Yeshwant v. State of Maharashtra — 1996 DIGILAW 52 (BOM)

JUDGMENT V.S. Sirpurkar, J. – This is a criminal appeal at the instance of the appellant who has been convicted for an offence under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code as also under sections 5(l)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2. At the relevant time, the appellant-accused was working as a Clerk and was attached to the Court of Naib Tahsildar at Deoli, District Wardha.1t is the prosecution case that as such he was working as a public servant. The prosecution alleges that there was a summons issued to the complainant, P.W. 1- Nana Jagobaji Ikhare and his son Bhaskar in respect of a prosecution under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The prosecution contends that they had executed their bonds and they were released on bail. During the pendency of this chapter case, they came to be arrested for the offence under section 307 read with section 34-ofthe Indian Penal Code by Deoli Police Station and, therefore, the Police Station Officer, Deoli Police Station, informed the Naib Tahsildar, Deoli, about the registration of the offence against them under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and requested him to cancel their bail in the chapter case. It is the prosecution case that one day prior to the day on which the chapter case was fixed, the appellant- Yeshwant Majathiya met the complainant Nana Ikhare in Wardha and told him about the intimation sent to Naib Tahsildar by the police and asked him to deposit surety amount of Rs. 2000/- as his bonds would now be cancelled, as he had committed an offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code, during the pendency of the chapter case. It is, therefore, that the first demand is said to have been made for Rs. 200/-. Where upon he (complainant) would not be required to deposit the surety amount. The complainant was directed to bring the said amount of Rs. 200/- on the next date. On the next date, the complainant and his son went to Tahsil Office, Deoli, along with one Motiram Thhar, and furnished fresh sureties in the name of the said Motiram Ikhar. However, the appellant accused gave next short date to the complainant and his son, i.e., only off our-five days. 200/- on the next date. On the next date, the complainant and his son went to Tahsil Office, Deoli, along with one Motiram Thhar, and furnished fresh sureties in the name of the said Motiram Ikhar. However, the appellant accused gave next short date to the complainant and his son, i.e., only off our-five days. On the given date, the complainant and his son went to the Tahsil Office, Deoli for attending the chapter case. However, again the appellant-accused repeated his demand of Rs. 200/-. It must be said that the dates on which these demands have been made are all confused by the prosecution. The appellant-accused, therefore, gave the next date to the complainant and his son in the Chapter case, and on practically every date, the appellant accused used to demand Rs. 200/- from the complainant and the complainant used to pay Rs. 5/- or Rs. 10/- on every date and the accused used to keep the amount in the drawer of his table. Being sick of the persistent demand of the bribe money, the complainant is said to have gone to the Anti Corruption Department at Wardha and lodged a complaint (Exhibit 26). 3. In the complaint (Ex. 26), the whole history of the first summons, of furnishing sureties and executing the bonds, is given in detail. It is further stated that the summons dated 26.4.1983 was served on the complainant and his son from Tamboli Saheb, meaning the Naib Tahsildar, Deoli, and thereafter the accused is said to have made a demand for Rs. 200/-. The complaint is full of the unnecessary details which are of conflicting nature. Be that as it may, in the complaint, the complainant claimed that he was going to pay Rs. 100/- to the accused on 5.5.1983 which was the date fixed for hearing of the Chapter case. It is also pointed out in the complaint that the accused was usually accepting the money by putting it in his drawer. One sentence in this complaint is worthy to note and that is: "He accepts money sometimes directly arid sometimes he asks to put the amount in the drawer of his table secretly". 4. On the basis of this complaint, the police called the two panchas, namely, P.W.2-Kroshna Govindrao Akare and one Ghatole, and in their presence, the complaint was reiterated by the complainant. 4. On the basis of this complaint, the police called the two panchas, namely, P.W.2-Kroshna Govindrao Akare and one Ghatole, and in their presence, the complaint was reiterated by the complainant. Then, the panchas were explained the use of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate solution and it was decided that the bribe money should be offered by the complainant in presence of P.W.2-Krushna Govindrao Akare, the panch. 'The prosecution case is that on this the police party went upto Deoli, and the complainant himself, his son Bhaskar and the Panch Krushna Akare (P.W.2) went to the Tahsil Office where the accused was working. They approached the accused. However, the accused asked them to wait for 10 to 15 minutes, and after 10 to 15 minutes, the accused asked as to whether his work was done by the complainant, meaning whether the money was brought; on which, the complainant is said to have answered that half the work was done and that after this dialogue the complainant, his son, the panch and the accused went towards the canteen to take tea. They allegedly took tea. Thereafter they carne back towards the office. At the office, the accused sat in the chair. At that time again, the accused enquired about Kroshna Akare, the panch, who was disclosed to be the nephew of the complainant. The prosecution further alleged that the accused again asked the complainant as to whether his work was over, on which the complainant replied that half the work was done and then the accused opened the left side drawer of his table and made gesture to complainant with finger and neck for keeping the amount in the drawer. The money was kept there and, thereafter, the drawer was closed by the accused. The agreed signal was given by the complainant by going out, on which the police party rushed. The accused was held by the two constables by his hands. The investigating officer carne. The necessary demonstrations as regards the phenolphthalein powder and the sodium carbonate solution were conducted and it was found that the hands of the accused were not stained. U1timately, at the instance of the complainant, the money was recovered from the drawer. The accused was held by the two constables by his hands. The investigating officer carne. The necessary demonstrations as regards the phenolphthalein powder and the sodium carbonate solution were conducted and it was found that the hands of the accused were not stained. U1timately, at the instance of the complainant, the money was recovered from the drawer. The further investigation was made of executing the second panchanama regarding the statements of various wit nesses and seizing the necessary records even of the criminal case in respect of which the whole incident has occurred. Thereafter the sanction was obtained and the accused carne to be charge-sheeted before the Special Court. 5. At the trial, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of the complainant Nana (P.W. l), Krushna Akare (P.W.2), the panch, and the evidence of the Investigating Officer, Hauma ThakreCP.W.6). There are other witnesses examined P.W.3-Rambhau Ikhar has been examined to suggest that he had stood as a surety for his brother, P.W.4-Narayan Mahadeorao Nile, who was the canteen owner has been examined to suggest that the accused had come to his canteen along-with the complainant, panch and complainant's son. He is however, declared hostile. P.W.5 Krishna Murlidhar Tamboli has been examined to establish the presence of the accused, as he is none else but the Presiding Officer of the Court, i.e. the Naib Tahsildar. Unfortunately, this witness has also been declared as hostile. The defence also examined two witnesses, viz., D.W. l- Kamlakar Date who was working in the said office and D.W.2-Namdeo Hande who was working as Senior Clerk in that office. 6. On the basis of the evidence led, the trial Court has accepted the prosecution version that the accused had demanded the bribe of Rs. 200/-, out of which he accepted the amount of bribe of Rs. 100/- on 5.5.1983. It discarded the evidence of the defence and held that the demand as well as the acceptance of the illegal gratification was established and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused, necessitating this appeal 7. Shri M.R Daga, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused, firstly, pointed out that the whole case lay in a very narrow compass. It discarded the evidence of the defence and held that the demand as well as the acceptance of the illegal gratification was established and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused, necessitating this appeal 7. Shri M.R Daga, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused, firstly, pointed out that the whole case lay in a very narrow compass. He contend that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, like the complainant and the panch (P.W.2) has intrinsic contradictions, and if the evidence of these two witnesses is compared with the evidence of the Investigating Officer, the said contradictions become all the more glaring. According to Shri Daga, there was absolutely no scope to give any credibility to the evidence ofP.W.1-Narayan who was himself a criminal and a court-bird at that time. He further suggested that the demand of the money, which was allegedly made in the market of Wardha, was not at all proved, and further on 5.5.1983 also, it was not proved that the accused demanded the money and actually accepted it. He suggested that as a matter of fact, this was a dear case where the accused could be given a benefit of doubt on account of the fact that, firstly, there was no phenolphthalein powder on the hands of the accused and, secondly, that the money was recovered from the drawer of the accused which did not have any lock or so and which drawer could be opened by anybody. His contention is that there are intrinsic circumstances brought out in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses which the trial Court failed to note, which has rendered the judgment of the trial Court wholly incorrect. 8. Shri V.M. Deshpande, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, very strenuously and vehemently supported the judgment of the trial Court and pointed out that in fact not only the original demand but the subsequent demand and the acceptance of the bribe money was proved to the hilt. Shri Deshpande pointed out that there are some circumstances in the evidence of even the defence witnesses which would render the whole defence story full of suspicions. He further pointed out that there was no enmity between the complainant and the accused and there was no reason for the complainant to unnecessarily and falsely implicate the accused. At least, the defence was unable to explain, according to him, as to why the accused. He further pointed out that there was no enmity between the complainant and the accused and there was no reason for the complainant to unnecessarily and falsely implicate the accused. At least, the defence was unable to explain, according to him, as to why the accused. should have been falsely implicated at the instance of the complainant. 9. On this backdrop, it will be proper to appreciate the evidence of P.W. Nos. 1, 2 and 6, first. The complaint, which the complainant had recorded on 5.5.1983, suggests that the accused had met him after 26.4.1983 and this meeting was in the court where the first demand of Rs. 200/- was made. There is a confusion of the dates in the complaint also because immediately thereafter again the complainant said that on 26.4.1983 he again furnished the surety of Rs. 1000/-. The complaint further goes on to show that on 29.4.1983, an Advocate was taken by the complainant alongwith him in the Court of Shri Tamboli where the accused told the Presiding Officer, Shri Tamboli, about the police report having been received in respect of the prosecution of the complainant and his son and their arrest and suggested to him that the complainant will have to" deposit Rs. 2000/-. There is a definite reference that the Advocate accompanying the complainant, namely, Shri Naik, also had a talk with Shri Tamboli. As per the complainant, the next date, which was given, was 3.5.1983 when again the demand of Rs. 200/- was repeated and it was suggested that if Rs. 200/- were paid, he would not be required to deposit Rs. 2000/- for cancellation of his surety. At that time also, according to the complaint, the son of the complainant was present. 'The complaint further goes on to suggest that on 3.5.1983 itself, the complainant promised the accused that he would pay Rs. 100/- on Monday and Rs. 100/- on the next date and, therefore, the next date which was given was 5.5.1983. It was further suggested in the complete that it was agreed to give Rs. 100/- to the Clerk Majithiya, the accused in this case, on 5.5.1983. It is suggested that even on 3.5.1983, Majethiya took Rs. 5/- from him which Majithiya had put in the drawer of his table. The last sentence in the complaint is rather significant. It was further suggested in the complete that it was agreed to give Rs. 100/- to the Clerk Majithiya, the accused in this case, on 5.5.1983. It is suggested that even on 3.5.1983, Majethiya took Rs. 5/- from him which Majithiya had put in the drawer of his table. The last sentence in the complaint is rather significant. It runs as under: "I am lodging this complaint with you against Shri Majithiya of Deoli for catching him red-handed while taking Rs. 100/- as bribe." It is, however, not stated anywhere in the complaint that Majithiya had asked him to bring Rs. 100/- on 5.5.1983 on which date he would accept those Rs. 100/- as bribe. 10. In his evidence, the complainant (P.W. 1) has firstly stated about this previous history and thereafter has also referred to the fact that about 10 years ago he had approached the Anti Corruption Department. All the dates are very conspicuously absent in the evidence of the complainant. He proceeds to speak about the demand which was made to him at Wardha. He has not even given the date of this initial demand nor has he stated as to where this demand had been made. Presumably, this demand had been made in the Court itself After referring to the complaint and the usual demonstrations, the complainant has contended that he, his son and the panch Akare went to the office and approached the accused where the accused asked him to wait for 10 to 15 minutes and then asked whether his work was over. The prosecution wants this dialogue to mean as to whether the complainant had brought the money. The complainant then proceeds to say that he immediately replied that he had done half the work, meaning thereby only Rs. 100/- were brought the complainant also says that then he told the accused that he would do the rest of the half work on the next date thus, this dialogue regarding the half work is done, or the half work would be done on the next date according to the complainant, took place before the concerned persons had gone for tea. According to the complainant, thereafter they all went for tea and after the tea was over, they returned to the office. According to the complainant, thereafter they all went for tea and after the tea was over, they returned to the office. Significantly enough, the demand was not made at the time when the tea was taken in the canteen when the accused was practically alone with the raiding party. According to the complainant, they all carne back to the office. The accused sat in his chair and the complainant was standing by the left side of the table and at that time, for the first time, the accused asked as to who the panch Akare was his is also highly improbable. IT the accused had taken tea alongwith these persons, including the panchas, the said question would have normally been asked right in the beginning when there was a dialogue between the complainant and the accused regarding the work of the accused, meaning thereby the bribe money. The complainant then suggests that again the complainant asked the accused to give the next date and again the accused asked whether his work was done, whereupon the complainant told him that half of the work was done. It was on this that the accused signaled the putting of the money in the drawer and opened the drawer. Thereupon, according to the complainant, he requested for giving the next date and thereafter the complainant Seems to have gone to give a signal, whereupon the staff members and thakre, the Investigating Officer, entered the room and the members of the staff caught hold of the hands of the accused According to the complainant, thereafter 1bakre showed his identity-card, asked the accused not to shout and started the demonstration with the liquid of Sodium Carbonate, and finding that the colours did not change when the accused and the staff members dipped their hands in the glass of liquid, he asked the complainant as to whether the amount was asked for by the accused and whether the amount was given to the accused and on that the panch told that the amount was kept in the drawer, as per his direction. Thereafter, the amount was taken out by the panch and then the necessary investigation followed 11. Now, on this back-drop when we examine the evidence of the panch Krishna Akare (P.W.2), a whole different story is disclosed by him. Thereafter, the amount was taken out by the panch and then the necessary investigation followed 11. Now, on this back-drop when we examine the evidence of the panch Krishna Akare (P.W.2), a whole different story is disclosed by him. When the raiding party first went to the accused, the panch does not even name the son of the complainant to be accompanying. He says that as soon as he and Nana Ikhar approached the accused in the Tahsil Office, the accused asked Nana Ikhar, whether his work was done. Nana Ikhar gave a reply that his work was done. The reference of "half' work being done and half work to be done on the next date was not to be found in this conversation. According to the panch, this dialogue took place as soon as the complainant approached the accused while as Ii matter of fact according to the complainant this dialogue took place when they approached the, accused for the second time after waiting for 10 to 15 minutes. The panch then goes on to say that thereafter they were asked to wait for 15 minutes, by the accused. Here, the panch has obviously contradicted the complainant. Thereafter, according to the panch, they all went to take tea. Again, here the panch has not referred to the presence of son of the complainant It is only at the last stage that the panch remembered about Bhaskar, the son of the complainant, and has added his nan1e as a person in the canteen having tea. After coming back, according to the panch, the accused sat at the table and asked the complainant whether the work was done, on which again the complainant replied that he had come with preparation. The said dialogue is substantially different from what has fallen from the evidence of the complainant. On this, according to the panch, the accused signalled with the finger of his hand for keeping the money in the drawer, and after the amount was kept in the drawer the panch says, that the complainant went towards verandah and made a gesture with a Dupatta. On this, according to the panch, the accused signalled with the finger of his hand for keeping the money in the drawer, and after the amount was kept in the drawer the panch says, that the complainant went towards verandah and made a gesture with a Dupatta. What was fallen in the evidence of the panch is extremely important, because the panch says that as soon as the signal was given by the complaint, the two constables came and held the hands of accused Majithiya and immediately thereafter Thakre, the Anti Corruption Officer came and asked the complainant to take out the amount some the drawer of the table. It is to be found here that according to the panch, Thakre did not even bother to ask either the accused or the complainant or the panch as to whether the amount was accepted at all and it was given at all by the complainant and nit was given where the amount was. H'Thakre came straightway and asked the complainant, without uttering a sale work, to take out the amount from the drawer, the things do speak for themselves. The panch then went on to suggest that he took out the notes and it was thereafter that the demonstrations were held He does not say that he was made to dip his fingers. All this is completely different from the version given in examination-in-chief by Thakre himself. 12. Thakre (P.W.6) has also given a very queer version. According to also, he immediately came after receiving the signal and as soon as he came in the room, he disclosed his identity to the accused who was then shouting. He asked the accused not to shout and then without even asking either the complainant or the accused as to whether the money was paid by the complainant to the accused, he started holding the demonstration. It is rather strange that even before asking as to where the money was and even before knowing as to whether the money was accepted by the complainant or not, Thakre should have proceeded to hold the demonstrations. It is rather strange that even before asking as to where the money was and even before knowing as to whether the money was accepted by the complainant or not, Thakre should have proceeded to hold the demonstrations. All this goes to suggest that Thakre knew or had presumed that the money did pass from the complainant to the accused Ordinarily, this would not have been of much importance, but the evidence of the Panch Krushna Akhare (P.W.2) that Thakre came and straightway asked him to take out the amount from the drawer adds suspicion to the whole story. 'This suspicion is further heightened because of the very damaging admission given by the panch in this cross-examination. In his cross-examination, the panch says: "It is true to say that when we were sitting in a canteen for taking tea, Nana had gone somewhere else and he again returned after ten minutes." Nana's departure from the canteen is neither supported by Nana nor by the Investigating Officer. Thus, the evidence on this aspect is contradictory. were Nana had gone in those ten minutes, what he did, has not been explained by any of the witnesses. It is, therefore, possible that Nana might have gone near the table of the accused in this time. Though, he refuses the suggestion to that effect and though panch also refuses the suggestion to that effect, the evidence of the panch to the effect that Investigating Officer came and straightway asked him to take out the amount from the drawer of the accused puts the whole prosecution story into terrible doubt. If we, therefore, try to match the evidence of P.W. 1 complainant-Nana, P.W.2 - Panch Krushna and P.W.6- Hanuman Thakre, the Investigating Officer, the story gets shouted in mystry. 13. 'The evidence of P.W. 1-Nana, and more particularly his cross-examination, shows that there are number of improvements made by him on the important aspects. He had stated for the first time that the accused used to demand Rs. 5/- or Rs. 10/- on each date in order to harass him. 'The most important improvement made by the complainant is regarding the initial demand allegedly made by the accused in Wardha, which he had failed to mention in the report. He had stated for the first time that the accused used to demand Rs. 5/- or Rs. 10/- on each date in order to harass him. 'The most important improvement made by the complainant is regarding the initial demand allegedly made by the accused in Wardha, which he had failed to mention in the report. He has also not mentioned in the report that the accused met him one day earlier to the date of Chapter case and he used to demand five or ten rupees on each date of hearing. It is very strange that on two or three occasions the advocate of the complainant was with him. However, he has admitted that he did not disclose to his advocate that the accused demanded the amount from him. A suggestion has been given to the complainant Nana (P.W. 1) that while they were sitting in the canteen, he had gone out from canteen under the pretext of making water. He has very specifically denied this suggestion, though the panch has accepted the said position. I have already pointed out from the evidence of P.W.2, Krushna Akare, the punch, that the evidence of P.W. 2, insofar as the material particulars are concerned, does not match with that of the complainant Practically on an the aspect, the evidence has gone counter. In his cross-examination, the panch has admitted that he did not even remember the denomination of currency notes which were with Nana Ikhar, besides the trap-amount It is to be noted that both these witnesses have admittedly candidly that the accused was shouting. The shouts of the accused would also go a long way to suggest his immediate behaviour. 'The failure on the part of the prosecution to explain the whereabouts of Nan a during the time when the party was sitting in the canteen taking tea, would also go a long way in favour of the defence. The panchanama No.2 also does not support the version of the Panch Krishna Akare (P.W.2). A still third story emerges from this panchanama wherein it is stated that after the accused was held by the police constables, the Police Inspector Thakre came upto the accused, disclosed his identity as an Inspector, tried to show tile identity card and asked him not to shout, since the accused was shouting. A still third story emerges from this panchanama wherein it is stated that after the accused was held by the police constables, the Police Inspector Thakre came upto the accused, disclosed his identity as an Inspector, tried to show tile identity card and asked him not to shout, since the accused was shouting. Here also, strangely enough, then the demonstrations were done and an the persons, viz., the Inspector, Panchas and the raiding party dipped their fingers and the solution did not turn purple. If according to the panch, he had, at the dictates of Thakre, right in beginning immediately after his arrival, taken out the money, it is storage that the solution of Sodium Carbonate did not turn violet. Some explanation was tried to be given that because of long lapse of time, there were discrepancies in the evidence of panch, the Investigating Officer and the complainant. One can understand of the normal discrepancies but sometimes the truth has a tendency to emerge itself. The panch's statement that as soon as the accused was approached by the Investigating Officer, he asked him to take out the notes from the drawer suggests that either the Investigating Officer knew that the amount was in the drawer or there was a definite plan to keep the amount in the drawer. All this raises a reasonable suspicion in the mind of the Court regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution story. 14. There is one more reason why the prosecution story appears to be rather doubtful. In support of his case, the accused examined two witnesses. They are, Kamlakar Date (D.W. 1), a Clerk who was sitting in the very hall, and Namdeo Hande (D.W.2), a Senior Clerk who claimed to be present at the time of the incident. The evidence of D.W. 1- Kam1akar Date is not much of importance because through him, the defence tried to get proved that on 23rd to 25th April, 1983, Majithiya (the accused) was on tour, meaning thereby he had no occasion to meet the complainant at Wardha. There is really nothing significant about this evidence and even if it is established that Majithiya was away on tour, it cannot be said that he was absent some Wardha. However, the evidence of this witness is really of no consequence. There is really nothing significant about this evidence and even if it is established that Majithiya was away on tour, it cannot be said that he was absent some Wardha. However, the evidence of this witness is really of no consequence. What is more important is the evidence ofD.W.2-Namdeo Hande who was working as a Senior Clerk at the relevant time. He claimed to be present at the time of incident. He suggested that he knew complainant Ikhar and that in between 2.20 to 2.30 p.m., while he was working on his table, the complainant Ikhar had gone towards the table of Majithiya, the accused, when he (Majithiya) was not present. He also stated that he asked Nana Ikhar as to what he was doing near the table of Majithiya. He also suggested that as soon as Majithiya clerk came to his table and after he opened the drawer of his table, he started shouting that somebody kept amount in his drawer and hearing him some 4-5 persons came and caught Majithiya. Thus, this witness tries to prove that Majithiya was shouting as soon as he opened tile drawer that somebody had kept the money in his drawer. There is not much cross-examination of this witness at the instance of the prosecution and, indeed, there could not be one because the presence of this witness at the spot was most natural. Very strangely enough, since the statement of this witness was recorded at the time of investigation, tile said statement was tried to be confronted to him. Very strangely, in respect of the omissions, the witness was allowed to be confronted with his own statement. The learned Judge should have realised that the substantial omissions amount to contradictions and where a witness is examined and his statement is recorded, if he comes to depose for tile other side, he cannot be confronted with his own statement in any manner. Whole of that evidence with have, therefore, to be ignored. Be that as it may, the evidence of this witness established that Majithiya, the accused, was absent for sometime from his seat and at that time the complainant had gone near the table of Majithiya and that Majithiya was shouting as soon as he found that money was kept in his drawer. 15. P.W.5 is the Naib Tahsildar in whose Court Majithiya was working. 15. P.W.5 is the Naib Tahsildar in whose Court Majithiya was working. Even he has established the presence of Majithiya on that day. He has also deposed about the facts of the intimation being received by him from the PSO regarding the arrest of Nana Ikhar and his son under section 307, Indian Penal Code. He has also deposed about the bail bonds being executed by Nana and his son. In his cross-exan1ination, he admits that the PSI had requested him to obtain the bonds from Nana and Bhaskar for keeping the peace. He further goes on to say in the cross-examination that he had accordingly obtained the bonds from Nana and Bhaskar as per Exhibits 49 and 50 for keeping peace pend Entelite. He also admits that Majithiya used to give dates to parties of the case as per his instructions and that the case against the complainant under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code was pending from 11.3.1983 till 5.5.1983. In his cross-examination again he admits that the raid stock place at about 2.30 p.m. to 3.00 p.m., when his attention was attracted because of the shouts of the accused. In the cross-examination, the witness admitted that the accused was shouting saying that as to who had kept the amount in the drawer of his table and the accused was then in standing position. Strangely enough, on this reply alone, the witness was declared hostile. It is tried to be proved that this statement in the cross-examination was not in his statement recorded by the police. Now, this answer by itself could not have dubbed the witness as a liar or could not have had the effect of drawing an inference that he had turned his sympathies towards the accused. At any rate, the evidence of this witness does establish that as soon as the accused saw that there were notes in his drawer, he was shouting at that time. The shouting of the accused will go a long way to show that he was really innocent and was shocked because of finding of title notes in his drawer. In Satpal v. Delhi Administration1, the Apex Court has appreciated the evidence of the immediate reaction of the accused. The immediate reaction in this case suggests that the accused was himself startled because of the finding of the notes in his drawer. 16. In Satpal v. Delhi Administration1, the Apex Court has appreciated the evidence of the immediate reaction of the accused. The immediate reaction in this case suggests that the accused was himself startled because of the finding of the notes in his drawer. 16. Be that as it may, there is one more circumstances and that is, the complainant in this case was a court-bird. He himself has suffered prosecutions. It could not be said that the complainant did not know that it was completely beyond the powers of the accused to demand Rs. 2000/- for being paid. Such an order was never passed either by the Presiding Officer or he had ever been asked even by his lawyer that there was likelihood of his having to pay Rs. 2000/-. The complainant, therefore, knew that he never had to pay Rs. 2000/- as he had already executed the bond and also furnished the sureties. There is, therefore, hardly any question of paying Rs. 2000/- and he knew it well. Therefore, there is no point in holding that he would be required to pay Rs. 2000/- which is shown to be the consideration for the bribe. That apart, in that case, the complainant was being represented by a Counsel Under such circumstances, it is unlikely that he would not inform or ask about his liability to pay Rs. 2000/- merely because he was arrested once. That also brings the prosecution case into serious doubt. 17. Thus, it would be really hazardous to hold that the accused demand the amount and the said amount of Rs. 100/- was paid as a bribe or as illegal gratification. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it cannot be said that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, because of the discrepancies in the evidence of the complainant and the panch as also because of the admission by the panch that the Investigating Officer straightway asked him to take out the money which was kept in the drawer of the accused, the prosecution case become doubtful and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt 18. The trial Court has not considered all these aspects in details, which it was expected to. The trial Court has not considered all these aspects in details, which it was expected to. Since the money was never accepted by the accused or it was not proved that the money was ever accepted by the accused, section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act also does not come into play in this case. 'That apart, since the money was recovered only from the drawer without the accused having ever touched it, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. 19. In that view of the matter, this appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is set aside. 'The appellant-accused is ordered to be acquitted of the offences he was charged with and convicted of. His bail-bond stands cancelled. Fine, if paid by him, be refunded to him immediately. Appeal allowed. 1. AIR 1976 SC 726.