JUDGMENT N. ANANDA, J.—Respondents 1 to 6 were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 6 in Special Case No. 5/1992, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge at Tumkur. They were tried for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) and also for offences punishable under Sections 193 and 109 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted them. Therefore, the State represented by Lokayukta has preferred this appeal. 2. I have heard Smt. T.M. Gayathri, learned Counsel for appellant and Sri S.K. Venkata Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1/accused No. 1. 3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows: During the year 1990, P.W. 2-G. Thontaradhya was owning a shop in Chikkanayakanahalli and he was dealing with provisions and he was also selling kerosene. P.W. 9 H.T. Jayarama is a native of Hirisave Village, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District. At the relevant time, he was using a diesel pump to lift water to cultivate his lands and he was running his diesel pump set by using kerosene. On 17.8.1990, he had come to Chikkanayakanahalli and purchased 70 litres of kerosene from P.W. 2. When he was transporting 70 litres of kerosene in a can in a private bus, some of the police constables apprehended and arrested P.W. 9 and seized kerosene can, containing 70 litres of kerosene to the police station. At the relevant time, first accused was the Sub-Inspector of Chikkanayakanahalli Police Station. On 18.8.1990, accused No. 1 secured P.W. 2 to police station and told him that he had sold 70 litres of kerosene in black market to P.W. 9 and also threatened him to implicate in Crime No. 159/1990. P.W. 2 denied to have sold kerosene to P.W. 9 but accused No. 1 threatened to book P.W. 2 in the case registered against P.W. 9. When P.W. 2 pleaded his innocence, accused No. 1 demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1,500/- as a motive or reward to show official favour to P.W. 2 not to frame P.W. 2 in the case registered against P.W. 9. P.W. 2 bargained and illegal gratification was reduced to Rs. 1,000/-. On the same day, P.W. 2 borrowed a sum of Rs. 600/- from different persons and paid the same as illegal gratification to first accused and requested him to spare him from the criminal case. P.W. 2 bargained and illegal gratification was reduced to Rs. 1,000/-. On the same day, P.W. 2 borrowed a sum of Rs. 600/- from different persons and paid the same as illegal gratification to first accused and requested him to spare him from the criminal case. Accused No. 1 accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 600/- from P.W. 2 and demanded P.W. 2 to pay remaining illegal gratification of Rs. 400/- within a short time. P.W. 2 assured that he would pay the remaining illegal gratification of Rs. 400/- and came out of the police station. On 20.8.1990, P.W. 2 lodged first information with the Deputy Superintendent of Lokayuktha at Tumkur, on the basis of which crime No. 6/1990 registered for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act, against accused No. 1. P.W. 2 produced a sum of Rs. 400/-, which comprised of six currency notes of Rs. 50/- denomination, four currency notes of Rs. 20/- denomination and two currency notes of Rs. 10/- denomination. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (C.W. 34-D.G. Sharanappa, since dead, not examined before the trial Court) secured witnessed, namely, P.W. 1 Sannaoblaiah and P.W. 3 K.G. Lakshman from their respective offices. On their arrival, C.W. 34 explained the contents of first information to P.W. 1 and P.W. 3. C.W. 34 smeared phenolphthalein powder on currency notes produced by P.W. 2 and entrusted the same to P.W. 2 with an instruction to give the same to first accused if the bribe is demanded by first accused. C.W. 34 demonstrated phenolphthalein test to P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. The raiding party comprising of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and other police officials led by C.W. 34 reached Chikkanayakanahalli in a jeep and jeep was parked near the police station. P.W. 2 was instructed to meet the first accused. P.W. 3-K.G. Lakshman was instructed to be a shadow witness to observe as to what would transpire between accused and P.W. 2. P.Ws. 2 and 3 entered the police station at Chikkanayakanahalli. P.W. 2 offered bribe to accused and it was accepted by accused. P.W. 2 came out of the police station and gave pre-determined signal to C.W. 34. C.W. 34 and other members of raiding party rushed to police station. Accused was apprehended. P.Ws. 2 and 3 entered the police station at Chikkanayakanahalli. P.W. 2 offered bribe to accused and it was accepted by accused. P.W. 2 came out of the police station and gave pre-determined signal to C.W. 34. C.W. 34 and other members of raiding party rushed to police station. Accused was apprehended. In the meanwhile, accused after seeing C.W. 34 threw the tainted currency notes into a waste paper basket which was lying beneath the table. C.W. 34 recovered tainted currency notes and conducted phenolphthalein test by dipping the fingers of both hands of first accused in a bowl containing sodium carbonate solution, the resultant wash turned into pink colour. The resultant wash was collected in a separate bottle and the same was sealed. 4. It is the primary accusation against accused No. 1 for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. The second part of the case of prosecution relates to fabrication of documentary evidence in Crime No. 164/90, which was registered against P.W. 2-Thontaradhya on the allegation that P.W. 2 had attempted to bribe accused No. 1 during the afternoon of 20.8.1990. 5. It is the case of prosecution that accused No. 1 by misusing his official position as Sub-Inspector of Chikkanayanakanalli P.S., by manipulating the entries in Station House Diary had registered Crime No. 164/1990 against P.W. 2 alleging that P.W. 2 had attempted to bribe him a sum of Rs. 400/-. It is the case of prosecution that accused No.2 to 6 by giving statements in support of the crime registered by first accused abetted commission of offence punishable under Section 109 I.P.C. Therefore, accused No. 2 to 6 were also tried alongwith accused No. 1 for offences punishable under Sections 109, 167, 193 and 218 I.P.C. 6. During trial, P.Ws. 1 to 14 were examined and documents as per Ex. Pl to P23 were marked. The documents filed by first accused were marked as Ex. Dl and D2 and material objects were marked as M.Os. 1 to 12. 7. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of evidence and after hearing learned counsel for parties acquitted accused for aforesaid offences. Therefore, the State represented by Lokayukta has preferred this appeal. 8. Pl to P23 were marked. The documents filed by first accused were marked as Ex. Dl and D2 and material objects were marked as M.Os. 1 to 12. 7. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of evidence and after hearing learned counsel for parties acquitted accused for aforesaid offences. Therefore, the State represented by Lokayukta has preferred this appeal. 8. In this appeal, the following points would arise for determination: (1) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused No. 1 Noorullakhan while working as Sub-Inspector of Police in C.N. Halli Police Station on 18.8.1990 had demanded P.W. 2-Thontaradhya Rs. 1,500/- as illegal gratification as a motive or reward to show official favour for not implicating him in Crime No. 159/90 registered against P.W. 9-Jayaram and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 600/-. In furtherance of said demand, first accused demanded and received remaining illegal gratification of Rs. 400/- from P.W. 2 on 20.08.1990 in the Police Station at Chikkanayakanahalli as a motive or reward to show official favour to P.W. 2 for not implicating P.W. 2 in Crime No. 159/90 registered against P.W. 9-Jayaram? (2) Whether the prosecution has proved accused No. 1 being the Sub-Inspector of Police (Public Service) misused his official position to gain pecuniary advantage of Rs. 1,000/- to himself, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? (3) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused No. 1 fabricated records in connivance with accused No. 2 to 6 in Crime No. 164/90 registered against P.W. 2 on the allegation that he had attempted to bribe accused No. 1 by offering a sum of Rs. 400/- during the afternoon of 20.8.1990 in Chikkanayakanahalli P.S., thereby accused No. 2 to 6 have committed offences punishable under Sections 193 read with 109 I.P.C.? (4) Whether the learned Trial Judge has properly appreciated evidence on record? (5) Whether the impugned judgment calls for interference? (6) What Order? 9. The prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses to prove charges levelled against accused. P.Ws. l to 9 were examined in proof of demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the first accused. P.Ws. 10 to 13 were examined to prove that accused No. 2 to 6 had fabricated evidence against P.W. 2 in Crime No. 164/90. P.W. 14-P.B. Poovaiah has given evidence relating to investigation of both cases. 10. P.Ws. l to 9 were examined in proof of demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the first accused. P.Ws. 10 to 13 were examined to prove that accused No. 2 to 6 had fabricated evidence against P.W. 2 in Crime No. 164/90. P.W. 14-P.B. Poovaiah has given evidence relating to investigation of both cases. 10. It is seen from records that first accused had registered Crime No. 159/90 against P.W. 9 on the allegation that on 17.8.1990, at about 5.45 p.m., P.W. 9-H.T. Jayaram was found transporting 70 litres of kerosene, which he had purchased in black market from P.W. 2-Thontaradhya. This is the genesis of entire episode. P.W. 9-H.T. Jayaram has not disputed that he was brought to police station alongwith aforesaid quantity of kerosene when he was transporting the same in a private bus at Chikkanayanakanahalli. 11. P.W. 2 has deposed that he had been summoned by first accused in the police station, the Sub-Inspector told him that P.W. 2 had sold 70 litres of kerosene in black market, therefore, P.W. 2 would be booked in the case already registered against P.W. 9. P.W. 2 has deposed; that there was demand for Rs. 1,500/- by first accused and later it was reduced to Rs. 1,000/- and he had paid part of bribe on 18.8.1990 and paid the remaining amount of bribe during trap in the police station on 20.8.1990. 12. The first information lodged by P.W. 2 with Lokayukta police at Tumkur is marked as Ex. P3. In order to ascertain the veracity of evidence of P.W. 2, it is necessary to state the contents of first information. In the first information, P.W. 2 has stated that he wasrunning a petty shop in Shettikere village, Chikkanayanakanalli Taluk and he had obtained licence to sell kerosene from the Government. On 14.8.1990, a Police Constable by name Shivanna attached to Chikkanayakanahalli P.S., came to his shop and demanded 10 litres of kerosene free of cost and P.W. 2 refused. On 18.8.1990, two police constables of Chikkanayakanahalli P.S., came and told him that the Sub-Inspector of Police (first accused) had summoned him. Therefore, P.W. 2 alongwith his maternal uncles, namely, P.W. 5-Neelakantaiah and P.W. 8-S.N. Shivappa went to the residence of first accused at about 9.30 a.m. The first accused enquired P.W. 2 if he had sold kerosene in black market to P.W. 9-H.T. Jayaram to which P.W. 2 denied. Therefore, P.W. 2 alongwith his maternal uncles, namely, P.W. 5-Neelakantaiah and P.W. 8-S.N. Shivappa went to the residence of first accused at about 9.30 a.m. The first accused enquired P.W. 2 if he had sold kerosene in black market to P.W. 9-H.T. Jayaram to which P.W. 2 denied. Thereafter, P.W. 2 was taken to police station and one person was shown in the police station. That person P.W. 9-Jayaram. told that he had purchased kerosene from P.W. 2. The first accused took P.W. 2 to his chamber and demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1,500/- as a motive or reward to spare him from the case registered against P.W. 9. P.W. 2 and his maternal uncles pleaded their inability and bribe amount was reduced to Rs. 1,000/-. On the same day, P.W. 2 borrowed a sum of Rs. 200/- from one Narayan Rao and Rs. 200/- from Anantha Shetty and P.W. 2 had Rs. 200/- with him. In that way, P.W. 2 had mobilised Rs. 600/- and he paid first instalment of illegal gratification at 2.30 p.m. on the same day, in the house of first accused. The first accused received the same and asked P.W. 2 to pay remaining amount at the earliest. P.W. 2 agreed to pay illegal gratification and thereafter, he lodged first information on 20.8.1990 with Dy. S.P., Lokayukta Police at Tumkur. 13. P.W. 5-Neelakantaiah and P.W. 8-S.N. Shivappa are the maternal uncles of P.W. 2, They have not deposed that P.W. 2 had taken them to meet first accused and that first accused had demanded illegal gratification from P.W. 2. They have not deposed about payment of illegal gratification. They were treated as hostile witnesses. During cross-examination also they have not given evidence against first accused. P.Ws. 5 and 8 being the maternal uncles of P.W. 2 had no grievance or grudge against P.W. 2. In the normal course, one would expect them to support the evidence of P.W. 2, however, they have not supported the evidence of P.W. 2, either regarding demand or acceptance of illegal gratification by first accused. Therefore, the prosecution has entirely relied on the evidence of P.W. 2 to prove demand and acceptance of bribe by first accused on 18.8.1990. 14. Therefore, the prosecution has entirely relied on the evidence of P.W. 2 to prove demand and acceptance of bribe by first accused on 18.8.1990. 14. P.W. 2 has deposed; that on 20.8.1990 when he was in his shop at Shettikere Village, some person came and asked for kerosene, but P.W. 2 told that there was no stock of kerosene; on the next day morning, C.N. Halli Police constables came to the shop of P.W. 2 and asked him to accompany them to police station stating that P.W. 2 was called by first accused; on the next day morning, P.W. 2 alongwith P.Ws. 5 and 8 went to C.N. Halli P.S., the first accused was not in the station and he was in his house; therefore, all the three persons went to the house of first accused; the first accused told these three persons (P.Ws. 2, 5 and 8) to wait for him in the police station; therefore, P.Ws. 2, 5 and 8 came to the police station; at about 10.30 a.m., the first accused came to police station and all the three persons were called to the chambers of first accused; at that time, one person was present in the police station; first accused asked P.W. 2 if he had sold kerosene to P.W. 9 without licence and P.W. 2 denied the same; thereafter, first accused told P.W. 2 that he is going to register a case against P.W. 2 for selling kerosene in black market; first accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1,500/- as a motive or reward for not registering a case against P.W. 2; though P.W. 2 denied the same, first accused repeatedly told P.W. 2 that he would be booked in the case; P.W. 2 came out of the police station and borrowed a sum of Rs. 600/- and paid the same to first accused and promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 400/- on the next day; P.W. 2 has deposed that he had paid illegal gratification of Rs. 600/- to first accused in the police station; on the next day, he lodged a complaint with Lokayukha Police as per Ex. P3. 15. At this juncture, it is relevant to state the evidence of P.W. 2 regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification does not find support from the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 8. 600/- to first accused in the police station; on the next day, he lodged a complaint with Lokayukha Police as per Ex. P3. 15. At this juncture, it is relevant to state the evidence of P.W. 2 regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification does not find support from the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 8. The evidence of P.W. 2 does not finds support from the contents of first information. As per the contents of first information marked as Ex. P3, first accused had demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 600/- from P.W. 2 on 18.8.1990 in his residence. P.W. 2 has given specific time as 2.30 p.m. Contrary to this, P.W. 2 has deposed that he was summoned to the police station first time on 20.8.1990 and he paid the first instalment of illegal gratification of Rs. 600/- to first accused in the police station. Thus, these two versions given by P.W. 2 regarding payment of first instalment of illegal gratification of Rs. 600/- to first accused are mutually contradictory and they cannot be reconciled. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs. 600/- by first accused. Now, what remains to be seen is, whether the prosecution has proved that on 20.8.1990 during the afternoon, around 3.00 p.m., first accused has demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 400/- as a motive or reward, not to implicate P.W. 2 in a criminal case. C.W. 34-D.G. Sharanappa had made preparations to trap the accused and C.W. 34 had trapped the accused. As per the order sheet maintained by the Trial Court, C.W. 34-Sharanappa was dead by the time summons was issued to him. Therefore, evidence of C.W. 34 was not available to the prosecution. In the circumstances, prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 in regard to crucial aspect of demand and acceptance of bribe. 16. P.W. 1-Sanna Obalaiah has deposed; that during the year 1990, he was working as FDA in the office of DDPI, Tumkur. At about 11.00 a.m., DDPI asked him to go to Lokayukta Police Office at Tumkur and he reached the office of the Lokayuktha police at Tumkur; at that time, the Inspector of Lokayuka and Dy. S.P. of Lokayukta were present; P.W. 3 K.G. Lakshman was present and one person from Chikkanayakanahalli was also present. At about 11.00 a.m., DDPI asked him to go to Lokayukta Police Office at Tumkur and he reached the office of the Lokayuktha police at Tumkur; at that time, the Inspector of Lokayuka and Dy. S.P. of Lokayukta were present; P.W. 3 K.G. Lakshman was present and one person from Chikkanayakanahalli was also present. P.W. 2-Thontaradhya gave six currency notes each of Rs. 50/- denomination, 4 currency notes each of Rs. 20/- denomination and two currency notes each of Rs. 10/- denomination, totally Rs. 400/- to C.W. 34 and he smeared phenolphthalein powder on these currency notes and handed over the same to P.W. 3-Lakshman; thereafter, some solution was prepared and with that the fingers of P.W. 3 was washed in that solution and the resultant wash turned into pink colour; the samples were collected in M.O. 1 and M.O. 2. C.W. 34 explained the contents of first information lodged by P.W. 2; thereafter, raiding party left Tumkur and reached Chikkanayakanahalli at 2.30 p.m.; C.W. 34 asked P.W. 2 to meet the first accused in police station; P.W. 1 stayed with C.W. 34. We find that P.W. 1 had not accompanied P.W. 2. On the other hand, P.W. 3-Lakshman had accompanied P.W. 2. The evidence given by P.W. 1 relates to post-trap proceedings, which will be discussed later. 17. P.W. 2-Thontaradhya has deposed; that after first information was lodged, the police secured witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1 and 3 and made preparations to trap accused; P.W. 2 has not given the details of events which had happened in the office of Lokayuktha Police before the trap was laid. P.W. 2 has deposed; that he does not know the denominations of currency notes which were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. P.W. 2 has deposed that he does not know who handed over currency notes and he does not know whether any contemporaneous document was prepared in the office of Lokayuktha Police; P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 reached Chikkanayakanahalli P.S., at 1.30 p.m.; first accused was not in the police station; at about 2.45 p.m., first accused came to the police station and questioned P.W. 2 whether he had brought money. P.W. 2 told first accused that he had brought money and handed over Rs. P.W. 2 told first accused that he had brought money and handed over Rs. 400/- to first accused; first accused kept the money (tainted currency) in his pocket; thereafter, P.W. 2 gave predetermined signal to Lokayuktha Police and they reached the police station; the PSI and Dy. S.P. of Lokayuktha Police introduced themselves to first accused and questioned first accused whether he had received illegal gratification from P.W. 2, the first accused denied; the first accused removed money (tainted currency) from his pocket and threw the same to wastepaper basket; first accused removed the uniform after securing alternate clothes; thereafter, currency notes were removed from waste paper basket and they were seized and the hands of first accused were washed in a bowl containing sodium carbonate solution; resultant wash turned into pink colour. 18. From cross-examination of P.W. 2, I find evidence of P.W. 2 regarding demand and acceptance of bribe from him suffers from material discrepancies. P.W. 2 has not deposed as to how and where the tainted currency notes were handed over by P.W. 2 to the PSI and he was not aware about denomination of the notes. P.W. 2 was not aware about the preparations made in Lokayukta Office to trap first accused. P.W. 2 has deposed; P.W. 1 was the shadow witness and he had accompanied P.W. 2 to police station, which is contrary to the evidence of P.Ws. l and 3. P.W. 2 has deposed; when they reached Police Station at 1.30 p.m., the first accused was not in police station; at 2.45 p.m., first accused came to the police station and asked whether he had brought money; P.W. 2 told that he had brought money and handed over Rs. 400/- to first accused. 19. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that P.W. 2 has not deposed the exact place where first accused demanded illegal gratification from P.W. 2 whether it was in the chambers of the first accused or in the other portion of building of police station. The evidence of P.W. 2 gives an impression that the moment first accused saw P.W. 2, he questioned him whether he had brought money and immediately P.W. 2 paid the same. P.W. 2 has not deposed that first accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification in his chambers. The evidence of P.W. 2 gives an impression that the moment first accused saw P.W. 2, he questioned him whether he had brought money and immediately P.W. 2 paid the same. P.W. 2 has not deposed that first accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification in his chambers. During cross-examination of P.W. 2, he has admitted that one Renukamma had filed complaint against him, which was registered in Crime No. 173/90 for offences punishable under Sections 448 and 379 I.P.C. P.W. 2 was also arrayed as an accused in C.C. 395/91 which was pending trial before JMFC at Chikkanaikanahalli. P.W. 2 has deposed; he does not remember the date on which he met first accused; time and place at which he handed over illegal gratification. P.W. 2 has not deposed that first accused had asked him to come to the police station on the next day at 3.30 p.m. P.W. 2 has reiterated that when he went to the police station alongwith P.W. 3, the first accused was not there and had gone to his house. Thereafter, he had asked Lokayuktha Police as to whether he should meet first accused in his house. P.W. 2 has admitted that he had not produced license to show that he was permitted to deal with kerosene. P.W. 2 has admitted that he does not know the contents of Ex. Pl to P3. P.W. 2 has deposed that members of raiding party were waiting outside the police station. P.W. 2 has denied suggestion that he tried to thrust currency notes into the pocket of first accused, in the process, currency notes fell into the waste paper basket. 20. P.W. 3-Lakshman has deposed; on 20.8.1990, as requested by Lokayukta Police, he went to the office of Lokayukta Police at about 10.15 a.m.; P.Ws. l and 2 were present. Lokayukta Police Inspector explained the contents of complaint given by P.W. 2; P.W. 2 produced Rs. 400/- before the Lokayukta Inspector and P.W. 3 counted the same and the same were smeared with some powder; hands of P.W. 3 were washed with some solution and resultant wash showed change of colour and sample of the same was collected in a bottle and tainted currency notes were handed over to P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 was asked to accompany P.W. 2 thereafter, entrustment mahazar as per Ex. Pl was prepared in Lokayukta Office; thereafter P.Ws. Pl was prepared in Lokayukta Office; thereafter P.Ws. 2 and 3 went to the police station; at that time, first accused was not in the police station and they were told that he would return at 4.00 p.m.; first accused came to the police station at about 3.30 p.m., and P.W. 2 followed the first accused to his office; P.W. 2 told first accused that he had brought Rs. 400/- and handed over the same to first accused and first accused received the said amount; P.W. 2 came out of the office and gave predetermined signal to raiding party; thereafter, the Dy. S.P. of Lokayukta and his staff rushed to the police station; first accused had kept the money paid by P.W. 2 in his right side pant pocket; Dy. S.P. showed his Identity Card to first accused; first accused removed currency notes from his pant pocket and threw it into dust-bin; first accused started rubbing his hands with his cloths; Dy. S.P. asked him not to do so; thereafter, the hands of first accused were washed with some solution and it turned into pink colour; tainted currency notes were seized from dust-bin; after providing clothes, accused No. 1 was asked to remove his trousers and right side pocket of trousers was washed in a solution and it turned to pink colour and sample of resultant wash was collected in a bottle. During cross-examination, P.W. 3 has made certain categorical admissions, which would belie his version given in examination-chief. P.W. 3 has admitted that he has not entered the chamber of first accused and he was staying near the door. There were half shutters in addition to full shutters of door. P.W. 3 had not seen as to what had transpired between P.W. 2 and first accused. P.W. 2 has admitted that since there were half shutters, the payment made by P.W. 2 to first accused. P.W. 3 has not visible to him. For the first time, he saw the first accused where he was removing Rs. 400/- (tainted currency) from his pocket and throwing into a dust-pin. He had heard the first accused asking P.W. 2 whether he had brought money. 21. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that P.W. 3 has not deposed that, whether first accused had questioned P.W. 2 that he has brought the amount. 400/- (tainted currency) from his pocket and throwing into a dust-pin. He had heard the first accused asking P.W. 2 whether he had brought money. 21. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that P.W. 3 has not deposed that, whether first accused had questioned P.W. 2 that he has brought the amount. P.W. 3 has made a categorical statement that he had not actually seen P.W. 2 paying the money to first accused. Thus, we find that there are material discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 relating to demand and acceptance of bribe by first accused. 22. P.W. 1 is a post-trap witness. P.W. 1 has deposed; when the members of raiding party entered the police station, he also followed them; when he entered the police station, first accused, P.Ws. 2 and 3 were present. The Dy. S.P. of Lokayuktha held the hands of first accused and tainted currency notes were found in a dust-bin kept beneath the table; first accused was asked to collect the said tainted currency notes; after the currency notes were removed by first accused from the dust-bin, his hands were washed with sodium carbonate solution and resultant wash turned into pink colour; the process was done by dipping the right pocket of the trousers of first accused; the solution turned into pink colour. 23. P.W. 1 was treated as a hostile witness for resailing from the contents of his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. P.W. 1 has denied that before leaving the Lokayuktha office, the Inspector had asked complainant to pay the bribe money to first accused in case if it was demanded. The fingers of P.W. 1 were washed with sodium carbonate solution before he collected the tainted currency notes from the dust-bin. P.W. 1 has denied suggestion that, after he entered the office, first accused took tainted currency notes from his pocket and threw the same into a dust-bin. As already stated, C.W. 34 could not be examined as he was dead before the commencement of trial. Thus, we find the evidence of P.W. 2 does not find corroboration from the contents of first information lodged by P.W. 2. The evidence of P.W. 2 regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs. 600/- by first accused on 18.8.1990 is highly discrepant and incredible. 24. The evidence of P.Ws. Thus, we find the evidence of P.W. 2 does not find corroboration from the contents of first information lodged by P.W. 2. The evidence of P.W. 2 regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs. 600/- by first accused on 18.8.1990 is highly discrepant and incredible. 24. The evidence of P.Ws. l to 3 regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by first accused in the Police Station of C.N. Halli on 20.8.1990 is highly discrepant and incredible. The discrepancies found in the evidence of P.Ws. l to 3 are highlighted in the discussion made supra. This apart, I find certain material discrepancies in the evidence of Investigating Officer. In the pre-trap mahazar, denominations and numbers of currency notes are not correctly mentioned. P.Ws. 1 to 3 have not deposed after the trap and recovery of tainted currency notes from dust-bin they compared numbers of tainted currency notes with the numbers mentioned in the pre-trap mahazar marked as per Ex. P2. The numbers and denominations of currency notes are not mentioned in the property form submitted to the trial Court to ensure that the tainted currency notes recovered from the first accused were submitted to the Court. As already stated, C.W. 34 could not be examined, however, P.W. 14-P.B. Poovaiah has given evidence relating to the rest of the investigation including sanction accorded by P.W. 12-Subhash Bharani. The defence has made an unsuccessful attempt to establish that P.W. 12 was not competent to accord sanction and the order of sanction suffers from discrepancies. P.W. 12-Subhash Bharani was the Addl. Director General of Police and he was the disciplinary authority and he was competent to remove the first accused from service. The facts and circumstances of case and reports were made available to P.W. 12 before the sanction was accorded. 25. I also see from records that first accused had seized kerosene which was transported by P.W. 2 much before the accused was trapped. P.W. 9 who was responsible for the entire episode has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W. 9 has deposed that on 17.8.1990 he came to C.N. Halli for purchase of kerosene and he had purchased 70 litres of kerosene and when he was transporting the same, he was caught red-handed by the police and he was taken to the police station. He had come all the way from Channarayapattana to purchase kerosene. P.W. 9 has deposed that on 17.8.1990 he came to C.N. Halli for purchase of kerosene and he had purchased 70 litres of kerosene and when he was transporting the same, he was caught red-handed by the police and he was taken to the police station. He had come all the way from Channarayapattana to purchase kerosene. P.W. 9 who had purchased 70 litres of kerosene had not disclosed the names of persons from whom he had purchased kerosene. P.W. 9 had admitted that he was released on 23.8.1990. 26. This is not a situation where first accused had registered a case against P.W. 9 after he was trapped. Thus, on over all appreciation of evidence, I find prosecution has failed to bring home guilt of accused for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. Therefore, I answer points 1 and 2 in negative. 27. The next part of prosecution case relates to fabrication of evidence by first accused in Crime No. 164/90 which was registered against P.W. 2-Thontaradhya on the allegation that he had attempted to bribe accused No. 1 as a reward to spare him in the case registered against P.W. 9-Jayarama. 28. As could be seen from the investigation records, there are serious irregularities, which would create a strong suspicion against the conduct of first accused. Nevertheless, we notice from the records that in the case registered in Crime No. 164/90, the charge sheet was submitted in C.C. No. 301/91 for an offence punishable under Section 214 I.P.C. against P.W. 2-Thontaradhya, however, C.C. No. 301/91 was withdrawn on an application made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor pursuant to Government Order bearing No. OE 34 MOHIBA: 93 dated 15.11.1993. 29. In order to constitute an offence under Section 193 I.P.C. the prosecution has to establish that the accused had fabricated evidence to make use of the same in judicial proceedings. Section 193 reads thus: “193. 29. In order to constitute an offence under Section 193 I.P.C. the prosecution has to establish that the accused had fabricated evidence to make use of the same in judicial proceedings. Section 193 reads thus: “193. Punishment for false evidence.—Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 30. Whether first accused in connivance with accused No. 2 to 6 has fabricated evidence in Crime No. 164/90 (C.C. 301/1991) was a matter to be decided by the Jurisdictional Magistrate. As already stated, the learned Magistrate had permitted to withdraw C.C. No. 301/91 on an application filed by the Addl. Public Prosecutor under Section 321 Cr.P.C. Therefore, alleged fabrication of evidence was not available for judicial scrutiny. 31. I also find another serious infirmity with regard to charge sheet filed in C.C. No. 301/91. An offence under Section 193 I.P.C. falls under Chapter XI Cr.P.C. 32. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C, reading as under: “No Court shall take cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such an offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. According to Proviso of section 195 (1) (b) (i) (as it stood then) except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate; (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such an offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-cause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.” In the case on hand, C.C. No. 301/91 which was filed by accused No. 1, after fabrication of documents squarely attracts provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. The Court before which C.C. 301/91 was pending did not have opportunity to examine whether the documents which had accompanied the charge sheet filed in C.C. No. 301/91 were fabricated to give false evidence in judicial proceedings. The investigation of, this case relating to fabrication of documents in C.C. No. 164/90 is without jurisdiction. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove point No. 3. 33. The learned Trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has acquitted accused. I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal. 34. Therefore, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.