JUDGMENT R.L. KHURANA, J.—The appellant stands convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge, Una in corruption case No. 4 of 1991, vide judgment dated 7-9-1993, asunder :- (i) Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, for the offence under Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the Act; and (ii) Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, for the offence under Section 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2) of the Act. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months on each count. By virtue of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the learned Special Judge. 2. The prosecution story, briefly, may be thus stated. In the month of August 1990, the appellant was posted as Patwari (Settlement) at Main" in District Una. PW 1 Banta Ram is a resident of village Mairi. He owned 4 kanals 12 marias of land in the said village. Out of this land, he intended to sell one kanal of land to one Dhani Ram. For this purpose, he required a copy of the latest Jamabandi and five years average price of land in the area. On 9-8-1990, he along with PW 2 Uttam Chand, went to the appellant for obtaining the necessary copies of the revenue record. The appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 400/-, as illegal gratification for supplying the requisite copeis. PW 1 Banta Ram offered Rs. 100/ there and then to the appellant with a promise that the remaining amount would be paid later on, since he was not possessed of the requisite amount then. The appellant did not agree to the offer made by PW 1 and impressed upon him that the copies would be supplied only on payment of the entire amount. PW 1 Banta Ram accordingly returned telling the appellant that he would come again with the money. From Mairi PW 1 Banta Ram accompanied by PW 2 Uttam Chand came straight to Una and lodged the necessary report with the Anti-Corruption Unit, on the basis of which a case came to be registered under Section 7 of the Act, vide FIR No. 3 of 1990 (EX. PA). 3. From Mairi PW 1 Banta Ram accompanied by PW 2 Uttam Chand came straight to Una and lodged the necessary report with the Anti-Corruption Unit, on the basis of which a case came to be registered under Section 7 of the Act, vide FIR No. 3 of 1990 (EX. PA). 3. After the registration of the case, PW 1 Banta Ram on the asking of PW 8, Inspector Chain Singh of Anti-Corruption Unit, Una, produced four hundred rupees notes. Such notes were treated with Phenolphthalein powder. Their numbers were noted down and handed back to PW 1 Banta Ram, who put them in the front pocket of his shirt. PW 1 was directed not to touch the notes or to shake hand with anyone. He was further instructed to hand over such treated notes to the appellant only on demand and not otherwise. A demonstration regarding the reaction of Phenolphathalein powder and Sodium Carbonate powder was given to the members of the raiding party in the presence of PW 1 and PW 2. Both the powders were diluted in clean water. There was no change in the colour. However, when the two solutions were mixed together, the colour of such mixed solution turned pink. A memo, Ex. PB, regarding such demonstration was prepared. The hands of all the members of the raiding party including PW 1 and PW 2 were got washed with clean water. PW 2 Uttam Chand was asked to accompany PW 1 Banta Ram and to act as a shadow witness. He was further directed to hear the coversation between the appellant and PW 1 and to watch the events and to give the signal to the police party by moving his hand on his face and head after the treated currency notes were handed over by PW 1 Banta Ram to the appellant. 4. The raiding party then proceeded to Mairi from Una, in a Jeep. The party abandoned the Jeep near Gurdwara Manji Sahib. PW 1 Banta Ram accompanied by PW 1 Uttam Chand started walking towards the Patwarkhana. They were being followed by the police party by keeping a reasonable distance. The police party hid itself in a maize field near the Patwarkhana, while PW 1 Banta Ram and PW 2 Uttam Chand went inside the Patwarkhana. The appellant was present and was found working in his office. They were being followed by the police party by keeping a reasonable distance. The police party hid itself in a maize field near the Patwarkhana, while PW 1 Banta Ram and PW 2 Uttam Chand went inside the Patwarkhana. The appellant was present and was found working in his office. PW 1 Banta Ram enquired from the appellant, if the copies asked for by him were ready. The appellant in return asked PW 1, if he had brought the money. On receiving an answer in the affirmative, the appellant left the work he was doing and started preparing the copies of the documents as required by PW 1. After completing the copies, he asked for the money. The treated currency notes were then handed over to him by PW 1. The appellant after taking the money, counted the notes and put the same in his handbag, which was lying by his side. PW 1 Uttam Chand then went out of the Patwarkhana and gave the requisite signal to the police party. On receiving the signal, the party entered the Patwarkhana. The hands of the appellant were immediately secured by catching hold of him by the wrists. PW 8, Inspector Chain Singh, disclosed his identity. The appellant became nervous and started trembling. The appellant was made to wash his hands in a "Thali" with clean water. The colour of such hand wash did not change. However, when Sodium Carbonate solution was added to such hand-wash, its colour turned pink. The handwash was then transferred to a nip, sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex. P.C. 5. The appellant was then asked to produce the currency notes, which he produced after taking them out from his handbag. On such notes having produced, PW 8 tallied the numbers of the notes with the numbers recorded earlier in the memo prepared at Una. The notes were then kept in an envelope and sealed. The handbag of the appellant was separately sealed and taken into possession. The police also took into possession the copies of jamabandi Ex. PE and PF and five years average price Ex. PG which had been prepared by the appellant for being supplied to PW 1 Banta Ram. A receipt book on its having been produced by the appellant was also taken into possession by the police. 6. The police also took into possession the copies of jamabandi Ex. PE and PF and five years average price Ex. PG which had been prepared by the appellant for being supplied to PW 1 Banta Ram. A receipt book on its having been produced by the appellant was also taken into possession by the police. 6. Thus, on a case having been found against the appellant for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, he was accordingly arrested and after obtaining the requisite sanction for his proseuction, he was charged and sent up for trial. 7. The appellant did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case in order to bring home the offences against the appellant examined eight witnesses in all. 8. The case set up in defence by the appellant as is made out in the answer to question No. 25 of his statement recorded under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, is to the following effect: "I am innocent. I did not demand bribe from Banta Ram. I also did not accept the bribe from him nor it was recovered from me. I am family man and have clean records. Banta Ram has only 4 kanal 12 marlas land in village Mairi, He has no other land. Banta Ram is landless person. A person who is landless cannot sell land. If such a person wants to sell land then I am to make a note to the effect that the vendor is landless person. Then the Sub-Registrar will not register the sale deed. Banta Ram, Uttam Chand and Dhani Ram are friends and very thick and thin with each other. They are one party. In the year 1985 Uttam Chand PW purchased land measuring 2 kanal from Dhani Ram PW, bearing Khasra No. 2592. Khasra Nos. 2586, 2592, 2593, 2593 are near to each other. The area of khasra Nos. 2586 is 88 karams in the revenue papers but in fact at the spot its area is about 115 karams. Uttam Chand pressed me to add excess area of khasra No. 2586 into his land of khasra No. 2592, as I was Patwari Bandobast and conducted the measurements in the village. Banta Ram and one person from Punjab came to me. Uttam Chand pressed me to add excess area of khasra No. 2586 into his land of khasra No. 2592, as I was Patwari Bandobast and conducted the measurements in the village. Banta Ram and one person from Punjab came to me. Banta Ram stated that he wanted to sell that land to that man. I stated that I will make note that he is landless man. I had altercation with Banta Ram PW. Banta Ram and Uttam Chand are police associates. They used to be witness for the police in number of cases. There is historic Gurdwara of Baba Bad Bhag Singh at Village Mairi. Many people from Punjab settle there by purchasing land. People used to sell land at high rates. In Patwarkhana I keep my residence and kitchen also. I have been falsely involved by Banta Ram, Uttam Chand PWs, Dhani Ram in connivance with the police. I have jamabandi, average cost I also issued the receipt to Banta Ram, who falsely involved me in this case." The appellant examined five witnesses in defence besides placing on record copies of certain revenue record. The oral evidence led by the appellant is primarily to show that PW 2 Uttam Chand is stock witness of the police. The learned Special Judge upon consideration of the material placed before him convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 9. The conviction of the appellant rests on the oral evidence of PW 1 Banta Ram, PW 2 Uttam Chand, PW 7 Head Constable Ram Kumar and PW 8, Inspector Chain Singh. Their evidence has been accepted by the learned Special Judge, but on scrutiny of such evidence closely in the light of other facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that this evidence is not of such a character as to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court. Besides, there are various other circumstances which clearly militate against the prosecution case. 10. The prosecution case suffers from a serious infirmity inasmuch as no independent witness was joined during the course of the trap, raid and recovery. The case of the prosecution rests entirely on the evidence of witnesses who are either interested witnesses or police witnesses. Besides, there are various other circumstances which clearly militate against the prosecution case. 10. The prosecution case suffers from a serious infirmity inasmuch as no independent witness was joined during the course of the trap, raid and recovery. The case of the prosecution rests entirely on the evidence of witnesses who are either interested witnesses or police witnesses. The need to insist upon joining of independent and respectable witnesses in such like cases was pointed out by the Apex Court in Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 91, in the following words : " We must take this opportunity of impressing on the officers functioning in the anti-corruption department to insist on observing this safegauard as zealously and scrupulously as possible for the protection of public servants against whom a trap may have to be laid. They must seriously endeavour to secure really independent and respectable witnesses so that the evidence in regard to raid inspires confidence in the mind of the Court and the Court is not left in any doubt as to whether or not any money was paid to the public servant by way of bribe." 11. In State of H.P. v. Tej Ram 1989 (2) Shim. LC. 9, this Court has held : "It is the duty of the prosecution to join independent and disinterested persons in the raiding party. . . The prosecution could have easily, while on way to the place of the accused, included independent, disinterested and respectable persons of the area and legality for evidencing the trap." It was further held that the absence of any explanation by the prosecution for not including independent, disinterested and respectable witnesses in the raiding party indicates that the incident as alleged had not taken place and it throws a doubt on the truthfulness of the whole case. 12. In the present case, the prosecution story rests entirely on the evidence of witnesss, who are either interested witnesses or police witnesses. PW 1, Banta Ram is clearly an interested witness because he was concerned in laying the trap for the appellant. PW 2 Uttam Chand is also an interested witness. It is in evidence that he had accompanied PW 1 for obtaining the copies of the revenue record. He had not only accompanied PW 1 but rather took him to Una to the office of Anti-Corruption Unit. PW 2 Uttam Chand is also an interested witness. It is in evidence that he had accompanied PW 1 for obtaining the copies of the revenue record. He had not only accompanied PW 1 but rather took him to Una to the office of Anti-Corruption Unit. PW 1 Banta Ram has admitted during his cross-examination in the following terms: "We reached Una at about 12/12.30 p.m. I was not aware of the situation of the office of A.C. Una, but Uttam Chand was aware of it." 13. It is also significant to note that PW 2, Uttam Chand was not secured as a witness to the raid by PW 8, Inspector Chain Singh. He was picked up by PW 1 Banta Ram when he visited the appellant in the morning for obtaining certified copies of revenue record and then to Una for making the report. Besides, evidence has come on the record during the course of defence that PW 2 Uttam Chand has been cited as a witness by the police in a number of cases. This goes to show that PW 2 is a convenient witness for the police. 14. The only two persons, who witnesses the actual passing of the money are PW 1 Banta Ram and PW 2 Uttam Chand. PW 8, Inspector Chain Singh was well aware that PW 2 Uttam Chand was brought by PW 1, Banta Ram and presumably he was connected with PW 2 Uttam Chand and could not, therefore, be regarded as an independent person. Even then, PW 8, Inspector Chain Singh did not care to secure an independent person to act as a witness of the raid. 15. There is no denying that Main is a thickly populated area due to the presence of a well-known Gurdwara. The Patwarkhana is located in the middle of the abadi of Mairi. Therefore, a number of independent, disinterested and respectable persons were available for being joined as witnesses to the raid. No attempt appears to have been made by PW 8, Inspector Chain Singh in this regard. Nor any explanation is forthcoming for non-joining of such witnesses. 16. The Patwarkhana is located in the middle of the abadi of Mairi. Therefore, a number of independent, disinterested and respectable persons were available for being joined as witnesses to the raid. No attempt appears to have been made by PW 8, Inspector Chain Singh in this regard. Nor any explanation is forthcoming for non-joining of such witnesses. 16. PW 8, Chain Singh has stated that after treating the currency notes with Phenolphthalein powder, he had put the same in the front pocket of PW 1, Banta Ram with a direction that he should not touch these notes and not to shake hand with anyone and that he should handover the notes to the appellant only on demand. The prosecution story goes to show that on a demand having been made by the appellant, the treated currency notes were handed over to him by PW 1 Banta Ram by taking them out from his pocket. The appellant counted the notes and then kept them in a handbag from where they were recovered. 17. PW 1 Banta Ram, therefore, had the occasion of holding the treated currency notes in his hand. Surprinsingly enough, after the recovery of the notes, though the appellant was made to wash his hands, PW 1 Banta Ram was not asked to do so. Nor the shirt which PW 1 Banta Ram was wearing was taken into possession. The pocket of such shirt and the handbag of the appellant also were not washed with the Sodium corborate solution in order to show that the treated notes were kept in the shirt pocket and the handbag. 18. Another significant aspect of the case is that PW 1 Banta Ram has admitted that he was not having a sum of Rs. 400/- with him, when he had gone to the appellant in the morning for obtaining the certified copses and that before going to Una, he had taken the money from someone. He, however, could not give the name of such person. Who was the person from whom the money was taken by PW 1? This question has remained unanswered. Such person was a material witness. On the failure of the prosecution to disclose the identity of such person, an adverse inference will have to be drawn against the prosecution. 19. Much stress was laid by the learned Assistant Advocate-General on the recovery of treated currency notes from the accused. This question has remained unanswered. Such person was a material witness. On the failure of the prosecution to disclose the identity of such person, an adverse inference will have to be drawn against the prosecution. 19. Much stress was laid by the learned Assistant Advocate-General on the recovery of treated currency notes from the accused. It was contended that such recovery proves that the same were received by the accused as illegal gratification. 20. There is no force in the contention of the learned Assistant Advocate-General Mere recovery of the treated currency notes from the accused is not sufficient to establish the charge under Section 5(2) of the Act against the accused. The Apex Court in G.V. Nanjundiah v. State (Delhi Administration, 1988 Cri LJ 152 has held that when it is found that no demand was made by the accused and the prosecution has given a false story in that regard, the Court will view the allegation of payment of bribe to and recovery of the same from the accused with suspicion. 21. The High Court of Delhi in Anand Sarup v. State, 1988 Cr. LJ 756), following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, has held : - "In a case of bribery, mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. After introduction of 165-A of the Penal Code making the person who offers bribe guilty of abetment of bribery the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that of accomplice and corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon. Considering the entire evidence coming on the record in its totality, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. 22. Under the circumstances, the present appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the learned Special Judge are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offences charged against him. The amount of fine, if already paid, shall be refunded to the appellant forthwith. Appeal allowed.