ vide receipt Ex. P/I3. Another sum of Rs 10/- was deposited by him vide Ex. P114 on 18-6-77. This witness has produced the papers before the Accountant, who had placed them before the A.En. The aforesaid narration goes to show that at no point of time the appellant was in picture so far as electric connection was to be granted to Ripudaman Singh. 18. This is true that Babulal, Ripudaman Singh and Peera Ram have given the story as narrated above regarding handing over of currency notes by Ripudaman Singh to appellant and the alleged recovery of the currency notes from the pocket of the appellant by Babulal on 30.6.77. However, it is to be noticed that Ripudaman Singh, Babulal and Peeraram are partisan witnesses. Peeraram is a subordinate of Babulal. Babulal is interested in the success of his case. Ripudaman Singh is the complain-ant. Therefore, it would be necessary to seek independent corrohmajoa in respect of the story given out by these witnesses regarding the alleged trap on 30-6-77. 19. I may state that Bhakbtawar Sing and Dasrath Kumar have not supported the prosecution story as given by Babulal, Peera Ram and Ripuda man Singh. Both these witnesses have been declared hostile in the trial court and they have been subjected to detailed cross-examination. 19. I may state that Bhakbtawar Sing and Dasrath Kumar have not supported the prosecution story as given by Babulal, Peera Ram and Ripuda man Singh. Both these witnesses have been declared hostile in the trial court and they have been subjected to detailed cross-examination. The trial court has discarded the testimony of these witnesses and I also see no reason to accept their testimony in support of the prosecution in any way. 20. Shiv Hari. PW 6 is an employee of RSEB, who has been produced by the prosecution to prove nothings Ex. P/10 with regard to grant of sanction to Surjaram. This witness in his cross examination has admitted that Ripudaman Singb used to visit the J.En and A-En in their offices. He also admitted in his cross examination that before the appellant was trapped, there was a quarrel between Ripudaman Singh and Amar Nath regarding L-Form and at that time Ripuda man Singh had threatened Amar Nath that he would see him. This witness in his cross.examination has stated that on 30.6-77, he was present in his office and at that time Ripuda mansingh was giving some currency notes to Amar. Nath and the appellant Amar Nath was resting him and then Ripudaman Singh thrust some currency notes in the pocket of Ripudaman Singh. It is curious to note that 1 this testimony of Sniv Hari was not challenged by the learned PP conducting the trial before the learned Special Judge and the result is that this 1 testimony of Shiv Hari has to be accepted. There does not appear to be 1 anything unnatural in this testimony of this witness. Learned PP tried to suggest that Shiv Hari and the appellant belonged to the same office and Shiv Hari may be stating in favour of the appellant out of feelings of fraternity as belonging to the same cadre. It is regretted that even cross-examination to this effect was not made from Shiv Hari. It is settled law I that if a witness has come out with a particular version, and the version is not challenged, by way of cross-examination, then the version given by 1 such witness has to be accepted. In this connection reference may be made to Jayalakshmidevamma v. Janardhan, AIR 1939 A.P. 272 and State v. Bhola Singh, AIR 1969 (Raj) 219 . In this connection reference may be made to Jayalakshmidevamma v. Janardhan, AIR 1939 A.P. 272 and State v. Bhola Singh, AIR 1969 (Raj) 219 . In Jayllak in It idea V2111: 2.S case (supra) it was observed that ' if, there is anything in a witness's statement is disputed and the opponent avoids asking questions on those matters in cross examination. the evidence in Chief examination must be accepted unless of course there are inherent improbabilities." In State v. Bholararn's care (supra). a similar view was expressed and it was observed that when a party declines to avail himself of the opportunity to put his essential and material case in cross examination it must follow that he believes that the testimony given could not be disputed at all. This is the rule of essential justice." 21. In the present case, the learned P.P. conducting the trial was under an obligation to seek permission of the learned Special Judge for putting questions in the nature of cross-examination to PW 6. He did not avail of this opportunity. The statement of PW 6 Shiv Hari does not I appear to be inherently improbabilised in any manner. He is the witness I of the prosecution aid in my opinion his testimony which is favourable to the appellant cannot be discarded on the ground that be might have I some fraternal feelings with appellant as both belonged to the same department. 22. It may be stated that in corroboration of the evidence of Ripudaman Singh, Babulal and Peera Ram that appellant had taken the currency notes in his hand and his hands had been washed and the water turn pink and was found to contain Sodium Carbonate and Phenol-phthalein, reliance was placed upon the report of the C.P.H.L., Rajasthan, Jaipur (Ex. P. 18). It may be stated that it was for the prosecution to prove that allegedly sealed bottle of the band wash of the appellant had teen kept intact by Eabulal and had been sent in the self same condition to the C P H.L., Rajasthan, Jaipur. The person who is said to have carried the sample from the office of the Addl. S.P. (A.C.D.), Sri Ganganagar ;6 said to to Shri Peera Ram discclosed by Ex. P. 18. The person who is said to have carried the sample from the office of the Addl. S.P. (A.C.D.), Sri Ganganagar ;6 said to to Shri Peera Ram discclosed by Ex. P. 18. Peera Ram does not state in his examination in chief that be was asked to carry the aforesaid sealed sample to the C.P H.L., Rajasthan, Jaipur. He does not claim 11 at 11 e simple had been taken by him to C.13,11.L., Rajasthan, Jaipur. lie sample is said to have been received in the C.P.H.L., Rajasthan. Jaipur on 20.7-77. There is no evidence as to where did tie sample Terrain from the time it was sealed and the time it was taken to the C.P.H.L Rajasthan, Jaipur. Even, Babulal does not state that he kept the sample intact in his own custody and had delivered the sample to Pura Ram for being taken to the C Rajasthan, Jaipur. In view of this position, 1 find that Ex. P. 18. which could have furnished corroborative evidence in support of the statements of Babulal, Peeraram and Ripudaman Singh, cannot he used against the appellant in any manner. 23. It is well settled law that testimony of one partisan witness cannot be pressed into service for corroborating testimony of another partisan witness. As already stated, though Ripudaman Singh, Babulal and Peera Ram unanimously depose about receiving of the currency notes by the appellant after they had been marked and powdered with Phenolphthalein, testimony of these witnesses cannot he a basis of conviction for want of proper corroboration. It may be stated that the only two independent witnesses, viz , Bakhtawar Singh and Dasrath Singh did not corroborate the story set up by Babulal, Peera Ram and Ripudaman Singh. I In Jai Ram Lakhe v. Stare of Punjab, AIR CAR 181 (SC) . when there I were no independent witnesses in support of the alleged recoveries, the evidence was discarded and it was held that it was sufficient to raise a I serious doubt about the guilt of the appellant. 24. It may be stated that in the present case, there was no occasion at all for the appellant to demand bribe from Ripudaman Singh inasmuch as the prosecution has not been able to prove that he was in any manner dealing with the concerned file at all. 24. It may be stated that in the present case, there was no occasion at all for the appellant to demand bribe from Ripudaman Singh inasmuch as the prosecution has not been able to prove that he was in any manner dealing with the concerned file at all. When it is so, it is surprising that appellant would have demanded and accepted bribe on behalf of J.En. and A. En. It has not been shown that the appellant had been friendly with the J.En. or the A En. so as to enable him to demand bribe on behalf of the two officials. 25. On the contrary. it appears that Ripudaman Singh was friendly with J En. and A.En. and the application of Ripudaman Singh was processed without any objection by them even though Ripudaman Singh had applied in the name of Surja Ram. Documents placed by prosecution on record, viz , Ex.P. 10, Ex.P. 11, Ex. P. 12 and Ex.P. 17 go to establish this fact. 26. In the present case, the bound of proof squarely rested upon the I prosecution. The appellant was not required to prove his innocence in the same manner in which the prosecution was required to establish its case. At cost of repetition, it may be stated that defence of the appellant was that he had some quarrel earlier with Ripudaman Singh regarding acceptance of 1-Form and Ripudaman Singh had threatened him with dire consequences and it was in consequence of this that this case was foisted upon him. The explanation of the appellant along with testimony of Sri Shiv Hari read with testimony of DW 1 Radhey Shyam probabilises this story. Radhey Shyam has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 30.6-77, he had come to the office of the appellant, where there was a lot of crowd. Shri Jethi, J.En. was talking to one villager whose name was later discovered to be Ripudaman Singh. Shri Jethi left the office and soon afterwards Amar Nath appellant was seen coming out from the revenue section. Shri Ripudaman Singh wanted to hand over some money to Amar Nath to be given to Shri Jethi, J.En . upon which appellant told that he had nothing to do with this money, which was to be paid to I En The appellant is said to have pushed Ripudaman Singh slightly. Shri Ripudaman Singh wanted to hand over some money to Amar Nath to be given to Shri Jethi, J.En . upon which appellant told that he had nothing to do with this money, which was to be paid to I En The appellant is said to have pushed Ripudaman Singh slightly. His testimony further is that after this the appellant went to Consumer Section and as soon as the appellant entered the Consumer Section, Ripudaman Singh thrust some currency notes in his pocket. Upon this, appellant caught hold of Ripudaman Singh and soon afterwards some police officials arrived there. Though there has been some cross-examination against this witness but nothing has been elicited which may demolish the statement of DW 1 I Radhey Shyam. It is trite law that testimony of a defence witness has to I be considered. The testimony of Radhey Shyam probabilises the defence set up by the appellant, 27. There is one more infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Judge. He has observed that the appellant had admitted before Babulal that he had received the currency notes as bribe. The learned trial Judge used this admission as evidence under section 8 of the Evidence Act. To my I mind, this could not have been done. Section 8 of the Evidence Act reads as follows "Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct. - Acy fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by an any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto. Explanation 1. - The word -conduct" in this section does not include statements, unless those statements accompany and explain acts other that. statements; but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statement under any other section of this Act. Explanation 2. - When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct. statements; but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statement under any other section of this Act. Explanation 2. - When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct. is relevant." This section, inter alia lays down that conduct of any person, an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding is relevant, if such conduct is influenced or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, & whether it was previous or subsequent thereto. The word 'conduct, in this section would not embrace within its ambit a statement given by the appellant to Babulal. Such a statement is inadmissible and is hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The statement of appellant said to have been made to Babulal, would amount to confession of the appellant that he had received currency notes as illegal gratification. In my opinion such a statement could not have been utilised for convicting the appellant. 28. No other point was raised before me. 29. In view of what I have stated above, I accept this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Judge and acquit the appellant Amar Nath of offence under sections 161, 163, IPC and Sec. f(1)(d)(2) of the Act by extending him benefit of doubt. The fine if paid shall be refunded to him in accordance with law. The appellant is on bail and he need not surrender to his bail bonds. His bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******