S. K. AGARWAL, J. This appeal arises out of an order of conviction and sentence passed by IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Bijnor in S. T. No. 10 of 1981. He had convicted the appellant under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 16] I. P. C. He has also sentenced the appellant to one years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000. In default of payment of fine he has further sentenced the appellant to three months R. I. No separate sentence was awarded to the appellant under Sec tion 1611. P. C. 2. The brief fact of the case is that Ram Kumar P. W. 3 had given an applica tion for a power connection in the Hydel Department. This application was allowed and after an agreement was signed the necessary order for laying the line was sent from the office of Hydel Department to the office of S. D. O. at Kiratpur. Ram Kumar approached the appellants on 23rd March. 1980 for the first time in connec tion with laying of the line. Under the procedure a direction for laying the line for new connection was to be signed or issued by the S. D. O i. e. appellant. The evidence suggests that this order was issued by the S. D. O. under his signature on 26th March, 1980 but it had reached Ram Murti Lal Gupta P. W. 5 Junior Engineer in the department on 19-4-80 after the arrest of the appellant from his house. In between 23rd March, 1980 and 19th April, 1980 Ram Kumar claimed to have met the ap pellant on 1-2 occasions. Nonspecific dates were given by Ram Kumar. In his state ment about his meeting on one occasion i. e. March and April, admittedly the appel lant was not present in the office and so Ram Kumar could not meet him. After 3-4 days it is alleged that he met him again and made an inquiry with regard to laying the line for his tube- well. He was asked to meet the Inspector. Just 11-12 days before the incident Ram Kumar again met S. D. O. who inquired from him whether he had met the Inspector or not and whether he was informed of the action to be taken by the Inspector. The reply from Ram Kumar was in the negative. He was asked to meet the Inspector. Just 11-12 days before the incident Ram Kumar again met S. D. O. who inquired from him whether he had met the Inspector or not and whether he was informed of the action to be taken by the Inspector. The reply from Ram Kumar was in the negative. The appellant then promised to pass the order within a week. Ram Kumar after expiry of a weeks time again claimed to have contacted the appel lant. On 17-4-80 he was informed that the order had not been passed. He further told him that he is suffering serious loss be cause of non-availability of the connec tion, therefore, he must pass the order immediately. Then he was told by the ap pellant that unless him palm is greased an amount of Rs. 50 is paid by Ram Kumar no order can be passed. Ram Kumar went away by promising to return with the money within a day or two. Ram Kumar was not ready to part with any illegal gratification to the appellant for taking something which was his right. He had approached Som Datt Tyagi, Vigilance In spector on 18-4-80. In this connection he had prepared an application. Ext. Ka - 10, and gave it to Som Datt Tyagi P. W. 1. This Som Datl Tyagi is Vigilance Inspector and was posted in district Bijnor at the relevant time. Som Datl Tyagi P. W 2 accompanied P. W. 3 Ram Kumar to the District Magistrates office and got an order for him from the District Magistrate. The Dis trict Magistrate, had directed him to gel the statement of Ram Kumar recorded by S. D. M. Rain Bahadur who according lo him recorded his statement and noted down the number of his notes in the state ment and thereafter P. W. 3 again was brought back to the office of the District Magistrate and Som Datt Tyagi obtained an order from the District Magistrate for laying the trap to nab the appellant red handed. Afterward Som Dalt Tyagi P. W. I directed P. W. 3 Ram Kumar to meet him at the Police Station at about 11. 30 a. m. on 19-4- 80. The notes were also returned to Ram Kumar. Som Datt Tyagi retained the application. As per the plan Ram Kumar reached Police Station, Kiratpur on the above said date and time. Afterward Som Dalt Tyagi P. W. I directed P. W. 3 Ram Kumar to meet him at the Police Station at about 11. 30 a. m. on 19-4- 80. The notes were also returned to Ram Kumar. Som Datt Tyagi retained the application. As per the plan Ram Kumar reached Police Station, Kiratpur on the above said date and time. Som Datl Tyagi arrived at the Police Station around 12. 00 A. M. He sent Ram Kumar to find out whether the accused is present in his office. Ram Kumar after gathering the informa tion came back and informed the Vigilance Inspector that accused is on leave due to ailment and is present at his residence. Som Datt Tyagi after taking three constables in plain clothes from the Police Station and also taking Jamraj P. W.-2 and Pratap Singh P. W. 3, the public witnesses, proceeded towards the house of the appellant. The appellant was living on the first floor. They all went up stairs. After reaching there the Vigilance Inspector alongwith Pratap Singh stationed himself by north side window of the room in which the appellant was lying. Ram Kumar and other companions including police per sonal too position on the western side. Ram Kumar entered the room by opening the door of the room after calling the ap pellant from outside. According to the statement of Ram Kumar and P. W. 2 Jamraj Ram Kumar had closed the door after entry. Inside the room the appellant was asleep. He woke up and sat on the cot. He made an inquiry from Ram Kumar whether money is brought. Ram Kumar responded in the affirmative and passed the notes totaling Rs. 50. It is claimed that the appellant had taken those notes from Ram Kumar and after placing them in an envelope lying there had placed that under neath the pillow on his bed. He wrote some thing on a piece of the paper and passed that paper to Ram Kumar to give it to Ram Nath in his office to contact him immediately. In the meantime the Vigilance Inspector and other members of his party entered the room. As soon as these people entered into the room it is alleged that the appellant had taken out the envelope kept under neath the pillow and the Inspector had snatched it from his hand. In the meantime the Vigilance Inspector and other members of his party entered the room. As soon as these people entered into the room it is alleged that the appellant had taken out the envelope kept under neath the pillow and the Inspector had snatched it from his hand. Thereafter all the formalities were completed at the spot and the appellant was taken to Police Sta tion Kiratpur which is about one furlong from the house of the appellant. 3. The FIR was got registered there at about 6. 15 p. m. on the same day. A copy of the report is Ext. Ka. 4. Its Check report is Ext. Ka. 3 and the case was registered at the Police Station. The case was investigation by Pratap Singh another Vigilance Inspec tor, under the order of Superintendent of Police Vigilance Ext. Ka. 16. He had sub mitted a charge-sheet after completing the investigation. The one line order issued by the Divisional Officer Ext. II was also taken into possession. He had also taken the application on which the order for laying the line was passed. It is Ext. 12. He had also -taken an extract of the dispatch register Ext. Ka - 20 dated 17-4-80 ul timately the charge-sheet Ext. Ka. 5 was submitted by him after procuring the sanc tion for the prosecution which is Ext. Ka. 18 from P. W.-7 V. C. Mittal, Chairman, State Electricity Board on 9-3-1981. 4. The prosecution in support of its case has examined S. D. Tyagi, Vigilance Inspector who led the raid as P. W.-1, Jam Raj Singh P. W 2. Ram Kumar P. W. 3 and Pratap Junior Engineer in the Hydel Department as P. W.-5, P. W.-6 Prahlad Singh Sub-Inspector and V. C. Mittal, Chairman, State Electricity Board as P. W. 7. 5. The learned Sessions Judge in his judgment at Pages 101 and 102 has returned the finding in the following manner with regard to these so-called independent wit nesses. According to him Jam Raj and Pratap Singh are related to Ram Kumar. Jam Raj and Pratap Singh are also related to each other. Pratap Singh is son-in-law of Jam Rajs brother. Ram Kumars Brother Pirthi is married to the daughter of the sister of the wife of Lahri. Lahri is elder brother of Jam Raj. All the three witnesses were not strangers to each other. Jam Raj and Pratap Singh are also related to each other. Pratap Singh is son-in-law of Jam Rajs brother. Ram Kumars Brother Pirthi is married to the daughter of the sister of the wife of Lahri. Lahri is elder brother of Jam Raj. All the three witnesses were not strangers to each other. Jam Raj admitted that he had appeared as a witness for the police in numerous cases. Pratap Singh also admitted that he was known to the police. Under these circumstances, the witnesses cannot be said to be independent. No implicit reliance can be placed on any statement of theirs. Their evidence has to be tested bit by bit. Only the use parts of their statements which are supported by independent evidence are to be accepted in this case. With regard to S. D. Tyagi P. W.-1 and Ram Kumar P. W.-3 the finding returned by the learned Sessions Judge at page 101 is At the very out set it may be mentioned that Sri S. D. Tyagi P. W-1 had taken keen interest in arranging a trap and making it successful. Ram Kumar has also stated that he was deeply interested in the apprehension of the accused. " 6. So the finding returned above with regard to other two witnesses also pertain to these witnesses. Once the Court comes to the conclusion that none of these wit nesses is worthy of any implicit reliance. It is to be examined as to what are those circumstances which from their evidence are corroborated and can be relied upon. This was the peculair method adhered to by the learned Sessions Judge for holding the appellant guilty. Either the evidence may be wholly unworthy of any reliance or it is partly reliable and partly not reliable or is wholly reliable. 7. So for as the finding of learned Sessions Judge is concerned he has held in so many words that no implicit reliance can be placed upon the evidence of any one of these four witnesses. Therefore he had discarded their evidence as wholly unreli able. Once the evidence of these witnesses is rejected as wholly unreliable there remains hardly anything for the learned Sessions Judge to rely upon for any cir cumstances occurring in their testimonies. Can a conviction still could be procured if the circumstances available on record fur nish any clinching evidence. 8. Therefore he had discarded their evidence as wholly unreli able. Once the evidence of these witnesses is rejected as wholly unreliable there remains hardly anything for the learned Sessions Judge to rely upon for any cir cumstances occurring in their testimonies. Can a conviction still could be procured if the circumstances available on record fur nish any clinching evidence. 8. The circumstances relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge as could be gathered from the discussion are one that the order had reached the office of the S. D. O. on 23-3-80. The second aspect which had found favour with the learned Sessions Judge was that Ram Kumar P. W. 3 had met the appellant admittedly on 2-3 occasions before his apprehension by the police on 19-4-1980. The third cir cumstance relied against the appellant by the trial Court is that the evidence of Ram Muni Lal Gupta P. W.-5 clinchingly estab lished that the order passed by the S. D. O. was received by him on f 9-4-1980 at about 4. 30 p. m. 19-4-80 is the date on which in between 2. 30 p. m. The arrest of the appel lant while accepting the bribe money was effected by P. W.-1 S. D. Tyagi in the trap organised by him. So if these circumstan ces are clinchingly proved, the conviction of the appellant still can be sustained. The learned Sessions Judge placed reliance on his statement before the charge made by the accused in the Court that P. W.-3 Ram Kumar had complained to him on a num ber of occasion against the Junior En gineer for not laying the connection. The response of the appellant was that on one or two occasion he had made a general complaint and he never met him in his office. This portion of the statement that he had met him on one or two occasion was relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge as his admission of the case. Statement of an accused to a particular question cannot be shorn out of context. It has to be read in its totality. The examination of his state ment in its entirely shows that it was no admission at all. The question did not per tain to him but to Junior Engineer who was to lay the line. It was not regarding signing the order by him. It has to be read in its totality. The examination of his state ment in its entirely shows that it was no admission at all. The question did not per tain to him but to Junior Engineer who was to lay the line. It was not regarding signing the order by him. As a matter of fact the nature of this question is indicative of the fact that the order was already in existence and the complaint made by the informant P. W.-3 Ram Kumar was against the Junior Engineer and not against the appellant. 9. In the light of this discussion this piece of the evidence as relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge is of no avail to the prosecution against the appellant. It is wholly in a different context and as earlier observed that it is indicative of the cir cumstance of existence of the order and not of any complaint regarding not passing that order by the appellant. 10. Coming to the circumstance whether the order was passed by the appel lant on 26-3-1980 or later on. The evidence of the witnesses P. W 1 and P. W.-3 both and the of P. W-5 Ram Murli Lal Gupta indi cate unerringly that the order passed by the S. D. O. on the side of the order received from the Executive Engineers office was passed on 26-3-80. It is a writing in the hands of the P. W-5 on this very order and it is marked as Ext. Ka-12. Ext. Ka-13 is a writing given by this witness to Som Datt Tyagi on 19- 4-80 during night after registration of the ease, when he was ap proached by the Vigilance Inspector P. W.-1 Som Datt Tyagi at his house. He has admitted that he had received a copy of the order for laying line. It was sent to him duly entered in the dispatch book. He had signed the dispatch book. He had deliberately denied knowledge of the pro cedure as to how the information from the office of the S. D. O. regarding any order for laying line is received in his office. He has admitted that the line is given by Junior Engineer. He has further admitted that the orders of the S. D. O. are received by him in the manner as earlier stated. He has admitted that the line is given by Junior Engineer. He has further admitted that the orders of the S. D. O. are received by him in the manner as earlier stated. He further stated that such orders are being sent to him after making their entries in the dis patch book. He had also stated that a separate book is maintained in the office of the S. D. O. wherein dispatch of such orders is also entered. His signature about receipt are obtained in another book and that book is taken back to the office of the S. D. O. by the person who brings the order to him. He admitted that that book had also come when he received this order and he had put his initial on that also. That book was brought by Ram Nath. Generally according to him the correspondences are brought by a peon. But when peon is on leave they are brought by petrol man. He further admitted that he had put the date on that book but no time was put therein. He has further stated that while receiving the order for laying the line he used to note the lime on it. No time was put on the present order. He had admitted that he had shown the order to the S. D. O. and also had issued its copy (Ext. Ka-13) on his instruction. He has further admitted that it is correct that if S. D. O. after he had signed the order for laying the line and passed it on to the office he had no further concern with it. Earlier he had stated that it is the duty of Junior Engineer to lay the line. He had very clearly admitted that the order for laying the line Ext. Ka- 12 was entered in the dispatch register on 26-3-1980, al though he had denied that he had received the order 2-3 days after 26-3-80. He had denied the suggestion that the dispatch book was removed by him. He had further stated that he did not know whether this dispatch book is available in the office of the S. D. O. or not. He had further stated I hat he could not identify the writing on the line order. He could not identify whose writing it is on the order. 11. He had further stated that he did not know whether this dispatch book is available in the office of the S. D. O. or not. He had further stated I hat he could not identify the writing on the line order. He could not identify whose writing it is on the order. 11. He further stated that he did not know whether it was brought by Ram Nath. Although in his 161 Cr. PC. state ment to the investigating officer he had categorically stated that the entry in dis patch order for laying the line was transcribed in the hands of Ram Nath. He had tried to explain the situation by making the statement that the Investigat ing Officer had enquired from him about the dispatch and he had told him in that connection. He further pleaded that he did not know as to how this statement was transcribed. He had further stated that the book that came alongwith the order for line, he calls it dispatch book. According to him the dispatch book is book which is kept in the office wherein the entry about dispatching orders, letters etc. is made and in which signatures of recipients are obtained. He had denied that he had seen the dispatch register but on the order for line dispatch number in the hand of Ram Nath was there and on that basis he states that his line order was dispatched by Ram Nath. Then he stated that these statements he is making on his imagination and not on the basis of the identification of the writing over it. He had further admitted that when S. D. Tyagi approached him in the night of 19-4- 1980 Ram Kumar also accompanied him. Ram Nath at that time was not present. He has further admitted that there is overwring in Ext. Ka-13. In the absence of any time when this overwriting was made by him he cannot tell. He had tried to explain it by saying that initially the time was put at 4. 00 p. m. and subsequently it had been changed. 12. Thus in the circumstances from the evidence of these witnesses what ap pears to be clinching is that the line order was signed by the appellant as early as on 26-3-80. There is entry in the dispatch register regarding it. 00 p. m. and subsequently it had been changed. 12. Thus in the circumstances from the evidence of these witnesses what ap pears to be clinching is that the line order was signed by the appellant as early as on 26-3-80. There is entry in the dispatch register regarding it. Neither the dispatch register nor the dispatch book was taken by the Investigating Officer in his custody. The Courts are deprived of their examina tion by their non-production. They were. . very important pieces of evidence for the decision of the above circumstance. It ap pears to me that this witness had deliberately stated that he received it on 19-4- 80 itself. The trap officer P. W 1 S. D. Tyagi had approached P. W.-5 and obtained Ext. Ka- 13 from him on the basis of the order. Why this order was carried to his house by P. W 5 is wholly unexplained. He has not stated that he was an official responsible for laying the line. Had it been so he could have carried the order to his house. Once the absence of the dispatch book alongwith the non-examination of Ram Nath who was an important witness for the prosecution is taken into con sideration it becomes evident that some thing black at the bottom was there in the case of the prosecution and documentary evidence viz. dispatch register and dis patch book and oral evidence of Ram Nalh could have provided the Court with un-rebuttable proof to this fact. That is why the prosecution had ominously avoided to either taken it into custody or produce the same in the Court. Even the Court has not made any serious endeavor to summon any official of the Hydel Department and seek explanation from him with regard to the dispatch book which was a most important piece of evidence. Since it must have con tained date on which it was sent from the S. D. O. s office and also the date on which it was handed over to P. W.-5 by Ram Nath. It appears that this witness has made some interpolation in the date and the time of receiving of the line order. The dispatch book was deliberately shown to have been lost. It appears to have purposely been withheld from the Court. It appears that this witness has made some interpolation in the date and the time of receiving of the line order. The dispatch book was deliberately shown to have been lost. It appears to have purposely been withheld from the Court. The investigat ing agency had, especially S. D. Tyagi, P. W.-1, had adhered to novel method by obtain ing only a copy of it without proving its loss. The reason is not for to seek that the local police was at loggerhead with the Electricity Department. Local staff of the Hydel at Kiratpur had sought police protection from the wrath of the public for disconnecting the connections. The police did not like disconnecting of the connec tion of their favoured ones. That fact is proved from the evidence of P. W 5. He had identified the signature upon a piece of the paper which probably indicates this fact and is Ext. Ka-2 on record. The evidence of the Investigating Officer further shows beyond doubt that it bears the date 26-3 -. 80. It was scored out and underneath it 19-4-80 was transcribed. P. W.-5 Investiga tion Officer admits it to be in his handwrit ing. He had obtained the original copy of the order for connection from the Divisional Office but that copy was not produced in Court. This is also something very strange. He has admitted that he had obtained an extract of the dispatch register. Extract of the register was ob tained without taking the dispatch register in his custody. No memo was prepared. This further goes to establish that deliberately the dispatch register was with held from the Court and extracts were obtained from P. W.- 5 either under threat or by coercion to its liking by the trap officer or I. O. 13. These circumstances relied upon by the trial Court regarding the extract and the fact that the order was received for laying the line on 19-4-80 is not borne out from the record. The record establishes that the order was signed on 26-3-80 and subsequently in order to make out a case against the appellant. P. W.-5 Ram Nath was pressurized by P. W.-l S. D. Tyagi to score out that writing. Underneath the original date a new date 17-4-80 by pencil was put by P. W.-5. The record establishes that the order was signed on 26-3-80 and subsequently in order to make out a case against the appellant. P. W.-5 Ram Nath was pressurized by P. W.-l S. D. Tyagi to score out that writing. Underneath the original date a new date 17-4-80 by pencil was put by P. W.-5. It is further admitted to the investigating officer that he had seen the dispatch register from which he had obtained Ext. Ka-13. He had further ad mitted that he had not prepared any memo for taking into his custody the dispatch book. He had further admitted that he had learnt from the record of the Divisional Office that the date on which the order to lay connection was received in the S. D. O. s office was 22-3-80. He had also obtained the receipt from the Divisional Office sent from the Sub-Divisional Office, Kiratpur but that too was not produced in Court. He has admitted that Ext. Ka-11 is order for connection. 14. There is an endorsement by S. D. O. please issue line order and under neath it there is a date 24-3-80 which bears the signature of the appellant. He had further stated that according to his under standing the order Ext. Ka-11 was prepared on 24-3-80. According to him above said order dated 24-3-80 was ul timately sent to the Junior Engineer. He had admitted that this entry of Ext. Ka-12 was examined by him from the dispatch register. Regarding Ext. Ka-12 there is an entry of 26-3-80. He had further admitted that register does not bear any entry regarding dispatch on 17-4-80. He claimed that he had taken that register into cus tody. He has further admitted that he had learned that the order was given to the Junior Engineer by Ram Nath. It is a also admitted that the brother of the appellant was present in the room from where the appellant was arrested. This fact has been denied by the witnesses. But this fact is admitted to P. W.-l S. D. Tyagi and the In vestigating Officer. There is some serious dispute with regard to the to to per reply detailed by the witnesses and noted by the Investigating Officer. Over and above it is available from the evidence that this ap pellant was sleeping when Ram Kumar entered his room. But this fact is admitted to P. W.-l S. D. Tyagi and the In vestigating Officer. There is some serious dispute with regard to the to to per reply detailed by the witnesses and noted by the Investigating Officer. Over and above it is available from the evidence that this ap pellant was sleeping when Ram Kumar entered his room. The informant could have easily slipped the envelope contain ing notes underneath his pillow. When the police party or the informant awoke him he took it out. It is probable. 15. The appellant had examined D. W. 6 Lexman Singh Verma who is civil en gineer and consultant. He had filed Ext. 7 the map of the house. This map is in serious conflict with the map prepared by he Vigilance Inspector P. W. 6, That fur ther goes to suggest that no trap as alleged by the prosecution was in fact conducted at his house. It further suggests that the ap pellant was forcibly lilted from his house by Vigilance Inspector and brought to Police Station Kiratpur. He was brought to the Police Station is admitted by P. W.-2 Jam Raj Singh. All the formalities regarding preparation of papers and phenopthalene processing of the notes and preparation o the memo was completed at the police station and not at the place of occurrence as alleged. This prosecution was maliciously launched. 16. In view of the above discussion this appeal stands allowed. The conviction of the appellant and his sentences are hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the offences. He is on bail. He need not sur render. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal allowed. .