Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.1.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Patiala, convicting the accused- appellants sukhdev Singh and Ram Singh under Sec.7, 13 (1) read with Sec.13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein referred as the Act) and under section 409 IPC, and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1500/- each, on both the counts. 2. Sukhdev Singh PW was member Panchayat of village Dhaneda, whereas the accused Sukhdev Singh was Panchayat Officer. Similarly, Ram Singh accused was Panchayat Secretary of the aforesaid village. On 13.7.1994, both the accused namely Sukhdev Singh and Ram Singh went to the house of the complainant and told him that Harpal Singh Sarpanch had directed them to collect money from him on account of the sale of the poultry. At this, Sukhdev Singh PW gave them the amount under a receipt and he was to adjust this amount against the amount of rs.28000/- to be paid by Harnail Singh to the Panchayat. Harnail Singh did not pay Rs.28000/- to Sukhdev Singh PW, therefore, he went to the the B. D. O. for return of money, then it came to light that the accused did not deposit the amount anywhere. On the basis of the secret information, FIR was recorded against these two accused. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and on completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the court. 3. The accused were charged by the learned Special Judge, Patiala for the offences under Sec.13 (1) read with Sec.13 (2) of the Act and also under Sec.409 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined raghbir Singh (PW1), Sukhdev Singh (PW2), Charanji Lal (PW3), Harnail Singh (PW4), Surjit Singh (PW5), Nachhattar Singh (PW6), Hari Singh (PW7), Phulwant singh (PW8), Madan Gopal (PW9) and HC Rajwant Singh (PW10 ). 5. When examined under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. they pleaded their false implication in the case and denied having received a sum of Rs.25,000/- or having issued any receipt. 5. When examined under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. they pleaded their false implication in the case and denied having received a sum of Rs.25,000/- or having issued any receipt. However, they stated that Raghbir Singh was inimical towards him as his father had lost the case before the D. D. P. O. and Joint director, as such, the present case is the result of the enmity of Raghbir Singh who is pursuing the case on behalf of the Panchayat. They examined Harpal Singh (DW1) and Balbir Singh (DW2) in their defence. 6. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. Arguments heard. Record perused. 7. The occurrence in this case is stated to have taken place on 13.7.1994, however, the FIR was lodged, that too on a secret information, on 3.1.1996. Sukhdev Singh (PW2) who had entrusted the amount never came forward to state if it was a public money and he had handed over the same to the accused for depositing the same in the government treasury. The prosecution case is that they were sent by Harpal Singh Sarpanch for bringing Rs.25,000/- i. e.1/4th share of the contract money regarding the lease of Panchayat land for rs.1,11,000/-. Harpal Singh has not been examined to prove if he had directed the accused to bring that money from Sukhdev Singh. Similarly, according to the prosecution Sukhdev Singh had paid this money from his pocket and he had to receive the same from Harnail Singh (PW4) which reveals that it was a private transaction between Harpal Singh and Sukhdev Singh and Sukhdev Singh had paid this amount at the instance of Harpal Singh. Harpal Singh instead of paying rs.25,000/- himself sent the accused to Sukhdev Singh. Had Sukhdev Singh not been paid this amount by Harpal Singh, then Sukhdev Singh was to sue Harpal Singh for recovery of this amount and he had no obligation against the accused. It was not harpal Singh who had entrusted this money to the accused for depositing the same in the Treasury or D. D. P. O. and also Sukhdev Singh PW was not competent to direct the accused persons to use the money in a particular manner allegedly paid by him. From the testimony of Sukhdev Singh, it transpires that he had to receive the money from Harnail Singh which could be adjusted towards the payment made by Harpal Singh. From the testimony of Sukhdev Singh, it transpires that he had to receive the money from Harnail Singh which could be adjusted towards the payment made by Harpal Singh. Harnail Singh (PW4) has given quite different version to the earlier one while testifying that it was the lease money which was to be given to Sarpanch and not the money on account of sale of the hens. He has stated that the lease money was to be given to Harpal Singh Sarpanch and he had delivered the same to him against receipt while paying the same in two installments of Rs.12,700/- and Rs.15,400/-. No evidence has been brought on record to prove that Harnail Singh was to pay this money to Sukhdev Singh against which he had paid the money to the accused. All this goes to show that the story has been manufactured by the police and recorded the secret information for the reasons best known to it, may be in connivance with Raghbir singh who wanted to take vengeance against the accused as his father had lost the case before the D. D. P. O. and the Joint Director regarding some land. The trial court has ignored the basic ingredients for completion of the offence of illegal gratification i. e. entrustment and mis-appropriation of the of the public money. Without delving deep into the ingredients of these offences, it would be suffice to say that none of the ingredients for completion of the aforesaid offences stand established by the prosecution. As such, interference at my end has become inevitable. 8. Resultantly, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order, acquit the accused of the charges framed against them and direct that they be set at liberty forthwith. Bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by them stand discharged. Fine, if any deposited by them, be refunded.