JUDGMENT N. ANANDA, J.—Respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused 1 and 2’) were 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, appellant/Lokayukta Police has filed this appeal. 2. I have heard Sri S.G. Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel for appellant/Lokayukta Police and Sri S.K. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2/accused 1 and 2. 3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows: During the month of January 2000, leasehold rights of certain shops situate in Town Municipality Complex at Sira were sold in public auction. P.W. 7-Mohammed Ibrahim was a successful bidder of shop No. 14 of the Town Municipal Complex at Sira. He had agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/- and security deposit of Rs. 4,25,000/-. Accused No. 1, who was the Chief Officer of Town Municipality at Sira, had to execute agreement of lease in favour of P.W. 7 in respect of aforestated shop. It is the case of prosecution that on 21.6.2001, P.W. 7 had approached accused No. 1 and requested him to execute the agreement of lease. Accused No. 1 is alleged to have demanded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as illegal gratification to execute the agreement of lease and on the same day, he received Rs. 7,500/- and demanded P.W. 7 to bring Rs. 7,500/- and assured to execute the agreement of lease in respect of aforestated shop. On 28.6.2001, P.W. 7 had visited the office of Town Municipality of Sira and met accused No. 1. At that time, accused No. 1 again demanded P.W. 7 to pay remaining part of bribe amount of Rs. 7,500/-. P.W. 7 not willing to bribe the accused No. 1, lodged first information as per Ex. P13 and set criminal law into motion. P.W. 12-H.S. Manjunath, the then Police Inspector of Lokayukta at Tumkur secured panch witnesses, namely, P.W. 1-Ramadasappa and P.W. 9-M.H. Mahesh, explained contents of first information to them and made preparations to trap accused No. 1. P.W. 12 smeared phenolphthalein powder to currency notes of Rs. 7,500/- (one currency note of Rs. 1,000/- denomination, five currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination, 38 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination and four currency notes of Rs. P.W. 12 smeared phenolphthalein powder to currency notes of Rs. 7,500/- (one currency note of Rs. 1,000/- denomination, five currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination, 38 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination and four currency notes of Rs. 50/- denomination) and entrusted the same to P.W. 7 with a specific instruction to pay to accused No. 1 if it is demanded by him. The Police Inspector (P.W. 12) had demonstrated phenolphthalein test to P.W. 1, P.W. 7 and P.W. 9. P.W. 12 reiterated instructions to P.W. 7. P.W. 12 instructed P.W. 1 to accompany P.W. 7 to observe as to what would transpire between P.W. 7 and accused No. 1. P.W. 7 and P.W. 1 entered the chamber of accused No. 1 and P.W. 7 enquired accused No. 1 about the execution of agreement of lease. Accused No. 1 enquired P.W. 7 about bribe amount. P.W. 7 paid bribe amount to accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 told P.W. 7 to keep the same beneath a tray on the table in front of accused No. 1. P.W. 7 kept tainted currency notes beneath the tray. Accused No. 1 called accused No. 2 and told him to keep tainted currency notes. When accused No. 2 kept tainted currency notes in his shirt pocket and proceeding towards some other room in front of chamber of accused No. 1, P.W. 7 gave pre-determined signal to P.W. 12. P.W. 12 and other members of raiding party apprehended accused No. 2 and recovered Rs. 7,500/- from possession of accused No. 2. P.W. 12 apprehended accused No. 1 and conducted phenolphthalein test by dipping fingers of both hands of accused No. 1 into a bowl containing sodium carbonate solution. The resultant solution turned into pink colour and resultant solution was collected in a separate bottle and the same was sealed. P.W. 12 also conducted phenolphthalein test by dipping fingers of both hands of accused No. 2 into a bowl containing sodium carbonate solution. The resultant solution turned into pink colour and the same was collected in a separate bottle and the same was sealed. Further, shirt pocket of accused No. 2 was also dipped into a separate bowl containing sodium carbonate solution, the resultant solution turned into pink colour and the resultant wash was collected in a separate bottle and the same was sealed. Further, shirt pocket of accused No. 2 was also dipped into a separate bowl containing sodium carbonate solution, the resultant solution turned into pink colour and the resultant wash was collected in a separate bottle and the same was sealed. Accused No. 2 made a statement that tainted currency notes were given by P.W. 7 towards arrears of rent of shop No. 14 of Town Municipality Complex at Sira. Accused No. 1 had made a statement that he has been falsely implicated due to previous enmity. P.W. 12 completed formalities and sent incriminating articles to Forensic Science Laboratory. After obtaining necessary sanction from P.W. 8 to prosecute accused No. 1 and necessary sanction from P.W. 10 to prosecute accused No. 2, P.W. 13-P.R. Pashupathi filed charge sheet against accused 1 and 2 for aforestated offences. 4. During trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.W. 1 to P.W. 13 were examined and documents as per Ex. P1 to Ex. P22 were marked so also material objects as per M.O. 1 to M.O. 56 were marked. 5. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence and on hearing learned counsel for parties acquitted accused 1 and 2. 6. In view of acquittal of accused 1 and 2, the following points would arise for determination: (1) Whether the prosecution has proved that on 21.6.2001, accused No. 1 being the Chief Officer of Town Municipality at Sira had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 15,000/- from P.W. 7 as a motive or reward to execute the agreement of sale in respect of shop No. 14 and received a sum of Rs. 7,500/- as illegal gratification on the same day? (2) Whether the prosecution has proved in furtherance of such demand, on 28.6.2001, in the office of Town Municipality at Sira, accused No. 1 demanded and received remaining illegal gratification of Rs. 7,500/- as a motive or reward to execute the agreement of lease in favour of P.W. 7 and accused No. 2 abetted commission of aforestated offences by keeping aforestated currency notes in his pocket, thereby accused 1 and 2 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 prosecution has proved that accused No. 1 by misusing his official position had obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs. (3) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused No. 1 by misusing his official position had obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs. 15,000/- from P.W. 7, thereby committed an offence under Section 13(1)(d)(ii), punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? (4) Whether the learned trial Judge has properly appreciated evidence on record? (5) Whether the impugned judgment calls for interference? (6) What order?” 7. Before adverting to appreciation of evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses and findings recorded by the learned trial Judge, certain admitted facts established from evidence on record, which have not been disputed by either parties are stated as follows: P.W. 7 was the successful bidder of shop No. 14 in public auction held in the month of January 2000 and he had agreed to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,25,000/- as security deposit and pay monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/-, P.W. 7 was expected to pay security deposit within 15 days from the date of auction. On the other hand, P.W. 7 paid security deposit on several instalments as shown in Ex. P11, reading as hereunder: 1 338977 3-2-2000 Rs. 2,12,500.00 2 340017 10-4-2000 Rs. 90,000.00 3 341001 11-5-2000 Rs. 1,22,500.00 Rs. 4,25,000.00 8. P.W. 7 was not regular in payment of rents. As per receipts produced by P.W. 7 marked as Ex. P8 to Ex. P10, he had paid Rs. 20,000/- towards rent though he was due in a sum of Rs. 36,000/- as on 28.7.2001. P.W. 7 for the reasons best known to him had not paid rents regularly to Town Municipality at Sira. 9. As per receipts produced by P.W. 7 marked as Ex. P8 to Ex. P10, he had paid Rs. 20,000/- towards rent though he was due in a sum of Rs. 36,000/- as on 28.7.2001. P.W. 7 for the reasons best known to him had not paid rents regularly to Town Municipality at Sira. 9. It is clear from the evidence of P.W. 6 (the then Assistant Operator in Town Municipality at Sira) that P.W. 7 was running a hardware shop; P.W. 7 had raised unauthorised construction by encroaching municipal land in an extent of six feet width behind his shop and construction was raised above pipeline, therefore, the matter was brought to the notice of accused No. 1 (Chief Officer of Town Municipality at Sira); accused No. 1, Health Inspector and an Engineer had inspected the place and found unauthorised construction raised by P.W. 7; accused No. 1 in his capacity as a Chief Officer directed demolition of unauthorised construction raised by P.W. 7; at the time of demolition, there was confrontation between accused No. 1 and P.W. 7 and P.W. 7 had challenged that he would see to accused No. 1. The above facts have not been controverted by either party. Thus, we find on the date when first information was lodged by P.W. 7, he had vengeance against accused No. 1. 10. Now adverting to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I find though accused No. 2 was alleged to be an abettor, no charge was framed against accused No. 2 and no evidence was let in against accused No. 2 to prove abetment of commission of aforestated offences by accused No. 1. Even when accused No. 2 was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he was not questioned about his being an abettor of commission of aforestated offences by accused No. 1. The learned trial Judge has proceeded on assumption that accused No. 1 and 2 have committed offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii), punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act. In a way, the learned trial Judge has treated accused No. 2, who was an attender on par with accused No. 1, who was the Chief Officer of Town Municipality at Sira. 11. In a way, the learned trial Judge has treated accused No. 2, who was an attender on par with accused No. 1, who was the Chief Officer of Town Municipality at Sira. 11. I notice from the evidence, none of the prosecution witnesses has deposed that accused No. 2 had concealed tainted currency notes in his shirt pocket, knowing full well that accused No. 1 had accepted bribe amount from P.W. 7. Even if it is assumed that accused No. 1 had received bribe, none of the prosecution witnesses has deposed that accused No. 2 knowing full well that accused No. 1 had received bribe of Rs. 7,500/- had concealed the same in his shirt pocket to aid or abet commission of aforestated offences. Virtually, there is no incriminating evidence against accused No. 2. The Court below has ignored to frame specific charge against accused No. 2. In the circumstances, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the acquittal of accused No. 2. 12. Now adverting to evidence adduced against accused No. 1, I find that prosecution has relied on the evidence given by P.W. 1, P.W. 7 and P.W. 12. The evidence given by P.W. 2 to P.W. 4 relates to preparations made in the Office of Lokayukta to trap the accused, which has not been seriously controverted by the defence. The evidence given by P.W. 5 is also not in dispute. As already stated, P.W. 6 has given evidence relating to unauthorised construction raised by P.W. 7 and demolition of the same at the instance of accused No. 1. 13. At the relevant time, P.W. 8-Jagadish Jois, was working as Under Secretary in the Department of Urban Development. P.W. 8 has deposed about sanction accorded by him in the name and by order of the Governor of Karnataka, to prosecute accused No. 1. P.W. 8 has been cross-examined regarding procedure to be followed for according sanction to prosecute accused No. 1. I do not find any infirmity in the sanction order. P.W. 8 has deposed that he had placed relevant records before the concerned Minister, who on verification of records accorded sanction to prosecute accused No. 1. Thereafter, P.W. 8 had issued sanction order by order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka. 14. P.W. 9-M.H. Mahesh was one of the witnesses in the raiding party. 15. P.W. 8 has deposed that he had placed relevant records before the concerned Minister, who on verification of records accorded sanction to prosecute accused No. 1. Thereafter, P.W. 8 had issued sanction order by order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka. 14. P.W. 9-M.H. Mahesh was one of the witnesses in the raiding party. 15. P.W. 10-G.V. Kongawada had accorded sanction to prosecute accused No. 2. 16. In the discussion made supra, I have held that there is no material worth of consideration against accused No. 2, even then P.W. 10 has deposed that on consideration of relevant records, he was satisfied that there is prima facie case against accused No. 2 and accorded sanction to prosecute accused No. 2 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii), punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act, which are not at all attracted against accused No. 2. Therefore, it is less said the better about sanction accorded by P.W. 10 to prosecute accused No. 2. 17. P.W. 11-G. Boraiah had furnished documents, such as, Attendance Register and Auction Register pertaining to the Office of Town Municipality at Sira. 18. P.W. 12-H.S. Manjunath was the Investigating Officer. P.W. 12 has given evidence relating to investigation. 19. P.W. 13-P.R. Pashupathi succeeded P.W. 12. P.W. 13 has submitted charge sheet after obtaining necessary sanction to prosecute accused No. 1 and 2. 20. In the discussion made supra, I have held that P.W. 7 was defaulter in payment of rents and he had paid security deposit at his whim and fancy. It is seen from the contents of first information as per Ex. P13, P.W. 7 had submitted an application to accused No. 1 to execute the agreement of lease in respect of shop No. 14 at Town Municipality Complex at Sira. On the said application, accused No. 1 had made an endorsement, directing P.W. 7 to produce necessary stamp papers to execute the agreement of lease. From the contents of Ex. P13, I find, P.W. 7 had committed default in payment of rents. P.W. 7 was not even ready to accept rate of rent of Rs. 2,000/- per month. P.W. 7 was not paying rents regularly. As already stated, P.W. 7 was due in a sum of Rs. 16,000/- towards arrears of rent as on 28.7.2001. From the contents of Ex. P13, I find, P.W. 7 had committed default in payment of rents. P.W. 7 was not even ready to accept rate of rent of Rs. 2,000/- per month. P.W. 7 was not paying rents regularly. As already stated, P.W. 7 was due in a sum of Rs. 16,000/- towards arrears of rent as on 28.7.2001. P.W. 7 has admitted that he had neither furnished stamp papers for execution of the agreement of lease nor paid rents regularly. P.W. 7 has not deposed that accused No. 1 had told P.W. 7 to pay illegal gratification of Rs. 7,500/- on 21.6.2001. Therefore, it is clear that P.W. 7 was aware of defaults committed by him. P.W. 7 was also aware that he should have produced necessary stamp papers for the execution of agreement of lease. In the circumstances, a reasonable doubt would arise as to whether P.W. 7 had reasonable belief to seek official favour from accused No. 1, so also reasonable doubt would arise as to whether accused No. 1 had any official duties to discharge in favour of P.W. 7. 21. The prosecution in order to prove demand and acceptance of bribe by accused No. 1 has relied on the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 7 and P.W. 12. 22. P.W. 1-D. Ramadasappa has deposed; raiding party led by P.W. 12 reached Sira; P.W. 1 was asked to accompany P.W. 7 to observe as to what would transpire between accused No. 1 and P.W. 7; P.W. 7 entered the chamber of accused No. 1; P.W. 1 was standing near the door. 22. P.W. 1-D. Ramadasappa has deposed; raiding party led by P.W. 12 reached Sira; P.W. 1 was asked to accompany P.W. 7 to observe as to what would transpire between accused No. 1 and P.W. 7; P.W. 7 entered the chamber of accused No. 1; P.W. 1 was standing near the door. P.W. 7 after meeting accused No. 1, saluted accused No. 1; accused No. 1 asked P.W. 7 whether he had paid arrears of rent; P.W. 7 replied that he had paid rents and showed a receipt; thereafter, accused No. 1 questioned P.W. 7 innuendo (probably referring to bribe amount); accused No. 1 told P.W. 7 to pay the same later; P.W. 7 insisted that he had brought bribe amount and he would pay the same forthwith; accused No. 1 told P.W. 7 to keep the bribe amount beneath the tray lying on his table; P.W. 7 kept bribe amount beneath the tray; accused No. 1 called accused No. 2, took the bribe amount and handed over the same to accused No. 2 and asked him to keep the amount with him; accused No. 2 kept tainted currency notes in his shirt pocket; thereafter, P.W. 7 came out of the chamber of accused No. 1 and gave predetermined signal to P.W. 12 by removing his cap; P.W. 12 and other members of raiding party rushed to the office, held accused No. 2, removed tainted currency notes from shirt pocket of accused No. 2; fingers of accused 1 and 2 were dipped in two separate bowls containing sodium carbonate solution and resultant solutions turned into pink colour and the same was collected in two separate bottles and they were sealed; the shirt pocket of accused No. 2 was also dipped into a bowl containing sodium carbonate solution; the resultant solution turned into pink colour; the same was collected in a separate bottle and the bottle was sealed; the Investigating Officer collected necessary documents and completed other formalities of trap. During cross-examination, P.W. 1 has admitted that he was standing near the door in the chamber of accused No, 1, therefore, P.W. 1 was not able to overhear conversation that took place between accused No. 1 and P.W. 7; P.W. 1 has pleaded his ignorance to a specific suggestion that accused No. 1 was unable to execute the agreement of lease for non-payment of up-to-date rent and non-production of requisite stamp papers by P.W. 7. P.W. 1 has deposed that accused No. 1 did not question P.W. 7 whether he had brought bribe amount. P.W. 1 has admitted that when P.W. 7 kept tainted currency notes beneath the tray on the table, accused No. 1 did not touch the same. P.W. 1 has admitted that door of the chamber of accused No. 1 was partially closed; by standing near the door, P.W. 1 was not able to notice as to what had transpired between accused No. 1 and P.W. 7. Thus, I find evidence of P.W. 1 is not positive regarding demand and acceptance of bribe amount by accused No. 1. 23. As per evidence of P.W. l, it is not clear as to what had transpired between accused No. 1 and P.W. 7 after P.W. 7 entered the chamber of accused No. 1. Contrary to this, P.W. 7 has deposed that after P.W. l and P.W. 7 entered Town Municipality at Sira, when they were entering the chamber of accused No. 1, one of the attenders scolded them and they returned back. Again, P.W. 7 entered the chamber of accused No. 1 at 4 p.m. Here I pause for a moment to state that P.W. 7 has not deposed whether P.W. 7 and P.W. l had gone out of Office of Town Municipality when the attender scolded them and when P.W. l entered the chamber of accused No. 1, P.W. 7 has not deposed that P.W. l had accompanied P.W. 7 for the second time to the chamber of accused No. 1, P.W. 7 has deposed at 4 p.m., he met accused No. 1 in his chamber and requested accused No. 1 to execute the agreement of lease; accused No. 1 questioned P.W. 7 if he has brought money; P.W. 7 offered a sum of Rs. 7,500/-; accused No. 1 told P.W. 7 to pay the same in his house; P.W. 7 insisted that he would pay money (bribe) forthwith; accused No. 1 told P.W. 7 to keep money beneath the tray of his table; P.W. 7 kept the money beneath tray; accused No. 1 called accused No. 2; accused No. 1 removed tainted currency notes from beneath the tray and handed over the same to accused No. 2 to keep the same in his shirt pocket; thereafter, P.W. 7 came out of the chamber of accused No. 1 and gave a pre-determined signal to P.W. 12; thereafter, P.W. 12 and other members of raiding party rushed to the chamber of accused No. 1; at that time, accused No. 2 was present in the hall; P.W. 7 has deposed that accused No. 2 was in possession of bribe amount; accused No. 2 was apprehended and tainted currency notes were recovered from shirt pocket of accused No. 2; P.W. 12 conducted phenolphthalein test by dipping the fingers of both hands of accused 1 and 2 in two separate bowls containing sodium carbonate solution and the resultant wash turned into pink colour; shirt pocket of accused No. 2 was also dipped in a bowl containing sodium carbonate solution and the resultant wash turned into pink colour; the resultant wash was separately collected in bottles and they were sealed. During cross-examination, P.W. 7 has admitted that he had not paid security deposit on time and he had paid security deposit in several instalments. P.W. 7 has admitted that on 21.6.2001 when he had met accused No. 1, accused No. 1 told P.W. 7 that he was still due in a sum of Rs. 8,000/- towards arrears of rents. P.W. 7 has denied suggestion when he offered bribe amount to accused No. 1, accused No. 1 called accused No. 2 and asked him to collect the money and pay the same to the Bill Collector towards arrears of rent payable by P.W. 7. P.W. 7 has deposed that he had not paid up-to-date rents and he had not furnished necessary stamp papers for the execution of agreement of lease. P.W. 7 has denied suggestion about unauthorised construction raised by him and demolition of the same at the instance of accused No. 1, which in fact has been categorically admitted by P.W. 6. 24. P.W. 7 has deposed that he had not paid up-to-date rents and he had not furnished necessary stamp papers for the execution of agreement of lease. P.W. 7 has denied suggestion about unauthorised construction raised by him and demolition of the same at the instance of accused No. 1, which in fact has been categorically admitted by P.W. 6. 24. P.W. 12-H.S. Manjunath, the Investigating Officer has deposed; after raiding party reached Sira, the jeep was stopped at a distance from the office of Town Municipality; P.W. 12 asked P.W. 7 and P.W. 1 to meet accused No. 1; at 4.25 p.m., P.W. 7 came out of the office and gave a pre-determined signal to P.W. 12; thereafter, P.W. 12 and other members of raiding party entered the office of Town Municipality; P.W. 7 pointed out at accused No. 2 and told P.W. 12 that accused No. 1 had handed over tainted currency notes to accused No. 2; P.W. 12 apprehended accused No. 2 and recovered tainted currency notes from his shirt pocket; P.W. 12 met accused No. 1 and introduced himself to accused No. 1; thereafter P.W. 12 conducted phenolphthalein test by dipping fingers of both hands of accused No. 1 in two bowls containing sodium carbonate solution, the resultant wash turned into pink colour; the resultant wash was collected in two separate bottles and the same were sealed; P.W. 12 dipped the fingers of accused No. 2 in two separate bowls containing sodium carbonate solutions and the resultant wash turned into pink colour; the resultant wash was collected in two separate bottles and the same were sealed; shirt pocket of accused No. 2 was also dipped in a bowl containing sodium carbonate solution; the resultant wash turned into pink colour and the resultant wash was collected in a separate bottle and the same was sealed; thereafter P.W. 12 collected necessary documents. During cross-examination, P.W. 12 has admitted before the execution of agreement of lease, P.W. 7 was required to pay arrears of rents. P.W. 12 has admitted on 28.6.2001, P.W. 7 was due in a sum of Rs. 8,000/- towards arrears of rent. P.W. 12 has admitted that P.W. 7 had not paid security deposit on time. P.W. 7 had not furnished necessary stamp papers for the execution of agreement of lease. P.W. 12 has admitted on 28.6.2001, P.W. 7 was due in a sum of Rs. 8,000/- towards arrears of rent. P.W. 12 has admitted that P.W. 7 had not paid security deposit on time. P.W. 7 had not furnished necessary stamp papers for the execution of agreement of lease. P.W. 12 was aware without furnishing stamp papers, P.W. 7 should not have approached accused No. 1 to demand the execution of agreement of lease. P.W. 12 has deposed; when he apprehended accused No. 2, accused No. 2 was not in the chamber of accused No. 1. 25. On careful consideration of evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 7 and P.W. 12, I find glaring discrepancies, which would shake credibility of their evidence. P.W. 7 has categorically admitted that he was due in arrears of rent. Accused No. 1 had not demanded bribe from P.W. 7. P.W. l has categorically admitted that as he was standing near the door, he did not notice as to what had transpired between accused No. 1 and P.W. 7. In the circumstances, the evidence of accused No. 1 calling accused No. 2 and asked him to keep tainted currency notes with him looks highly improbable. P.W. l has categorically deposed; accused No. 1 had not questioned P.W. 7 whether he had brought bribe amount. P.W. l has categorically admitted that P.W. 7 had kept tainted currency notes beneath a tray on the table and accused No. 1 had not touched tainted currency notes. P.W. 7 was aware of defaults committed by him. P.W. 7 had not furnished stamp paper for execution of agreement of lease. Even if defaults committed by P.W. 7 in payment of security deposit in several instalments had been condoned, P.W. 7 was aware that without paying arrears of rent, he could not have insisted accused No. 1 to execute the agreement of lease. P.W. 7 was also aware that accused No. 1 was not in a position to execute the agreement of lease, without payment of arrears of rent. P.W. 7 was also aware that accused No. 1 was not in a position to execute the agreement of lease, without payment of arrears of rent. The evidence of P.W. 7 that accused No. 1 told him to pay bribe amount later, but P.W. 7 insisted accused No. 1 that he would pay bribe amount forthwith and kept the same beneath tray on the table, as instructed by accused No. 1; accused No. 2 kept tainted currency notes in his shirt pocket would lead to an inference that P.W. 7 was interested in thrusting bribe amount to the hands of accused No. 1. P.W. 7 has deposed; at the first instance, P.W. 7 was scolded by an attender in the Office of Town Municipality at Sira. Therefore, he returned back. P.W. 7 has not deposed the place where he had gone and the place from where he returned back to office of Town Municipality for the second time. P.W. 7 has not deposed that P.W. 1 had accompanied P.W. 7 when he entered the chamber of accused No. 1 for the second time. The evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 7 that accused No. 1 at the first instance asked P.W. 7 to pay the bribe later, again he told to keep bribe amount beneath tray on the table, later accused No. 1 took the same and gave it to accused No. 2 and told accused No. 2 to keep the same in his shirt pocket looks incredible. If accused No. 1 had suspected P.W. 7 and if he did not intend to touch bribe amount, he would have directed accused No. 2 to take the bribe amount from beneath tray on the table. Therefore, version of P.W. 1 and P.W. 7 that accused No. 1 removed bribe amount from beneath the tray and handed the same over to accused No. 2 has been introduced to support phenolphthalein test conducted on fingers of both hands of accused No. I. 26. From the tenor of cross-examination of P.W. 1, P.W. 7 and P.W. 12, accused No. 1 has sought to establish that the amount that was offered by P.W. 7 was towards arrears of rent. Therefore, accused No. 1 asked accused No. 2 to receive the same and pay it to the Bill Collector for accepting the same towards arrears of rent, which in fact was due from P.W. 7. Therefore, accused No. 1 asked accused No. 2 to receive the same and pay it to the Bill Collector for accepting the same towards arrears of rent, which in fact was due from P.W. 7. In view of discrepant and distorted versions given by P.W. 1, P.W. 7 and P.W. 12, version of accused No. 1 appears to be probable. 27. The law is fairly well settled, defence version need not be proved to hilt. If the version of prosecution is discrepant and lacking in material particulars, a probable defence version could be accepted. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 7 and P.W. 12 is hardly sufficient to prove that on 21.6.2001, accused No. 1 had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 15,000/- as a motive or reward to execute the agreement of lease in favour of P.W. 7 and in furtherance of the same, he had accepted a sum of Rs. 7,500/- from P.W. 7 on the same day. The evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 7 and P.W. 12 is hardly sufficient to hold that on 28.6.2001 at about 4.25 p.m., in the chamber of accused No. 1, accused No. 1 had demanded and received Rs. 7,500/- as remaining illegal gratification for the execution of agreement of lease in favour of P.W. 7. 28. In view of the discrepant and incredible evidence adduced against accused No. 1, total absence of incriminating evidence against accused No. 2, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. Points 1 to 4 are answered accordingly. 29. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.