JUDGMENT S.S. Grewal, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 16.12.1992 passed by learned Special Judge, Faridkot in Sessions Case No. 11 of 26.1.1991 vide which the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1500/- or in default of payment thereof to further undergo RI for three months in case FIR No. 18 dated 2.2.1980 under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station, City, Muktsar. 2. The prosecution story is that Gurdev Singh PW-4 was a conductor (No. 118) in Punjab Roadways Depot at Muktsar under the accused. From 1.12.1989 to 13.1.1990 he remained on one route. Thereafter, he was put on advance booking for Kotkapura. Then he was put on Muktsar to Matili route. Thereafter his duty was fixed from Moga to Matili and again from Dabwali to Giddarbaha. The accused had put Gurdev Singh on these routes. On 30.1.1990, Gurdev Singh PW met the accused and asked him that he be put on one duty but the accused replied that he would not settle the duty without bribe. The accused demanded Rs. 150/- as illegal gratification. The matter was, however, settled at Rs. 100/- when Gurdev Singh stated that he was a poor man and was unable to give that amount of Rs. 150/-. Gurdev Singh confabulated with Om Parkash and both of them went of Vigilance Office at Muktsar on 2.2.1990 where Gurdev Singh made statement Ex.PD before Gurmit Singh, Vigilance Inspector and also produced two currency notes of Rs. 50/- each. The Inspector applied phenolphathlein powder to the said currency notes and handed over the same to Gurdev Singh vide memo Ex.PE. The Inspector saw to it that no other article remained with Gurdev Singh. A demonstration of the working of Phenolphathlien powder was conducted for which memo Ex.PF was prepared attested by the PWs Gurdev Singh and Om Parkash. It was planned that Gurdev Singh would go ahead and Om Parkash would follow him. Gurdev Singh was directed to hand over the money to the accused while Om Parkash was directed to hear the conversation between the accused and Gurdev Singh PW and also to see the passing on of the money and then to give signal to the raiding party by putting his hand on his head. Gurdev Singh was directed to hand over the money to the accused while Om Parkash was directed to hear the conversation between the accused and Gurdev Singh PW and also to see the passing on of the money and then to give signal to the raiding party by putting his hand on his head. The party so formed left for the raid in the bus adda premises. On the way Makhan Singh, Junior Engineer of PWD, B&R was joined in the raiding party was introduced to the PWs and also told about the purpose of raid. The office of the accused was inside the Bus Stand. The Inspector repeated the instructions to Gurdev Singh and Om Parkash. Gurdev Singh met the accused who was sitting in the open ground in a chair in front of a table. Gurdev Singh asked the accused to settle his duty and also to sign the over turn (over- time) card. The accused demanded that he should first be paid his fee. Then Gurdev Singh gave him the marked currency notes who put the same in a drawer of the table. Om Parkash PW then gave signal to the raiding party who arrived at the scene. The Vigilance Inspector introduced himself to the accused. Makhan Singh (Traffic Manager) and Mahesh Kumar (Works Manager) PWs were also called there and they joined the investigation. A glass of water was arranged in which some quantity of sodium carbonate was put. The colour of the water did not change. Then the hands of Makhan Singh (Traffic Manager) PW were got washed in that solution. Even then the colour did not change. Thereafter, the hands of the accused were got washed and then the colour of the solution changed into light pink. The solution was put in a nip Ex.P-2, sealed with the seal of the Inspector bearing mark GS and a signed chit of Makhan Singh PW-6 was affixed on it. It was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PG. The Inspector also prepared sample seal impression. Gurdev Singh PW told the inspector that the accused had put the money in the drawer of his table. Thereafter, the accused took out the currency notes from the drawer. The numbers of the currency notes were compared with those mentioned on memo Ex.PE and they were found to be the same. The currency notes Exs. Gurdev Singh PW told the inspector that the accused had put the money in the drawer of his table. Thereafter, the accused took out the currency notes from the drawer. The numbers of the currency notes were compared with those mentioned on memo Ex.PE and they were found to be the same. The currency notes Exs. P-3 and P-4 were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PH. On further search of the accused a sum of Rs. 900/-, an identity card, a pen and a wrist watch were recovered which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PJ signed by the accused and attested by the PWs. One rotation register and over time card Ex.P-1 and yard duty register were also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PK attested by Gurdev Singh, Om Parkash, Makhan Singh, Mahesh Kumar and another Makhan Singh PWs. The Inspector prepared a rough site plan Ex.PL and formally arrested the accused. On return to the police station, the case property was deposited with seals intact with the MHC. The solution was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory Punjab Chandigarh on 14.2.1990 through constable Hardev Singh No. 2289/LDH with seals and signatures of Makhan Singh PW-6 thereon intact. The contents of the same were examined physically and chemically. On the basis of colour test, litmus paper test, PH test, acid test, flame test and colourimateric analysis, it was found to be sodium ions carbonate ions and phenolphthalein. It was the chemical property of phenolphathalein that it turned colourless solution of sodium carbonate to pink. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory to this effect is Ex.PN. 3. After investigation, challan was put and the accused was charge-sheeted on the allegation that on 2.2.1990 while working as Duty Inspector in Punjab Roadways Depot Muktsar as a Public Servant, and working as such, he demanded and accepted Rs. 100/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from Gurdev Singh conductor for setting his duty and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution examined PW-1 Sukhwant Singh, PW-2 Satish Kumar Clerk, PW-3 Kulwant Singh, PW4, Gurdev Singh conductor (complainant), PW-5 Om Parkash, PW-6 Makhan Singh Junior Engineer, PW-7 Mehal Singh, PW-8 Gurmit Singh, Vigilance Inspector and PW-9 Balbinder Kaur Scientific Officer and after tendering certain documents, closed its evidence. 5. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution examined PW-1 Sukhwant Singh, PW-2 Satish Kumar Clerk, PW-3 Kulwant Singh, PW4, Gurdev Singh conductor (complainant), PW-5 Om Parkash, PW-6 Makhan Singh Junior Engineer, PW-7 Mehal Singh, PW-8 Gurmit Singh, Vigilance Inspector and PW-9 Balbinder Kaur Scientific Officer and after tendering certain documents, closed its evidence. 5. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. In his defence, he produced two witnesses, DW-1 Prithipal Singh and DW-2 Sajjan Kumar, Conductor and closed defence evidence. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel has argued that prosecution evidence is contradictory in nature and is not consistent. The accused is said to be sitting in the open on a chair and a table was lying in front of him. Gurdev Singh PW-4 went there and allegedly handed over him bribe of Rs. 100/- by way of two currency notes of denomination of Rs. 50/- each vide memo Ex. PE, which were put in the drawer by the accused. It is but natural that no body will take bribe money while sitting in open at a bus-stand and will not put the same in the drawer instead of his purse. The accused was also not to depute Gurdev Singh PW-4 and Om Parkash PW-5, as Conductors on bus routes. It was D.W.-1, Pirthipal Singh who was to allot duty to the Conductors and Drivers. Om Parkash remained on duty upto 12.10 PM whereas PW-4 stated that he and Om Parkash went to the Vigilance Office at 10.00 AM and he made the statement Ex. P/D. D.W.-1 has also stated that Om Parkash never applied for leave on that day. He also stated that accused was taken by Constable Tejinder Singh of Vigilance Department while he was standing with him and one Boota Singh, Enquiry Clerk accompanied the accused when he was taken away from Bus Stand in the open and currency notes were thrust in the hands of the accused. There is also contradiction in the evidence regarding recovery of the alleged currency notes. PW-4, Gurdev Singh deposed that money was taken out by the Inspector whereas PW-5 deposes that it was taken out by the accused from the drawer and handed over to the Inspector. There is also contradiction in the evidence regarding recovery of the alleged currency notes. PW-4, Gurdev Singh deposed that money was taken out by the Inspector whereas PW-5 deposes that it was taken out by the accused from the drawer and handed over to the Inspector. Makhan Singh and Mahesh Kumar are the independent witnesses of Ex.PK where certain lines have been added by the Vigilance department. They have been given up. In these circumstances, he prayed, that the judgment and order of conviction against the accused- appellant should be set aside and appellant be acquitted of the charge. 8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, argued that all the witnesses have supported the prosecution version and stand corroborated. So the case is proved against the accused and he has rightly been convicted. 9. PW-4 is Gurdev Singh, complainant. He has stated in his examination in chief that "Then I talked to Om Parkash. Then we went to Vigilance office on 2.2.1990 where I made a statement Ex.PD". Currency notes were handed over to him. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he went to Vigilance office at 10.00 AM and remained there for about two hours and he returned to Bus stand at about 1 P.M. This shows that Om Parkash was absent upto 1.00 P.M. PW-4 has also stated that currency notes were taken out by the Inspector and that Pawan Kumar had made complaints to the General Manager against him and Om Parkash. Om Parkash PW-5 admitted that he was prosecution witness in some other cases also and remained present on the job upto 9.00 AM. Entry No. 53 is not made by him at 12-10 PM. He has also deposed that the Incharge was Prithipal Singh, Chief Inspector, from whom he got permission for leave but, he did not sanction any leave in writing. He also stated that the currency notes were taken out from the drawer by the accused whereas PW-6 deposed that currency notes were taken out by Gurdev Singh. Makhan Singh and Mahesh Kumar, witnesses have been given up. There were witnesses of Ex.PK which two lines have been incorporated with a different ink at close space, which is marked as "A to A" on Ex. PK. Makhan Singh and Mahesh Kumar, witnesses have been given up. There were witnesses of Ex.PK which two lines have been incorporated with a different ink at close space, which is marked as "A to A" on Ex. PK. This shows that prosecution has tried to incorporate certain lines in the document, which was not supported by the witnesses and they have been given up. 10. Prithipal Singh appeared as DW-1. He has stated that "I used to allot duty to conductors and drivers when he was posted at the main bus-stand". He has also stated that the accused had no concern with putting Gurdev Singh and Om Parkash, PWs on any duty. This shows that Pawan Kumar, accused had nothing to do with assigning duty to the Conductors. There is thus, no section of making payment of bribe to him. He has also stated that he had put Gurdev Singh and Om Parkash on respective duties on 2.2.1990 from 5.30 AM to 12.10 PM and on that day, Om Parkash did not submit his leave application to him either in writing or verbally. Gurdev Singh also did not seek any leave. He has further stated that on 2.2.1990 at about 12.10 PM, accused was with him at the main Bus stand. Boota Singh, Enquiry Clerk was standing with him. Tejinder Singh, constable of Vigilance department came to call the accused and was taken to the open. The money was thrusted in the hands of accused and he was falsely implicated by the Vigilance department. 11. Sajjan Singh, DW-2 has clearly stated that on 2.2.1990, he was on duty and at that time, he relieved Om Parkash, Conductor at 12.00 PM. Om Parkash stayed with him thereafter for about 10-15 minutes for counting his cash. Thereafter, he went away to deposit the cash and the ticket box. So, the presence of Om Parkash at the time of lodging of complaint, handing over of money and recovery becomes very suspicious. 12. From the above discussion, the prosecution case clearly becomes doubtful and suspicious and it must fail. So, the appeal is accepted providing benefit of doubt to the accused. Resultantly, the judgment and order under appeal is set-aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. Appeal allowed.