JUDGMENT - AGUIAR A.S., J.:---This appeal arises from the judgment and order of the Special Judge, Nashik convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under sections 7 and 13(i)(d)(ii) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentencing him to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default, R.I. for one month. 2. The said judgment and order is impugned on several grounds, inter alia that no anthracene power was applied to the currency notes which were alleged to be given to and received by the accused and therefore, the best evidence which would have conclusively proved the passing of the currency notes was not made available. 3. The case of the prosecution is that during the period between 1-10-86 to 30-4-86, the accused-appellant was working as Supply Inspecting Officer in the Civil Supply Office at Igatpuri. The complaint came to be lodged against the accused on 23-3-87 with the Anti Corruption Office at Nashik alleging that the accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 100/- by way of illegal gratification for releasing one tin of palm oil which was allegedly detained by the godown keeper of the Civil Supply Department at the instance of the accused. Since complainant refused to oblige, the appellant-accused warned P.W. 6 godown keeper not to make delivery of goods to the complainant and left the place. The complainant again requested P.W. 6 to deliver the goods according to the entries made in the Register, but P.W. 6 expressed his inability to deliver the goods on account of the warning given by the appellant-accused. Thereupon, the complainant filed a complaint before the Tahsildar complaining about the refusal of delivery of the goods to him. After obtaining the letter, Exhibit 32, from the godown keeper, P.W. 6, stating his inability to deliver the groceries to the complainant on account of specific instructions given to him by accused, the complainant again approached the accused and requested him to deliver the goods. However, the accused again repeated his demand of Rs. 100/- as illegal consideration for release of the goods. Whereupon the complainant approached the Anti Corruption Office at Nashik and lodged the complaint. The complaint was recorded and the concerned investigating officer decided to lay a trap. A pre-trap panchanama was prepared after the necessary formalities for the trap were completed. However, the accused again repeated his demand of Rs. 100/- as illegal consideration for release of the goods. Whereupon the complainant approached the Anti Corruption Office at Nashik and lodged the complaint. The complaint was recorded and the concerned investigating officer decided to lay a trap. A pre-trap panchanama was prepared after the necessary formalities for the trap were completed. The complainant was told to handover money to the accused only if demand was made. The complainant was asked to give a predetermined signal after the money was accepted by the accused. The complainant alongwith panchas went to the office of the accused and requested the accused to deliver the goods. At that time, the accused told the complainant that he had no work with him and that he had no concern with the complainant and left his office with three other persons who were sitting with him. They all went to the nearby hotel. The complainant and P.W. 2 followed them to the hotel. When they came out of the hotel, the complainant again requested the accused to make delivery of the goods. The accused again told him that he had nothing to do in the matter and that the complainant should go to the godown keeper and collect the goods. Upon the complainant insisting, the accused told the complainant that he should keep one tin of palm oil and accept delivery of the remaining goods. The accused asked one of the persons who was with him to go to the godown keeper and inform him that he should give delivery of the goods to the complainant as was directed. The complainant and panchas thereafter again returned to the Anti Corruption Bureau Office and informed P.I. Bankar of all that had transpired. 4. It appears that thereafter in the evening after 4.45 p.m., the complainant again contacted the accused and informed him that the godown keeper was not giving delivery of the goods and was insisting on getting an order in writing from the accused and requested the appellant-accused to give the order in writing to the godown keeper to make delivery of the goods. The complainant informed the accused that he had brought an amount of Rs. 100/- and he should accept the same. However, the accused instead of accepting Rs. 100/- increased his demand to Rs. The complainant informed the accused that he had brought an amount of Rs. 100/- and he should accept the same. However, the accused instead of accepting Rs. 100/- increased his demand to Rs. 200/- and gave a chit (Exhibit 35) addressed to P.W. 6 godown keeper. Thereafter, the complainant returned to the office of the A.C.P. informing him of the failure of the trap. Since the trap arranged on 23-3-87 had failed on account of increase in the demand made by the accused, the panchanama (Exhibit 55) of the failed trap has drawn. It was about 7.00 p.m. 5. On the following day, arrangements were made for a fresh trap by giving the complainant marked notes making a total of Rs. 200/-. All the necessary formalities were completed and the pretrap panchanama was prepared. It was decided not to use the anthracene powder test as the ultra violet lamp was not available, and instead multiplication marks were made on the notes for purpose of identification of the trap money. Thereafter, the complainant and the trap party went to the supply office to meet the accused. However, he was in the company of one person by name Kalanki, P.W. 7 who was working as Tahsildar of Employment Guarantee Scheme at Igatpuri. The complainant tried to open the topic but the accused gave signal to him to stop. After about 10 minutes, the accused and the party went to the nearby restaurant. On a signal from the accused, the complainant went towards the kitchen and met the accused behind the partition wall where the complainant requested the accused to give delivery of the goods. Thereupon, the accused demanded Rs. 200/-. The complainant handed over marked currency notes of Rs. 200/- to the accused. The accused put the said currency notes in left side pocket of his shirt. On returning to their seats, the accused took out a S.T. ticket from his pocket and wrote the contents (Exhibit 37) on it and gave it to the complainant. The note gave instructions to P.W. 6 to make delivery of the goods to the complainant Gaikwad. After paying the hotel bill, the complainant followed the accused out of the hotel and when the accused and the Tahsildar Kalanki were near the gate of the office, the complainant gave the predetermined signal. The note gave instructions to P.W. 6 to make delivery of the goods to the complainant Gaikwad. After paying the hotel bill, the complainant followed the accused out of the hotel and when the accused and the Tahsildar Kalanki were near the gate of the office, the complainant gave the predetermined signal. Immediately, the members of the raiding party came there, disclosed their identity to the accused and asked the accused to produce the currency notes which he had accepted as bribe. The accused got frightened and took out the currency notes from the pocket of his bushshirt and gave them to the Police Inspector Bankar. The same were verified with the help of the pre-trap panchanama and found to tally. After all the necessary formalities were completed, the accused was apprehended and taken to the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau where he was placed under arrest. Incriminating articles like chit (Exhibit 37) were recovered on personal search of the accused and the panchanama (Exhibit 59) was drawn. On completion of the investigation and after obtaining sanction, the charge-sheet was filed on 11-4-89 before the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charge was framed by the Special Judge for the offence under section 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused pleaded not guilty. 6. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of accused under section 313 Cri.P.C. was recorded. The accused pleaded innocence and claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case by Bhujbal and Shardul, his co-employees whom he had superseded. The accused explained the incriminating documents such as Chit (Exhibit 35 and 37) saying that he had given instructions to Bhujbal since he was informed by Bhujbal that the complainant was demanding goods without letter of authority. The accused denied that he had asked Bhujbal to retain a tin of palm oil or that he had demanded Rs. 200/- from the complainant on 23-3-87. The defence of the accused is that on 24-3-87, the complainant thrust the currency notes into his shirt pocket. He denied that he accepted the notes of Rs. 200/- and claims that the trap was laid as a consequence of the conspiracy. The learned trial Judge, however, accepted the prosecution case and convicted the accused for the offence with which he was charged. 7. He denied that he accepted the notes of Rs. 200/- and claims that the trap was laid as a consequence of the conspiracy. The learned trial Judge, however, accepted the prosecution case and convicted the accused for the offence with which he was charged. 7. The learned Advocate for the appellant-accused has put forth several submissions why the case against the accused should not be accepted. He has submitted that the complainant is a busy body and habituated to making false complaints. Reference has been made to the evidence of the complainant where he has admitted to the complaints made by him against some villagers (Exhibit 43, 45 and 46). The complainant has also admitted in his evidence that his complaint against one Nagare during investigation was found to be false. The learned Advocate for the appellant-accused submits that the alleged demand for money made by the accused have not been supported by any independent witnesses. Even the godown keeper in whose presence the accused made the alleged demand of Rs. 100/- has not been examined. The demand for Rs. 100/- was made in the presence of Jadhav, an employee working in the office of the accused. He has not been examined. The demand of Rs. 200/- was allegedly made in the presence of P.W. 2 i.e. Panch Bacchav who has stated in his Examination-in-Chief that the accused had told the complainant that his demand was now for Rs. 200/- and not Rs. 100/- which he admits in his cross-examination does not find place in his statement. Even the witness P.W. 7 Kalanki in whose presence the accused allegedly demanded Rs. 200/- has been declared hostile as he has not supported the prosecution case. Thus, it is contended that there is no legal evidence proving the alleged demand of money made by the accused. 8. It is also contended that the complainant had no reason to approach the accused for any favour, therefore, there was no question of the accused having demanded any amount from him. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the accused that the procedure for obtaining the groceries from the godown obviates the need for interference by the accused at any stage. The accused is only a supply inspector and the question of his interference at any stage of the said procedure for receiving groceries did not arise. 9. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the accused that the procedure for obtaining the groceries from the godown obviates the need for interference by the accused at any stage. The accused is only a supply inspector and the question of his interference at any stage of the said procedure for receiving groceries did not arise. 9. Taking the last submission first viz., that the complainant is habituated to lodging false complaints, it must be stated that the same is irrelevant for the purpose of deciding whether the present complaint is true of false. The present complaint has to be decided on its own facts. 10. The submission that since the complainant had no work pending with the accused, the question of the accused making any demands for illegal gratification did not arise, does not appeal to me. Though officially, the accused had no role to play in the matter of delivery of groceries from the godown to the ration shop owners, like the complainant, interference by the accused cannot be ruled out since the accused was a supply inspector and could directly and indirectly exercise control over the supply system. In fact, the complainant himself approached the accused when the godown keeper refused to give supply of the groceries as per the list. 11. Another contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant-accused is that since the trap on the first day had failed when the accused told the complainant very clearly that he had no concern with him and therefore made no demand, it is not necessary for the investigating authority to lay another trap on the next day. This submission is also without substance as the second trap on 24-3-87 was laid on account of a fresh complaint made by the complainant on the evening of 23-3-87 to the investigating officer informing him that the accused now had increased his demand to Rs. 200/- instead of Rs. 100/- in order to accede to the request of the complainant. 12. It is the specific defence of the accused that the marked currency notes were not accepted by him on 24-3-87 when the second trap was effected but the said currency notes in the denominations as stated in the pre-trap panchanama, making a total of Rs. 200/- were thrust into his pocket and therefore, this case is not a genuine trap but a case of 'entrapment'. 13. 200/- were thrust into his pocket and therefore, this case is not a genuine trap but a case of 'entrapment'. 13. The basic point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved that the trap money was demanded and accepted by the accused-appellant. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined the complainant and one pancha P.W. 3 as well as P.W. 7 Kalanki who was allegedly present when the demand or transfer of cash from the hands of the complainant to the hands of the accused allegedly took place. P.W. 7 Kalanki has been declared hostile as he has not supported the prosecution case. He has denied that anything happened at the time when he was present. He has, however stated that the accused Jadhav gave something in writing to the complainant. He has further stated in his examination-in-chief "I do not know anything had happened in between the time we had soda and Mr. Jadhav wrote something". The evidence of P.W. 7 clearly does not support the prosecution case of the accused having demanded and accepted any amount from the complainant. 14. So far as the panch P.W. 3 is concerned, he has deposed to all the relevant facts stated in the panchanama. However, it is the case of the prosecution, as revealed from the panchanama, that the accused took the complainant behind the partition and there, the accused accepted the trap money from the complainant. It is, thus, clear from the panchanama and from the evidence of P.W. 3 that P.W. 3 did not see the actual transfer of the trap amount from the hands of the complainant to the hands of the accused. Thus, the evidence of panch and the panchanama when read together rather prove that the money did not pass from the complainant to the accused in the sight of any of the persons present. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 3 also does not support the prosecution case that the sum of Rs. 200/- was demanded and accepted by the accused from the complainant. 15. P.W. 1 is the complainant who alleges that the accused took him towards the kitchen behind the partition in the hotel and there, the accused demanded and accepted from him the trap amount of Rs. 200/-. 200/- was demanded and accepted by the accused from the complainant. 15. P.W. 1 is the complainant who alleges that the accused took him towards the kitchen behind the partition in the hotel and there, the accused demanded and accepted from him the trap amount of Rs. 200/-. The evidence of P.W. 1 Gaikwad at page 111 of the notes of evidence (Page 15 of the evidence) read as follows :- "All of us went to Bhalchandra Restaurant. I gave order for two bottles of Soda. Two bottles of Soda was shared by four of us. Jadhav Saheb gave me a signal I got up with him. I myself and Mr. Jadhav went towards kitchen and stood there. I made a demand of the delivery of the goods to Mr. Jadhav. That time Mr. Jadhav demanded the amount of Rs. 200/-. When Jadhav Saheb made a demand I gave him marked currency notes of Rs. 200/-. He saw those currency notes and put them in the left side pocket of his shirt. I myself and Mr. Jadhav went back to a place where we were sitting for taking Soda. Mr. Jadhav Saheb took out one S.T. ticket from the pocket of his pant. He wrote on the over left blank portion of the ticket All goods should be delivered to Mr. Gaikwad. That chit was written by him to Mr. Bhujbal". From the above, it is seen that the accused and the complainant left the others who were in the restaurant, went towards the kitchen behind the partition wall which is between the kitchen and the place where they were sitting and it was there that the accused demanded Rs. 200/- and the complainant handed over to him marked currency notes of Rs. 200/-. This ruled out the possibility of any other persons in their group from having witnessed what actually transpired behind the partition. Therefore, it is only on the word of the P.W. 1 which the Court has accepted as truthful that the Court convicted the accused. There is no corroboration to the actual passing of the currency notes from the complainant to the accused. No doubt, P.W. 1 does not mention any partition wall between the kitchen and the restaurant. But he does mention that he went towards the kitchen i.e. away from the group where they were sitting. There is no corroboration to the actual passing of the currency notes from the complainant to the accused. No doubt, P.W. 1 does not mention any partition wall between the kitchen and the restaurant. But he does mention that he went towards the kitchen i.e. away from the group where they were sitting. The evidence of panch makes mention of the partition wall between the kitchen and the place where they were sitting. 16. In order to accept the evidence of P.W. 1 as to the actual transfer of the trap money from the complainant's hands to that of the accused, the evidence of the complainant needs to be corroborated by further evidence. After all, P.W. 1 is himself the complainant and therefore, interested in the success of the prosecution of his complaint. The evidence of an interested witness cannot be accepted by itself. It is unsafe to accept the evidence of interesting witness unless corroborated by independent witnesses, which we are unable to find. 17. We do not find such corroboration from the testimony of any other witness. In fact, the evidence of the panch P.W. 3 and the Kalanki P.W. 7 makes it clear that no one else from the party could have seen the transfer of trap amount as the same took place behind the partition. Thus, there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 1 on this vital aspect of transfer of trap money from the complainants hands to the hands of the accused. 18. On the other hand, there is the evidence of the trap being conducted without making arrangements for the anthracene powder test for ensuring that the transfer of the trap money is duly established. It is in the evidence of the investigating officer that on the day of the trap, the ultra violet lamp was not in working condition, it was unfit for use and therefore, they did not make use the anthracene power. Instead, the investigating officer got the currency notes proposed to be used in this trap marked with the multiplication sign. It is in the evidence of the Investigating Officer therefore that the notes recovered from the search of the accused were found to tally with the marked currency notes mentioned in the pretrap panchanama. Instead, the investigating officer got the currency notes proposed to be used in this trap marked with the multiplication sign. It is in the evidence of the Investigating Officer therefore that the notes recovered from the search of the accused were found to tally with the marked currency notes mentioned in the pretrap panchanama. However, there is a serious lacuna in the prosecution case because even if it is taken as proved that the said marked currency notes mentioned in the pretrap panchanama were recovered from the accused in the trap, that still does not prove that the trap money was actually accepted by the accused from the complainant with his hands and put in his pocket. When the raiding party apprehended the accused after the predetermined signal was given and asked the accused to produce the money he had received, the accused removed the same from the left side pocket of his shirt. It is the defence of the accused that this money was not demanded by him and was not accepted by him and the same was thrust into his pocket unwillingly. No chemical test was carried out to establish the actual transfer of the trap money. There is no evidence to show that the trap money was actually received by the accused in his hands. If the anthracene powder test was used, it would have factually established that the money was taken out by the complainant from his pocket and given to the hands of the accused who accepted the trap money with his hands and then placed this currency notes in his pocket. 19. A full proof method which could have established the passing of the trap money from the hands of the complainant to that of the accused has been lost on account of negligence and/or carelessness on the part of the raiding party. If the ultra violet lamp was not functioning that was no excuse for not following the usual procedure of making use of anthracene power to establish the passing of money from the hands of the complainant to that of the accused. The only reason given for not following the procedure is that ultra violet lamp was not working. If the ultra violet lamp was not functioning that was no excuse for not following the usual procedure of making use of anthracene power to establish the passing of money from the hands of the complainant to that of the accused. The only reason given for not following the procedure is that ultra violet lamp was not working. If that were so, then it is clear that the raiding party was not fully equipped to carry out the trap that would have established the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused. If the ultra violet lamp was not working, the same could have been got repaired or another one borrowed or at the most, the trap could have been postponed. It is not understood why the investigating officer thought it fit to go ahead with the trap without being prepared with the necessary paraphernalia for carrying out an  effective trap. No explanation is forthcoming from the investigating officer why he thought it fit to go ahead with the trap in the absence of the necessary equipments. 20. In the absence of full proof test, which could have established that the accused had accepted the trap money with his hands from the complainant, the case of the defence that he did not accept the trap money but that the same was thrust into his pocket seems possible, if not probable. Hence, the accused has to be given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the offence for which he has been charged. 21. Hence, the appeal is allowed. The accused is acquitted of the charges under section 7 and section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He be set at liberty if not required in any other case. His bail bond stands cancelled. Fine, if any, paid by the accused to be refunded to him. The trap amount of Rs. 200/- to be confiscated and deposited in the Government treasury. Appeal is disposed of. Appeal allowed. -----