JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.5.82 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Jodhpur convicting the appellant of offence under Section 161 I.P.C. and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1 )(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to undergo 3 months R.l. and to pay a fine of Rs. 50, in default of payment, to further undergo one months S.I. 2. The prosecution case is that on 10.1.1979 P.W. 2 Magraj submitted a written complaint before the Deputy Superintendent, Anti Corruption, Pali stating that about 15 days back he had taken a water meter under the Domestic Distribution Plan. He had deposited Rs. 70/- but he did not obtain, any receipt. On 10th January, 1979 at about 9.30 a.m., accused Shamsoodeen served a notice Ex.P/8, whereby he was informed that he was utilising the water for the construction purpose and, therefore, he was asked to get water meter on the line, otherwise, he will be charged @ 3% of the cost for construction of the building, or the water connection shall be disconnected. At the time of serving the notice, the accused told him that if he wants to get notice get discharged, he will required to pay a sum of Rs. 100/-. The complainant said that he will make the payment in the evening. As he Was not interested in paying the bribe therefore, he reported the matter to the Anti Corruption Department. The Department registered a case and laid trap. P.W. 1 Hemraj and P.W. 2 Sumer Singh were called. A sum of Rs. 100/- were taken from the complainant and a Panchnama was prepared, in which number of the tainted notes were noted and powder of phenol-pathelin was applied. After usual procedure, the complainant was given Rs. 100/-. It is alleged that the said tainted currency notes of Rs. 100/-were paid by the complainant to the accused Shamsoodeen. On receiving the signal, the Police party reached on the spot and after disclosing the identity, recovered the tainted currency notes from the possession of Gajaram instead of Shamshoodeen. Police completed the usual formalities. After usual investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 3. The appellant was charged of offence under Section 161 I.P.C. and of offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1 )(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Police completed the usual formalities. After usual investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 3. The appellant was charged of offence under Section 161 I.P.C. and of offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1 )(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused denied the guilt and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of case examined 11 witnesses. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that the Rs. 100/- were paid to him by the complainant for purpose of purchasing the water meter from Pali. The accused examined P.W. 1 K.D. Sharma as defence witness. On analysing the evidence, the trial court held that the accused appellant received Rs. 100/- from the complainant as illegal gratification on behalf of J.En. Shri K.D. Sharma DW 1. In view of this, the accused was convicted of the aforesaid offence and sentenced accordingly. 4. it is contended by Mr. J.R. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the defence of the appellant which is consistent throughout, and also submitted that on proper analysis of the evidence on record will show that the appellant has succeeded in problising the defence. He has read before me the statement of the witnesses and submitted that P.W. 6 Badrilal, P.W. 7 Sumer Singh and P.W. 9 Pukhraj has supported the defence. He further submits that the hostile witnesses P.W. 1 Hemraj P.W. 2 Sumer Singh, PW. 3 Magraj, P.W. 5 Gajaram & P.W. 7 Sumer Singh who is a Constable, have also supported the defence. On the other hand, Mr. Panney Singh, Addl. P.P. submitted that the sum of Rs. 100/- was received by the accused for the benefit of Junior Engineer K.D. Sharma, which is accepted by Shri K.D. Sharma when he appeared in the witness box as DW 1. He, therefore, submits that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that there was an illegal demand and the same was accepted by the accused. 5. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. P.W. 3 Megraj has stated that he offered Rs. 100/- to Shamshoodeen and told him that he should pass over the said amount to Khimdas (Junior Engineer K.D. Sharma) on which Shamshoodeen told that he may pay the said amount as and when he comes. 5. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. P.W. 3 Megraj has stated that he offered Rs. 100/- to Shamshoodeen and told him that he should pass over the said amount to Khimdas (Junior Engineer K.D. Sharma) on which Shamshoodeen told that he may pay the said amount as and when he comes. On which he, insisted that he should receive the amount. He submitted a written report before Dy. Superintendent in which he categorically stated that the demand of Rs. 100/- was made by Khimdas but, Dy. Superintendent did not register the complaint saying that the same was not in order and a fresh complaint was drafted. He of course stated that said complaint was read over before him and then he put signature. He however, asserted that his complaint before the Dy. Superintendent, Police was not against Shamshoodeen but proved that it was against Khimdas who had demanded bribe of Rs. 100/- for the water connection. This witness has further stated that while giving Rs. 100/-to Shamshoodeen, he instructed him that he should pay this amount to Khimdas (Junior Engineer K.D. Sharma). This witness also stated that accused had passed over the tainted currency notes of Rs. 100/'- to Gaja Ram and the same were produced by him before the trap party. Next witness P.W. 5 Gajaram stated that the Police had entered in his room and asked Shamshoodeen to produce currency notes of Rs. 100/-, on which he said the notes were with him (Gaja Ram). He also stated that before 2-3 day, Magraj told Shamshoojdeen that he should get the meter for him and he will pay Rs. 100/- for the same. P.W. 6 Badri Lal has stated in cross examination that he was also pump driver at village Gundoz. Magraj has approached him and showed the notice issued by-the Junior Engineer. He requested him to get a metre for him. He told him cost of the metre about Rs. 100-105. He also stated that for this, he may contact Shamshoodeen. He also stated that the Dy. Superintendent of Police enquired Shamshoodeen as to for which he had received the money, on which, Shamshoodeen stated that he had received amount for the purchase of metre for Magraj. P.W. 9 Pukhraj a Motbir on the spot has stated that Shamshooeen and Gajraj told Dy. Superintendent that Shri K.D. Sharma, J.En. He also stated that the Dy. Superintendent of Police enquired Shamshoodeen as to for which he had received the money, on which, Shamshoodeen stated that he had received amount for the purchase of metre for Magraj. P.W. 9 Pukhraj a Motbir on the spot has stated that Shamshooeen and Gajraj told Dy. Superintendent that Shri K.D. Sharma, J.En. while leaving Gundoz had instructed him that if Magraj brings Rs. 100/-, he should accept that money, as a metre is to brought for him. He also stated that both the accused persons denied that the said amount was received as bribe. P.W. 10 Lakhpat Ram is a Executive Engineer. He has stated that no officer or employee of the department can purchase a water metre for the consumer. He however, in cross examination stated that the accused Shamshoodeen could purchase a metre for the complainant privately in a situation when the metre was not available in the department. He also stated that in some cases the instructions were given to the consumers that they should purchase the metre from the market. In such a situation, the department permits the metre to be put in pipe fine. This statement clearly shows that the accused appellant at the earliest disclosed his defence that he received the amount of Rs. 100/- from Megraj for the purpose of purchasing a water metre. His version is supported by the prosecution witnesses. This version finds place in his complaint which was unfortunately not entertained by the Dy. Superintendent. In fact, his complaint was against K.D. Sharma, Junior Engineer, but the Deputy Superintendent of Police torn the said complaint and made a case against Shamshoodeen on his own. Thus, I find the defence probable in the facts of the case and reject the prosecution case. In view of this, the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence is not sustainable. 6. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the conviction of the appellant under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act is quashed and set-aside. Bail bonds stand cancelled. *******