JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.7.82 passed by the special Judge, Jodhpur convicting the appellant of offence under Section 161 IPC.and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act sentencing him to one years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- on each count and in default of payment to further undergo 1 months S.I. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is that on 16.2.76 PW/7 Hanuman Singh submitted a written report bearing thumb mark of PW/1 Bega Ram before the Superintendent of Police A.C.D. Jaipur. It is alleged in the report that on the death at informants father the Khatedari rights of agricultural land was required to be transferred in his name alongwith his brothers. Thus, he submitted an application for mutation. The Patwari of the said area demanded Rs. 200/- as bribe for the said purpose. He paid sum of Rs. 100/- and, therefore, Patwari started necessary proceedings on the application. He promised to pay rest of the amount of Rs. 100/- through Kishna Ram. He also stated that he was not interested in giving the bribe to the Patwari. The Superintendent of Police, A.C.D., Jaipur send this report to the Addl. Superintendent of Police, A.C.D. Jodhpur for taking necessary action. The report was received by Rameshwar Lal, Addl. Superintendent of Police, A.C.D., Jodhpur for taking necessary action. The report was received by Rameshwar Lal, Addl. Superintendent of Police A.C.D., Jodhpur on 20.2.76. He stated that because of poverty the complainant PW/1 Bega Ram himself had not come. On this report the Addl. Superintendent of Police. A.C.D., Jodhpur proceeded to village Lalawas on 21.2.76. On 22.2.76 a trap was arranged. It is alleged that as per the plan Bega Ram paid Rs. 100/- to the accused. As usual on receiving signal Addl. S.R reached on the spot and recovered the tainted currency notes and completed the spot proceedings. After usual investigation. Police laid chargesheet against the accused appellant of offence under Section 161 IPC. and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The accused denied the charge a.id claimed trial. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. The accused appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated by Hanuman Singh. and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The accused denied the charge a.id claimed trial. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. The accused appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated by Hanuman Singh. He stated that recovery proceedings of the outstanding dues were pending with him against Hanuman Singh. Said Hanuman Singh sent Rs. 100/- through Daula Ram to be deposited against the outstanding amount of Rs. 216.34. The receipt of Rs. 100/- was passed on the same day and after some time Hanuman Singh deposited the rest of the amount with the appellant vide Ex.D/13. The trial court did not accept the version of the accused and found the prosecution case proved. He accordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 4. Assailing the judgment, it is contented by Mr. Doonger Singh, Learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the trial court has failed in appreciating the defence of the accused in right perspective. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the entire case is fabricated in as much as that either on the complaint or on the other documents which were prepared at the time of trap the thumb marks are not of Bega Ram. He has also submitted that Hanuman Singh managed to plant Daula Ram in place of Bega Ram. It is further submitted that the defence of the appellant finds support not only from the defence witnesses but even from the prosecution witnesses. On the other hand, Mr. Panney Singh, Addl. Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial court. 5. I have scaned the evidence on record. The crucial question which arises for consideration in the instance case is that as to whether Bega Ram paid Rs. 100/- to the accused appellant as per say of the prosecution. The prosecution has supported its case by the statements of PW/1 Bega Ram, PW/2 Rakha Ram, PW/3 Mohan Ram & PW/4 Kishna Ram. PW/5 Laxman Ram admitted in the cross- examination that during the trap proceedings he had not seen Bega Ram. He also admitted that he does not know as to whether the documents were signed by Daula Ram or not. PW/6 Mewa Ram stated that at the time of trap he was sitting at the hotel of Budharam. PW/5 Laxman Ram admitted in the cross- examination that during the trap proceedings he had not seen Bega Ram. He also admitted that he does not know as to whether the documents were signed by Daula Ram or not. PW/6 Mewa Ram stated that at the time of trap he was sitting at the hotel of Budharam. The accused Jor Singh also arrived there. Thereafter Kishna Ram also arrived there. He asked him that he is to get his Khata corrected for which he wants to give him Rs. 100/-. The accused advised him to go to the Tehsil. However, Kishnaram insisted that he should do his work as nobody knows him in Tehsil. He also stated that at that time a person named Daula Ram arrived and he paid Rs. 100/- to the accused Jor Singh. The accused put currency notes of Rs. 50/- in the pocket. Thereafter two persons came there and caught the accused Jor Singh. The Dy. Superintendent, Anti Corruption arrived and took the recovery proceedings. In the cross-examination he has stated that he does not know any person like Bega Ram. He further stated that all the persons were referring that person as Daula Ram. Thus from the evidence of PW/5 Laxman and PW/6 Mewa Ram, it appears that Bega Ram, the decoy was not on the spot, the amount was not paid to accused by him, on the insistence of Kishna Ram Daula Ram passed on the tainted currency notes to the accused. PW/7 Hanuman Singh has supported the prosecution case. It is significant to notice that though he had gone to Jaipur for submitting the report and then travelled to Jodhpur but he deliberately absented himself at the time of trap. PW/8 Daula Ram has supported the prosecution case. He denied that he paid Rs. 100/- to the accused Jor Singh. PW/9 Ram Singh has also supported the prosecution case. He denied the suggestion that Rs. 100/- were paid by Daula Ram. PW/10 Arjun Raj Bhandari the Collector, Nagour has proved sanction for the prosecution of the accused. PW/11 Rameshwar Lal has also supported the prosecution case. DW/1 Chouthmal has stated that he runs a tea-stall on the bus stand of village Lalawas. On the date of incident the accused Jor Singh was sitting on the tea-stall of Budharam. PW/10 Arjun Raj Bhandari the Collector, Nagour has proved sanction for the prosecution of the accused. PW/11 Rameshwar Lal has also supported the prosecution case. DW/1 Chouthmal has stated that he runs a tea-stall on the bus stand of village Lalawas. On the date of incident the accused Jor Singh was sitting on the tea-stall of Budharam. He stated that his tea-stall is close to the tea-stall of Budharam and, therefore, he also reached the place where Patwari was sitting. He further stated that Bhagirath Retd. constable and Laxmiram and 2-3 other persons were also sitting there. At that time Daula Ram also arrived there and told that Hanuman Singh has sent Rs. 100/- against the amount due. He also demanded for the receipt. The accused Jor Singh took out the receipt book from the bag and proceeded to prepare the receipt. At that time, Dy. Superintendent of police alongwith 2-3 other persons arrived there. The Dy. Superintendent of Police asked Jor Singh that if he has received bribe from Daula Ram. On this the accused disclosed that he has received the amount from Daula Ram due against Hanuman Singh. He denied that he has taken the said amount as bribe. He also stated that during the trap proceedings Bega Ram was not on the spot. He also made a categorical statement that in place of Bega Ram, Daula Ram put his thumb marks on the documents. He also asked Dy. Superintendent of Police that Bega Ram is not present and the thumb marks were not of Begaram but the Dy. Superintendent of Police did not listen to him. DW/2 Kaluram has stated that on 22.2.76 he was posted as Tehsildar Nava. Under the instruction of the Collector, Nagour dated 25.2.76, he held an enquiry against the accused Jor Singh in the matter of accepting bribe of Rs. 100/-. In connection of the inquiry he visited to the villages Lalawas. Hareed and Khaourandhi. On enquiry he found that Hanuman Singh sent Rs. 100/- through Daula Ram to be paid to Patwari against the rent due. He also stated that the said fact was disclosed by Daula Ram also. He also stated that the Block Development Officer, Kuchamancity had sent a demand note of Rs. 216.34 against Hanuman Singh. He proved the demand letter Ex.D/12. He sent the demand letter to the accused for recovery. He also stated that the said fact was disclosed by Daula Ram also. He also stated that the Block Development Officer, Kuchamancity had sent a demand note of Rs. 216.34 against Hanuman Singh. He proved the demand letter Ex.D/12. He sent the demand letter to the accused for recovery. He also stated that the strict instructions were give to the Patwaris to make recovery of all the amount due, without delay. He however stated that on enquiry he found that at the time of trap Bega Ram himself was not present and instead of him Daularam put his thumb. The amount was due according to the demand note Ex.D/12 against Hanuman Singh and a receipt Ex.D/13 was given by the accused for the amount of Rs. 83.84. Thus, a sum of Rs. 116.34 was due in Hanuman Singh. Nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination to discredit this witness. DW/3 Bhagirath has stated that at the time of trap, he was sitting on the tea-stall of Budharam. Daularam gave Rs. 100/- to the accused saying that the said amount has been sent by Hanuman Singh. The accused Jor Singh put the said currency notes in his pocket. On enquiry by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, the accused stated that he has not received the said amount against the bribe and has received against the amount due in Hanuman Singh. He categorically stated that Bega Ram was not present at the time of trap. Daula Ram put his thumb mark. However, Bega Ram was written below his thumb marks. He asked Dy. Superintendent of Police that Begaram was not there and the thumb mark is not of him. However, Dy. Superintendent of Police asked him to keep quite. He also stated that more than Rs. 20,000/- ;s due in Hanuman Singh. The presence of DW/.1 Chouthmal and this witness on spot is admitted by the prosecution witnesses. DW/4 Shri R.K. Thakur is the Finger Print Expert. I have read his statement. I am satisfied that this witness is expert in the art of identification of hand writing. He stated that on 25.10.81 advocate J.R. Choudhary asked him to compare the disputed thumb impression of the left hand alleged to be a Bega Ram on Ex.P/5 with admitted left hand thumb mark of Begaram. I have read his statement. I am satisfied that this witness is expert in the art of identification of hand writing. He stated that on 25.10.81 advocate J.R. Choudhary asked him to compare the disputed thumb impression of the left hand alleged to be a Bega Ram on Ex.P/5 with admitted left hand thumb mark of Begaram. He also stated that he marked thumb impressions of Begaram on annexure 1 as A-1 and marked the questioned left hand thumb impression on annexure 2 as Q. 1. On careful, examination, he admitted that left hand thumb impression on annexure 1 as A-1 and the questioned left hand thumb impression on annexure 2 as Q. 1 taken with the help of scientific apparatus as multiponer magnifier glass. He compared the same and arrived on the conclusion that the questioned left hand thumb impression Q. 1 on annexure 2 does not tally with the admitted left hand thumb impression of A-1 on annexure/1. He gave the following reasons for his above conclusion:- 1. The ridges on the admitted left hand thumb impression A-1 are smooth and are of normal character and disclose a soft skin of the left hand thumb WHILE the ridges on the questioned left-hand thumb impression Q. 1 are of irregular, abnormal character and disclose a hardened skin of a labourers hand with prominent ups, downs and cuts in them. 2. Although the pattern of the questioned left hand thumb impression Q. 1 on annexure 2 and the admitted left hand thumb impression A-1 on annexure/1, are of whorl type and Q1 is blurred in the centre but the horizontal ridges at the botton of Q. 1 are much nearer to the Core than the same in the admitted left hand thumb impression A. 1. He has proved his opinion Ex. D/15. I have also read cross-examination of this witness. Nothing is elicited on the basis of which his opinion can be doubted. I myself has compared admitted and disputed thumb marks and I find that the patter of finger print are different. They appear to be of different persons. Thus, from the aforesaid to be of different persons. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, it clearly appears that thumb marks on the documents are not of Begaram. I myself has compared admitted and disputed thumb marks and I find that the patter of finger print are different. They appear to be of different persons. Thus, from the aforesaid to be of different persons. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, it clearly appears that thumb marks on the documents are not of Begaram. The learned Special Judge has said that that the defence has obtained report of the thumb impression only with respect to the Ex/D 2 and not of all the other documents. I am unable to agree with the learned Judge. Once it is found that the prosecution has obtained a false thumb impression of a person other than Begaram, the entire prosecution case is destroyed. Thus, the defence has succeeded in probablising its case. In view of this, the conviction of the appellant of offence under Section 161 IPC.and under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not sustainable. 6. Consequently, this appeal is allowed an the judgment of the Special Judge dated 20.7.82 convicting the appellant of offence under Section 161 IPC.and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is set aside. The accused is acquitted of the said offence. He is on bail. The bail bonds stand discharged.Appeal allowed. *******