JUDGMENT Jitendra Chauhan, J.:- The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 24.5.1999, passed by the learned Special Judge, Faridkot, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 7 of the Act and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The accused-appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 13 (2) of the Act and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant Bachittar Singh son of Banta Singh got his statement recorded to the DSP (HQ) Muktsar - Jarnail Singh to the effect that he is senior Vice President of Block Congress of Bhagsar. Babu Ram son of Mulkh Raj, resident of village Bhagsar, indulges in the sale of opium, poppy husk and intoxicant pills. Said Babu Ram manufactured injuries on his person and got himself admitted in the Hospital and lodged a false report with the police saying that the injuries were caused by him (Bachittar Singh, complainant). 3. Thereafter, the complainant Bachittar Singh then went to Police Statiion Sadar Muktsar and reported the incident to the SHO, who directed him to contact and enquire from Police Post Lakhewali as no case was registered against him at Police Station Sadar Muktsar itself . The complainant, accordingly, went to Police Post Lakhwali along with his son Sukhmander Singh, to enquire in this regard. Anup Singh, the accused, who was then posted as Head Constable, was found present there. The complainant enquired from the accused Anup Singh about the case, on that, he told Bachittar Singh that Babu Ram had lodged a report against him for causing injuries and a case would be registered on its basis. Accused Anup Singh raised a demand of Rs.1500/- in order to help the complainant. The complainant responded that he was a poor man but paid the amount of Rs.1500/- which he was carrying with him at that time in the presence of his son Sukhmander Singh. Accused Anup Singh raised a demand of Rs.1500/- in order to help the complainant. The complainant responded that he was a poor man but paid the amount of Rs.1500/- which he was carrying with him at that time in the presence of his son Sukhmander Singh. Anup Singh, accused also promised Bachittar Singh, complainant to get him discharged in the case. On 16.6.1994, Bachittar Singh met DSP Jarnail Singh where he got recorded his statement, Exhibit PA and on its basis, the present case was registered. 4. The accused was arrested on 17.6.1994 and the investigation of the case was conducted by DSP Jarnail Singh aforesaid. On interrogation, accused-appellant suffered a disclosure statement in the presence of ASI Kashmir Singh and one Raja Ram son of Kundan Lal that he had kept concealed currency notes worth Rs.1,500/- which he had obtained from Bachittar Singh under threat in a trunk in his residential room at Lakhewali. The accused led the police party to the place specified by him and got recovered 15 currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each which were taken into police possession vide memo, Exhibit PW3/B. After completion of investigations, the challan was presented in the Court of the then Special Judge, Faridkot. 5. The accused was charge-sheeted under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses. Besides them, Raja Ram, PW was given up as having been won over by the accused, whereas the other witnesses, namely, Dev Krishan, Sikander Singh, Constable and Rajinder Singh, Head Constable were given up being unnecessary. 7. The material evidence in this case comprises the statements of Bachittar Singh, complainant, who appeared as PW1 and his son Sukhmander Singh, who appeared as PW2. Bachittar Singh has unfolded the prosecution version as narrated by him in his earlier statement before the police. He stated that a case was registered against him under Sections 323/324 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the complaint lodged by Babu Ram for causing him injuries. Bachittar Singh has unfolded the prosecution version as narrated by him in his earlier statement before the police. He stated that a case was registered against him under Sections 323/324 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the complaint lodged by Babu Ram for causing him injuries. He stated that on 14.6.1994, he went to Police Post Lakhewali where Head Constable Anup Singh was posted and enquired about his case from Anup Singh, accused-appellant, who demanded money and then he paid Rs.1500/- which he was carrying with him at that time in the presence of his son Sukhmander Singh. Bachittar Singh, complainant, also stated that after receiving Rs.1,500/- from him, the accused-appellant released him and promised that he would get Bachittar Singh discharged in the case. 8. In his statement, ASI Kashmir Singh, PW3, who was Incharge of Police Post Lakhewali, has deposed that on 19.6.1994, he went to Police Station Sadar Muktsar for some official work where Raja Ram PW met him and DSP Jarnail Singh also reached in the Police Station Sadar Muktsar. He also deposed that accused-appellant Anup Singh, who was lodged in the lock-up, was interrogated by DSP Jarnail Singh in his presence and in the presence of Raja Ram. ASI Kashmir Singh further stated that in pursuance of his disclosure statement, accused-appellant Anup Singh got recovered Rs.1,500/- from his room which is on rent with him belonging to the premises owned by Rangi Ram. 9. DSP Jarnail Singh, who was posted as DSP (HQ) Muktsar and investigated the case, appeared as PW10. He also recorded the statement of Bachittar Singh, complainant. DSP Jarnail Singh arrested the accusedappellant on 17.6.1994 and interrogated him. Pursuant to the interrogation, the accused-appellant got recovered currency notes worth Rs.1,500/- kept concealed by him in a trunk kept by him in his residential room, which were taken into police possession. 10. Statement of accused-appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein he denied the allegations of prosecution and pleaded false implication. The accused-appellant has also stated that ASI Kashmir Singh was the Zail Officer and Investigating Officer of that case and there was no occasion for him to demand or accept any money from anybody. He, however, did not produce any evidence in defence. 11. The accused-appellant has also stated that ASI Kashmir Singh was the Zail Officer and Investigating Officer of that case and there was no occasion for him to demand or accept any money from anybody. He, however, did not produce any evidence in defence. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the only evidence against the appellant comprises the testimony of Bachittar Singh, complainant, PW1, and his son Sukhmander Singh, PW2. There is no corroboration by any independent witness in the present case. The only independent witness is Raja Ram, who was stated to be present at the Police Station when the appellant was being interrogated by DSP Jarnail Singh. However, said Raja Ram has not been cited as a witness. There is no explanation with regard to the identity of said Raja Ram and, in what context he was present in the Police Station. ASI Kashmir Singh has played a very pivotal role in getting the appellant trapped in the instant case and the same stands corroborated from the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. He has further argued that the statement of Bachittar Singh does not inspire confidence, because on one hand he claims himself to be a poor person but, on the other hand, he instantly made payment of Rs.1,500/-, allegedly demanded by the appellant. Complainant Bachittar Singh is an office-bearer of the Congress Party, therefore, the learned counsel has argued that the complainant’s assertion that he was a poor person and that the money has been extracted from him on the pretext of extending help is far from truth. Rather the same smacks that a conspiracy has been hatched against appellant at the behest of ASI Kashmir Singh to harm the appellant, who suspected the appellant for extending help for Babu Ram, the complainant and Bachittar Singh. 13. It has been further argued that the appellant did not make any disclosure statement and no amount, as alleged, was recovered from the room of the appellant in his presence. The land-lord of the appellant, namely, Rangi Ram, who has been cited as PW5, has made a categoric statement that he did not make any statement before DSP Jarnail Singh, PW10 on 23.8.1994. 14. The land-lord of the appellant, namely, Rangi Ram, who has been cited as PW5, has made a categoric statement that he did not make any statement before DSP Jarnail Singh, PW10 on 23.8.1994. 14. The further submission of the learned counsel is that at the relevant time, it was ASI Kashmir Singh, who was the Incharge of the Police Station and this fact was known to Sukhmander Singh, PW2, who in his cross-examination has deposed to this effect. There was, thus, no occasion for the complainant-party to approach the appellant for seeking help. 15. On the other hand, learned State counsel has argued that the case of the prosecution is fully established on the basis of the statements of complainant Bachittar Singh, PW1 and his son Sukhmander Singh, PW2 and no further corroboration is required in the present case. The appellant made a disclosure statement and in pursuance thereof, Rs.1,500/- were recovered from his room. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case with their assistance. 17. The case of the prosecution is based on the statement of complainant Bachittar Singh. As per the complainant, the appellant demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1,500/- which was paid to him in the presence of his son Sukhmander Singh, PW2. 18. Admittedly, in the instant case, no independent witness has been examined. The only independent witness Raja Ram, who was stated to be present in the Police Station at the relevant time when DSP Jarnail Singh interrogated the accused/appellant, was given up as having been won over. ASI Kashmir Singh was the Investigating Officer in the present case. It is not a case where the appellant had refused to make the payment of illegal gratification demanded by the appellant and a trap was laid. 19. The recovery in the instant case is on the basis of disclosure statement made by the appellant during interrogation conducted by DSP Jarnail Singh. The disclosure statement was allegedly made in the presence of one Raja Ram, but the said Raja Ram has not been examined by the prosecution. 20. 19. The recovery in the instant case is on the basis of disclosure statement made by the appellant during interrogation conducted by DSP Jarnail Singh. The disclosure statement was allegedly made in the presence of one Raja Ram, but the said Raja Ram has not been examined by the prosecution. 20. In the aforesaid background, it is to be examined whether the testimony of the complainant Bachittar Singh and his son Sukhmander Singh is sufficient to convict the appellant when the independent witness Raja Ram has not been examined and the other independent witness Rangi Ram, the land owner of the appellant from whose house the alleged amount was recovered has not supported the case of the prosecution. 21. From the record, it is made out that complainant Bachittar Singh is not a poor rustic villager, as claimed by him, rather he is an officebearer of Congress Party of the area of village Bhagsar. It has also come in the statement of PW2 Sukhmander Singh that he knew ASI Kashmir Singh was the Chowki Incharge of village Lakhewali. The appellant has taken a very categoric and specific stand, when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that he had been framed in the instant case at the behest of ASI Kashmir Singh, PW, as he had been suspecting him for helping the complainant Babu Ram. 22. Admittedly, the appellant was not the Investigating Officer in the instant case. The other independent witness Rangi Ram, PW5, the land owner of the appellant, has not supported the case of the prosecution. He was examined as PW5 and has stated that no recovery was effected in his presence. ASI Kashmir Singh was the Investigating Officer. 23. The present case is not a case where a trap was laid. The appellant demanded illegal gratification and in response thereof, he received the same. In the present case, the amount was recovered from the appellant on the basis of disclosure statement allegedly suffered by him. From the perusal of the record, it is made out that the appellant was not in any position to help the complainant. The case was being investigated by ASI Kashmir Singh. All the prosecution witnesses in the instant case are official witnesses or interested witnesses. From the perusal of the record, it is made out that the appellant was not in any position to help the complainant. The case was being investigated by ASI Kashmir Singh. All the prosecution witnesses in the instant case are official witnesses or interested witnesses. The only independent witness Raja Ram, who was allegedly present at the time of interrogation of the appellant by DSP Jarnail Singh, PW10, has not been produced and examined in the present case and was declared hostile as having been won over. No material has been shown to infer as to what was the basis of declaring him hostile for having been won over, and no explanation has come on record as to why the prosecution has reached to such conclusion. The other independent witness Rangi Ram, the land owner of the appellant, has not supported the case of the prosecution. Sukhmander Singh, being son of the complainant, is an interested witness. 24. When it is established that the appellant was not in any position to help the complainant, there was no occasion for the complainant Bachittar Singh and his son to approach him for help, particularly when it has come in the statement of Sukhmander Singh, PW2, that he knew that ASI Kashmir Singh was the Incharge of Police Post. 25. In the light of above discussion, it is established that there are material contradictions and improvements in the statements of Bachittar Singh and his son Sukhmander Singh. The statements of Sukhmander Singh and ASI Kashmir Singh are in the nature of partisan witnesses. As it is not a case of trap, the recovery in the instant case allegedly made does not inspire any confidence, more so when the same is not supported by the independent witness Rangi Ram, PW5. 26. The demand and acceptance of bribe money are two essential ingredients of commission of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe money by the appellant. 27. 26. The demand and acceptance of bribe money are two essential ingredients of commission of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe money by the appellant. 27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 (SC) 91 has observed as under: “It is clear from the aforesaid discussion that the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution is not such as to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court and we must say that we are not at all satisfied that the appellant either demanded bribe of Rs.50/- from Jagdish Raj or that Jagdish Raj paid bribe of Rs.50/- to the appellant by handing over five marked currency notes to him or that five marked currency notes of Rs.10/- each were recovered from the pocket of the appellant when his person was searched by the raiding party. We may take this opportunity of pointing out that it would be desirable in cases of this kind where a trap is laid for a public servant, the marked currency notes, which are used for purpose of trap, are treated with phenolphthalein powder so that the handling of such marked currency by the public servant can be detected by chemical process and the Court does not have to depend on oral evidence which is some times of a dubious character for the purpose of deciding the fate of the public servant.” 28. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed and the judgment and order, dated 24.5.1999, passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. The appellant is stated to be on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. ------------