JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal Under section 374 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgement and order dated January 6, 1983, whereby the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 21/78 State v. Ranjeetmal , held the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him in the following manner : Offences convicted of sentences passed U/s. 161 IPC One year RI and Rs. 200/- fine U/s. 468 IPC -do- U/s. 5(1)(d)(2) PC Act -do- 2. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. 3. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that during the year 1975 Ranjeet ) Mal, appellant was working as officiating Tehsildar, Sheo, Distt. Barmer, in the Revenue department of the State of Rajasthan. Vide order dated 11.3.1975 his services were placed at the disposal of the Transport Commissioner Jaipur, Rajasthan, for appointment as a Transport Officer. Vide order dated 21/25.3.1975 the Transport Commissioner appointed him as Distt. Transport Officer, Sirohi. On the death of Sri. Mohd. Atique, the Distt. Transport Officer, Sawai Madhopur in the year 1977 the appellant was transferred as Distt. Transport Officer, Sawai Madhopur. 4. During June 1977 PW. 5 Prem Kishore, the then Motor Vehicle Inspector, Sawai Madhopur, proceeded on leave due to illness. During the ) period of his leave from 11.6.1977 to 11.7.1977 his work of collecting vehicle and passenger taxes was being looked after by the appellant. Shri Prem Kishore had been issued the Receipt Book Ex.Art. 16 for the purpose which receipt book came to be possessed by the appellant in his absence. 5. PW. 2 Anand Kumar Singhal used to work as a Transport Agent at the office of the Distt. Transport Officer, Sawai Madhopur. His duties as a Transport Agent included assisting the vehicle operators/vehicle owners in depositing taxes/fines dues from them etc. getting their vehicles registered, obtaining tokens, fitness certificates, permits etc. etc. and getting their ) assessments completed. He had been registered as a licensed Transport Agent in the year 1970. Although he had surrendered his license in the year 1975-76 but had continued to render the above nature of services to his clients for consideration even thereafter without possessing the requisite license from the concerned authorities. 6. etc. and getting their ) assessments completed. He had been registered as a licensed Transport Agent in the year 1970. Although he had surrendered his license in the year 1975-76 but had continued to render the above nature of services to his clients for consideration even thereafter without possessing the requisite license from the concerned authorities. 6. It is in the above backdrop that the prosecution case is that in the month of June 1977 PW 2 Anand Kumar Singhal submitted in the office of D.T.O. applications Ex.P/2, Ex.P/3, Ex./4 and Ex.P/5 in respect of Truck Nos. RLL 3009, RRL 4391, RLR 1631 and RLM 8337 for and on behalf of the registered owners/transferees/namely S/Shri. Prasadi Lai, Rakesh Kumar, ) Chauthi Lai, Mukut Behari (Bharosi Lai) and Mool Chand Khandelwal (Dwarka Prasad Mahajan) for assessment of taxes pertaining to the aforementioned vehicles. In connection with the said purpose PW/2 Anand Prakash Singhal is alleged to have contacted the appellant in his office on 17.6.77 and 18.6.77 and the appellant, allegedly, assured him to make the 5 assessment orders. It is further alleged that on 21.6.77 Anand Kumar Singhal went to the house of the appellant to know whether the appellant would sit in the office on that day. The prosecution case is that it was at his house that the appellant, allegedly, demanded a sum of As. 100/- (one hundred only) from him to make the assessment of taxes in respect to the four vehicles. Since Anand Prakash did not want to pay the bribe money to the appellant, he contacted and consulted PW/19 Surender Pal Singh, the Dy. S.P. Anti-Corruption Department in the matter. The Dy. S.P. arranged for a trap. He initialed one Currency note of Rs. 50/- denomination and 5 (five) currency notes of Rs. 10/- (ten) denomination each, treated them with Phenolphethelien Powder and got them delivered to the appellant through the decoy witness, PW/2 Anand Kumar Singhal. On a sign having been made by Anand Kumar, after paying the above mentioned currency noties to the appellant, the Dy. S.P. and the independent witnesses namely PW 3 Kishan Lai, PW/4 Govind Ram PW/17 Ashu Ram Head Constable, all accompanying the Dy. S.R, caught the appellant red-handed and the said currency notes were recovered from his possession. On a sign having been made by Anand Kumar, after paying the above mentioned currency noties to the appellant, the Dy. S.P. and the independent witnesses namely PW 3 Kishan Lai, PW/4 Govind Ram PW/17 Ashu Ram Head Constable, all accompanying the Dy. S.R, caught the appellant red-handed and the said currency notes were recovered from his possession. The above facts were sought to be proved by the prosecution by examining 19 witnesses and producing a number of documents at the trail of the appellant. 7. The plea taken by the appellant in his defence was that in his capacity as District Transport Officer, Sawai-Madhopur, he had challenged Vehicle No. RSR 1631 for having committed certain offences under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder; that such offences were later on compounded on the application moved by the owner of the said vehicle as per provisions of the said Act and the rules made there under and that after having received the composition money of As. 100/- from Anand Kumar I Singhal, through whom such money had been sent by the owners of the said vehicle; the appellant had duly issued a receipt. He further stated that Shri Mukut Behari was the registered owner of the said vehicle and before its transfer to another person in the year 1978 all the work, relating to the deposit of taxes/fines etc. etc. in respect of the said vehicle, used to be ;attended to and done by his brother-in-law DW 3 Shri Narsi Lai. He further stated that he neither asked for any bribe money nor did receive As. 100/- towards such bribe or by way of illegal gratification from Anant Kumar Singhal. He added that PW 2 Anand Kumar Singhal never presented the applications Ex.P/2 to Ex.P/5 before him. 8. He further stated that he neither asked for any bribe money nor did receive As. 100/- towards such bribe or by way of illegal gratification from Anant Kumar Singhal. He added that PW 2 Anand Kumar Singhal never presented the applications Ex.P/2 to Ex.P/5 before him. 8. The appellant further explained that PW/1 8 Chander Prakash used to work as a lower Division Clerk in the registration and tax collection Section of the office of the District Transport Officer, Sawai-Madhopur; that since PW 18 Chancier Prakash Saxena was not fair in his dealings with the public the appellant reported about his work and activities to the Transport Commissioner and got him transferred from the registration & Tax Collection Section to the receipt and despatch side in the accounts section; that the change in his position and duties enraged PW 18 Chander Prakash against the appellant, that Chander Prakash used to reside in the upper portion of the building wherein Surenderpal Singh Dy. S.P. had his office and the two were on friendly terms and that in connivance with PW/2 Anand Kumar Singhal, and the Dy. S.P., PW/8 Chancier Prakash had managed to falsely implicate him in this totally concocted and false case. In support of his above plea the appellant not only submitted a written explanation but also examined DW/1 Ramji Lai Sharma, Transport Inspector, DW/2 Ram Swaroop Jain and DW/3 Narsi Lai Singhal. 9. However, the learned trial judge believed the prosecution witnesses and rejected the defence plea and the evidence produced in support of such plea. He consequently convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above. 10. I heard the learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length and examined the material on the record of the learned trial court quite minutely and critically. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant took me through the statements of all the prosecution witnesses in general and of PW/2 Anand Kumar Singhal, the decoy and PW/18 Chander Prakash LDC in particular and vehemently urged that even if their testimony is taken as it was no case for conviction of the appellant on any of the charges levelled against him, stood proved. The learned Public Prosecutor no doubt tried his best to support the impugned judgement and order. but failed to improve over the statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly that of PW/2 and Prakash Saxena. 12. The learned Public Prosecutor no doubt tried his best to support the impugned judgement and order. but failed to improve over the statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly that of PW/2 and Prakash Saxena. 12. After having given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me on behalf of the parties and on close study of the record of the lower court I entertain no doubt that it was totally a made up and concocted case against the appellant and the same deserves not only to be rejected as such but also to be strongly condemned. 13. In the instant case it is not in dispute that on the relevant day, time and place the appellant was working as a public servant and in such capacity he had received a sum of Rs. 100/- from PW/2 Anand Kumar Singhal. The question for consideration, therefore, is whether the appellant had received the aforesaid amount as a bribe or illegal gratification for doing a work for Anant Kumar which he was duty bound to do in the. discharge of his official duty without receiving any amount. 14. Given-to the presumption created by Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (PC Act 1947) in such cases the question would always be whether the accused has been successful in rebutting such presumption. The presumption under section 4 may be rebutted by an accused either through the evidence led and relied upon by the prosecution themselves or by leading some trustworthy and reliable evidence in his defence. The answer to the question as to whether the accused has been successful in rebutting the presumption under section 4 or not can be given after appreciation of the entire evidence brought on the record of the case and after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances attending upon the commission of the alleged offence in a given case. On such appreciation if the prosecution case is found to be lacking in reliability and, as against it, the accused is found to have rebutted the presumption under section 4 of the PC. Act 1947 by cogent and reliable evidence then conviction of the accused cannot be recorded. 15. In the instant case PW/2 Anand Kumar Singhal is the main witness. Act 1947 by cogent and reliable evidence then conviction of the accused cannot be recorded. 15. In the instant case PW/2 Anand Kumar Singhal is the main witness. The testimony of the decoy witness is required to be appreciated with great care and caution for the obvious reason that for one reason or the other he is an interested witness, having some sort of ill-will or bias against the accused. This is particularly so in view of the presumptive force of Section 4 against the accused in such cases. Keeping this principle in mind when the statement of PW/2 Anand Kumar Singhal is read as a whole it comes out clearly that he is not a truthful and reliable witness. It is an admitted fact that although he had obtained the requisite licence for working as a Transport Agent for the office of the District Transport Officer at Hindaun in the year 1970 but surrendered such licence in the year 1975-1976. Thereafter he continued to do the same work without obtaining the required license and following the relevant rules. His such conduct is relevant for appreciating his testimony in this case in right perspective. In the examination-in-chief this witness no doubt stated the facts as have been narrated above but in cross-examination he admitted that none of the four parties had authorised him in writing to move any application on his/their behalf in the office of the District transport Officer. He even admitted that he did not maintain any register in respect to the applications moved by the parties through him. He further admitted that he used to issue no receipt in token of the fees charged by him from his clients. Although in the FIR his version was that he visited the residence of the appellant on 21.6.77 and at that time the appellant had demanded Rs. 100/- from him for doing the work in respect to the four applications but on being cross-examined he stated that he never visited the residence of the appellant either on 21.6.77 or even thereafter. Although at one stage he' asserted that he had moved the applications Ex.P/2 to Ex.P/5 before the appellant in his office but on being cross-examined he stated that he had not moved any of the applications before the appellant. Although at one stage he' asserted that he had moved the applications Ex.P/2 to Ex.P/5 before the appellant in his office but on being cross-examined he stated that he had not moved any of the applications before the appellant. None of the said applications bear the signatures of or endorsements made by the appellant in token of his having received such applications from either PW/2 Anand Kumar Singhal or any body else. He admitted that at the time of the recovery of the currency notes the appellant had stated to the Dy. S.P. that the currency notes were received by him from the decoy on account of composition money relating to. Truck No. RSR 1631. The witness admitted in ) the cross-examination that Narsi Lal (DW/3) had moved application Ex.P/12 through him and that alongwith the said application he had given the currency notes of Rs. 100/- to the appellant towards the composition money and that the appellant had issued a receipt in respect there-to but he did not take such receipt and let it remained lying on the table of the appellant. For i the reason of exhibiting such conduct, he stated that he did not take the receipt as he wanted to get the appellant trapped. Although later on he tried to explain that the aforementioned currency notes amounting to Rs. 100/- did not relate to the composition money but such statement carries no weight looking to his testimony as a whole. 16. On being cross-examined on other points he admitted that a day or two before the incident the appellant had removed his friend Chandra Prakash (PW/18) from the position of registration and tax collection clerk and that it had annoyed the said LDC. He further stated that Chander Prakash had asked him to get the appellant trapped. He even i admitted that the appellant had never asked him to pay any bribe and that he himself had paid the bribe money to the appellant. In this behalf he even admitted that the money which Narsi Lai (DW/3) had given to him for deposition as composition money was miss- appropriated by him and that he had given the amount of Rs. 100/- to the appellant on his own. 17. At this stage it would be relevant to refer to the testimony of PW/18 Chander Prakash Saxena LDC. 100/- to the appellant on his own. 17. At this stage it would be relevant to refer to the testimony of PW/18 Chander Prakash Saxena LDC. He stated that vide order Ex.P 40 he had been shifted from Registration and Tax section. He admitted that at the relevant time he was living in the upper portion of the office of the Dy. i S.P. Sawai Madhopur. He further admitted that PW/2 Anand Kumar Singhal was his friend. On being asked whether Anand Kumar Singhal used to stay with him as and when he used to come to Sawai-Madhopur, the witness felt irritated and state that it was a matter relating to his personal life. He admitted that he had appeared as a witness in other similar cases. 18. From the above discussion it is quite clear that neither PW/2 Anand Kumar Singhal nor. PW/18 Chander Prakash Saxena are reliable witnesses. The testimony of Anand Kumar Singhal is, highely self-contradictory. Admission by him of certain relevant and material facts in issue in this case, as hightlighted above, clearly establishes that he had got the appellant falsely implicated in this case. In this respect Chandra Prakash LDC who had an animus against the appellant played the main role in teaching a lesson to his Superior Officer, the appellant-Chander Prakash could have felt aggrieved on his removal by the appellant from the position of the Registration and Tax Clerk. 19. The evidence brought on the record of the learned lower court and the facts and circumstances of the case loudly speak that PW/2 Anand Kumar Singhal the unlicensed Transport Agent and the aggrieved Chander Prakash Saxena (PW/18) had entered into a highly condemnable conspiracy against the appellant and managed to get him trapped in this false case. The spontaneous statement made by the appellant at the time of the recovery of the currency notes totalling to Rs. 100/- from him that the said amount had been received by him towards the composition money, which fact has been admitted not only by PW/2 Anand Kumar Singhal himself in his cross-examination but also gets full corroboration from Narsi Lal's (DW/3) statement on oath and his application Ex.P/12 totally demolishes the entire prosecution case. 20. 100/- from him that the said amount had been received by him towards the composition money, which fact has been admitted not only by PW/2 Anand Kumar Singhal himself in his cross-examination but also gets full corroboration from Narsi Lal's (DW/3) statement on oath and his application Ex.P/12 totally demolishes the entire prosecution case. 20. The approach adopted by the learned trial judge in appreciating the evidence on record in general and the testimony of PW/2 Anand Kumar Singhal and the defence witnesses in particular was not at all correct. There were no good reasons for him to hold that the application Ex.P/12 and the receipts evidencing the payment of composition money and the relevant entries in other relevant records were prepared later on and that those were forged documents. The prosecution evidence clearly supported the defence plea and the appellant could not have been legally deprived of the benefit arising from the infirmities and weaknesses in the prosecution case. The prosecution case against the appellant stood fully demolished by the prosecution evidence itself. 21. On the basis of the discussion made herein above I am in no hesitatiorr at all in holding that the prosecution had failed to prove any of the charges levelled by it against the appellant. The oral evidence produced by it was not satisfactory and was unreliable. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to acquittal of all the charges, which were framed against him and for which he was held guilty and convicted of. 22. Before parting with the record of this case, I would like to observe that it is quite surprising that the Transport Department had allowed an unlicensed transport agent to work in its office premises at Sawai-Madhopur. It is also equally disturbing that a disobedient Government servant of the conduct and character of PW/18 Chander Prakash Saxena LDC was allowed to work in that office in the manner he did. The bonafides of both these witnesses were not at all above board. They both had conspired together to cause harm to a superior officer, who took administrative decision in the interest of the department but to the dislike of a subordinate official. It is painful to make further observations in that behalf. The bonafides of both these witnesses were not at all above board. They both had conspired together to cause harm to a superior officer, who took administrative decision in the interest of the department but to the dislike of a subordinate official. It is painful to make further observations in that behalf. I would not like to make further comments against the conduct of PW/2 Anand Kumar Singhal, the unlicensed Transport Agent and PW 18 Chander Prakash Saxena, the LDC, in the office of D.T.O. at Sawai-Madhopur and prefer to leave the matter to the administrative discretion of the Transport Commissioner for Rajasthan at Jaipur. 23. In the result, the impugned judgment and order are hereby set-aside and the appellant Ranjeetmal Ntardia is acquitted of all the charges he has been found guilty and convicted of in this case. He is on bail. He need not surrender and his bail bonds are hereby cancelled. The appeal stands allowed. 24. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer as also to the Transport Commissioner, Rajasthan Jaipur for information and necessary action, if any.Appeal Allowed - Appellant Acquitted. *******