JUDGMENT N. ANANDA, J.—The respondent was tried and acquitted for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii), punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’). Therefore, the Lokayukta Police has filed this appeal. 2. I have heard Sri S.G. Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel for appellant/Lokayukta Police and Sri M.S. Rajendra Prasad, learned senior counsel for respondent/accused. 3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows: The father of first informant (P.W. 1-M.S.Suresh) was working as a group-D employee in Sericulture Department. On 17.4.1997, the father of P.W. 1 died while in service. Therefore, the mother of P.W. 1 had submitted an application to the Tahsildar of Malavalli Taluk for grant of Survival Certificate to get pensionary benefits. At the relevant time, the respondent/accused was working as Revenue Inspector in Halagur. On 25.6.1997 and several days before, P.W. 1 had requested accused to forward necessary report to the Tahsildar. In that connection, accused had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- from P.W. 1. On 25.6.1997, accused had received a sum of Rs. 100/- from P.W. 1 and demanded him to pay remaining sum of Rs. 400/- at the earliest. Therefore, P.W. 1 contacted Police Inspector (P.W. 4-T.P. Basappa) of Lokayukta Police at Mandya over phone and informed the same. On the following day, i.e., 26.6.1997 at about 11.10 a.m. or 11.15 a.m., P.W. 1 visited the office of Lokayukta Police at Mandya and lodged first information. The Police Inspector of Lokayukta Police namely P.W. 4-T.P.Basappa secured shadow witnesses, viz., P.W. 2-Rajanna. R and P.W. 3-Dasappa. P.W. 4 made preparations to lay trap and entrusted tainted currency notes to P.W. 1 with a specific instruction to give bribe amount to accused only if it is demanded by him. Thereafter, members of raiding party, which included P.W. 1 to P.W. 4 proceeded to Halagur to the room-cum-office of accused. P.W. 1 was asked to meet accused. P.W. 2 was asked to accompany P.W. 1 to see as to what would transpire between P.W. 1 and accused. P.W. 1 entered the room-cum-office of accused and accused received Rs. 400/- from P.W. 1. P.W. 1 came out and flashed predetermined signal by removing his cap, immediately P.W. 4 and other members of raiding party rushed to the room-cum-office of accused and seized tainted currency notes of Rs. 400/- (four currencies of Rs. P.W. 1 entered the room-cum-office of accused and accused received Rs. 400/- from P.W. 1. P.W. 1 came out and flashed predetermined signal by removing his cap, immediately P.W. 4 and other members of raiding party rushed to the room-cum-office of accused and seized tainted currency notes of Rs. 400/- (four currencies of Rs. 100/- denomination), which accused was holding in his right hand. The fingers of accused were dipped into sodium carbonate solution contained in two separate bowls and resultant solution turned into pink colour and the same was collected in two separate bottles. P.W. 4 prepared trap mahazar. The accused when questioned about his conduct did not give any answer. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 4) completed other formalities. P.W. 8.-B.S. Jayaraj the successor of P.W. 4-T.P. Basappa, obtained necessary sanction to prosecute accused and filed charge sheet against accused. 4. During trial, P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 were examined and documents as per Ex. P1 to Ex. P14 were marked so also material objects as per M.O. 1 to M.O. 8 were marked. 5. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence and on hearing learned counsel for parties, has held that prosecution has failed to prove that accused had demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 500/- as a motive or reward to give report to the Tahsildar for issue of Survival Certificate to the mother of P.W. 1 and acquitted the accused. Therefore, Lokayukta police have filed this appeal. 6. In view of acquittal of accused for aforestated offences, the following points would arise for determination: “(1) Whether the prosecution has proved that on 25.6.1997 and 10 to 15 days prior to that date, accused had demanded P.W. 1-M.S. Suresh illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- to show official favour, viz., forwarding report relating to issuance of survival certificate to the mother of P.W. 1? (2) Whether the prosecution has proved that on 26.6.1997 at 2 p.m., in the room-cum-office of accused, accused had demanded and received illegal gratification of Rs. 400/- as a motive or reward to forward documents relating to issuance of Survival Certificate to the mother of P.W. 1 and accused had misused his official position by corrupt and illegal means to obtain pecuniary advantage, thereby committed offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii), punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 400/- as a motive or reward to forward documents relating to issuance of Survival Certificate to the mother of P.W. 1 and accused had misused his official position by corrupt and illegal means to obtain pecuniary advantage, thereby committed offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii), punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? (3) Whether the learned trial Judge has properly appreciated evidence on record? (4) Whether the impugned judgment calls for interference? (5) What order?” 7. P.W. 1-M.S. Suresh is the first informant. As per the evidence of P.W. 1, he lodged first information on 26.6.1997 at 11.15 a.m. However, from the evidence of P.W. 2 and 3, I find the Investigating Officer (P.W. 4) had secured them to the office of Lokayukta Police on 25.6.1997 and they were informed to come on the following day. 8. P.W. 1 has deposed; that on 25.6.1997, he had contacted the Police Inspector of Lokayukta (P.W. 4) at Mandya over phone and informed him about demand of illegal gratification made by accused. The Investigating Officer has not given explanation for securing shadow witnesses, viz., P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 during evening of 25.6.1997, without there being any specific information or first information about alleged demand of bribe. This fact assumes significance in view inconsistency in the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 regarding point of time at which first information came into existence. 9. As per evidence of P.W. 1-M.S. Suresh, he wrote first information between 11.15 a.m. and 11.23 a.m. on 26.6.1997 in the Office of Lokayukta at Mandya. P.W. 1 has deposed that he wrote first information in the presence of Police Inspector (P.W. 4) of Lokayukta and he also took the assistance of Police Inspector (P.W. 4) when he wrote first information. Contrary to this, P.W. 4-T.P. Basappa, the Investigating Officer has deposed; that on 26.6.1997, he left Mysore and reached the Office of Lokayukta, Mandya at 9.30 a.m.; on that day at 10 a.m., shadow witnesses (P.W. 2 and P.W. 3) appeared before him and he requested them to co-operate with the investigation; P.W. 4 was awaiting for the first informant (P.W. 1); on 26.6.1997 at 11.15 a.m., P.W. 1 came to the office of Lokayukta with a written first information and lodged the same, on the basis of which P.W. 4 prepared first information report as per Ex. P1. 10. P1. 10. Thus, we find the version of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 the manner in which first information was brought into existence is discrepant. As per the evidence of P.W. 1, he wrote first information in the presence of P.W. 4, that too by taking the assistance of P.W. 4. As per the evidence of P.W. 4, P.W. 1 came with a written first information and lodged the same with Lokayukta Police at 11.15 a.m. on 26.6.1997. These discrepancies give raise to a reasonable doubt regarding time and manner in which first information was brought into existence. 11. P.W. 2-Rajanna, R., has deposed; on 26.6.1997, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 had visited the Office of Lokayukta at Mandya; they were informed by the Lokayukta Police that P.W. l had lodged first information alleging that accused was demanding illegal gratification for giving Survival Certificate regarding death of the father of P.W. l; the Police Inspector (P.W. 4) explained the contents of first information. 12. Thus, we find version of P.W. l, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 regarding manner in which first information came into existence cannot stand together. The evidence of P.W. l to P.W. 4 regarding preparations made in the office of Lokayukta to lay trap has not been seriously controverted. P.W. l to P.W. 4 have deposed about preparations made to trap the accused. 13. Before appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding alleged demand and acceptance of bribe, it would be appropriate to verify if P.W. l had reasonable belief that accused had any official favour to discharge in favour of P.W. 1. 14. It is in the evidence of P.W. 1 that his mother had submitted an application for grant of Survival Certificate to the Tahsildar of Malavalli Taluk. The application was submitted to the Tahsildar of Malavalli Taluk on 28.5.1997. The mother of P.W. 1, namely, Chandramma had also furnished an affidavit sworn to by her on 28.5.1997, indicating her family members and survivors. From this, it can safely be inferred that on 28.5.1997, the mother of P.W. l had filed an application for grant of Survival Certificate after death of her husband, viz., Shivalingegowda. The copy of application is marked as Ex. P12. On the obversation of the application (Ex. From this, it can safely be inferred that on 28.5.1997, the mother of P.W. l had filed an application for grant of Survival Certificate after death of her husband, viz., Shivalingegowda. The copy of application is marked as Ex. P12. On the obversation of the application (Ex. P12), there is an endorsement made by the Tahsildar, forwarding the said application to the Revenue Inspector of Halagur Hobli for verification and to submit a necessary report to him. 15. From the contents of Ex. P6 to Ex. P9, I find that on 19.6.1997, accused (the then Revenue Inspector of Halagur Hobli) visited the village of P.W. 1 and prepared a mahazar. The accused had also prepared a genealogical tree and submitted a report to the Tahsildar on 23.6.1997. As on 23.6.1997, accused had performed his duties by forwarding necessary report to the Tahsildar and had recommended for grant of Survival Certificate to the mother of P.W. 1. In the circumstances, as on 25.6.1997, P.W. 1 had no official favours to seek from accused. 16. P.W. 1 has deposed; on 25.6.1997, when he had met accused, accused had told P.W. 1 that he had performed his part of duties and forwarded necessary report and documents to the Office of Tahsildar at Malavalli. In view of contents of documents as per Ex. P6 to Ex. P9 and evidence of P.W. 1, it is clear that as on 25.6.1997 accused was not in a position to show any official favour to P.W. 1, equally so P.W. 1 did not have any official favour to seek from accused. In the circumstances, one would expect after 25.6.1997, P.W. 1 should have visited the Office of Tahsildar at Malavalli to get Survival Certificate as necessary report with recommendation had been submitted by the accused (Revenue Inspector of Halagur Hobli) to the Tahsildar at Malavalli. P.W. l had not done so. On the other hand, P.W. 1 has alleged that on 25.6.1997, accused had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- and P.W. l paid Rs. 100/- and promised to pay remaining illegal gratification of Rs. 400/-. P.W. l was annoyed of the same, contacted the Office of Lokayukta Police over phone and informed about demand of illegal gratification by accused. The conduct of P.W. l would cast a serious doubt as to whether P.W. l had genuine grievance against accused. 100/- and promised to pay remaining illegal gratification of Rs. 400/-. P.W. l was annoyed of the same, contacted the Office of Lokayukta Police over phone and informed about demand of illegal gratification by accused. The conduct of P.W. l would cast a serious doubt as to whether P.W. l had genuine grievance against accused. P.W. l has admitted that he had contacted Lokayukta Police over phone during evening of 25.6.1997, in fact shadow witnesses, viz., P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 were secured in the evening of 25.6.1997 and they were sent back with a direction to come during morning of 26.6.1997. On 26.6.1997, when P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 reached the office of Lokayukta at Mandya, P.W. 4 was waiting for arrival of P.W. 1. P.W. 1 has categorically stated that he wrote the first information as per Ex. P1 in the office of Lokayukta after taking assistance of P.W. 4. The deliberations between P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 before first information was brought into existence would lead to an inference that P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 had determined to trap accused. P.W. 4 {Investigating Officer) before making preparations to lay trap had not received any documents from P.W. 1. Even P.W. 4 had not bothered to enquire as to whether application submitted by the mother of P.W. 1 was forwarded to the accused or the accused had kept the application pending to demand illegal gratification from P.W. 1. 17. Now adverting to the evidence adduced in proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by accused, I find there are different versions. P.W. l has deposed that raiding party led by P.W. 4 travelled from Mandya to Halagur. After jeep came to Halagur, it was stopped at a distance from room-cum-office of accused and P.W. 4 instructed P.W. l to handover tainted currency notes if accused were to demand bribe and to come out and give a signal by removing cap. P.W. l and P.W. 3 (shadow witness) entered room-cum-office of accused. The accused after seeing P.W. 3 questioned P.W. l as to who P.W. 3 was. P.W. 1 stated that P.W. 3 is related to him and he had come from Malavalli. At that time, P.W. l told accused that he had brought Rs. 400/- as informed by him on the previous day, so saying P.W. l gave tainted currency notes of Rs. P.W. 1 stated that P.W. 3 is related to him and he had come from Malavalli. At that time, P.W. l told accused that he had brought Rs. 400/- as informed by him on the previous day, so saying P.W. l gave tainted currency notes of Rs. 400/- to accused, who received the same by his right hand and counted by his left hand and held the same in right hand. Immediately, thereafter P.W. l came out and removed cap. P.W. 4, who was waiting near the room-cum-office of accused rushed to the room-cum-office of accused alongwith members of raiding party and took tainted currency notes from the hands of accused. The tainted currency notes were kept in a cover and cover was sealed. 18. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that P.W. l has categorically deposed that he told accused that he had brought bribe amount and paid tainted currency notes to accused, without there being any demand by accused. Contrary to this, P.W. 3 has deposed that after P.W. l and P.W. 3 entered the room-cum-office of accused, P.W. 3 saw accused sitting on a chair, P.W. l and P.W. 3 sat on chairs. The accused questioned P.W. l as to who P.W. 3 was? P.W. l told that P.W. 3 is related to him and he had come from Malavalli. At that time, accused told P.W. l that when he had demanded Rs. 500/-, P.W. l had given Rs. 100/- “what has happened to Rs. 400/-”. P.W. l has promptly replied that he has brought Rs. 400/- and gave Rs. 400/- to accused. The accused firmly held tainted currency notes in his right fist. Thereafter, P.W. l came out and gave pre-determined signal to P.W. 4 by removing his cap. P.W. 4 and other members of raiding party rushed to the room-cum-office of accused. At that time, P.W. l showed accused and told P.W. 4 that accused had received illegal gratification of Rs. 400/-. P.W. 4 conducted phenolphthalein test by dipping fingers of accused into sodium carbonate solution and the resultant solution turned into pink colour and the same was collected in a separate bottle. P.W. 4 prepared trap mahazar. During cross-examination, P.W. 3 has admitted after reaching Halagur, the jeep was stopped at a distance of 200 metres from the room-cum-office of accused. P.W. 4 conducted phenolphthalein test by dipping fingers of accused into sodium carbonate solution and the resultant solution turned into pink colour and the same was collected in a separate bottle. P.W. 4 prepared trap mahazar. During cross-examination, P.W. 3 has admitted after reaching Halagur, the jeep was stopped at a distance of 200 metres from the room-cum-office of accused. P.W. 4 and remaining members of raiding party were standing at a distance of 100 metres from the room-cum-office of accused. P.W. 3 has deposed; after P.W. l met accused, he questioned as to why he has not given Survival Certificate. At that time, accused questioned P.W. l as to what had happened to remaining sum of illegal gratification. P.W. 3 has deposed; after pre-determined signal was given to P.W. 4 by P.W. l, P.W. 4 rushed to the room-cum-office of accused, accused was holding tainted currency notes in his right fist. P.W. 4 has deposed that they had stopped jeep at a distance of 200 metres from room-cum-office of accused. P.W. 4 reiterated instructions to P.W. l and P.W. 3 and sent them to room-cum-office of accused; thereafter P.W. 4 and other members of raiding party had taken positions near room-cum-office of accused; after ten minutes, P.W. l and P.W. 3 came out and P.W. l gave pre-determined signal to P.W. 4; thereafter, P.W. 4 and other members of raiding party rushed to room-cum-office of accused; at that time, P.W. 1 showed accused; P.W. 4 had brought typewriter and started preparing spot mahazar; at that time, police constables were holding accused and they have taken tainted currency notes from right hand of accused; P.W. 4 had conducted phenolphthalein test. The solution turned into pink colour and the resultant solution was collected in a container. P.W. 4 has categorically admitted that after trap, no documents were seized from room-cum-office of accused. 19. Thus, we find from the evidence of P.W. 1 that he has not deposed about demand of illegal gratification by the accused. P.W. 3 has given altogether a different version. As on 25.6.1997 or 26.6.1997, accused had no official favour to show to P.W. 1 much less P.W. 1 had any official favour to seek from accused. The accused had performed his duties and submitted a report to the Tahsildar. P.W. 3 has given altogether a different version. As on 25.6.1997 or 26.6.1997, accused had no official favour to show to P.W. 1 much less P.W. 1 had any official favour to seek from accused. The accused had performed his duties and submitted a report to the Tahsildar. P.W. 1 was aware that accused had submitted report for issuance of Survival Certificate to the Tahsildar at Malavalli. In the circumstances, there are divergent versions given by P.W. l, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 as to what had transpired between P.W. l and accused. The version of P.W. l, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 that accused after receiving bribe amount from P.W. l was holding tainted currency notes in his right hand till P.W. 4 came to the room-cum-office of accused and seized the same from his right hand clearly gives an impression that P.W. l in connivance with P.W. 4 had planned to some how thrust tainted currency notes into right hand of accused to make it appear that accused had received illegal gratification from P.W. l. The Tahsildar to whom the mother of P.W. l gave an application was not cited as a witness. The examination of Tahsildar was necessary to prove as to whether the application was pending with accused on 25.6.1997. Above all, P.W. l had no reasons to believe that accused was competent to issue Survival Certificate. In fact, accused had submitted the report with his recommendation to the Tahsildar for grant of Survival Certificate. The accused has taken a defence that a relative of P.W. 1, namely, Nanjunde Gowda, who was also working as a Revenue Inspector had some grievance against accused and that is the cause for P.W. l to set criminal law into motion against accused. Though the accused has not established his defence, yet it is probablised by the version and conduct of prosecution witnesses. The learned trial Judge on critical analysis of evidence of P.W. l to P.W. 5 has held; circumstances under which first information was brought into existence is not free from suspicion. From the evidence of P.W. l and P.W. 4, it is clear that there were deliberations between P.W. l and P.W. 4 before first information was brought into existence. The learned trial Judge on critical analysis of evidence of P.W. l to P.W. 5 has held; circumstances under which first information was brought into existence is not free from suspicion. From the evidence of P.W. l and P.W. 4, it is clear that there were deliberations between P.W. l and P.W. 4 before first information was brought into existence. On 25.6.1997, P.W. l was aware that accused has submitted his report to the Tahsildar to issue Survival Certificate as prayed by the mother of P.W. l. In the circumstances, P.W. l was aware that accused was not competent to issue Survival Certificate. P.W. l had no official favour to seek from accused, so also accused had no official favour to discharge in favour of P.W. l. The evidence led by prosecution in proof of demand and acceptance of bribe, all along accused was holding tainted currency notes in his right hand as if he were waiting for Lokayukta Police to come and trap him is too artificial. 20. On re-appreciation of evidence, I find the learned trial Judge has properly appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted accused of aforestated offences. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.