Judgement JUDGMENT :- This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed on 18-3-1996, by the Special Judge, Wardha in Special Case No. 6/87 whereby the present appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant/accused is also convicted for the offence punishable u/S. 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. It will be appropriate at this stage to consider few relevant facts of the prosecution case which has resulted in prosecution of the appellant/accused for the offences charged. 3. The accused joined the service in Maha-rashtra State Electricity Board (for the sake of brevity hereinafter called as M.S.E.B.) as a Jr. Engineer in the year 1975. From 1980 till June, 1985 he was serving as a stores officer in M.S.E.B. Kamptee Stores Office. In June 1985, the accused was transferred to Wardha M.S.E.B. as stores officer. The incident in question had taken place in the year 1986 when the accused was serving as a stores officer at Wardha M.S.E.B. Office. 4. One Arvind Shaha (P.W. 3) and his son Bharatam Shaha were the partners of the Firm known as System Electric Control, Mumbai. The said Firm was dealing in electric equipments. P.W. 1 Jagdish Kothari, at the relevant time, was with the said Firm serving as a Clerk. The said Firm used to supply equipments to the M.S.E.B. on acceptance of their tenders. In the year 1984, there was a tender notice for supply of relay pannels issued by M.S.E.B. to its various offices. The Firm of P.W. 3 Arvind Shaha filled the quotation and after acceptance of the same by M.S.E.B., the order was issued to the said firm for supply of relay pannels. It was the practice to be followed while supplying the articles to the M.S.E.B. to prepare a specific drawing and get it verified from the M.S.E.B. authorities and after approval of the said drawing, the Firm used to manufacture the articles. It was the practice to be followed while supplying the articles to the M.S.E.B. to prepare a specific drawing and get it verified from the M.S.E.B. authorities and after approval of the said drawing, the Firm used to manufacture the articles. The articles used to be inspected and after the said inspection, the Company used to supply the goods at various places as per requirement. 5. In the instant case, as per the requirement, 13 pannels were inspected by the M.S.E.B. Engineer at Bombay and those relay pannels after packing in, boxes were sent to Wardha Office in a truck by System Electric Control through P. W. 1 Jagdish Kothai on 15-6-1986. 6. It is the case of the prosecution that prior to the incident in question, in the year 1982 when the accused was serving in the Stores Office at Kamptee of M.S.E.B. Office, Jagdish Kothari had been to Kamptee Office for supplying relay pannels as per the order and at the time of issuing the Material Receipt Intimation (M.R.I.) in respect of the said pannels the accused had demanded the amount from him and, therefore, Jagdish Kothari was knowing the accused. 7. It is the case of the prosecution that complainant Jagdish Kothari (P.W. 1) left Bombay on 15-6-83 with 13 relay pannels in a truck and reached at Wardha on 17-6-86. He delivered the relay pannels in the store room. The employee present in the store room received the articles under challan. Jagdish Kothari approached Shri Nayak (accused) for getting M.R.I. in respect of the goods supplied by him to the department. At that time, the accused asked the complainant to give him the amount @2% of the price of the articles for the purpose of issuing M.R.I. The approximate cost of the articles delivered at the M.S.E.B. Wardha Office was about Rs. 2 lacs. Hence, the amount demanded by the accused comes to Rs. 1000/-. The complainant told the accused that it was excessive and, therefore, the accused ultimately reduced his demand to 1% of the total cost of the articles which came to Rs. 2000/-. The complainant Jagdish agreed to pay Rs. 2000/- to the accused since the accused told him that in case he does not get that amount, he will damage the articles and will report in respect of the same to the superior authorities. 2000/-. The complainant Jagdish agreed to pay Rs. 2000/- to the accused since the accused told him that in case he does not get that amount, he will damage the articles and will report in respect of the same to the superior authorities. At that time, the complainant told the accused that he had Rs. 150/- with him which he could pay to the accused immediately and remaining amount would be paid by Money Order after consulting with the owner i.e. P.W. 3 Arvind Shaha. The accused thereafter signed the material receipt intimation form and complainant Jagdish paid Rs. 150/- to him. Complainant Jagdish went back to Bombay with M.R.I. form. On 19-6-86, he informed P.W. 3 Arvind Shaha and his son Bharatam Shaha as to what happened at Wardha. His proprietor Bharatam Shaha told him that he had received phone call from the accused Nayak. 8. According to the prosecution case, there was a telephonic talk between the accused and the proprietor of the said Firm. P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha asked the accused on phone to send the stores receipt note in respect of the goods supplied. At that time, the accused told to Arvind Shaha that the agreed amount be sent immediately otherwise he would mention in the stores receipt note that the articles are in damaged condition. Arvind Shaha told the accused not to mention about any damages to the articles and he would send the necessary amount. 9. The proprietors of the Firm i.e. Arvind Shaha and Bharatam Shaha thereafter decided not to pay the said amount to the accused and to approach Anti-Corruption Department. Mr. Arvind Shaha approached Mr. Kanse who was at the relevant time serving as Deputy Director Vigilance Branch M.S.E.B. Bombay and disclosed to him about the demand of Rs. 2000 made by the accused. Mr. Kanse told Mr. Arvind Shaha that if the amount is sent by Money Order, it will be difficult to arrange the trap and, therefore, advised him to arrange for payment in person. Mr. Arvind Shaha informed the accused on phone that instead of sending the amount by Money Order, he was sending the said amount with Jagdish Kothari and the said amount would be reached to him till 1st July. 10. On 29th June 1986, the complainant Jagdish Kothari, Bharatam Shaha and Chauhan (person from Vigilance Branch) left Bombay for Wardha. Mr. Arvind Shaha informed the accused on phone that instead of sending the amount by Money Order, he was sending the said amount with Jagdish Kothari and the said amount would be reached to him till 1st July. 10. On 29th June 1986, the complainant Jagdish Kothari, Bharatam Shaha and Chauhan (person from Vigilance Branch) left Bombay for Wardha. Shri Junnarkar met them at Wardha Railway Station. Thereafter, these persons went to the house of Junnarkar at Nagpur on 30-6-86. Shri Junnarkar asked the complainant and others to visit Anti-Corruption Office on the next day i.e. 1-7-86. On 1-7-86 the complainant, Bhartam Shaha and Chauhan went to the office of Anti-Corruption Department at Nagpur at 10.00 a.m. 11. Shri Razzak who was at the relevant time serving as a Police Inspector Anti-Corruption Bureau at Nagpur, was present in the office. Complainant Jagdish Kothari narrated the entire history to the Police Inspector Shri Razzak who reduced it in writing in the form of complaint and the complainant after going through it signed the same. Shri Razzak called two panchas from the office of Zilla Parishad, Nagpur viz. Mr. Khot and Mr. Chandekar. Both the panchas were shown the complaint and also informed about the recitals in the complaint. The written complaint was also handed over to both of them. Mr. Razzak asked the panchas as to whether they were ready to act as panchas in the trap. Both of them agreed to do so. Both the panchas were introduced by Mr. Razzak to the complainant. They were also asked to get verified the contents in the complaint of complainant Jagdish. Accordingly, they enquired with the complainant. Mr. Razzak informed the complainant as well as both the panchas as to how phenolphthalein powder and the sodium carbonate solution are used in the trap. The necessary procedures in respect of the same were demonstrated to all of them by the Police Inspector Shri Razzak. 12. Complainant Jagdish was asked to give an amount of Rs. 1800/-. This amount was collected by the complainant Jagdish from the proprietor Arvind Shaha. The amount was consisted of 18 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination. Shri Razzak asked the constable to apply phenolph-thalein powder to all the currency notes. At that time, the search of the complainant was taken and during the said search one handkerchief and an amount of Rs. 51/- was found in his pocket. The amount was consisted of 18 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination. Shri Razzak asked the constable to apply phenolph-thalein powder to all the currency notes. At that time, the search of the complainant was taken and during the said search one handkerchief and an amount of Rs. 51/- was found in his pocket. The same was returned to the complainant Jagdish who put the handkerchief in his one side trouser pocket and Rs. 51/- in another pocket of the trouser. The constable who applied phenolph-thalein powder to 18 currency notes. folded those notes and then those notes were kept in upper left side shirt pocket of the complainant. The complainant was asked not to touch those notes till the accused demands the same. 13. Thereafter, complainant Jagdish Kothari, Police Inspector Mr. Razzak, Bharatam Shah, Chauhan-both the panchas and other constable from the office of the Anti-Corruption Department started for Wardha in a Matador. At about 3 to 3.30 p.m. they reached near Wardha Station. Mr. Junnarkar, Mr. Bharatam Shaha and Mr. Chauhan got down from the Matador near Wardha Station and remaining persons proceeded ahead in the said Matador. The vehicle was stopped at some distance from the office of M.S.E.B. at Wardha. At that place, the complainant Jagdish and panch witness Shri Khot got down from the Matador and they started going towards the office of the accused. After they entered into the office, they saw the accused alone sitting in the office. The accused asked the complainant and panch to sit down. The complainant asked the accused to hand over the stores Receipt Note. The accused asked the complainant who was the person with him. The complainant told him that the person with him was his companion and accompanied him to learn the work. Thereafter, the accused told the complainant that he had already sent the stores receipt note. The complainant then asked the accused whether he has mentioned anything about damage to the articles as there was already a talk between them. The accused asked the complainant whether he brought the amount. The complainant told him that he brought the amount. The accused asked the complainant to hand over the same. The complainant then asked the accused whether he has mentioned anything about damage to the articles as there was already a talk between them. The accused asked the complainant whether he brought the amount. The complainant told him that he brought the amount. The accused asked the complainant to hand over the same. The complainant took out the amount from his shirt pocket with his left hand and handed over to the accused who accepted the said amount by his right hand and put it in his shirt's upper pocket. Then the accused told the complainant that the stores receipt note was already sent to Nagpur Office and asked the complainant to accompany with him to Nagpur Office on the next day so that he can collect it and can hand over it to him. The complainant and panch Shri Khot came out of the chamber of the complainant and gave signal to the trap party by showing his handkerchief. The members of the trap party rushed to the spot. They caught hold of both the hands of the accused and disclosed their identity to the accused. The accused got frightened and requested the trap party members to save him. Mr. Razzak asked the constable to prepare the solution of Sodium Carbonate. Accordingly, it was prepared. Except the complainant and the accused all the raiding party members were asked to dip their fingers in the said solution but the colour of the solution did not change. The said solution was destroyed by throwing it away. Again the fresh solution was prepared. Then the accused was asked to dip his right hand fingers in the said solution. The accused dipped his right hand fingers in the said solution. The colour of the solution changed to purple. Then that solution was filled in a tested bottle and the bottle was sealed with the signatures of the panchas. Again fresh solution of sodium carbonate was prepared. The accused was asked to dip his left hand fingers in the said solution. When he did so, the colour of the solution changed to purple. The said solution was also filled in another bottle and the bottle was sealed and seized. Mr. Razzak (P.I.) asked the accused to give the amount to panch Concluder. The said amount was taken out by the accused from his shirt's chest pocket and gave it to the panch concluder. The said solution was also filled in another bottle and the bottle was sealed and seized. Mr. Razzak (P.I.) asked the accused to give the amount to panch Concluder. The said amount was taken out by the accused from his shirt's chest pocket and gave it to the panch concluder. The panch Concluder verified the numbers of those currency notes with the numbers noted down in the panchanama No. 1. The numbers were identical. Then thereafter fresh solution of sodium carbonate was prepared and sprinkled on those currency notes. At that time, the purple coloured stains appeared on those currency notes. All those currency notes were put into an envelope and the envelope was sealed with the signatures of the panchas and seized. The solution of sodium carbonate was sprinkled on the shirt pocket of the accused. Purple coloured stains appeared on the shirt pocket of the accused. Then the accused was asked to remove the shirt from his person. Accordingly, the accused handed it over to the raiding party. The portion of the shirt pocket was dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate and the solution turned purple in colour. That solution was also filled in the bottle and that bottle was sealed and seized. The shirt of the accused was also seized under the memo. The search of the accused was taken. In his trouser's pocket an amount of Rs. 2000/-, one handkerchief and bottle of medicine was found. All these articles were returned to the accused after taking note thereof. The fresh solution of sodium carbonate was prepared and the complainant was asked to dip his fingers of left hand in it. On this the colour of the solution changed into purple. The solution was filled in the bottle and the bottle was sealed and seized. Again fresh solution was prepared and sprinkled on the shirt's chest pocket of the complainant. The colour of the solution turned purple. Thereafter, the search of the complainant was taken. An amount of Rs. 51/- and one handkerchief was found in his pocket. Those articles were returned to the complainant. The map of the place of the incident was prepared. The detailed panchanama of all the events which had taken place in the office of the accused was prepared as panchanama No. 2. 14. Mr. An amount of Rs. 51/- and one handkerchief was found in his pocket. Those articles were returned to the complainant. The map of the place of the incident was prepared. The detailed panchanama of all the events which had taken place in the office of the accused was prepared as panchanama No. 2. 14. Mr. Razzak-Police Inspector prepared his own report and handed it over to the constable with a covering letter to carry it to the Police Station. Accordingly, the constable carried the report to the Police Station where offence came to be registered against the accosted. Then the said report/complaint was sent back to the Investigating Officer Mr. Razzak for further investigation. Mr. Razzak enquired with the Joint Chief Accountant M.S.E.B. Bombay about the details of the accused. The Investigating Officer wrote to the Director Anti-Corruption Bombay for according sanction to prosecute the accused. The Anti-Corruption, Bombay forwarded the letter to the technical Director, M.S.E.B. Bombay for sanction. After receipt of the papers, the Director of M.S.E.B. Bombay studied it and after getting satisfied that it was a proper case to accord sanction, the same was accorded by him to pro-secute the accused. The sanction letter was sent to the Investigating Officer through the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bombay. After receipt of the sanction order and after completion of the investigation, the investigating Officer Mr. Razzak submitted the charge sheet against the accused in the Spl. Court at Wardha for the offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(21)(D) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 15. The Special Judge framed charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The said charge was read over and explained to the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty. 16. 15. The Special Judge framed charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The said charge was read over and explained to the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty. 16. Going through the written statement submitted by the accused as well as the answers given by the accused to the questions put to him under Section 313 and tenor of the cross-examination, the defence of the accused is of total denial and that he has been falsely implicated in the crime in question because when the accused was serving at Kamptee office prior to his posting at Wardha, the articles supplied by the same firm i.e. System Electric Control were found to be damaged, and the matter was reported to his superior. Due to this act of the accused the said Firm suffered heavy loss. In the written statement the accused contended that his service record since he joined the service i.e. in the year 1975 is unblemished. He denied to have met the complainant in the year 1982 or thereafter at Kamptee. The system electric control had supplied the articles to Kamptee Office in his absence and the material receipt intimation (M.R.I.) form in respect of the same was prepared not by the accused but by Shri Bhusari since the accused was not present in the office. Subsequently, in the technical inspection some short fall and damage were noticed and after long correspondence, the Firm of Ravened Shaha required 6-8 months time to get the payment. Because of this reason, the proprietor of the above referred firm entertained a bias against the accused. 17. On 17-6-1986 when the accused was in his office, the complainant Jagdish, for the first time, came to him and requested him to give clear receipt note despite of deficiencies and damages in the articles. According to the accused, he then told the complainant that the articles will be inspected by the technical experts and accordingly a report as per actual Inspection note will be submitted. He further contended that there was no question of any demand of amount @ 2% or 1% and there was no payment made by the complainant of Rs. 150/- to him on that day. He further contended that there was no question of any demand of amount @ 2% or 1% and there was no payment made by the complainant of Rs. 150/- to him on that day. The accused has further contended that on 20 -6-1986 Shri Narayan and Balki carried technical inspection of the articles supplied by the Firm. In that inspection they have noticed some shortage and damage in the articles and the report to that effect was prepared by those persons with their signatures and was also submitted to Bombay Office, Nagpur Office on 24-6-1986. Shri Dongare Jr. Stores Assistant prepared stores receipt note as per the inspection of the inspecting party and submitted it to Shri Deshmukh/stores assistant. After the signature of Shri Dongare and Deshmukh, the Stores Receipt Note was submitted to accused as per the office procedure. The accused thereafter sent the stores receipt note to Nagpur Office on 1-7-86 through special messenger. It is further stated by the accused that it is not the practice to hand over the stores receipt note to the party concerned. The accused further denied to have any telephonic talk with Mr. Shaha the proprietor of the Firm between 17-6-86 to 27-6-86 and had never demanded any amount as bribe during the said period. As he had shown deficiencies and damage in the stores receipt note, Mr. Shaha got enraged and to take revenge he falsely involved him in the present case. 18. Shri Manohar, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not only contradictory but the same is improbable. It is submitted that as per the evidence of P. W. 1 Jagdish, the demand was made by the accused for issuing a clear M.R.I. whereas P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha in his evidence stated that the demand made by the accused was for giving clear stores receipt note. It is further contended that P. W. 1 Jagdish has not stated in his evidence that the amount demanded by the accused was agreed to be sent by Money Order to Mr. Nahata at Nagpur, whereas for the first time it has come in the evidence of P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha that the said amount was to be sent to Mr. Nahata by money order. Nahata at Nagpur, whereas for the first time it has come in the evidence of P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha that the said amount was to be sent to Mr. Nahata by money order. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that there is a variance in this regard which creates serious doubt about the truthfulness of the version given by the respective witnesses in the Court. 19. It is specifically contended by the learned Counsel Shri Manohar that there is no independent corroboration coming forth from the independent witnesses in the instant case in respect of the material particulars of the prosecution case. It is submitted that P.W. 1 Jagdish is an interested witness and the evidence of panch witness Mr. Khot cannot be accepted because of his clear admission in his cross-examination to the effect that he was detained by the watchman at the gate of the office of M.S.E.B. Wardha and, therefore, he could not accompany the complainant. 20. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the evidence adduced by the P. W. 1 Jagdish in respect of the demand made by the accused of Rs. 2000/- and agreed by the complainant Jagdish for issuance of clear M.R.I. cannot be accepted because the M.R.I. was factually issued by the accused on 17-6-86 as per the procedure prescribed in this regard. The learned counsel therefore, contended that the story put forth by the complainant in this regard is improbable and fabricated. 21. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the evidence of P.W. 3 Arvind Shaha needs to be disbelieved as there is a total variance in regard to the prosecution case put forth by this witness P. W. 1 Jagdish. P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha in his evidence has stated that there was a phone call from the accused on 17-6-86 informing him that the deal was settled with Jagdish for an amount of Rs. 2000/- and Jagdish had paid an amount of Rs. 150/- and the balance payment of Rs. 1800/- was to be sent by Money Order in the name of Shri Nahata resident of Gandhi Bag, Nagpur. It is contended that P. W. 1 Jagdish in his deposition has not supported this claim of P. W. 3 and, therefore, there is a contradiction in this regard in the evidence of these two prosecution witnesses. 22. 1800/- was to be sent by Money Order in the name of Shri Nahata resident of Gandhi Bag, Nagpur. It is contended that P. W. 1 Jagdish in his deposition has not supported this claim of P. W. 3 and, therefore, there is a contradiction in this regard in the evidence of these two prosecution witnesses. 22. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that M.R.I. Note was issued by the accused and the payment of 95% of the total amount was received by the proprietor of the Firm on 30-6-86. It was improbable that the proprietor of the Firm thereafter would agree to pay the amount of Rs. 1800/- only for the balance amount of 5% for issuance of clear stores receipt note. According to the learned counsel, the entire prosecution case in this regard is concocted and fabricated. 23. Mr. Manohar, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha admitted in his deposition that the material in question was inspected by the technical person and the report was sent to him on 24-6-86 which was duly received by him wherein certain shortcomings were found in the material supplied by the firm. It is, therefore, contended that P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha was aware beforehand that he would not get clear stores receipt note and, therefore, the claim of this witness that the balance amount of Rs. 1800/-was to be paid to the accused to obtain clear stores receipt note, is also totally false. The learned Counsel further contended that when P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha came to know about the defects in the material sent by him as pointed out in the report of the technical committee he entertained the thought of falsely implicating the accused and, therefore, there is a delay of 12 days in lodging the complaint against the accused. 24. Shri Manohar, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence adduced by the P. W. 2 Shri Khot, cannot be accepted since this panch witness was not present at the time of incident which had taken place inside the office of the accused. 24. Shri Manohar, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence adduced by the P. W. 2 Shri Khot, cannot be accepted since this panch witness was not present at the time of incident which had taken place inside the office of the accused. The learned counsel further submitted that the admission given by this witness in his cross-examination to the effect that he was stopped by the watchman at the gate of the office of the M.S.E.B. and was not allowed to enter in the premises of the M.S.E.B. and P. W. 1 Jagdish alone entered into the premises of the M.S.E.B. clearly demonstrate that the story put forth by this witness in his deposition cannot be believed. 25. The learned counsel further submitted that the entire incident in respect of demand and acceptance of bribe money as well as the procedure required to be carried in regard to the sodium carbonate solution alleged to have been taken place inside the office of the M.S.E.B. at Wardha, the evidence of P. W. 2 Shri Khot cannot be accepted in this regard because of the above referred admission by him in his cross-examination. The other panch Shri Chandekar was not examined by the prosecution in the instant case. P. W. 1 Jagdish being an interested witness and even otherwise his evidence is also not free from doubt; the story put forth by the prosecution, suffers from basic improbabilities and the same is without any corroboration. 26. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that P. W. 5 Sharad Deshmukh in his deposition, has admitted that the M.R.I. was signed by the accused on the same day i.e. 7-6-86 and the copy of the same was sent to the Head Office and one copy was supplied to the supplier. The learned counsel submitted that in that view of the matter, there was no need for any demand for acceptance of the amount on the part of the accused in regard to issuance of M.R.I. It is further contended that the evidence of P. W. 5 would show that on 21-6-86, the goods supplied by the firm came to be inspected by the technical experts. The report was prepared in this regard in which some shortage and damage in the articles were noticed. The report was prepared in this regard in which some shortage and damage in the articles were noticed. The report was prepared and signed by the members of the technical inspection committee. The stores receipt note was prepared by Dongare Jr. Stores Assistant on the basis on the above referred inspection report which was subsequently submitted to witness Deshmukh for his signature. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that before, 1-7-86 the stores receipt note was already prepared showing shortage and damage to the articles and the copies thereof were already distributed to the various authorities and this fact was also known to P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha. It is contended that in such circumstances it was impossible to even imagine that the accused would demand money from P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha to issue clear stores receipt note which admittedly was not within his jurisdiction and P. W. 3 would agree to make the payment to accused for the same. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that the entire story put forth by the prosecution is not only improbable but the same is also false. 27. Shri Manohar, the learned counsel submitted that the evidence of P. W. 2 Shri Khot i.e. the panch witness would show that the accused at the relevant time told the Anti-Corruption Officer Mr. Razzak that the complainant was forcibly putting the amount in his pocket and he was not allowing him to do that. The learned counsel submitted that this fact put forth by this panch witness is corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 5 Deshmukh who has stated in his cross-examination that he heard at the relevant time, the big noise coming from the side of wall and a loud voice of the accused Nayak who was talking to the complainant Jagdish. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that in the instant case, the story of planting the amount by the complainant in the pocket or accused cannot be ruled out. 28. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the defence of the accused as regards the thrusting of currency note in his pocket by Jagdish is probable. It is further contended that the proprietor of the Firm suffered heavy losses in the earlier transactions when they had supplied material to Kamptee Office and they thought that the said losses were caused to them because of the accused. It is further contended that the proprietor of the Firm suffered heavy losses in the earlier transactions when they had supplied material to Kamptee Office and they thought that the said losses were caused to them because of the accused. They had positive motive to falsely implicate the accused in the crime in question. 29. Shri Badar, the learned A.P.P. for the State, supported convicted and sentence awarded by the trial Court. The learned A.P. P. contended that the fact of demand and acceptance by the accused has been proved by the prosecution by adducing convincing evidence of P. W. 1 complainant Jagdish, P. W. 2 Panch-Shri Khot, P.W. 3 Arvind Shaha, P. W. 4 Kanse, P. W. 5 Deshmukh as well as the investigating officer P. W. 12 Shri Razzak. 30. The learned A. P. P. contended that P. W. 1 Jagdish in his deposition has stated that on 17-6-86 the complainant met the accused in his offence at Wardha and at that time the accused demanded Rs. 2000/-issuance of the M.R.I. in respect of the goods received by the office of the accused from the firm of P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha. It is further deposed by the complainant Jagdish that he paid Rs. 150/- to the accused on 17-6-86 and informed the accused that the remaining amount would be sent by money order after consultation with his employer i.e. P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha. It is contended by the learned A.P.P. for the State that it has come in the evidence of P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha that the accused contacted him on telephone on 17-6-86, 23-6-86 and 24-6-86 and asked him to send the remaining bribe amount immediately. The accused has further informed Mr. Arvind Shaha that if the amount is not received, he may cause some damage to the articles in order to deprive Mr. Arvind Shaha from getting clear S. R. Note from the office which would further deprive him of his payment in respect of the articles supplied. The learned A.P.P. therefore, contended that the story put forth by P.W. 1 Jagdish in respect of demand of the amount by the accused is corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha. Arvind Shaha from getting clear S. R. Note from the office which would further deprive him of his payment in respect of the articles supplied. The learned A.P.P. therefore, contended that the story put forth by P.W. 1 Jagdish in respect of demand of the amount by the accused is corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha. It is submitted that it has come in the evidence of P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha that on 26-6-86 this witness had approached P. W. 4 Kanse who was at the relevant time Deputy Director Vigilance at Bombay and informed him about the demand made by the accused for issuance of stores receipt note. Mr. Arvind Shaha also told Mr. Kanse that he would send the amount of Rs. 1800/- by money order. However, Mr. Kanse advised him not to do so because in that case it will be difficult to lay trap in order to apprehend the culprit. Mr. Kanse advised him to arrange to send that amount with somebody. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the evidence of P. W. 1 Jagdish and P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha is further corroborated by the evidence of Kanse who is an independent person holding the responsible position in the department of M.S.E.B. 31. It is further submitted by the learned A.P.P. that the material particulars of the prosecution case are corroborated by the P.W. 2 Khot (panch witness). It is submitted that P. W. 2 Khot was a member of the trap party and was with the complainant P. W. 1 Jagdish throughout the incident which had taken place inside the office f the accused. The learned A.P.P. submitted that the evidence of P. W. 2 Khot would show that when the complainant and this witness entered in the office of the accused, the accused was alone in his office. The accused asked them to take a seat and thereafter demanded the amount. It is further submitted that the evidence of this witness i.e. P.W. 2 Khot would show that the demand and acceptance of the amount had taken place in his presence while he was in the office of the accused along with the complainant. The accused asked them to take a seat and thereafter demanded the amount. It is further submitted that the evidence of this witness i.e. P.W. 2 Khot would show that the demand and acceptance of the amount had taken place in his presence while he was in the office of the accused along with the complainant. It is submitted that after the amount was accepted by the accused; the complainant and this witness came out of the said office and complainant gave signal to the members of the trap party by waving handkerchief. The learned A.P.P. further contended that immediately thereafter the members of the raiding party came inside the office of the accused, they caught hold the hands of the accused and 18 currency notes were seized from the person of the accused. It is further contended that the sodium carbonate test was positive in respect of the fingers of the accused and pocket of the shirt of the accused as well as currency note. The learned A.P.P., therefore, contended that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the prosecution case against the accused for the offence charged. 32. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined in all 12 prosecution witnesses. Those are P. W. 1 Jagdish Kothari (complainant), P. W. 2 Khot (pancha witness), P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha (proprietor of the firm), P. W. 4 Narayan Kanse-Deputy Director Vigilance M.S.E.B., P. W. 5 Sharad Deshmukh stores assistant at M.S.E.B. Wardha, P. W. 6 Shashikant Ballya, employee of M. S. E. B. Bombay, P. W. 7 Bajrang Nahata resident of Nagpur, P. W. 8 Shahu Pawar Accounts Officer in Telephone Department. P. W. 9 Mustafa Khan (P. S. I.) who registered the offence as per the complaint filed by Mr. Razzak Anti-Corruption Inspector; P. W. 10 Prabhakar Marathe-employee of M.S.E.B. Bombay; P. W. 11 Ganesh (technical Director M.S.E.B. Bombay who accorded sanction) and P. W. 12 Mr. Abdul Razzak-Investigating Officer. In the instant case, the prosecution has not challenged the validity of the sanction for prosecution, for prosecution accorded by P. W. 11 Ganesh and, therefore, it is not necessary for me to consider the same in this appeal. 33. Abdul Razzak-Investigating Officer. In the instant case, the prosecution has not challenged the validity of the sanction for prosecution, for prosecution accorded by P. W. 11 Ganesh and, therefore, it is not necessary for me to consider the same in this appeal. 33. Before I consider the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and the argument advanced by them it will be appropriate to scrutinise the evidence of the prosecution in regard to the material particulars of the prosecution case particularly in respect of the demand and acceptance of the amount by the accused. Though the prosecution has examined in all 12 prosecution witnesses the material evidence is of P. W. 1 Jagdish Kothari, P. W. 2 Khot, P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha, P. W. 4 Kanse, P. W. 5 Deshmukh and P. W. 12 Mr. Razzak (Investigating Officer). 34. The prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of P. W. 1 Jagdish, P. W. 2 Khot and P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha for proving the fact of demand made by the accused for issuance of M.R.I. and S.R. Note in favour of the firm owned by P.W. 3 Arvind Shaha in respect of the articles in question. It is, therefore, necessary to scrutinise the evidence of these witnesses individually and collectively. 35. In the substantive evidence of P. W. 1 Jagdish, he has stated that at the relevant time, the accused was serving as incharge stores officer in M.S.E.B. at Wardha. On 17-6-86 this witness delivered relay pannels in the store room of the office of M.S.E.B. Wardha. P. W. 1 Jagdish thereafter approached the accused and asked him to sign M.R.I. Form. At that time, the accused demanded Rs. 4000/- for issuing M.R.I. Form. However, later on the deal was fixed for Rs. 2000/-. P. W. 1 Jagdish paid Rs. 150/- to the accused immediately and the remaining amount was agreed to be paid after consultation with P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha who was the proprietor of the firm. P. W. 1 Jagdish in his evidence further stated that after the payment of Rs. 150/- made to the accused by this witness, the accused signed the M.R.I. Form, which was handed over to the complainant P. W. 1, by the accused immediately on the same day i.e. 17-6-86. The complainant thereafter went back to Bombay with the said M.R.I. Form. 36. 150/- made to the accused by this witness, the accused signed the M.R.I. Form, which was handed over to the complainant P. W. 1, by the accused immediately on the same day i.e. 17-6-86. The complainant thereafter went back to Bombay with the said M.R.I. Form. 36. It is necessary at this stage to consider the procedure involved in issuing M.R.I. Form then prevalent in the office of M.S.E.B. Wardha. The same is also explained by P. W. 1 Jagdish in his cross-examination. In the cross-examination of P. W. 1 Jagdish has stated that the Station Officer was the head of the stores at Wardha M.S.E.B. Office. There were two stores assistants and one store superintendent who were subordinate to the stores officer. The subordinate officer used to receive the goods in packages in challan. The subordinate officer also used to prepare and fill M.R. I. Form and the stores officer thereafter was only required to sign the said M. R. I. Form. In view of the procedure explained and stated by P. W. 1 Jagdish in his cross-examination regarding issuance of M.R.I. Form, it is clear that all the necessary formalities in this regard are required to be done by the subordinate officers including filling of M.R.I. Form and the Stores Officer was only required to sign the same. It is pertinent to note that P. W. 1 complainant being an employee of the said firm was not only aware of the procedure of issuance of M.R.I. Form but also had a practical experience in respect of the same, since he was doing that job for quite some time even before the incident in question. 37. After going through the evidence of this witness, it is quite clear that on 17-6-86 the complainant delivered the articles in the stores of the department which were received by the subordinate officers of the department in challan. It is stated by P. W. 1 Jagdish in his evidence that thereafter P. W. 1 collected the challan from the subordinate officer. As per the procedure explained by this witness, the M.R.I. Form was required to be prepared by the subordinate officers including the particulars which are required to be filled in by them and the same was thereafter submitted to the stores officer i.e. the accused for his signature. As per the procedure explained by this witness, the M.R.I. Form was required to be prepared by the subordinate officers including the particulars which are required to be filled in by them and the same was thereafter submitted to the stores officer i.e. the accused for his signature. When the evidence of this witness is considered in its totality, it is self contradictory as well as inconsistent. If the goods were received by the subordinate officers and if the M.R.I. Form was duly filled in by the subordinate officers, then signing M.R.I. Form is a mere formality and there is nothing in the hand of the stores officer in this regard. P. W. 1 complainant was well aware of the said procedure. 38. The procedure involved in issuance of M.R. I. Note and explained and stated by the P. W. 1 in his cross-examination is considered, then there is a clear picture that emerges i.e. the accused did not receive the goods/articles supplied by the complainant firm to the M.S.E.B. Stores at Wardha; the accused was also not connected with the preparation of M.R.I. Form as well as filling of the particulars in the said form. The accused at the relevant time who was serving as stores officer was required to merely sign the M.R.I. Form duly filled in by his subordinate officer and at that stage it is pertinent that he just cannot change or modify the recitals in the M.R.I. Form which was submitted to him merely for the purpose of signing the same. It is also necessary to bear in mind that the complainant was completely in the know of these things. 39. This witness in his evidence stated that the complainant delivered the articles in the stores room of the department on 17-6-86 at Wardha and approached the accused for issuance of M.R.I. Form and at that juncture the accused demanded Rs. 2000/- from the complainant for the purpose of signing M.R.I. Form. This story put forth by the witness in his examination-in-chief is inconsistent with the procedure explained and stated by this witness as regards to issuance of M.R.I.in his cross-examination. Firstly because the evidence of this witness itself shows that receiving the goods and preparing M.R.I. Form including filling the details in the said form, was the job of the subordinate officers of the stores officer. Firstly because the evidence of this witness itself shows that receiving the goods and preparing M.R.I. Form including filling the details in the said form, was the job of the subordinate officers of the stores officer. The accused cannot issue the M.R.I. Form as stated by the complainant immediately after the goods were delivered by the complainant to the stores room of the department. It is further necessary to consider that since the accused is not connected with the preparation of M.R.I. Form, it is difficult to accept the prosecution case in respect of this fact that the accused would demand Rs. 2000/- to issue clear M.R.I. Form in favour of the Firm of the complainant. 40. It is also difficult to appreciate that if the demand was made by the accused of Rs. 2000/- for issuance of clear M.R.I. Note, he would do the job only on receiving Rs.150/- from the complainant especially when there was no guarantee of getting remaining amount of Rs. 1850/- since the remaining amount the accused would have got only after consultation with the proprietor of the Firm-P.W. 3 Arvind Shaha by P. W. 1 complainant and if P. W. 3 would have agreed in respect of the same. 41. It is also necessary to bear in mind that as per the procedure, once the M.R.I. Form is signed by the accused, the proprietor of the firm in whose favour M.R.I. Form is released, gets 95% of the amount of the total price of the goods. It is difficult to accept that the accused though demanded Rs. 2000/- for issuance of clear M.R.I. Note from the complainant, had signed the M.R.I. Form only after receiving Rs. 150/- from the complainant knowing fully well that the proprietor of the firm after getting clear M.R.I would get 95% of the amount of the total price of the goods particularly when there was no guarantee that the accused would get the remaining amount either from the complainant or from the proprietor of the firm. The evidence of P. W. 1 complainant, therefore, in my opinion, is not only self contradictory but the same is improbable in respect of the demand made by the accused as alleged by this witness for issuance of clear M.R.I. Note. 42. The evidence of P. W. 1 complainant, therefore, in my opinion, is not only self contradictory but the same is improbable in respect of the demand made by the accused as alleged by this witness for issuance of clear M.R.I. Note. 42. It will be appropriate at this stage to consider the evidence of P. W. 5 Sharad Deshmukh who was at the relevant time working as stores assistant in the office of M.S.E.B. Wardha. This witness in para 4 of his cross-examination has admitted that the complainant Jagdish Kothari was present with the material of System Electric Control and M.R.I. i.e. Exh. 97 was in the hand writing of Mr. Dongare. There were five copies prepared of M.R.I. He has further stated that in Exh. 97 i.e. M.R.I. Form. This witness further admitted on 17-6-86 the complainant Jagdish arrived in the office at about 11 a.m. and all the formalities were completed till 5.00 p.m. He has further stated that the complainant Jagdish Kothari initially met him and other employee of the M.S.E.B. Shri Dongare and enquired as to who was the stores officer. This witness informed the complainant that Mr. Nayak (accused) was the stores officer at the relevant time. In para 5 of the cross-examination of this witness, this witness has specifically admitted that the representative of the company is not required to see the stores officer at the time of receipt of material. It must be borne in mind that this witness at the relevant time was serving as stores assistant in the M.S.E.B. at Wardha and was fully acquainted with the procedure required to be followed while issuing the M.R.I. Note. The admission given by this witness in his evidence clearly demonstrate that the M.R.I. Form i.e. Exh. 97 was in the handwriting of another employee of M.S.E.B., Mr. Dongare. There were five copies prepared of the said M.R.I. Form and the representative of the company was not required to see the stores officer at the time of receipt of the material. The accused at the re-levant time was working as a stores officer and thus he was not connected in preparing and filling the contents of M.R.I. Form as stated by P.W. 1 complainant as well as P.W. 5 Shri Deshmukh, and, therefore, the evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect of the demand made by the accused of Rs. The accused at the re-levant time was working as a stores officer and thus he was not connected in preparing and filling the contents of M.R.I. Form as stated by P.W. 1 complainant as well as P.W. 5 Shri Deshmukh, and, therefore, the evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect of the demand made by the accused of Rs. 2000/- for the purpose of issuance of M.R.I. Form to the complainant Jagdish appears to be improbable. 43. In order to appreciate the further case of the prosecution in respect of the demand made by the accused of Rs. 2000/- on telephone to P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha, it will be appropriate to scrutinise the evidence of P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha. This witness in his evidence has stated that on 17-6-86 he received a phone call in his Factory from Wardha. The said phone call was from stores office Wardha. The person who was on the line told this witness that he had received the pannels and further told him that he has not sent the money. This witness asked the other person on the line which money he was referring to. Then the other person on the telephone line told this witness that the complainant Jagdish Kothari will speak about it. The other person who was on the telephone line was the stores officer Shri Nayak. It has come in the evidence of this witness that this witness asked the accused during the course of the conversation on telephone as to why the money was required. On that the accused Nayak told this witness that if the money will not be sent then the pannels will be reported as damaged due to water. This witness thereafter told the accused that the articles were in good condition and are not at all damaged due to water and are sent with the special man. The articles were properly packed and were in good condition and, therefore, there was no question of articles being damaged due to water. The accused thereafter told this witness on telephone that he can cause damage to the articles by throwing a bucketful water on it. It has come in the evidence of this witness that on 17-6-86 this witness again received a telephone call at his residence from the accused Nayak. The accused thereafter told this witness on telephone that he can cause damage to the articles by throwing a bucketful water on it. It has come in the evidence of this witness that on 17-6-86 this witness again received a telephone call at his residence from the accused Nayak. At that time, the accused told him that he had a talk with our man regarding money and this witness should pay 2% of the value of the consignment i.e. Rs. 4000/-. The accused further told him that after he had a talk with the complainant Jagdish, it was agreed that 1% of the total consignment cost should be paid to the accused by this witness and, therefore, this witness should send Rs. 2000/-. The accused further told this witness on telephone that the complainant Jagdish gave him Rs. 150/- and asked this witness to arrange to send the remaining amount of Rs. 1850/- by money order. This witness has further stated in his evidence that the accused also gave house and address of a person to whom the amount was to be sent by money order i.e. one Mr. Nahata, Gandhi Bag, Nagpur and this witness agreed to do so. In para 4 of the evidence of P. W. 3 Arvind Shaha, he has stated that on 23-6-86 he again received a phone call from the accused. At that time, the said call was received by his son Bharatam Shaha. His son Bharatam thereafter told this witness that the accused wanted him to communicate to this witness that the agreed amount was not received by the accused and they will have to face the consequences thereof. It has also come in the evidence of this witness that on 24-6-86, again there was a telephone call received by this witness from the accused at his residence. This telephone call was also received by the son of this witness i.e. Bharatam Shaha to whom the accused has informed to expedite the payment. If the agreed amount is not received by the accused, he would cause damage to the materials and will also inform the M.S.E.B. Office to stop the payment. P.W. 3 Arvind Shaha further stated in his evidence that this witness thereafter has decided to approach the M.S.E.B. Vigilence Mr. Kanse and explained to him the entire incident. Mr. If the agreed amount is not received by the accused, he would cause damage to the materials and will also inform the M.S.E.B. Office to stop the payment. P.W. 3 Arvind Shaha further stated in his evidence that this witness thereafter has decided to approach the M.S.E.B. Vigilence Mr. Kanse and explained to him the entire incident. Mr. Kanse told him that it will be proper to send the money by special messenger instead of sending it by money order so that the appropriate trap in this regard can be led. It has further come in the evidence of this witness that this witness thereafter telephoned to the accused Shri Nayak and informed him that instead of sending money by money order, he would send it along with his man. At that time, the accused told this witness that he should send the amount with the complainant Jagdish Kothari. This witness further told the accused that the money would be reached to him near about 1st of July 1986. 44. P. W. 3 in his examination-in-chief has admitted that as soon as the M.R.I. Form receives, it submits the bills for 95% of payment and if the funds are available it gets the payment. P. W. 3 further admitted that submission of M. R. I. entitles them to get 95% payment. It is further admitted that P. W. 3 is entitld to get the remaining 5% amount after submission of S. R. Note. He has further stated in the cross-examination that he would get he balance amount of 5% if there is no defect or shortage mentioned in the S.R. Note. 45. While appreciating the evidence of this witness, it is necessary to keep in mind that the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that the accused in fact had made these phone call to this witness on the day and time as alleged by this witness. Though the employee of the telephone department is examined as P.W.8 Mr. Pawar, his evidence does not throw any light in this regard. In absence of any evidence to that effect adduced by the prosecution, the Court is left with the uncorroborated oral statement made by this witness in his evidence before the trial Court. Though the employee of the telephone department is examined as P.W.8 Mr. Pawar, his evidence does not throw any light in this regard. In absence of any evidence to that effect adduced by the prosecution, the Court is left with the uncorroborated oral statement made by this witness in his evidence before the trial Court. The prosecution in the instant case has also not examined Bharatam Shaha the son of this witness who alleged to have received two telephone calls made by the accused as stated by the witness in his evidence. As far as the communication between the accused and Bharatam Shaha is concerned, the same would be hearsay and is not admissible since the prosecution has not examined Bharatam Shaha to prove the same. This witness in his evidence has stated that the accused in all made four telephone calls to this witness; two telephone calls on 17-6-86 which were received by this witness personally and two telephone calls on 23-6-1986 and 24-6-1986 which were received by his son Bharatam Shaha. For the reasons stated above, so far as the telephone calls made by the accused and received by Bharatam Shaha and the conversion between them cannot be admissible in the evidence, the same is being hearsay, and therefore, it will be necessary to consider whether the communication between this witness and the accused on telephone would be sufficient to prove the prosecution case in respect of the demand made by the accused of Rs. 2000/- for issuance of M.R.I. Note. 46. It has already come in the evidence of P.W.1 complainant as well as P.W.5 Deshmukh that the relevant M.R.I. Note i.e. Exh.97 was prepared by Dongare and was also signed by the accused on 17-6-86 at Wardha. The same was also handed over to the complainant. It has also come in the evidence of P.W.1 complainant and this witness P.W.3 Arvind Shaha that on receipt of M.R.I. Form, the proprietor or the company would be entitled to receive 95% of the total amount of the goods. It has also come in the evidence of Jagdish-the complainant that out of Rs. 2000/- the complainant had paid Rs. 150/- to the accused at the time of issuance of M.R.I. Form and agreed to send the remaining amount of Rs. 1850/- after consultation with this witness P.W.3 Arvind Shaha to the accused. It has also come in the evidence of Jagdish-the complainant that out of Rs. 2000/- the complainant had paid Rs. 150/- to the accused at the time of issuance of M.R.I. Form and agreed to send the remaining amount of Rs. 1850/- after consultation with this witness P.W.3 Arvind Shaha to the accused. After carefully considering the evidence of P.W.1 Jagdish, I have already held that the same is improbable and, therefore, there is a serious doubt about the demand made by the accused of Rs. 2000/- for the issuance of M.R.I. Form in the given set of circumstances and for the reasons stated above. In that view of the matter, it is further difficult to accept the evidence of this witness P.W.3 Arvind Shaha in this regard. Firstly, except the bare statement of P.W.3 Arvind Shaha that there were telephone calls from the accused on 17-6-86 and the accused told him to send the amount of Rs. 1850/-, there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove and corroborate the same. Even otherwise, it is highly improbable that this witness being the proprietor of the Firm and being well aware of the fact that the M.R.I. Note is already issued by the accused and this witness is entitled to receive 95% of the payment of the total cost of the goods; would again agree to send Rs. 1850/- to the accused. The entire story put forth by this witness in respect of the demand made by the accused on telephone is improbable and cannot be accepted. 47. In order to show the corroboration to the demand made by the accused of an amount of Rs. 2000/- from the complainant Jagdish as well as from P.W.3 Arvind Shaha, the prosecution has examined P.W. 4 Kanse who was at the relevant time working as Deputy Director of Vigilance, M.S.E.B., Bombay. The evidence of this witness in my opinion is not much of help to the prosecution except to show that P.W.3 Arvind Shaha contacted this witness on 26-6-86. In the given set of circumstances, it will be too far-fetch to hold that merely because P.W.3 Arvind Shaha contacted this witness on 26-6-86, the demand made by the accused in respect of Rs. In the given set of circumstances, it will be too far-fetch to hold that merely because P.W.3 Arvind Shaha contacted this witness on 26-6-86, the demand made by the accused in respect of Rs. 2000/- stands proved as alleged by the complainant P.W.1 as well as P.W.3 Arvind Shaha in this regard, the evidence of this witness is of no positive assistance to the prosecution. 48. It will be appropriate now for me to consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect of acceptance of the alleged amount by the accused. It has come in the evidence of P.W.1 complainant that on 1-7-86 the complainant, Shri Chauhan, Shri Bharatam Shaha went to Anti-Corruption Office at about 1.00 p.m. Mr. Razzak was present in the Anti-Corruption Office. The complainant narrated the incident to Mr. Razzak. Mr. Razzak reduced in writing the complaint which was signed by the P.W.1-the complainant which is Exh.43. Mr. Razzak (Investigating Officer) called two panchas viz. P.W.2 Khot and Shri Chandekar. They were apprised of the recitals in the complaint. The Investigating Officer gave demonstration regarding phenolphthalein powder as well as sodium carbonate solution. The Investigating Officer told the complainant regarding giving of signal by showing handkerchief to the members of the raiding party those were waiting at a place which was at some distance from the office of the accused. It has come in the evidence of this witness i.e. P.W.12 Investigating Officer that P.W.2 Khot (Panch) was directed to accompany with the complainant throughout the incident. 49. The complainant P.W.1 has further deposed that at about 3.00 to 3.30 p.m. on 1-7-86 the complainant and P.W.2 Khot entered into the premises of the M.S.E.B. Office, Wardha and approached the accused who was in his chamber. When the complainant and P.W.2 Khot entered into the chamber of the accused, the accused asked them to have a seat. At that time, the complainant asked the accused to handover the S.R. Note. The accused asked the complainant as to who was the person with him. The complainant told him that he was his companion who had accompanied him to learn the work. The accused told the complainant that he had already sent the S.R. Note. The complainant asked the accused whether he had mentioned anything about the damage in the said note. The accused asked the complainant as to who was the person with him. The complainant told him that he was his companion who had accompanied him to learn the work. The accused told the complainant that he had already sent the S.R. Note. The complainant asked the accused whether he had mentioned anything about the damage in the said note. The accused replied that he did not mention anything in respect of the damage in the note as there was already talk between them. The accused again asked the complainant whether he brought the amount to which the complainant said yes. Then the accused asked the complainant to hand it over to him. The complainant thereafter took out the amount from his shirt pocket with left hand and handed over to the accused who accepted the same by his right hand. The accused put the said amount in his shirt chest pocket. It has come in the evidence of this witness that the accused told him that the S.R. Note was sent to Nagpur Office and asked the complainant to accompany him to Nagpur on the next day so that the accused can collect the S.R. Note and hand it over to the complainant. The complainant agreed to do so and thereafter the complainant and P.W.2 Panch Shri Khot came out of the office of the accused and gave signal to the trap party by showing handkerchief. The members of the trap party rushed to the spot and caught hold of both the hands of the accused. The members of the trap party disclosed their identity to the accused and seized 18 currency notes and carried out the procedure regarding the sodim carbonate solution. The results were positive. 50. P.W.1 Jagdish in his evidence stated that the panch P.W.2 Khot was with him from the time they entered into the office of the accused till the final signal given by the complainant after the entire incident is over. As per the evidence of P.W.1, Panch P.W.2 Shri Khot was present at every stages i.e. at the time of demand made by the accused in respect of the amount, discussion about handing over of S.R. Note by the accused to the complainant, handing over of the currency notes to the accused by the complainant and giving signal to the members of the trap party by showing handkerchief. In the cross-examination of this witness, he has admitted that the M.S.E.B. Stores Office at Wardha is at the distance of about 300 to 400 ft. from the outer gate. He has further admitted that the Stores Office (office of the accused) was again surrounded by inside compouding and had a separate door. This P.W.1 has further admitted that at the door of the entrance, the watchman was appointed for preventing the entry and one had to give his name and particulars and mention the same in the register at the gate and sign the said book. It was only then the entry was allowed. It has also come in the cross-examination of this witness that he did not remember whether the name of P.W.2 Panch Khot was entered in the said register. In order to test the veracity of the testimony of this witness, it will be appropriate at this stage to consider the evidence of P.W.2 Khot in this regard. 51. P.W.2 Khot (Panch witness) though in his examination-in-chief to some extent corroborated the prosecution case put forth by the complainant, the testimony of P.W.2 has been completely shaken by the admission given by this witness in his cross-examination. This witness in his cross-examination has stated that he did not give his name to the watchman nor the same was mentioned in the register. He has further admitted that the watchman at the gate did not allow him to accompany the complainant Jagdish and he saw Jagdish entering inside the premises from the garden side gate. It is pertinent to note that there is no re-examination of this witness by the prosecution nor the permission is sought to declare this witness hostile. The abovereferred admission given by this witness creates serious doubt in respect of the prosecution case put forth by the complainant Jagdish in this regard. If P.W.2 Panch was detained by the watchman at the gate and was not allowed to enter along with the complainant inside the premises of the M.S.E.B. Office at Wardha, then it is difficult to accept as to how P.W.2 Khot could accompany the complainant and witness the happening of the incident inside the office of the accused as alleged by the complainant. The abovereferred admission by this panch witness totally destroys the claim of the prosecution not only in this regard but creates a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the entire prosecution case put forth by the complainant P.W.1. 52. It is surprising that another panch Mr. Chandekar though was shown the member of the trap party and as alleged by the prosecution was accompanied them at the time of incident, has not been examined by the prosecution who at least could have thrown some light in respect of the panchanama No. 2 counducted by the prosecution. Similarly, Bharatam Shaha and Chauhan were also alleged to have been present all through. However, they have also not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. In view of the abovereferred facts and circumstances, only evidence in respect of the incident which had taken place in the office of the accused is of P.W.1 and the same is not at all corroborated by any other prosecution witnesses much less independent witness. P.W.1 Jagdish at the relevant time was being an employee of P.W.3 Arvind Shaha and the prosecution of the accused was the outcome of the plan of P.W.3, P.W.1 can be said to be an interested witness to that extent. The only independent witness who could have corroborated the incident which alleged to have taken place in the office of the accused on 1-7-86, was P.W.2 Khot. However, for the reasons stated above, the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be accepted which further renders the entire prosecution case in this regard not only unacceptable but also improbable. 53. There is another aspect which also needs consideration in the instant case is certain admissions given by P.W.5 Sharad Deshmukh in his evidence. Mr. Deshmukh in his examination-in-chief has stated that as per the order they have received the material from the System Electric Control, Bombay on 17-6-86 by truck. They (this witness and another employee Shri Dongare) entered the said material in the M.R.I. Register. It was received in one set. It has further come in his evidence that this witness signed the entry in token of receipt of the material which is at Exh.92. The truck driver has also handed over the octroi paid receipts those are Exhs. 93 and 94. It was received in one set. It has further come in his evidence that this witness signed the entry in token of receipt of the material which is at Exh.92. The truck driver has also handed over the octroi paid receipts those are Exhs. 93 and 94. This witness has further stated in his evidence that at the time of receiving the material he saw a parcel. The parcel was intact. He has further stated that the challan was received along with the material from the truck which is Annex. 96. He has further stated that the M.R.I. was also signed by the accused on 17-6-86 itself and the same was addressed to the Head Office. The copy of the same was also sent to the supplier. M.R.I. is at Exh.97. It has come in his evidence that Exh.98 is the letter dt. 18-6-86 written by accused to the Executive Engineer, Nagpur who was requested to inspect the material in question. Accordingly, the person from Nagpur office came to Wardha for inspection of material and they had inspected the material and issued the report. The said report dt. 21-6-86 is at Exh.99. P.W.5 further stated in his examination-in-chief that the contents of the Inspection Report were intimated to the supplier i.e. P.W.3 Arvind Shaha by letter dt. 24-6-86. It was signed by the accused which is Exh. 101. This witness has further stated that the stores receipt note was prepared by another employee viz. Shri Dongare who was junior to the Stores Assistant and the said S.R. Note was signed by this witness P.W.5. While going through the cross-examination of this witness it is noticed that he has reconfirmed the story put forth by him in his examination-in-chief regarding the issuance of letter dt. 18-6-86, inspection by the inspecting team from Nagpur, preparation of S.R. Note by Shri Dongare, communication to the supplier i.e. P.W.3 Arvind Shaha as well as the Head Office regarding deficiencies noticed by the inspection team. This witness has specifically stated in his cross-examination that once the S.R. Note is prepared, there is no authority who can change it since the S.R. Note is required to be signed by the Stores Officer, Stores Superintendent and Stores Assistant. This witness has specifically stated in his cross-examination that once the S.R. Note is prepared, there is no authority who can change it since the S.R. Note is required to be signed by the Stores Officer, Stores Superintendent and Stores Assistant. The totality of the evidence of this witness would show that on 18-6-86 itself the accused wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer, Nagpur regarding the inspection of the material in question. In view of the said letter, Inspection Team came to Wardha and inspected the material in question on 21-6-86 and noticed certain shortcomings and damage to the material in question which was reflected in their report. The supplier i.e. P.W.3 Arvind Shaha was made aware of the said report by issuing a letter to that effect dt. 24-6-86. The stores receipt note was also prepared and signed by the abovereferred officers of the stores department including the accused on 24-6-86 and the copies thereof were already forwarded to the concerned authorities showing the various defects noticed by the inspection team. On the backdrop of this factual situation it is required to be visualized whether in such circumstances either the accused could demand money from P.W.3 Arvind Shaha on telephone for giving clear S.R. Note and it is equally important to consider whether in a situation like this, proprietor Arvind Shaha P.W.3 would agree to pay Rs. 1850/- to the accused when he was fully aware that the accused just cannot either modify or change the contents of S.R. Note. Apart from the fact that, I have already discarded the evidence of P.W.3 Arvind Shaha in respect of the demand made by the accused in respect of the amount on telephone as unacceptable. However, after considering the evidence of P.W.5 Shri Deshmukh, the entire claim made by P.W.3 Arvind Shaha is most improbable and cannot be accepted. After taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the material prosecution witnesses and after careful scrutiny of their respective testimonies, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution evidence suffers from inheritant improbabilities and in my opinion the prosecution has failed to prove the demand made by the accused of Rs. 2000/- from the complainant. P.W.3 Arvind Shaha as well as in respect of acceptance of the said amount by the accused. 54. 2000/- from the complainant. P.W.3 Arvind Shaha as well as in respect of acceptance of the said amount by the accused. 54. On the other hand, after considering the defence put forth by the accused in his written statement, under Section 313 and in the cross-examination of the witnesses it appears quite probable that the Firm belonged to P.W.3 Arvind Shaha which suffered heavy losses in respect of the supplies made by the Firm to the M.S.E.B. Office at Kamptee due to certain deficiencies pointed out in the supplies made by the Firm and P.W.3 Arvind thought that it was because of the accused. The theory of forcible thrusting of currency notes in the pocket of the accused by the P.W.1 complainant in the facts and circumstances of the present case also appears to be probable and the same is to some extent corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5 Shri Deshmukh who was the employee of the M.S.E.B. Department and at the relevant time was serving in the same department. This witness has admitted in his cross-examination that at the relevant time he heard the big noise coming from the side of the wall and the loud voice was of the accused who was talking to the complainant Jagdish. While considering these aspects it is clear to me that nobody would loudly talk in carrying out the transaction like this. The very fact that the accused was talking to the complainant at the relevant time in a loud voice would show that there was some protest made by the accused. This fact is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.12 Investigating Officer who in the cross-examination was admitted that when this witness and other members of the trap party entered into the office of the accused after receiving the signal from the complainant, this witness (P.W.12) saw the accused scolding Jagdish (complainant) in the hall. Though, P.W.12 has denied the suggestion in respect of the complainant's forcibly thrusting the amount in the pocket of the accused, the abovereferred admission given by the witness about the scolding given by the accused to the complainant speaks volumes. Though, P.W.12 has denied the suggestion in respect of the complainant's forcibly thrusting the amount in the pocket of the accused, the abovereferred admission given by the witness about the scolding given by the accused to the complainant speaks volumes. In the instant case, in my opinion, therefore, the defence put forth by the accused falls within the parameters of the probability and, therefore, the story of forcible thrusting of the currency notes in the pocket of the accused by the complainant at the relevant time, cannot be ruled out. In that view of the matter, the seizure of currency notes from the person of the accused in the instant case also cannot assist the prosecution in sustaining conviction. The prosecution, therefore, completely failed to prove the prosecution case against the accused for the offences charged. 55. In the result, the impugned judgment and order dt. 18-3-96 passed by the Special Judge, Wardha in Spl. Case No. 6/87 is quashed and set aside. The accused is acquitted for the offence charged. The amount of fine, if paid, be returned to the accused. The bail bond shall stand cancelled. Appeal allowed.