Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 180 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. RAM KRISHAN

2001-08-02

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

body2001
JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—This appeal by the State of Himachal Pradesh is directed against the order dated 16.7.1997 passed by the Special Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1993 whereby the respondent-Ram Krishan has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption of Act, 1988. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated was that during the year 1992 the respondent was posted as Patwari in Patwar Circle, Bhakra, Sub Tehsil Naina Devi, District Bilaspur. One Balak Ram resident of Khalriba Panchayat Bhakra made a complaint (Ext. PW-8/A) under Section 154 Cr.P.C. to Deputy Superintendent of Police Anti Corruption Zone, Bilaspur on 7.7.1992 alleging inter alia that respondent declined to supply him the copies of revenue record without payment of Rs. 300 as illegal gratification. On the basis of the said statement, First Information Report (Ext. PD) was recorded by Smt. Asha Thakur LHC (PW-4) at Police Station Anti Corruption, Zone Bilaspur on the same day at 8.30 p.m. for offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (for short the PC. Act). The investigation of the case was conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri Mohan Lai (PW-11) Anti Corruption Zone, Hamirpur who had formed the raiding party consisting of complainant Balak Ram (PW-8), Bachnu Ram (PW-9), Sher Singh (PW-10), PW-11 had given Rs. 150 of denomination of Rs. 50 each to PW-8 for handing over the same to the respondent. Necessary demonstration had also been given to the trap witnesses and as per the direction of PW-11, PW-8 had handed over the amount of Rs. 150 which was allegedly accepted by respondent as bribe to supply the copies of the revenue record to the complainant. The amount of illegal gratification was kept by the respondent in a drawer of his table. On receiving the signal, the police immediately entered into the office room of the respondent and effected the recovery of Rs. 150 from drawer of his table. His hands were got washed in a plate and thereafter the water was taken in a nip which was sealed with mark H and the seal after use was handed over to PW-10. The samples of powder were marked Exts. P-l and P-2 and the nip containing solution was Ext. P-4. The memo of hand wash of the respondent was prepared and marked Ext. The samples of powder were marked Exts. P-l and P-2 and the nip containing solution was Ext. P-4. The memo of hand wash of the respondent was prepared and marked Ext. PW-8/D. The numbers of the recovered notes were compared and tallied with the numbers noted in Memo (Ext. PW-8/B). PW-11 prepared site plan (Ext. PW-11/A) of the spot. The case property was deposited by Asha Thakur, LHC (PW-4) with LHC Babu Ram (PW-5). The samples were sent to Chemical Analyser of Chemical Examination, Laboratory, Shimla. PW-11 recorded the statements of the witnesses and completed the investigation. On receipt of the report of the Chemical Analyser (Ext. PW-11/C), the Police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented by PW-11 in the Court of the Special Judge for the commission of the above said offences against the respondent. 3. On consideration of the Police report, the learned Special Judge found prima facie case against the respondent and charged him under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC. Act. The respondent denied the charges and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and also placed on record documentary evidence. The respondent in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He stated that Assistant Sub Inspector Hari Ram had involved him in a false case in connivance with his brother and relative. His defence was that Sher Singh PW-10 is the real brother and Bachnu (PW-9) is the real Bhanja (Sisters son) of ASI Hari Ram. He pleaded that PW-8 complainant, PW-9 and PW-10 and ASI Hari Ram had encroached upon the Government land and he initiated proceedings against them for their eviction after making inquiry with regard to their illegal possession over the Government land. He pleaded innocence. However, the respondent led no evidence in his defence. 4. The learned Special Judge on appraisal of the entire evidence on record found the respondent not guilty of the charges framed against him and recorded the order of acquittal in his favour. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the State of Himachal Pradesh has preferred this appeal challenging the correctness and validity of the impugned order. 5. Mr. 4. The learned Special Judge on appraisal of the entire evidence on record found the respondent not guilty of the charges framed against him and recorded the order of acquittal in his favour. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the State of Himachal Pradesh has preferred this appeal challenging the correctness and validity of the impugned order. 5. Mr. Sandeep Kaushik, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has not been appreciated and considered by the learned trial Judge in its proper perspective and the learned trial Judge has not given any cogent reason to discard the consistent and satisfactory testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The defence of the respondent about initiation of encroachment proceedings against complainant and PWs 9 and 10 for their eviction from the Government land was an after thought as no such proceedings were initiated by him when he was found committing the alleged offences. He also contended that three currency notes of Rs. 50 denomination recovered from the drawer of the table of the respondent had tallied with the numbers of the currency notes handed over to the complainant for giving bribe to the respondent and as the respondent has failed to explain the presence of Phenol Phthalein powder on his hands the learned trial Judge has failed to consider these facts to connect the respondent with the commission of the offences levelled against him. He also contended that the learned trial Judge has given more importance to the minor discrepancies appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which were not relevant or fatal to the otherwise truthful versions of the witnesses who have categorically stated that the respondent as a public servant had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 300 from the complainant and he was apprehended by the police officials immediately after the acceptance of the money, at the spot. 6. Per contra, Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that on close scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it stands clearly established that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand of bribe made by the respondent as alleged against him. 6. Per contra, Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that on close scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it stands clearly established that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand of bribe made by the respondent as alleged against him. He has taken me through the evidence of the witnesses and contended that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was full of contradictions on the material particulars and the learned trial Judge has rightly discarded the evidence led by the prosecution as it was not found cogent and convincing to connect the respondent with the commission of the offence alleged against him. The learned Counsel next contended that the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the respondent and in view of the settled position of law that if two views are possible the one favourable to the accused shall have to be accepted by, the Court and therefore, this Court while considering the appeal of the State against the acquittal order, will hot interfere with the well reasoned order of the learned trial Judge as the said order does not suffer from sny infirmity or perversity. Both the learned Counsel have placed reliance on the judgments of the High Courts and the apex Court in support of their submissions which shall be dealt with and considered in the later part of the judgment at an appropriate stage. 7. I have given my thoughtful and anxious consideration to the respective contentions of the learned Counsel on both sides and also re-appraised the entire material on record. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of complainant PW-8 and other witnesses namely PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11. It is accepted case of the parties that the respondent was posted as Patwari at Patwar Circle, Bhakra. during the relevant period. The case of complainant PW-8 was that in the year 1991 he met some officers of the Revenue Department at Shri Naina Devi Ji in connection with the regularization of land which was in his possession as encroacher. He was advised by the revenue officials to bring relevant revenue papers of the land from the Patwar Halqua. He deposed before the Court that about one month prior to the date when the raid was allegedly conducted by the Police officials about the recovery of the money of bribe paid to the respondent, the respondent initially demanded Rs. He was advised by the revenue officials to bring relevant revenue papers of the land from the Patwar Halqua. He deposed before the Court that about one month prior to the date when the raid was allegedly conducted by the Police officials about the recovery of the money of bribe paid to the respondent, the respondent initially demanded Rs. 400 as illegal gratification from him for supplying copies of revenue record to him and he refused to pay the said amount to the respondent. When the demand of the respondent was declined by him, the respondent again demanded Rs. 200 but he could not arrange the demanded amount and could arrange only Rs. 150. He offered Rs. 150 to the respondent but he refused to receive the same. He then went to village Kulwin to arrange for a balance sum of Rs. 50 to pay the demanded money of Rs. 200 to the respondent. At village Kulwin he noticed a jeep parked there and five persons were sitting in the said jeep who inquired from him as to where he was going and for what purpose? On their inquiry, he narrated the entire incident to them. His statement Ext. PW-8/A was recorded by one of the persons sitting in the jeep which he thumb marked. He was asked to produce the currency notes which he was having in his possession. He came to know that those five persons were the police officials. He produced three currency notes each of the denomination of Rs. 50 which were treated with some powder. The numbers of the notes were noted separately and taken into possession vide memo. Ext. PW-8/B. The said currency notes were again handed over to him for payment to the respondent. Some powder was put in the plate and after mixing the powder with water, the colour of the water remained white. Some powder was put in the second plate mixed with the water which also remained white. Thereafter the water of both plates were mixed and the colour of the mixture became pink. The pink water was put in the nip and was sealed. The sample of the powder was also taken. It is the say of PW-8 that three currency notes each of the denomination of Rs. Thereafter the water of both plates were mixed and the colour of the mixture became pink. The pink water was put in the nip and was sealed. The sample of the powder was also taken. It is the say of PW-8 that three currency notes each of the denomination of Rs. 50 were handed over by him to respondent in the presence of PW-9 who put the money in the drawer of his table. On giving signal to the Police, the police immediately came to Patwar Circle accompanied by PW-10 and one Ram Kishan. On the asking of the Police Officials to hand over the currency notes to them, the respondent replied that he had riot taken money from the respondent. On search of the drawer of the respondent a sum of Rs. 150 was recovered and the currency notes were the same which he handed over to the respondent, he identified the currency notes (Exts. P-9, P-10 and P-ll) in the court. It has come in his cross-examination that the police officials who were sitting in the jeep asked him to take Rs. 150 to the respondent and if he refused to accept the money, then they would see him. It has come in his evidence that without making demand by the respondent he handed over Rs. 150 in the presence of PW-9 and one more person who was also sitting in the Patwar Khana, but when the police officials entered the room of the respondent, only PW-8 was sitting and other persons sitting there had slipped away. It is his say that the police officials first asked him about the payment of money to the respondent and he told them that he had paid Rs. 150 to the respondent which were kept by him in the drawer of the table. It is his evidence that the respondent repeatedly said that no money was received by him from the complainant. It is also his evidence that firstly PW-8, PW-10 and Ram Kishan accompanying the police party searched the drawer of the table of the respondent, but lateron it was one police official who took out the money from the drawer of the table. It is also his evidence that firstly PW-8, PW-10 and Ram Kishan accompanying the police party searched the drawer of the table of the respondent, but lateron it was one police official who took out the money from the drawer of the table. The Police official who took out the money from the drawer got the hands of the respondent washed because he was persistently claiming that no illegal gratification was demanded by him from the complainant nor he accepted any money from him. The colour of the hand wash water of the respondent became pink. This witness has specifically stated that no demonstration of mixing of powder in the water was made at Kulwin where the police officials accompanied by PW-10 and Ram Kishan met him before proceeding towards the room of the respondent and that no such demonstration was given by PW-11 in the room of the respondent after the recovery of the currency notes. The witness has categorically stated in his deposition that his statement (Ext. PW-8/A) was recorded by the Police after the entire proceedings were conducted in the room of the respondent and his statement was not recorded when the police met him at village Kulwin. All the memos were prepared by the Police after the proceedings were completed in the room of the respondent which were got thumb marked from him. His version that the respondent at the first occasion demanded Rs. 400 from him as illegal gratification and then lateron Rs. 200 as deposed by him before the Court does not find mention in his statement (Ext. PW-8/A). The evidence of this witness is full of contradictions and improvements and no reliance can be placed on his testimony In his examination-in-chief he has stated that the demonstration about mixing of the powder with the water, handing over three currency notes of Rs. 50 denomination by PW-11 to him, preparation of the memos about the demonstration, numbers of the currency notes noted in the memo by the police officials at village Kulwin have been belied by him in his cross-examination. This witness has even denied the recording of his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. marked Ext. 50 denomination by PW-11 to him, preparation of the memos about the demonstration, numbers of the currency notes noted in the memo by the police officials at village Kulwin have been belied by him in his cross-examination. This witness has even denied the recording of his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. marked Ext. PW-8/A by PW~ 11 at village Kulwin whereas the document shows that it was recorded by PW-11 at village Kulwin at 4.00 p.m. before the Police officials along with complainant and the other witnesses proceeded to raid the room of the respondent for the recovery of the money. 8. PW-9 Bachnu Ram stated that he was sitting in the room of the respondent when complainant PW-8 came there and demanded copy of some revenue record from the respondent. The respondent asked the complainant whether he had brought the money and the complainant replied that he had brought Rs. 150 which amount was paid to the respondent in his presence. The respondent kept Rs. 150 in the drawer of his table. The police official of the Anti Corruption Unit accompanied by PW-10 and Ram Krishan immediately entered the room of the respondent and on their asking, the complainant told the Police party that the respondent had taken Rs. 150 from him. One Police official recovered three currency notes from the drawer of the table of the respondent. The currency notes were taken into possession vide memo (Ext. PW-8/E) and thereafter the hands of the respondent were got washed by the Police in a plate and some powder was put in the glass. The water of the glass and plate remained white. The Police mixed water of glass with water of plate which turned pink and the solution was taken in a nip which was sealed at the spot. The recovery memo Ext. PW-8/D) was signed by him in the presence of PW-10 and Ram Krishan Pradhan. This witness had not met the police party alongwith complainant PW-8 at village Kulwin. He has also admitted that he did not give any signal to the police when the money was paid by complainant to the respondent for the supply of the revenue papers which were supplied to the complainant by the respondent in his presence. This witness had not met the police party alongwith complainant PW-8 at village Kulwin. He has also admitted that he did not give any signal to the police when the money was paid by complainant to the respondent for the supply of the revenue papers which were supplied to the complainant by the respondent in his presence. It is his say that the respondent categorically denied the receipt of money from the complainant when he was asked by the police officials about the receipt thereof. It is his specific case that the currency notes were recovered by the police official from the drawer of the table of the respondent and handwash of the respondent was also done by the police officials^ He has pledged his ignorance whether anything was mixed with water for handwash of the respondent. He has denied making of his statement to the police recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the police met him in village Kulwin and the demonstration of the powder was done at that village and that three currency notes of Rs. 50 each were treated with powder and their numbers were also noted and those currency notes were given to the complainant by the police officials for handing over to the respondent on demand and when the money was accepted by the respondent he was asked to give indication. The witness has categorically stated that the respondent had instituted eviction proceedings against the complainant Balak Ram and PW Sher Singh for encroaching upon Government land but those proceedings were initiated after the respondent was apprehended in the present case. 9. PW Sher Singh stated that the police officials wearing civil clothes met him on 7.7.1992 at about 2 p.m. at village Makri accompanied by the complainant. The police officials told him that the respondent was demanding money/bribe from the complainant. Demonstration of putting powder on three currency notes of Rs. 50 was done by the police in his presence and memo Ext. PW-8/B was also prepared. He has corroborated the version of complainant PW-8. However, it has come in his evidence that the police directed the complainant to go to Patwarkhana and asked for revenue record from the respondent and in case he made demand of money, the complainant should pay him Rs. 150 and thereafter the police be informed by giving signal to them. He has corroborated the version of complainant PW-8. However, it has come in his evidence that the police directed the complainant to go to Patwarkhana and asked for revenue record from the respondent and in case he made demand of money, the complainant should pay him Rs. 150 and thereafter the police be informed by giving signal to them. It is his say that the complainant told the police that he had handed over the money to the respondent but the respondent denied to have taken money. He has stated that on demand to produce the money received by the respondent, the respondent after resistance produced three currency notes of Rs. 50 each denomination. This part of the version of the witnesses is contradictory to the versions of PW-8 and PW-9 who have categorically stated that currency notes of Rs. 150 were recovered by a police official from the drawer of the table of the respondent and it was not the respondent who produced the money to the police officials. The witness has admitted the suggestion of the respondent that the respondent prepared cases against him and PW-9 for encroachment of the Government land by them, but stated that encroachment proceedings were initiated after about 10 days from the day of raid of the Police officials. It has come in his cross-examination that when he entered the rooiji of the respondent, two police officials, Bachnu PW-9, one Ballu and respondent Balak Ram were present there. In addition, 2-3 more persons were also sitting in the room of the respondent whose names he could not remember. He stated that it was PW-9 who poured water on the hands of the respondent and no other police official assisted him in the process of hand wash. This part of the statement of the witness was again not in conformity with the versions of PWs 8 and 9 who have specifically stated that the currency notes were recovered by a police official from the drawer of the table of the respondent and one police official caught hold of the hand of the respondent and made him to wash his hands. 10. In his statement Dy. S.P. Sh. 10. In his statement Dy. S.P. Sh. Mohan Lai (PW-11) has stated that on 7.7.1992 he alongwith Inspector Harbans Singh, Constable Rattan, Rakesh Chand and driver Lai Singh was present in village Kulwin when complainant Balak Ram and PW-9 Bachnu Ram met them at about 2.30 p.m. He recorded the statement Ext. PW-8/A of the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C. at Kulwin which was read over and explained to the complainant who thumb marked the same after admitting the contents thereof to be true. Three currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50 each marked Exts. P-9 to P-ll were produced by complainant Balak Ram and their numbers were recorded in memo Ext. PW-8/A. The currency notes were treated with powder Phenol Phthalein and Sodium Carbonate and thereafter were handed over to complainant Balak Ram to deliver them to the respondent if he made any demand. Demonstration of the Phenol Phthalein and Sodium Carbonate powder was done by him in the presence of PW Sher Singh and PW Bachnu Ram. As stated above, PWs Bachnu Ram and Sher Singh have categorically stated that Bachnu Ram was not present at village Kulwin when demonstration was given by this witness which would mean that memo Ext. PW-8/B was prepared by this witness lateron and not prior to the process of raiding the room of the respondent was completed. Complainant Balak Ram has specifically stated that all the recovery memos, memo of demonstration and his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. marked Ext. PW-8/A were prepared by this witness after the recovery of the currency notes by one police official from the drawer of the table of the respondent. The evidence of this witness, therefore, cannot be relied upon as his version is not supported by the complainant himself nor by PW Bachnu. It is the statement of this witness that the currency notes were handed over by the respondent to him after opening the drawer of his table and this part of his statement is belied by other witnesses as noticed hereinabove. The witness has stated that PW-9 Bachnu Ram was made shadow witness whereas PW-9 has not accepted this position in his deposition. It is the evidence of this witness that the demonstration at the first occasion was given by him to the witnesses at village Kulwin whereas PW-2 Sher Singh has stated that the demonstration was given at village Makri. The witness has stated that PW-9 Bachnu Ram was made shadow witness whereas PW-9 has not accepted this position in his deposition. It is the evidence of this witness that the demonstration at the first occasion was given by him to the witnesses at village Kulwin whereas PW-2 Sher Singh has stated that the demonstration was given at village Makri. According to his version, he caught the hands of the respondent and the water was poured by someone else but no powder was mixed in the hand wash of the respondent. 11. Having carefully considered the entire evidence as discussed above the contradictions and inconsistencies appearing in the statements of the prosecution witnesses cannot be said to be insignificant. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence. The evidence of the complainant PW-8, Bachnu PW-9 and Sher Singh PWrlO about the process of conducting demonstration by PW-11 is not consistent as the witnesses have given different versions about the process of demonstration having been conducted by PW-11. It was the specific case of the complainant that he accidentally happened to meet the police officials at village Kulwin who inquired from him as to where he was going and for what purpose and no other person was present with the police officials at that time. If his evidence has to be accepted, it means that PW-10 Sher Singh was not present with the police party when the complainant met PW-11 the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The prosecution has also not explained as to why the police officials inquired from the complainant about his whereabouts and purpose of going to village Kulwin. The specific case of the complainant was that the respondent demanded Rs. 400 from him for the supply of the revenue record but he could not oblige the respondent and then the respondent made a demand of Rs. 200 which he could not arrange and when he requested the respondent to accept Rs. 150, the respondent flatly refused to take Rs. 150 from him. If it was so, I fail to understand and appreciate how lateron the respondent agregcLto accept Rs. 150 ftfortt the complainant as bribe in the presence of PW-9 and other 3-4 persons fitting in his Teoin. The evidence of PW Sher Singh about preparation of memo Ext. 150, the respondent flatly refused to take Rs. 150 from him. If it was so, I fail to understand and appreciate how lateron the respondent agregcLto accept Rs. 150 ftfortt the complainant as bribe in the presence of PW-9 and other 3-4 persons fitting in his Teoin. The evidence of PW Sher Singh about preparation of memo Ext. PW-8/C about demonstration given by PW-11 to the complainant and PW Sher Singh before the raiding party proceeded to reach the room of the respondent, is highly doubtful and cannot be accepted in the teeth of the evidence of complainant and PW Bachnu. The currency notes alegedly recovered from the drawer of the table of the respondent were taken out by police official and not by the respondent and his hands were caught by the police official, and some other person whose names have not been disclosed by any of the witnesses.poured water on the hands of the respondent and the police official who recovered the notes. The evidence is very positive and consistent that the respondent had never touched the currency notes nor he had put that in the drawer of his table. The entire evidence on record is very weak and slender to connect the respondent with the commission of the offences for which he was charged. It appears that the defence of the respondent that since he had initiated the proceedings for the eviction of the complainant and PWs 9 and 10 from the Government land encroached by them and ASI Hari Singh brother of respondent Sher Singh, the present case has been fastened upon him falsely due to the said reason. The discrepancies noted hereinabove in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses are not minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies which cannot be ignored from consideration. The entire case of the prosecution is full of doubts and, therefore, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the respondent who has since retired long time back from the Government service. 12. It is the duty of the prosecution to join independent and disinterested person in the raiding party. PW-11 has only joined PW Sher Singh who is brother of ASI Hari Singh and against both these persons ejectment proceedings for encroachment of land had been initiated by the respondent. 12. It is the duty of the prosecution to join independent and disinterested person in the raiding party. PW-11 has only joined PW Sher Singh who is brother of ASI Hari Singh and against both these persons ejectment proceedings for encroachment of land had been initiated by the respondent. Ram Krishan, Pradhan of the Panchayat was associated by PW-11 who could be the most reliable witness of the prosecution but has not been^examined for the reasons best known to it and non-examination of the Pradhan in the facts and circumstances of the present case will create adverse presumption \about the correctness and truthfulness of the prosecution story against the respondent. 13. The need to include independent, dis-interested and reputable persons of the area and locality for evidencing the trap has been stressed in Raghubir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 91, as under: "We must take this opportunity of impressing on the officers functioning in the Anti-Corruption Department to insist on observing this safeguard as zealously and scrupulously as possible for the protection of public servants against whom a trap may have to be laid. They must seriously endeavour to secure really independent and respectable witnesses so that the evidence in regard to raid inspires confidence in the mind of the court and the court is not left in any doubt as to whether or not any money was paid to the public servant by way of bribe. We cannot, in the present case rely on the evidence of Jagdish Raj and Arjun Dass for the purpose of holding that a sum of Rs. 50 was paid by Jagdish Raj to the appellant by way of bribe. The same view has been taken in 1978 CAR (SC) 181, Jai Ram Lakhe v. State of Punjab and 1980 Cr. LJ (SC) 1330; Hart Obula Reddi and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh. Requirement of such a course is all the more fundamental in corruption cases where trap has been laid in view of 1979 Cr.L. Reporter (SC) 574, Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, 1983 (2) CLR 1992; Tarlok Singh v. The State of Punjab and 1981 Cr.L.J. 653, Doma and another v. The State of Maharashtra." 14. Requirement of such a course is all the more fundamental in corruption cases where trap has been laid in view of 1979 Cr.L. Reporter (SC) 574, Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, 1983 (2) CLR 1992; Tarlok Singh v. The State of Punjab and 1981 Cr.L.J. 653, Doma and another v. The State of Maharashtra." 14. In the absence of any reason stated by the prosecution for not including independent, disinterested and reputed witnesses in the raiding party, therefore, indicate that the incident has not taken place in the manner as the prosecution has contended. It further throws doubt on the whole case and the result is that the explanation given by the respondent that the complainant and PWs Bachnu and Sher Singh are all interested witnesses appears to be more sound and convincing. 15. The ratio of the judgment in Matadin and others v. State of U.P., AIR 1979 SC 1234, relied on by the learned Assistant Advocate General to contend that minor discrepancies appearing in the evidence of the witnesses shall be discarded if such discrepancies are not vital to the prosecution case does not advance his submissions any further. In that case it was observed that the statements by the witnesses before the police are meant to be brief statements and could not take the place of evidence in the Court. When the omissions are vital, they merit consideration, but mere small omissions will not justify a finding by a Court that the witnesses concerned are self-contained liars. In the case on hand as noticed above, the contradictions appearing in the evidence of the material witnesses about the conduct of the raid and the recovery of the currency notes are not minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies and they go to the very root of the case of the prosecution about its truthfulness. 16. In Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. Stale of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 571, their Lordships have held that once the prosecution establishes from the testimony of trap witnesses that gratification was paid and accepted by the public servant, presumption arises that it was paid and accepted as a motive or reward to do or for bear from doing any official act. 17. In Rup Singh v. State of Punjab, 1991 Cri. 17. In Rup Singh v. State of Punjab, 1991 Cri. LJ (SC) 1345, their Lordships have said that when the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is found acceptable in the case of accepting bribe by the public servant, and the accused fails to explain the presence of Phenol Phthalein powder on his hand and the recovery of the currency notes from the adjoining house where according to the prosecution witnesses the accused thrown the notes are proved beyond any reasonable doubt, the accused was rightly held guilty of the charge under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 18. In the facts and circumstances of the presence case, I fail to understand and appreciate how the ratio of the above judgments relied on by the learned Assistant Advocate General Advocate his submissions and help the prosecution case. 19. Learned trial Judge has meticulously examined the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses as well as the documentary evidence and on consideration of the entire evidence as discussed above, I find no infirmity or perversity in the reasoning and finding of the learned trial Judge to call for interference in this appeal. All the submissions of the learned Assistant Advocate General do not favour acceptance. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Personal and surety bonds of the respondent are hereby discharged. Appeal dismissed.