Honble TIBREWAL, J. – The appellant, who was a Junior Engineer in Rajasthan State Electricity Board, has been convicted by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Bharatpur u/Ss. 7 & 13 (1) (d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 500/- and one years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- under each count respectively. Both the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine he was further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one and a half months under each count. (2). Shortly stated, the case of the prosecution is that complainant Pooran Chand (PW 1) made a written report (Ex.P/1) to Shri V.K. Gaur, Dy. Superintendent of Police (for short Dy. S.P.) Anti-Corruption Department, Bharatpur on 15.5.1989, stating therein that for obtaining electric connection he deposited Rs. 108/- on 11.5.1989 but electric connection was not given to him. That on 13.5.1989 he again met with the appellant who demanded Rs. 200/- as bribe for giving electric connec- tion but he did not want to give money for this purpose. The Dy. S.P. suspected the conduct of the complainant as revealed from the talks with him. He, therefore, before laying a trap, wanted to verify the facts. Hence, Head Constable Shri Raghunath was deputed by him to go with the complainant and hear conversation between him and the appellant. He was directed to disclose him as a relative of the complainant. As per programme, Head Constable Raghu Nath went to the bus stand, Deeg at the appointed time and date and waited for the complainant till evening, but he did not turn up. He, therefore, returned back without making verification. The complainant again came to the Dy. S.P. on 22.5.1989 and expressed for his inability to go for verification on 16.5.1989 and told his desire now to go for verification. The Dy. S.P. then, asked constable Prahlad Kumar to go with him for verification of facts. Prahlad Kumar reported on coming back that the appellant was demanding Rs. 150/- for giving connection and it was agreed to be paid to him next day in his office. The prosecution story further goes that on 23.5.1989 the complainant came with currency notes of Rs. S.P. then, asked constable Prahlad Kumar to go with him for verification of facts. Prahlad Kumar reported on coming back that the appellant was demanding Rs. 150/- for giving connection and it was agreed to be paid to him next day in his office. The prosecution story further goes that on 23.5.1989 the complainant came with currency notes of Rs. 150/- and two ``Motbir witnesses, namely, Kishan Singh and Ashok Kumar were called there from Sales Tax Department. After completing necessary formalities, the trap party started to lay trap at about 11.50 a.m. on 23.5.1989. At the appointed time the accused/appellant was not available in his office at Deeg to accept bribe money. The trap party, then, went to his residence in Krishna Nagar Colony at Bharatpur and it is alleged that currency notes of Rs. 150/- were passed on to him who put them in an open almirah. On getting signal the police party reached at the spot and disclosed their identity. The prosecution case is that Additional S.P., of Police, immediately after reaching there, asked the appellant for bribe money but he denied to have received the same, though the complainant maintained there that currency notes were given to him out side Varandah. The accused again denied to have accepted currency notes when he was again asked by the Additional S.P. It is alleged that from the almirah which was not having doors, currency notes of Rs. 150/- were recovered and seized vide memo Ex. P/3. The accused was also arrested vide Ex. P/4, Siteplan Ex. P/8 was prepared and after necessary formalities and completion of investi- gation, a charge- sheet came to be filed against the appellant on 27.11.1990. (3). Charges u/Ss. 7 & 13(1) (d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act were framed. During trial, prosecution examined 14 witnesses to prove charges against the appellant. In his statement u/S. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant denied his involvement and examined one witness, namely Devi Singh, in his defence. On completion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. (4). During trial, prosecution examined 14 witnesses to prove charges against the appellant. In his statement u/S. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant denied his involvement and examined one witness, namely Devi Singh, in his defence. On completion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. (4). The learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, vehemently contended that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the essential part of the prosecution case and that there is no cogent and reliable evidence on two important aspects, namely, demand of bribe by the appellant and passing of currency notes to him. Learned counsel read out the statements of the complainant and Motbir witness who have not supported the prosecution case on both vital facts. Learned counsel contended that two motbir witnesses, who were especially deputed for hearing conversation and witness passing of currency notes, have not supported the prose- cution case. Thus, according to the learned counsel, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor supported judgment of the trial Court. (5). I deeply considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel. I also minutely examined the entire record and prosecution evidence to find out whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt against the appellant or not. (6). PW 1- Pooran Chand is the complainant and decoy witness. He has denied that any demand of money was made by the appellant for giving electric connec- tion. He also denied to have given the currency notes to him. As per his statement, he had met a person, who appeared to be a leader, in Assistant Engineers office at Deeg who told him that if he wanted to get electric connection he should accompany with him at Bharatpur. Then, he was taken in the office of the Dy. S.P. where the said man made a complaint of not getting electric connection. The wit- ness denied to have stated anything else to the Dy. S.P. about any demand of money by the appellant. According to him an application was got written by the Dy. S.P. from some one and he gave two currency notes of Rs. 150/- when asked by the Dy. S.P. who instructed him to hand over currency notes to the appellant or put them on his table. S.P. about any demand of money by the appellant. According to him an application was got written by the Dy. S.P. from some one and he gave two currency notes of Rs. 150/- when asked by the Dy. S.P. who instructed him to hand over currency notes to the appellant or put them on his table. He further states that the trap party went in a Jeep to the office of the Assistant Engineer at Deeg. Other members of the trap party stayed near a restaurant, while one man, to whom he did not know, went with him in the office but the Assistant Engineer was not there. He was informed there by a Driver that the Asst. Engineer had gone to his house at Bharatpur. Thereafter, they went Bharatpur at the house of the appellant alongwith that old man while others stayed outside the house. The appellant was in his house and offered cold water and tea to them. Thereafter, he put currency notes of Rs. 150/- in an Almirah which was without doors and lying in the room. He did not have any talk with the appellant about money and before leaving his room he shook hands with him. Thereafter, he was caught by the person who had gone with him and police party also came there and recovered Rs. 150/- from the open Almirah. The witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor. In cross-examination, he stated that 5-6 persons had given application for electric connection. On being asked pointedly that connection was given to him on 15.5.1989, the witness replied that he was unable to tell whether electric connection was given to him on 15.5.1989 or not. He, then, categorically stated that neither any bribe was demanded from him nor he gave any bribe to the appellant. (7). PW 2 - Kishan Singh is motbir witness who was deputed to hear conversation between the complainant and the appellant and also to witness the transaction of passing of currency notes to the appellant. However, he has stated that he remained standing in Varandah of the house alongwith another motbir witness while Pooran Chand and one police constable went in the house. That Pooran Chand took out currency notes from his pocket and put them in an open Almirah which was lying in the room. However, he has stated that he remained standing in Varandah of the house alongwith another motbir witness while Pooran Chand and one police constable went in the house. That Pooran Chand took out currency notes from his pocket and put them in an open Almirah which was lying in the room. Thereafter, Pooran Chand came out side and called the appellant. The appellant came in Varandah of his house. He was wearing `banian and `loongi at that time. Then, complainant Pooran Chand shook hands with him and expressed his thanks for giving electric connection to him. Afterwards, Pooran Chand gave signal by putting hand on his head and the Addl. S.P. alongwith other members of the police party came there. They caught the appellant. He also stated that the Addl. S.P. was intimated by Pooran Chand - complainant that he placed currency notes in Almirah of the appellant. This witness was also declared hostile by the prosecution. (8). Same is the position of another motbir witness Ashok Kumar, who was examined as PW 3. He too, did not support the prosecution case about passing of the currency notes to the appellant. (9). Thus, neither the decoy witness nor the two motbir witnesses have supported the prosecution case on two important facts of making demand of money by the appellant and passing of currency notes to him as illegal gratification. (10). PW 4 - Bihari Lal - Constable was also a member of the trap party. He described the incident that Ashok Kumar and Kishan Singh Motbirs were sent to follow the complainant while other members of the trap party stayed away from the house of the appellant. That complainant and constable Prahlad Kumar went in the house while motbir witnesses remained standing near the gate of the house. Other members of the trap party were hiding themselves in the nearby. According to the witness, he saw constable Prahlad Kumar coming in the Varandah from a room of the appellants house and thereafter the complainant and the appellant came. The appellant was wearing `banian and `loongi and they were standing in the Varandah and talking with each other. After some time, the appellant went in the room while the complainant came near the boundary gate of the house and gave signal. He also states that Addl. The appellant was wearing `banian and `loongi and they were standing in the Varandah and talking with each other. After some time, the appellant went in the room while the complainant came near the boundary gate of the house and gave signal. He also states that Addl. S.P. came at the spot on getting signal and he asked the appellant about bribe money, but he denied to have received any bribe money. He also states that the constable, who had gone with the complainant, told the Addl. S.P. that bribe money was accepted by the appellant in Varandah of the house and the same was put in a Almirah which was lying in the room. However, he admits that he did not see the factum of passing currency notes to the appellant. He also admits that when the complainant and constable Prahlad Kumar went in the room of the appellant, they remained their for 10-15 minutes. Thereafter, the appellant came in Varandah. Thus, this witness also does not prove the factum of passing currency notes to the appellant. (11). Another important witness is PW 7 - Prahlad Kumar. He is a police constable and was posted in Police Chowki of Anti- Corruption Department, Bharatpur at the relevant time. He states that he had gone with the complainant to verify about making of demand by the appellant. That he went in the office of the Assistant Engineer at Deeg where demand of Rs. 150/- was made in his presence for giving electric connection. He also accompanied the complainant to the house of the appellant at Bharatpur when trap was laid. The appellant was in his house and was wearing `banian and `loongi at that time. That in Varandah of the house they were offered tea by the appellant. The complainant, thereafter, was taken outside Varandah while he remained there to Varandah. He could not hear conversation which was going on between the complainant and appellant and he also did not see passing of the currency notes to the appellant. According to the witness, he saw the appellant putting currency notes in an open almirah which was lying in-front of Varandah. In cross- examination he further stated that on 22.5.1989, when they met the appellant in his office, he did not inquire about him. He denied portions A to B and C to D of his police statement Ex. According to the witness, he saw the appellant putting currency notes in an open almirah which was lying in-front of Varandah. In cross- examination he further stated that on 22.5.1989, when they met the appellant in his office, he did not inquire about him. He denied portions A to B and C to D of his police statement Ex. D/1 to have been given to the police. (12). P.W. 11 is the Assistant Engineer, R.S.E.B. He has testified, after seeing service connections Register, that electric connection was given to the complainant on 15.5.1989 and this fact was entered at portion A to B in the Register. The connection was given to him in a group scheme of six persons. Out of them four persons, namely, Jagdish, the complainant-Pooran Chand, Radhey Shyam and Hari Ram were given electric connections on 15.5.1989, while in Babu Lal and Raman were given connection on 2.6.1989. (13). PW 14 is Dy. S.P. but he has not stated a single word about the trap. He admits that he was not satisfied from the conduct of the complainant and wanted verification of facts before organising a trap. He also stated that complainant wanted the trap to be organised on the same day i.e. 15.5.1989 when he came to him with the complaint Ex. P/1. He denied that currency notes were presented to him and he had put his initials as stated by the witnesses. (14). PW 13 is Addl. S.P. who organised the trap. On getting signal he went to the spot. He states that on asking about bribe money the appellant denied to have received the same but the complainant maintained to have given the money in Varandah of the house. According to the witness, the money was recovered from an open almirah having no doors. (15). A careful and critical scrutiny of the prosecution evidence establishes the following facts : (1) The complainant has not supported the prosecution case, either for demand of bribe by the appellant or passing of the currency notes to him as illegal gratification for giving electric connection. (2) The motbir witnesses, namely, Kishan Singh and Ashok, who were deputed for hearing conversation between the complainant and the appellant and to witness the factum of passing currency notes to the appellant have not stated any thing against the appellant. (2) The motbir witnesses, namely, Kishan Singh and Ashok, who were deputed for hearing conversation between the complainant and the appellant and to witness the factum of passing currency notes to the appellant have not stated any thing against the appellant. The evidence of PW 7 - constable Prahlad Kumar is highly suspicious but he, too, has not stated to have heard any conversation between the complainant and the appellant or witnessed passing of the currency notes to the appellant by the complainant. (3) The currency notes were recovered by the Addl. S.P. From an open almirah having no doors and the complainant had sufficient time and opportunity to place currency notes in the open almirah in absence of the appellant. (4) There is also conflicting evidence as to where the currency notes were passed on to the appellant. It does not appeal to any reason that currency notes were given outside Varandah at a open place especia- lly when the complainant and appellant were in a room for a considerable period where currency notes could have been given in a safer way. (5) From the record and statement of the A.En., R.S.E.B. it also transpires that electric connection was to be given under a group scheme and the complainant and 3 other persons of the group were given electric connection on 15.5.1989 i.e. even before the trap was organised. (6) As per statement of the Dy. S.P. the complainant was insisting for organising trap on 15.5.1989 itself and he was not convinced from his conduct and wanted to verify the facts before organising trap. (7) 16.5.1989 was fixed for verification in the presence of Head Constable Raghunath but the complainant did not turn up at the appointed time and place to go with Raghunath for verification of the facts. (8) Then, as per prosecution case, and evidence on record 23.5.1989 was fixed for giving bribe money to the appellant and his office at Deeg, was fixed as venue but the appellant was not available there at the appointed time and place to receive the money. (9) The trap party went to Bharatpur to lay trap when the appellant was not available in his office at Deeg. This shows undue insistence to lay the trap even though the appellant was not available to accept money at the appointed place. (9) The trap party went to Bharatpur to lay trap when the appellant was not available in his office at Deeg. This shows undue insistence to lay the trap even though the appellant was not available to accept money at the appointed place. (10) The only evidence to support the prosecution case is the statement of PW 7 - Head Constable Prahlad Kumar. There is no other independent evidence. The evidence of Prahlad Kumar is not convincing and reliable, besides that he is police man and had no occasion to do so with the complainant when two independent motbir witnesses were already deputed to hear the conversation and witness passing of the money to the appellant. (11) The appellant repeated by denied to have received any bribe money when he was asked by the Addl. S.P. to explain about the money immediately after the trap, and then shows his conduct to be innocent. (16). The circumstances narrated above are not only relevant but are of vital nature striking prosecution case at its bottom. The evidence indicates that the complainant got electric connection on 15.5.1989 along with his associates under a group scheme of providing electric connection. If so, the complainant had no grievance and there was no occasion for the appellant to make a demand of money on 22.5.1989 for providing electric connection. Further, the nature of evidence led by the prosecution about accepting of money by the appellant as illegal gratification is quite unconvincing. As stated earlier, neither the complainant nor the two motbir witnesses has supported the prosecution case. The evidence of Prahlad Kumar constable is quite shaky about passing of currency notes to the appellant and his statement that demand of money was made by appellant in his presence is unnatural and can not be believed. Hence, the judgment and order of the trial Court holding the appellant guilty of the offences is not correct. The onus to prove the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and at no stage it shifts to the accused. Even in cases where defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpable false the burden on the prosecution does not become meaningless. It is only when this burden is discharged by the prosecution that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case. Even in cases where defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpable false the burden on the prosecution does not become meaningless. It is only when this burden is discharged by the prosecution that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case. It is not however for the accused at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecu- tion to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged and even if the onus shifts upon the accused or the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof would not be the same as it rests upon the prosecution. Where the onus shifts to the accused and the evidence on his behalf probabilise the plea, he would be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. Some of the salient features of this case which stand out prominently have been narrated above. The threw considerable doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case and cause grave doubt that the appellant had made a demand of Rs. 150/- or Rs. 200/- by way of bribe from the complainant. It is also doubtful that currency notes of Rs. 150/- were passed on to him by the complainant at his house in the manner as stated by the prosecution. (17). In view of this, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He is to be acquitted. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of appellant are set aside. He is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is on bail and need not surrender. His bail bonds stand cancelled.