Judgment Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.4.2002 (for short as `impugned judgment) passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, (for short the trial Court), whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) and 7 of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 (for short `the Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 7 of the Act and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under Section 13 of the Act and default of payment of fine, to further undergo riorous imprisonment for a period of four months. 2. The facts, as noticed by the trial Court in paras 2 and 3 of the impugned judegment, are re-produced as under :- "Complainant Ramesh Kumar purchased a plot in the name of his two sons named Raj Kumar and Mohinder Kumar, about 8-10 years back. Aforesaid sons of the complainant moved an application on April 16, 1998, before Tehsildar, Patiala for mutating the above-said plot in their favour. Copy of the registered sale deed appended to the application. On April 23, 1998 complainant approached the Halqa Patwari, accused no. I and requested him to do the needful. Said accused replied that he had already received the application for mutation but mutation would be entered only after he was given bride amounting to three thousands ropees. Complainant made entreaties in the name of his poverty. Accused no. I retorted saying that he was not an ordinary patwari and was nephew of a Tehsildar. However, in view of persistent importunes he agreed to receive bribe amounting to two thousands rupees. As the complainant was not willing to give bribe he put forth an excuse that the amount demanded was not available with him. Accused no. I agreed to enter the mutation and prepare the copy that very day asked for the compalinant to bring the monry and have the copy in the after noon April 24,1998 from his office. As the complainant was not willing to give bribe he put forth an excuse that the amount demanded was not available with him. Accused no. I agreed to enter the mutation and prepare the copy that very day asked for the compalinant to bring the monry and have the copy in the after noon April 24,1998 from his office. On April 24,1998 the complainant, in the company of his Raj Kumar, approached DSP Vigilance, Patiala alongwith two thousand rupees[3x500+5x100] and produced the same before the DSP Vigilance." 3. DSP Ranjit Singh, PW-12, recorded the statement of complainant and on its basis , FIR, Exhibit PK, was registered and it was decided to lay a trap. A raiding team headed by DSP,Ranjit Singh, PW-12, was constituted in which Harjit Singh, PW-9, Sr. Assistant of Punjabi University, Patiala and Raj Kumar, PW-11, were also joined as official witness and shadow witness resectively, to assist the raiding team The currency notes worth Rs. 2,000/- [3x500+5x100] were treated with phenolphthalein powder and returned the same to the complainant with the instructed to hand over those very currency notes to the accused as and when demanded. The official witness Harjit Singh, PW9, was also instucted to accompany the complainant Ramesh Kumar, PW8, to the office to the accused for giving signal to the raiding party after receipt of the bribe money by the accused. 4. Thereafter, the raiding party including the complainant and independent witnesses proceeded to the Tehsil office of the accused/appellant. On reaching the bridge of Ganda Naala on Behera Road near Tehsil Office, Patiala, the complainant and shadow witness were sent to the office to the accused whereas rest of the members of the raiding party remained present outside the office of the accused/appellant. 5. After receiving the pre-decided signal by the members of the raiding party, DSP Ranjit Singh Dhillon, PW-12, led the raiding party inside the office of the accused, disclosed his own identity and also verified the antecedents of the accused. On being asked by DSP Ranjit Singh Dhillon, PW-12, the complainant disclosed that the tained currency notes were counted by accused Baljit Singh and therafter,the same were handed over to accused Sukhwinder Singh, who had put these in the front inside pocket of his pants. On being asked by DSP Ranjit Singh Dhillon, PW-12, the complainant disclosed that the tained currency notes were counted by accused Baljit Singh and therafter,the same were handed over to accused Sukhwinder Singh, who had put these in the front inside pocket of his pants. Thereafter the raiding party subjected the accused to the process of hand wash and the pant of the accused/appellant Sukhwinder Singh was also dipped in the solution, which showed positive chemical results. 6. Pursuant to filling of final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., on its basis, the accused were charge sheeted under Sections 13 (1) (d)/13 (2), 7 and 8 of the Act, to which they they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove its case the prosecution exmined as many as 12 witnesses, namely, MHC Gurbhej Sinbh, as PW1; C. Karmajit Singh as Ranjit Singh as PW3; Surinder Singh PW-2; C, Naib Tehsildar as PW-4; Inder Singh, Jr. Assistant as PW-5; Shivdev Kumar Verma as PW-6;Balbir Singh as PW-7; Ramesh Kumar as PW-8; Harjit Singh as PW-9; DSP Narinder Kaushal as PW-10; Raj Kumar, son of the complainant, as PW-11 and DSP Ranjit Singh as PW-12. 8. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statments of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recoded. The accused denied all the incrimiating circumstances put to them and pleaded their innocence and that they have been falsely roped in the present case. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant Sukhwinder Singh as noticed in para No. 1 of this judement, whereas accused Baljit Singh Lal was acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 10. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the learned Trial Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal, which was admitted by this Court on 23.4.2002. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the complainant Ramesh Kumar, PW-6, has not supported the case of the prosecution. In the same manner, official witness Harjit Singh, PW-9,has not supportted the prosecution version and was declared hostile. 12. It is further argued that there are material contradictions in the statement of complainant, PW-6, and his son Raj Kumar, PW-11(shadow witness). As per the FIR, the complainant approached the accused on 23.4.1998. In the same manner, official witness Harjit Singh, PW-9,has not supportted the prosecution version and was declared hostile. 12. It is further argued that there are material contradictions in the statement of complainant, PW-6, and his son Raj Kumar, PW-11(shadow witness). As per the FIR, the complainant approached the accused on 23.4.1998. whereas in his cross-examination, he has stated that he approached the accused on 24.4.1998. It has also come in the statement of Raj Kumar, PW-11, shadow witness, that neither he nor his father visited the complex of Tehsil office on 24.4.1998. The learned counsel has further pointed out the contradiction with regard to the factum of purchase of plot. As per statement of complainant, the said plot was purchase five years back, whereas as per the statement of Raj Kumar, PW-11, the said plot was purchased 8 to 10 years back. Another contradiction is that as per statement of complainant, he alongwith has son Raj Kumar, PW- Kumar, PW- 11, reached the Vigilance Office at about 1.00 p.m. and it took three hours to record all the statement, whereas according to Raj Kumar, PW-11, it took only 1 1/2 hours to record the statements. Therfore, the learned counsel has submitted that the alleged demand of gratification on the part of accused is not proved by the prosecution as serious contradictions in the statement of Ramesh Kumar, PW-6, the complainant, and his son Raj Kumar, PW-11, coupled with the fact that the complainant approached the accused on 24.4.1998 to make ready the Jamabandi as such as demand on the part of the accused is not proved because it is evident from Exhibit PG that the Jamabandi stood already prepared on 23.4.1998 itself. 13. Learned counsel has further argued that as per complaint, the complainant was required to raise some loan but son of the complainant Raj Kumar, PW- 11, in his cross-examination has admitted the fact that need for raising loan was never felt. 14. Learned counsel has further referred to the statement of DSP Ranjit Singh Dhillon, PW-12 (Investigating Officer), who has stated that at noon on 24.4.1998 the complainant and his son suffered statement, i.e., Exhibit PK before him. But this version of DSP Rajit Singh Dhillon, PW-12, is contradictory to his own statement in cross-examination wherein he has stated that FIR was recorded by some another official whose name he did not remember. But this version of DSP Rajit Singh Dhillon, PW-12, is contradictory to his own statement in cross-examination wherein he has stated that FIR was recorded by some another official whose name he did not remember. Therefore, the learned counsel has submitted that FIR has already been recorded before conducting the raid. It is prior to the occurance and the said fact is admitted by the prosecution witnesses. 15. It is argued that no independent corroboration was sought nor any independent witness was joined during the raid. The statement of Raj Kumar, PW-11 (shadow witness) cannot be taken as gospel truth because he, being son of the complainant, is in interested witness. 16. Learned counsel has next argued that the alleged raid was not conduct as per procedure because the Investigating Officer did not make offer to the accused himself for his personal search. He has also argued that there was previous animosity between the accused/appellant and DSP Ranjit Singh Dhillon, PW-12, and due to which, the accused/appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case, which is duly proved from the statement of Nirmal Chand, DW2 (Kanungo). 17. Learned counsel has next argued that the appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that he was called by Investigating Officer in connection with enquiry to be made on the complaint of Ramesh Kumar, PW-6. Baljit Singh son of Davinder Singh was present at that time. In his office, DSP Rajit Singh Dhillon, PW-12, (Investigating Officer) threatened to involve the appellant in some case. The appellant has further stated that the Investigating Officer was annoyed with him as he did not oblige him by delivering the possession of quarter No. 768 as desired by him. On account of these circumstances, DSP Ranjit Singh Dhillon, PW-12, developed grudge against him. 18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has argued that the tainted notes were recovered from the possession of Baljit Singh, who was instructed by the appellant to accept the same on his behalf. He has further submitted that had the said amount passed on to the accused/appellant then the same would have been recovered from him. The complainant has not supported the case of prosecution and was declared hostile. The official witness Harjit Singh, PW-9, who was member of the raiding party, has been declared hositle in the instant case. He has further submitted that had the said amount passed on to the accused/appellant then the same would have been recovered from him. The complainant has not supported the case of prosecution and was declared hostile. The official witness Harjit Singh, PW-9, who was member of the raiding party, has been declared hositle in the instant case. There is nothing on record to show if any proceedings were initiated against him for his not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, the case of prosecution is fully established. 19. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 20. Admittedly, the complainant alongwith official witness Harjit Singh, PW-9, was declared hositle. From the perusal of the statements of Ramesh Kumar, PW- 6, and his son Raj Kumar, PW- 11, it is revealed that many material contradictions emerge from the testimonies of these two witnesses with regard to the visit of the office of the accused; purchase of the plot and with regard to time taken by the police party in raid. 21. The motive as alleged is requirement of entering mutation for raising the loan against the plot. However, from the statement of Raj Kumar, PW-11 (son of the complainant), it is made out that necessity for raising loan was never felt by them and no evidence has been led to the effect that any application was made to any agency for raising the loan. 22. Admittedly, no independent witness was joined by the raiding party. There is also contradiction in the statement of the Investigating Officer- Ranjit Singh Dhillon, who appeared as PW-12. This witness has stated that on 24.4.1998 at noon, the complainant Ramesh Kumar, PW-6, and his son Raj Kumar, PW-11 have suffered FIR Exhibit PK before him which is in contraction to his own statement made in examination-in-chief, wherein he stated that FIR was recorded by some other officer. This witness, who headed the raiding party, even did not disclose the name of the officer, who recorded the FIR. The accused when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has taken a categorical stand that DSP Ranjit Singh Dhillon, PW-12, was inimical towards him as he did not hand over the possession of quarter No. 768. This fact has also come in the statement of Nihal Chand, DW2 (Kanango). 23. The accused when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has taken a categorical stand that DSP Ranjit Singh Dhillon, PW-12, was inimical towards him as he did not hand over the possession of quarter No. 768. This fact has also come in the statement of Nihal Chand, DW2 (Kanango). 23. In the instant case, there are material discrepancies in the statements of complainant and his son Raj Kumar, PW- 11 with regard to visit to the office. No explanation has been rendered by the prosecution for non-joining of any independent witness. The official wintess Harjit Singh, PW-9, joined by the raiding party, has not supported the case of prosecution. The currency notes were not handed over to the accused/appellant. The bribe in the instant case was given on 24.4.1998, where Jamambandi, in question, stood prepared on 23.4.1998. In the circumstances, there was no occasion for the complainant to give bribe when the copy of jamabandi had already been prepared. There is also evidence of animosity between the complainant and the Investigating Officer, who headed the raiding party. It is proved on record that the Investigating Officer did not make offer to the appellant for his personal search. 24. In the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, the conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of statement of shadow witness. Before convicting the accused, an independent corroboration required. In this case, the complainant has not supported the case of prosecution and the testimony of his own son Raj Kumar, PW-11, (shadow witness), being an interested witness, is not sufficient to convict the accused. There is also no evidence on record so as to show that any proceedings were initiated against the official witness, Harjit Singh, PW-9, for not deposing as per the case of prosecution. 25. In view of the above, the case of prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 16.4.2002 by the learned Special Judge, Patiala, is hereby set aside. The appellant is stated to be on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. 26. Since the main appeal is disposed of by his judgment, the misc. application pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Appeal disposed of.