JUDGMENT : A. K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30-11-2004 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Gwalior in Special Case No. 1/2002 convicting the appellant under sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and thereby sentencing him to suffer one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of three months', this appeal has been preferred by the appellant under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. In brief the case of prosecution is that complainant Satyendra Kumar Sharma submitted an application/complaint in the office of Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment Lokayukt Gwalior on 2-1-2001 stating therein that he is the proprietor of the firm 'Sonu Enterprises' and is carrying business in Galla Kothar area in Gwalior. He placed quotations for the supply of different type of herbal items to Ayurvedic Pharmacy Gwalior two months, prior to the date of submitting the complaint in which Kattha (catechu) and Kalimirch (dried berries of the pepper plant) were included. Although his quotations were lowest for catechu and Kalimirch, but he did not receive the supply order, as a result of which, he contacted the Storekeeper Mr. Shrivastava as well as the accused who was serving on the post of Superintendent in the said Pharmacy. According to the complaint, in order to provide supply order to the complainant the appellant made demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 1500/- and because he is not inclined to give any amount in bribe and wanted to get the appellant caught red handed, hence, he is submitting the complaint. The said complaint of complainant was forwarded to Inspector R. C. Bhoj who in order to test the authenticity of the averments made in it, sent the complainant to tape-record the conversation of bribe between him and the appellant. A panchnama in that regard was also prepared. 3. The complainant accordingly on 2-1-2001 after recording the conversation of bribe returned back to the office of Superintendent of Police at 6:20 PM and a panchnama of returning back the tape recorded version and tape recorder was also prepared. A panchnama in that regard was also prepared. 3. The complainant accordingly on 2-1-2001 after recording the conversation of bribe returned back to the office of Superintendent of Police at 6:20 PM and a panchnama of returning back the tape recorded version and tape recorder was also prepared. Thereafter, another complaint was submitted by complainant to Superintendent, Special Police Establishment stating therein that although the supply order to supply several herbal items including catechu and Kalimirch has been received by him and accordingly, he supplied the articles, but the payment has not been made and the quotation given by him for Harad bakkal, Kalimirch, Badi ilayachi, catechu although it was given two months earlier and after receiving the supply order he had also supplied those herbals, but the payment is yet to be made. However, no supply order has been received for catechu and Kalimirch, as a result of which, he contacted the appellant who referred him to Storekeeper Shri Vinod Bihari Shrivastava. When complainant met the said Storekeeper, he told that the supply order will be provided to the complainant only after giving commission to the appellant, as a result of which, on 30-12-2000 he contacted appellant P. D. Gupta who told that he (complainant) has to give commission although some rebate may be given and by saying so the appellant directed the complainant to meet him at his residence, hence, he has submitted one complaint on the earlier part of the day of 2-1-2001. In the second complaint it has also been mentioned that in pursuance to his complaint, a mini tape recorder having an unrecorded empty cassette, was handed over to him and by carrying the said tape recorder he went to the residence of the appellant at 6:00 PM and interacted with him in respect of illegal gratification which was being demanded by the appellant. On being insisted by the complainant, the appellant agreed to accept 10% commission which comes to Rs. 1,000/- and further told that by tomorrow viz. 3-1-2001 he had to go to Bhopal by Shatabdi Express, hence, complainant should come to his residence at 8:30 AM to give Rs. 1,000/- in commission. 4. On being insisted by the complainant, the appellant agreed to accept 10% commission which comes to Rs. 1,000/- and further told that by tomorrow viz. 3-1-2001 he had to go to Bhopal by Shatabdi Express, hence, complainant should come to his residence at 8:30 AM to give Rs. 1,000/- in commission. 4. On the basis of the above-said later complaint, which was given after recording the conversation of bribe, the case was entrusted to inspector R. C. Bhoj who registered the case on 2-1-2001 by treating the complaint to be a Dehatinalishi and sent the said Dehatinalishi to Lokayukt Police Station, Bhopal for registering the FIR. 5. Thereafter, on 3-1-2001, to sent two gazetted officers a letter was written to the Collector, Gwalior and in pursuance to the said letter, Panch witnesses District Officer Cottage Industries J.P. Sharma and Assistant Project Officer Roshan Singh were deputed and in that regard a letter was sent by Collector, Gwalior to Superintendent of Police Special Police Establishment, in the\| morning of 3-1-2001 these two gazetted officers assembled in the office of Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment and they were introduced with the complainant. The tape recorder was played and these Panch witnesses heard the version in which demand of bribe was made. A transcript of the tape recorded version was also prepared. 6. In furtherance to its investigation, the investigating agency directed the complainant to give cash Rs. 1,000/- which was being demanded by the appellant. On submitting the five currency notes having denomination of Rs. 100/- and ten currency notes having denomination of 50/- each (in total Rs. 1,000/-), their numbers were noted down in the pre-tap panchnama. On these currency notes phenolphthalein powder was applied by Constable Dinesh Kumar Sharma and thereafter the Head Constable Bhagwati Prasad Sharma searched the right pocket of the trousers of the complainant and Constable Dinesh Sharma kept the treated currency notes in it and he (complainant) was directed that these treated currency notes should be given to the appellant only on being demanded by him. He was further directed that prior and after giving bribe to the appellant he should not come in contact with the treated currency notes. The paper on which phenolphthalein was applied on the currency notes was destroyed by Constable Dinesh Sharma and a panchnama in that regard was also prepared. 7. He was further directed that prior and after giving bribe to the appellant he should not come in contact with the treated currency notes. The paper on which phenolphthalein was applied on the currency notes was destroyed by Constable Dinesh Sharma and a panchnama in that regard was also prepared. 7. A trap party was constituted and the hands of each member of the trap party were washed in the solution of sodium carbonate and thereafter at 7:40 A.M. in one government jeep and in one private vehicle the members of the trap party went to the house of appellant. 8. After stationing the vehicles 20-25 ft. away from Dalbazar, the members of the trap party took their convenient position and the complainant was directed to go to the house of appellant. In pursuance to the direction given to him, the complainant after arriving at the house of appellant knocked his doors, as a result of which, the appellant came out and interacted with him. Thereafter the complainant took out the treated currency notes from the pocket of his trousers and passed it on the hands of the appellant. After the transaction of bribe was over, the prescribed signal was given by the complainant and on receiving the said signal, the Head Constable Bhagwati Prasad Sharma and Constable rushed and caught hold both the hands of the appellant from the wrist, in order to save himself the appellant threw the currency notes on the ground at that juncture the other members of the trap party also arrived at the spot. 9. At the spot Head Constable Siyaram prepared fresh solution of sodium carbonate and dipped the fingers of the hands of the appellant in the said solution which turned to pink. The tinted hand wash of the fingers of the appellant was collected in separate bottle which was thereafter sealed. Another fresh solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in which the hands of Panch witness Roshan Singh were dipped but the colour of the solution did not change to pink. The untinted hand wash of Roshan Singh-was collected in a separate bottle which was also sealed. On being directed by inspector R. C. Bhoj, Panch witness Roshan Singh picked up the treated currency notes which were lying on the ground and their numbers were tallied with pre-trap panchnama and they were found to be the same. The untinted hand wash of Roshan Singh-was collected in a separate bottle which was also sealed. On being directed by inspector R. C. Bhoj, Panch witness Roshan Singh picked up the treated currency notes which were lying on the ground and their numbers were tallied with pre-trap panchnama and they were found to be the same. The treated currency notes were kept in an envelop which was sealed. A seizure memo of the currency notes was also prepared. Again fresh solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in which the fingers of the hands of Roshan Singh were dipped and on doing so, the colour of the chemical solution turned to pink. The tinted hand wash of Panch witness was collected in a bottle which was also sealed. Thereafter another fresh solution of sodium carbonate was prepared and the fingers of the hands of complainant were subjected to phenolphthalein test which was found to be positive. 10. A post-trap panchnama was prepared which was got typed by Constable Vinod Thapa and spot map was also prepared. The appellant was arrested and was released on bail at the spot. Thereafter, the investigating agency arrived in the Government Ayurvedic Pharmacy where the appellant was serving and on being submitted by Vashudev Sharma the relevant record was seized. The tinted and un-tinted hand wash of the witnesses and appellant were sent for chemical examination and after receiving the report, the investigation was further proceeded and it was entrusted to Inspector Arvind Khare who completed the investigation. 11. After the investigation was over, a charge-sheet was submitted before the learned Special Court which framed charges punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Act. Needless to say, the appellant denied the charges and requested for the trial. 12. In order to prove the charges, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and placed Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/51, the documents on record. The defence of appellant is that witness Vashudev Sharma who was serving on the post of Purchase Incharge and was under the appellant is an indisciplined and mischievous government servant and the appellant was having several disputes with him prior to the incident. The defence of appellant is that witness Vashudev Sharma who was serving on the post of Purchase Incharge and was under the appellant is an indisciplined and mischievous government servant and the appellant was having several disputes with him prior to the incident. Because he used to tamper the approved samples of herbals by changing it by inferior quality of the herbals so that inferior quality of the herbals can be supplied by the firms in whose favour the quotations were accepted on the basis of the lowest price as well as on the basis of approved sample of superior quality of the herbals. The further defence of appellant is that he had also received complaint against said Vashudev Sharma that by conspiring with the businessmen he tried to get the supply order sanctioned. The approved samples of the herbal items always remained with Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma and it was directed by the appellant to him to place the samples to purchase committee. The further defence of appellant is that because complainant and Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma were having cordial and sweet relations and one relative of Vashudev Sharma, namely, Shivshanker Sharma is serving on the post of Dy. SP in Lokayukt office, the appellant has been falsely implicated. This defence appellant put to the prosecution witnesses during their cross-examination as well as in his statement recorded under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. 13. The further defence of appellant is that in the morning of the date of trap the complainant came to his house and firstly shook his hands and thereafter tried to thrust the bribe money to him, but he was not accepting it as a result of which the currency notes fell down, immediately the Constables came and caught his hands. Thereafter he was directed to pick up the treated currency notes from the floor of the gali. In support of his defence, he has examined two witnesses, namely, Vaidehisharan (DW-1) and Narayan Singh Tomar (DW-2). 14. The learned Special Judge found the charges to be proved, as a result of which, convicted the appellant and passed the sentence which we have mentioned hereinabove. 15. In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing his judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Special Judge. 16. 14. The learned Special Judge found the charges to be proved, as a result of which, convicted the appellant and passed the sentence which we have mentioned hereinabove. 15. In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing his judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Special Judge. 16. Smt. Nandita Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that so far as the electronic evidence is concerned, it has not been relied upon by the learned Special Court and in that regard she has invited our attention to para 38 of the impugned judgment and has further submitted that if in stricto sensu the evidence and the finding of learned Special Court is taken into consideration in proper perspective, it cannot be said that the same has been relied upon by learned Special Judge. 17. The learned counsel further submitted that in the present case complainant Satyendra Kumar Sharma was examined as PW-4, however, in the eyes of law his status is that of an accomplice and if that is the position, though he is a competent witness as envisaged under section 133 of the Evidence Act, but, according to the various decisions of the Supreme Court, his evidence is required to be scrutinized with great care and caution by keeping in mind that he is an accomplice and unless and until his evidence is corroborated by the other corroborative piece of evidence normally it should not be relied upon. In this context, learned counsel has invited our attention to section 114 illustration (b) of the Evidence Act. On this point, learned counsel placed reliance on certain decisions of Supreme Court, they are Francis Stanly @ Stalin vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, (2006) 13 SCC 210, Lachman Dass vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1970 SC 450 , Raghbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 91 , Gulam Mahmood A. Malek vs. State of Gujarat, 1980 (Supp) SCC 684. By placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Smt. Meena Balwant Hemke vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 3377 it has been submitted that the shadow witness should remain all along with the complainant so that he can facilitate the conversation between the complainant and the accused and also that what actually transpired between them at the time of passing of the bribe money. 18. 18. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant already directed to issue the supply order and indeed the actual supply order was to be sent by Purchase Officer Vashudev Sharma and, therefore, since appellant had already directed to issue order of supply, earlier to the date of trap, he was not having any occasion to make demand of bribe. In this context, she has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Ganga Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 6 SCC 211 . 19. It has been then contended by her that although the bribe money was not recovered from the appellant as the currency notes were lying on the ground, but even if it is held that the same has been recovered from him, it would not be a determining factor in order to hold that appellant made demand of bribe and accepted the same. Learned counsel submitted that in order to attract the provisions of sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act it should be proved by cogent evidence of the prosecution that the demand of bribe was made by the appellant and the same was accepted by him and unless and until these two essential ingredients are proved by the prosecution, mere recovery of the bribe money would not be sufficient in order to hold that accused made demand of bribe and accepted the same, in this context, learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on three decisions of Supreme Court they are T. Subramanian vs. State of T. N., (2006) 1 SCC 401 , V. Venkata Subbarao vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, A. P., AIR 2007 SC 489 and a latest pronouncement of Supreme Court C. M. Girish Babu vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala, (2009) 3 SCC 779 . 20. Learned counsel by inviting our attention to section 20 of the Act has contended that if the recovery is made, there is a presumption of acceptance of bribe by a public servant, but the initial burden should have been discharged, successfully by the prosecution and then only the presumption clause would be attracted and then it would be for the accused to prove that he has not taken any bribe. In this context learned counsel has relied upon three decisions of Supreme Court they are Om Parkash vs. State of Haryana, (2006) 2 SCC 250 , A. Subair vs. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587 , C. M. Girish Babu (supra) and also Ganga Kumar Srivastava (supra). Learned counsel submitted that looking to the defence put forth by the appellant the same is probable and if that is the position, due weightage should be given to it because the standard of the said burden of proof of the defence is not that much heavy as that of prosecution, in this context, learned counsel has placed reliance on three decisions of Supreme Court Punjabrao vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 486 , V. Venkata Subbarao (supra) and C. M. Girish Babu (supra) and M. S. Narayana Menon alias Mani vs. State of Kerala and another, (2006) 6 SCC 39 . 21. By inviting our attention to the testimony of independent Panch witness Roshan Singh (PW-6) it has been contended by her that after receiving the signal when this Panch witness and other members of the trap party arrived at the spot, first of all appellant was directed to pick up the treated currency notes and, therefore, if thereafter his hands will be subjected to phenolphthalein powder test, certainly the colour of the chemical solution would turn to pink because appellant already came into contact with the treated currency notes. Learned counsel submits that immediately this witness should have been declared hostile but he was not so declared hostile although this fatal statement was given by him in his examination-in-chief which started on 3-12-2002 and continued on the next day 4-12-2002 and on next day only he was declared hostile and in between the period, the independent Panch witness was tutored as a result of which after declaring him hostile on the next day when he was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor he stated that the treated currency notes were not picked up by the appellant but by this Panch, witness and, therefore, the evidence of this witness carries no meaning. 22. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly submitted that as per the defence of appellant, complainant first of all came and shook his hands with him and thereafter the signal was given, to the members of the trap party and in support of his defence he examined one witness, namely, Vaidehisharan Sharma (DW-1) who is a Pujari in a temple which is located nearby his residence and who visualized the entire episode. Appellant also examined Narayan Singh Tomar, Accountant of his department, in order to prove his innocence. Learned counsel submits that the evidentiary value of the defence witnesses is the same as that of prosecution and their testimony cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that they have been examined by the defence. In this context, learned counsel has placed reliance on the two decisions of Supreme Court they are State of Haryana vs. Ram Singh, AIR 2002 SC 620 and Munshi Prasad and others vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 3031 , On these premised submissions, it has been argued by learned counsel that because the charges are not proved, the appellant be acquitted. 23. On the other hand Shri Suryavanshi, learned Public Prosecutor, argued in support of the impugned judgment and has submitted that the demand of bribe as well as its acceptance has been proved by the prosecution by examining the complainant and the Panch witnesses. In this context, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in B. Noha vs. State of Kerala and another, (2006) 12 SCC 277 . Learned counsel submits that on seeing the members of the trap party the appellant threw the treated currency notes on the ground and in these circumstances it can be said that appellant was possessing the bribe money and the recovery of the bribe money has also been proved. In this context, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court they are State represented by Inspector of Police, Pudukottai, T. N. vs. A. Parthiban, (2006) 11 SCC 473 , State of M. P. vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar, (2006) 8 SCC 693 and T. Shankar Prasad vs. State of A. P., (2004) 3 SCC 753 . In this context, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court they are State represented by Inspector of Police, Pudukottai, T. N. vs. A. Parthiban, (2006) 11 SCC 473 , State of M. P. vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar, (2006) 8 SCC 693 and T. Shankar Prasad vs. State of A. P., (2004) 3 SCC 753 . Learned counsel has also invited our attention to section 20 of the Act and submitted that if the money is recovered from the accused, there would be a statutory presumption of accepting the bribe money by the accused and in this context, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court T. Shankar Prasad (supra). Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the Single Bench decision of this Court in Ramkrishna Pandey vs. State of M. P., 2009(2) M.P.H.T. 164 and on two decisions of the Division Bench of Gwalior Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 544/2004, Shivraj vs. State of M. P. decided on 15-7-2010 and Criminal Appeal No. 399/2004, Phoolsingh Kushwah vs. State of M. P. decided on 6-3-2010. Learned counsel has further submitted that when the money has been accepted by the accused which has been found to be proved, it was his boundant duty to prove that how he obtained the money which is not the bribe and in this context, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in State represented by CBI, Hyderabad vs. G. Prem Raj, (2010) 1 SCC 398 . 24. By placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court State of U. P. vs. Zakaullah, AIR 1998 SC 1474 it has been contended that evidence of the trap officer is sufficient to prove the trap and no corroboration is needed. On these premised submissions, it has been argued by learned counsel that as the charges are proved against the appellant, this appeal be dismissed. 25. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 26. On going through the finding para 38 of the learned Special Judge, we can infer that learned Special Judge has disbelieved the electronic evidence. 25. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 26. On going through the finding para 38 of the learned Special Judge, we can infer that learned Special Judge has disbelieved the electronic evidence. According to us, before placing reliance on the electronic evidence, the investigating agency was bound to prepare an admitted tape recorded version of the complainant and that of the appellant and it should have been sent to the expert for obtaining his report on the basis of scientific examination so as to infer that the voice contained in the disputed cassette is of appellant and complainant. The Panch witnesses are not acquainted with the voice of either of them and, therefore, it is difficult to hold that the cassette on the basis of which transcript (Ex.P/6) was prepared was containing the voice of appellant and complainant and, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the electronic evidence. 27. In order to prove the demand of bribe the prosecution has examined three witnesses they are the complainant Satyendra Kumar Sharma (PW-4) and Panch witnesses J. P. Sharma (PW-3) and Roshan Singh (PW-6). Indeed, they are also the members of the trap party. The prosecution has also examined departmental witness Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) in order to prove that there was a motive for the appellant to make demand of bribe because he (appellant) did not issue any supply order to the complainant despite his quotation about catechu and Kalimirch was accepted by the Purchase Committee. How far this witness is reliable, we will examine him while marshalling his evidence vis-a-vis the complainant. Another important witness Vinod Bihari Shrivastava has not been examined by the prosecution although the case is that said Mr. Shrivastava pacified the complainant that unless and until some commission (bribe) is given to the appellant, he will not pass any order for issuance of the supply order. Apart from these important witnesses, the other important witnesses are Bhagwati Prasad Sharma (PW-9), who after receiving the signal of trap caught hold the hands of appellant along with Constable Ravindra Singh who has not been examined by the prosecution. R. C. Bhoj (PW-10) is the Investigating Officer. 28. So far as the testimony of the complainant Satyendra Kumar Sharma (PW-4) is concerned, we shall examine it in detail hereinafter. R. C. Bhoj (PW-10) is the Investigating Officer. 28. So far as the testimony of the complainant Satyendra Kumar Sharma (PW-4) is concerned, we shall examine it in detail hereinafter. Presently we are marshalling his evidence about the two complaints Ex.P/19 and Ex.P/7 which he submitted in the office of Lokayukt. According to him, on demand of bribe made by the appellant he submitted the complaint (Ex.P/19) on 2-1-2001 in the office of Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Gwalior in which specifically he mentioned that appellant is making demand of Rs. 1,500/- as commission at the rate of 15%. In the said complaint (Ex.P/19) it has also been so mentioned that he has not yet received the supply order although his quotation of minimum value has been accepted and when he contacted the appellant, he made demand of bribe Rs. 1,500/-. In order to test the authenticity of the complaint, a tape recorder was handed over to this witness by directing him to record the conversation of bribe between him and the appellant as a result of which, the complainant went at the residence of the appellant by putting the mini tape recorder in his pocket and after recording the conversation of bribe, returned the same on the same day viz. 2-1-2001 in the office of Special Police Establishment. The officers of the Special Police Establishment after playing the tape recorder came to hold that demand of bribe has been made by the appellant and thereafter this witness submitted another complaint (Ex.P/7) on the same date viz. 2-1-2001. On going through both the complaints, we find that there is vast difference between the two. In the first complaint Ex.P/19 nothing has been mentioned that on which date demand of bribe has been made by the appellant and only this much has been mentioned that when he (this complainant) met Storekeeper Vinod Shrivastava and appellant to issue the supply order, the appellant made demand of bribe Rs. 1,500/-. This complaint Ex.P/19 was lodged on 2-1-2001. Second complaint Ex.P/7 was also lodged on the same date after the collection of the electronic evidence and on going through Ex.P/7, we find that the quotation of different herbal items including Kalimirch and catechu have been accepted. Except catechu and Kalimirch supply order of other herbal articles has also been received by him, but the payment has not been made. Except catechu and Kalimirch supply order of other herbal articles has also been received by him, but the payment has not been made. For other two items namely Kalimirch and catechu the supply order has not yet been received and, hence, he met appellant who directed him to contact Storekeeper Vinod Shrivastva (not examined) and when he contacted said Mr. Shrivastava he told that only after the payment of some commission the supply order will be issued by the appellant and, hence, he again contacted to appellant on 30-12-2000 and told that the amount of commission which has been told by Mr. Shrivastava is excessive. On this, appellant told that the commission has to be paid by the complainant although he may give some rebate and also directed to contact him at his residence, if we keep the first complaint Ex.P/19 and second complaint Ex.P/7 (both dated 2-1-2001) in juxtaposition to each other, we find that there is lot of difference between the two. In the first complaint (Ex.P/19) he has simply stated that to pass the supply order of herbal items the appellant made demand of bribe. Particular date on which the demand of bribe was made has not been mentioned and it has also not been stated that it was made on 30-12-2000 and also told to contact at his residence. Hence, according to us, although this circumstance alone cannot be said to be the turning point of the case, but it has some bearing. 29. In para 5 of his examination-in-chief this witness is saying that when he did not receive the supply order of Kalimirch and catechu, he met appellant who directed him to meet Storekeeper Mr. Shrivastava who directed him that the supply order shall be issued by appellant only and further told that until he gives commission at the rate of 15%, the appellant will not issue supply order and thereafter on 30-12-2000 he met appellant and told about the conversation which took place between him and Mr. Shrivastava. According to this witness, appellant on 30-12-2000 told that the complainant is required to pay commission and when complainant expressed his inability to pay that much amount in commission, appellant told that some rebate can be given and directed him to meet after 1-2 days at his residence. Shrivastava. According to this witness, appellant on 30-12-2000 told that the complainant is required to pay commission and when complainant expressed his inability to pay that much amount in commission, appellant told that some rebate can be given and directed him to meet after 1-2 days at his residence. Later on this witness in para 6 says that when on 30-12-2000 appellant made 'demand of bribe and directed to come after 1-2 days, he came to his residence and informed his father in this regard and also consulted him, who told the complainant that we cannot give such a huge commission and directed complainant to lodge complaint in the office of Special Police Establishment, as a result of which, he submitted the complaint on 2-1-2001 in the said office. In cross-examination para 6 this witness has admitted that the factum of making consultation with his father has been stated by him for the first time in the Court and this fact has not been mentioned in his complaints Ex. P/19 and Ex.P/7. 30. On going through the allegations made in the charge-sheet, we find that the supply order to supply catechu and Kalimirch was not received by the complainant despite having expired the period of two months from the date of acceptance of the quotation and the motive behind the bribe is that in order to issue the supply order the appellant was making demand of bribe and on 30-12-2000 (two days prior to the date of trap) when complainant met the appellant, he insisted that the complainant has to give the bribe (commission). Thereafter, the matter was complained by the complainant in the Lokayukt office on 2-1-2001 where he was entrusted with a tape recorder to record the conversation of bribe in it and when complainant met with appellant on 2-1-2001 at his residence, the deal of bribe was settled for Rs. 1,000/- and complainant was directed to give the bribe on 3-1-2001 (the date of trap) in the morning at his residence because appellant was required to go to Bhopal by Shatabdi Express. 31. 1,000/- and complainant was directed to give the bribe on 3-1-2001 (the date of trap) in the morning at his residence because appellant was required to go to Bhopal by Shatabdi Express. 31. One glaring mistake indeed the concealment of the material piece of evidence by not examining the material witnesses has been committed by the prosecution by not examining some senior officers of the department to describe as to what is the entire Procedure right from calling the quotations and upto the issuance of supply order to the concerned firm for the supply of herbal items, in order to ascertain that what are the different stages right from calling of the quotations upto the stage of issuing the supply order. The prosecution has examined only two witnesses; one is the Lower Division Clerk, namely, Vijay Upadhyaya (PW-8) who brought the dispatch registers and routine note-sheets. The other witness is Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) who was serving under the appellant on the post of Purchase Incharge. The evidence of Vashudev Sharma is to be scrutinized with great care and caution because it is inferred from the testimony of complainant Satyendra Kumar Sharma (PW-4) as well as this witness Vashudev Sharma that both are having intimacy and cordial relations with each other and further bearing in mind that one relative of Vashudev Sharma is serving on the post of Dy. SP in the Lokayukt office. It is also borne out that the official relations between the appellant and Vashudev Sharma were not sweet and cordial instead they were in bad terms and this fact has also been admitted by independent witness Vijay Upadhyaya (PW-8) who was serving on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the same office. 32. It was the bounden duty of the investigating agency to collect relevant piece of evidence that what was the entire procedure from very initiation of calling of the quotations till issuance of order to supply herbal items and the matter travels through how many committees and the file passes through which of the officers. True, certain articles (registers etc.) have been seized by the investigating agency which throws some light in this regard, but it was required to be proved by some senior officer in order to understand the entire procedure. True, certain articles (registers etc.) have been seized by the investigating agency which throws some light in this regard, but it was required to be proved by some senior officer in order to understand the entire procedure. Hence, now we shall consider the case of prosecution as it stands and to examine whether appellant committed any criminal misconduct and whether he was having any occasion to make demand of bribe because the motive part in the trap cases under the Act is very much essential and significant in order to prove the charges. The accused/appellant has examined the Accountant of his department, namely, Narayan Singh Tomar in his defence as DW-2. It is also borne out from the evidence placed on record and which we shall also marshal hereinafter that entire concerning record of the office was found to be in the possession of Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma vide sezure memo Ex.P/12 and it was not in possession of the appellant in his Chamber. 33. On the basis of the evidence of the parties placed on record as well as looking to the 313, Criminal Procedure Code statement of the accused, it emerges that while appellant was serving on the post of Superintendent in the Government Ayurvedic Pharmacy at Gwalior, the complainant who was carrying on the business in the name and style of "Sonu Enterprises" happened to supply the herbal items from time to time to the said Pharmacy. The entire departmental files and registers including the procedure register of Purchase Committee were seized from the possession of Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) vide seizure memo Ex.P/12. In the said Government Pharmacy Vashudev Sharma was serving on the post of Purchase Incharge from 1996 to August, 2001 and during his tenure in order to manufacture the Aryurvedic medicines the raw material (herbal items) was being purchased according to the demand made from the stores and the relevant note-sheet was being submitted to the Superintendent viz. appellant. On the basis of the said note-sheet, the Superintendent was issuing directions to call the quotations and accordingly the notices were being sent to the local traders. On the receipt of the quotations, they were being placed before the purchase committee in presence of the Superintendent where after opening the envelops of the quotations, a comparative chart is prepared. appellant. On the basis of the said note-sheet, the Superintendent was issuing directions to call the quotations and accordingly the notices were being sent to the local traders. On the receipt of the quotations, they were being placed before the purchase committee in presence of the Superintendent where after opening the envelops of the quotations, a comparative chart is prepared. The Purchase Committee was recommending to purchase the herbal items of the firm whose quotation was found to be the lowest and was fulfilling the hallmark and quality and the approved sample thereafter was being kept all along by the Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7). After issuing the order to purchase, the herbal items were being supplied by the said firm to the Pharmacy. The herbal goods which was being sent by the firm in compliance to the supply order, was being tallied by the committee in order to satisfy that the supply of the goods is similar to the approved sample given by the said firm along with its quotation, and thereafter, the purchase committee recommends to accept the bulk of the herbal goods sent by the firm and then it was being kept in the stores. On submitting the bills by the said firm, the same after the verification by the store, recommends to make the payment to the firm. 34. It is also borne out from the seized files placed on record as well as from the evidence of the witnesses that appellant was competent and authorized to purchase the herbal items upto the extent of Rs. 10,000/- only and if the said item is above this value, the same was required to be sent to the Director of the department at Bhopal. 35. On 4-9-2000 to supply the catechu, quotations were invited vide Ex.P/30 under the signature of the appellant. Accordingly, seven firms submitted their quotations. On scrutiny by the Purchase Committee, the quotation of Sonu Enterprises whose proprietor is complainant Satyendra Kumar Sharma (PW-4) was accepted and in that regard note-sheet (Ex.P/32) on 23-9-2000 was also written which was signed by the appellant. Since in the quotation of the complainant catechu was valuing Rs. 24,150/-and was exceeding the limit of appellant, hence, the proposal was sent to the Director at Bhopal and in that regard order (Ex.P/33) has been placed on record which has been signed by the appellant. Since in the quotation of the complainant catechu was valuing Rs. 24,150/-and was exceeding the limit of appellant, hence, the proposal was sent to the Director at Bhopal and in that regard order (Ex.P/33) has been placed on record which has been signed by the appellant. For the herbals, namely, Harad bakkal, after the receipt of the quotations, the purchase committee prepared the comparative chart and the quotation of complainant's firm Sonu Enterprises was accepted being, the lowest and supply order of harad bakkal was sent to the said firm. The comparative chart (Ex.P/34) has been signed by the appellant after writing "seen". Thereafter, supply order was issued to Sonu Enterprises vide Ex.P/35. After receipt of the quotation of herbals sthool ela, the purchase committee prepared the comparative chart (Ex.P/36) and the quotation of complainant's firm Sonu Enterprises was accepted being the lowest. The comparative chart approved by the purchase committee is Ex.P/36 on which the appellant put his signature on 23-9-2000 by writing "seen". A note-sheet (Ex.P/37) was accordingly prepared on which appellant put the endorsement "its ok" and put his signature and thereafter supply order was issued to Sonu Enterprises to supply the herbal sthool ela by issuing order Ex.P/38. 36. Similarly, the quotations for impugned herbal Kalimirch were also invited and on the basis of the samples sent by the different firms. The purchase committee prepared the comparative chart (Ex.P/39) and recommended to accept the quotation of complainant's firm Sonu Enterprises since the proposal made in its quotation was found to be the lowest (Rs. 247/- per Kg.) and after signing by the members of the purchase committee the appellant signed it on 23-9-2000 by endorsing "seen". 37. Now coming to the evidence led by the witnesses in order to ascertain whether the appellant was having any motive to make demand of bribe and indeed he demanded the bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant for issuing the supply order to supply of Kalimirch to him and further whether he accepted the bribe money or not. Upto certain extent we have examined the evidence of complainant Satyendra Kumar Sharma (PW-4). Further complainant says that after making a scheme for trap and to implement the same he submitted the currency notes of Rs. Upto certain extent we have examined the evidence of complainant Satyendra Kumar Sharma (PW-4). Further complainant says that after making a scheme for trap and to implement the same he submitted the currency notes of Rs. 1,000/-, their numbers were noted down and thereafter Constable Dinesh Sharma was called upon to apply phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes submitted by him, who after laying a paper on the ground kept the currency notes given by this witness and applied phenolphthalein powder on each currency notes. Thereafter, another employee Bhagwati Prasad Sharma (PW-9) Head Constable was called who searched his different pockets, at that juncture, he was wearing trousers and shirt. Thereafter, Constable Dinesh Sharma kept the treated currency notes in the right pocket of his trousers. The investigating officer inspector R. C. Bhoj pacified him that before and after handing over the bribe money to the appellant he should not shake his hand and after passing it over to the appellant he should rub his head which would be a signal to the members of the trap party that the transaction of the bribe has taken place (see para 8 of I.O., R. C. Bhoj PW-10 and pre-trap Panchnama). Indeed, the investigating officer should have directed the complainant that if appellant makes demand of bribe, then only the bribe money (treated currency notes) be handed over to him. At this juncture only, we would like to mention here that nowhere complainant is saying that he was directed and pacified by the investigating officer Mr. Bhoj that on being demand made by the appellant of bribe, then only complainant should give the treated currency notes to him. According to us, this is very much material because if the complainant is not directed to hand over the bribe money (treated currency notes) to the appellant until he makes demand of bribe, the complainant would follow the verdict of police officer having high rank and as per his directions straightway he would go and hand over the amount of bribe to the appellant without any demand of bribe being made by the appellant. According to us, indeed, the complainant should have been directed that the bribe money should be handed over by him to the appellant only when he makes demand of bribe. 38. According to us, indeed, the complainant should have been directed that the bribe money should be handed over by him to the appellant only when he makes demand of bribe. 38. Further this witness says that after holding necessary formalities in the office of Lokayukt including the preparation of pre-trap panchnama the trap party proceeded to trap the appellant at his residence which is nearby a temple inside a gali of the main road of Dalbazar. 39. In para 15 complainant says that at 7:30 in the morning he along with the members of the trap party went at the house of appellant which is located inside a gali of main road Dalbazar and he was directed to go to the residence of appellant. Two witnesses, namely, Head Constable Bhagwati Prasad Sharma (PW-9) and Constable Ravindra Singh (not examined) were sent along with him as shadow witnesses. According to this witness, he knocked the doors of the appellant, as a result of which, the appellant came out from his house and asked whether he has brought the thing, and further asked that whether he has brought Rs. 1,000/-. Thereafter, this witness took out the treated currency notes kept in the right pocket of his trousers and handed it over to the appellant and while interacting with him he gave signal to the members of the trap party and on seeing the signal the Head Constable and Constable immediately rushed and caught hold of the hands of the appellant from the wrist. At that juncture, the appellant was carrying the treated currency notes in his fist which he immediately released as soon as his hands were caught by the Head Constable and Constable. 40. On scanning the testimony of this witness, we find that the transaction of bribe took place at the door of the house of the appellant which is against the case of prosecution because as per the case of prosecution in spot map (Ex.P/10) the house of appellant is at place shown at No. 2 and adjoining to it there is a temple shown at place No. 1 and far away from both the places in the open gali at place No. 4 transaction of bribe took place. But only on this infirmity the case of prosecution would not become that much weak so as to hold that trap was not successful, but, certainly if all the other circumstances are taken into consideration this type of infirmity would also bear some meaning. At this juncture, we would like to x-ray the testimony of complainant in cross-examination para 53. Before mentioning that what he has stated in this para, we would like to say that the. examination-in-chief of this witness was recorded on 23-7-2002 and partly he was cross-examined on that date on account of non-availability of the tape recorder, the statement of this witness was deferred for the next day and on this date he was cross-examined upto certain length. However, because time of the Court was over his further cross-examination was deferred and again he was cross-examined on 24-9-2002. On that date on account of paucity of time his cross-examination was deferred and again on 7-1-2003 he was put for cross-examination. 41. In para 53 of his statement which was recorded on 7-1-2003 he has stated that he has read-over the statement which was recorded on the earlier dates in the Court and thereafter he says that when he came to the house of the appellant to give bribe and knocked the doors and appellant alone came out and after interacting with him he gave the amount of bribe. The suggestion was put to this witness that before handing over the treated currency notes to the appellant he shook his hands with the appellant has been denied by him. 42. On going through the evidence of independent Panch witnesses, namely, J. P. Sharma (PW-3) and Roshan Singh (PW-6), we find that the treated currency notes were lying on the floor of the gali. Although Head Constable Bhagwati Prasad Sharma (PW-9) says that after the complainant knocked the doors of appellant, he came out from his house and went upto the gali where transaction of bribe took place, According to us, this alone cannot be said to be a circumstance to hold the appellant innocent but if there are some other materials to hold that appellant is innocent this may be one of the link of those circumstances. Thereafter, this witness has stated that the fingers of the hands of the appellant were subjected to phenolphthalein powder test which was found to be positive and tinted hand wash of the appellant was collected in a bottle which was sealed. Thereafter, the hands of the Panch witness Roshan Singh (PW-6) were washed in the solution of the sodium carbonate but the colour of the solution did not change. Panch witness Roshan Singh (PW-6) thereafter picked up the treated currency notes lying on the floor and after collecting all the treated currency notes they were kept in an envelop which was sealed and again the fingers of the hands of this panch witness were subjected to phenolphthalein powder test which was found to be positive and the pink hand wash of the panch witnesses was collected in a separate bottle which was thereafter sealed. Again a fresh solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in which the fingers of his (complainants) hands were dipped and on dipping the fingers, colour of the solution changed to pink which was also collected in a separate bottle, which was sealed thereafter. 43. In cross-examination this witness has stated that he is carrying on the business of Firm Sonu Enterprises w.e.f. 1999 and he is acquainted with the appellant since April, 2000. Further, he has admitted that he is supplying the herbal goods to Government Ayurvedic Pharmacy of the appellant since 1999 and before the date of incident 4- 5 times he had received the orders to supply the different herbal goods. In para 22 of his cross-examination this witness has admitted that since 1999 he is well acquainted to Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7). Although this witness has denied the suggestion that he is having thick intimacy with said Vashudev Sharma and he was frequently visiting his residence also, but if we consider the cross-examination para 23 of the complainant as well as para 38 of the testimony of Vashudev Sharma (PW-7), we find that complainant is well acquainted with the office of Lokayukt and prior to submitting the complaints (Ex.P/19 and Ex.P/7) he had occasion to visit the Lokayukt office along with his friend. According to Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) para 38, he is well acquainted with Dy. S. P. Shivshanker Samadhiya who is the brother-in-law of his son-in-law. According to Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) para 38, he is well acquainted with Dy. S. P. Shivshanker Samadhiya who is the brother-in-law of his son-in-law. The Investigating Officer, R. C. Bhoj (PW-10) in para 41 of his statement has admitted that Shivshanker Samadhiya is serving on a senior post of D.S.P. in the Lokayukt office. 44. Material discrepancies have been carved out on the material point that at what place bribe money was handed over to the appellant and how and in what manner treated currency notes which were lying in the gali were picked up. We have already scanned hereinabove the evidence of the complainant in respect to the place where transaction of bribe took. The evidence of Panch witnesses is silent on the point that at what place the actual transaction of bribe took place, although Panch witness J. P. Sharma (PW-3) has stated that the treated currency notes were lying on the floor of the gali and similar type of the evidence is of another Panch witness Roshan Singh (PW-6). The spot map (Ex.P/10) has been signed by both the Panch witnesses. In the spot map the place where transaction of bribe took place is the gali and not the outer door of the house of the appellant. Constable Ravindra Singh has not been examined and according to Head Constable Bhagwati Prasad Sharma (PW-9) he and Constable Ravindra Singh were made shadow witnesses, but they did not go along with the complainant and both of them were standing at a little distance. According to this witness, after knocking the doors by the complainant, appellant came out from his house upto the gali where the transaction of bribe took place. In cross-examination para 11 when this Head Constable was confronted to his case diary statement (Ex.D/4) he says that although the transaction of bribe took place in gali, but if this fact did not find place in his case diary statement, he cannot say in this regard. In cross-examination para 11 when this Head Constable was confronted to his case diary statement (Ex.D/4) he says that although the transaction of bribe took place in gali, but if this fact did not find place in his case diary statement, he cannot say in this regard. According to us, one should not forget that this witness is not an ordinary witness but is serving on the post of Head Constable in the Lokayukt office and, therefore, it cannot be said that he gave such type of case diary statement to the investigating officer that the transaction of bribe took place in gali and if he would have stated so to the Investigating Officer, certainly this fact would have been mentioned in his case diary statement.(Ex.D/4). Hence, there is an important omission in his case diary statement. 45. Both the independent Panch witnesses are saying that they did not see the actual transaction of bribe which took place between the appellant and the complainant. According to Panch witness J. P. Sharma (PW-3) the place where the transaction of bribe took place was not visible from the place where this witness was standing (see para 35 of his evidence) because first of all there is a turn in the gali and, therefore, the place where the actual transaction of bribe took place was not visible and this is the reason why this witness in his examination-in-chief para 4 is saying that he did not see the signal given by the complainant and this fact came into his knowledge on being told by the members of the trap party. 46. Another Panch witness Roshan Singh (PW-6) says that he was standing 300 ft. far away from the house of the appellant in one corner of the gali while another Panch witness J. P. Sharma (PW-3) was standing at different place (see para 6 of the statement). This witness is a gazetted officer and is totally an independent witness and nowhere he is saying that the place of occurrence where the transaction of bribe took place was visible. In para 30 of his cross-examination this Panch witness (PW-6) has admitted that he did not see complainant, taking out the treated currency notes from his trousers. Although this witness in examination-in-chief para 6 has stated that he was standing 300 ft. In para 30 of his cross-examination this Panch witness (PW-6) has admitted that he did not see complainant, taking out the treated currency notes from his trousers. Although this witness in examination-in-chief para 6 has stated that he was standing 300 ft. far away from the house of the appellant at a corner of the gali and Panch witness J. P. Sharma (PW-3) was standing at other place, but in para 27 of his cross-examination he has admitted that J. P. Sharma (PW-3) was with him, but how much far away, he cannot say. In the spot map (Ex.P/10) it has not been mentioned that the Panch witnesses were standing separately from the other members of the trap party, on the contrary it has been mentioned that at place No. 9 Panch witnesses along with other members of the trap party were standing. The evidence of Head Constable and Panch witnesses is quite different to each other. 47. One of the important point in the present case is that both the Panch witnesses were declared hostile and were cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. Panch witness Roshan Singh (PW-6) in his examination-in-chief para 3 is saying that the person who applied phenolphthalein powder in the office of Lokayukt did not keep the currency notes in the pocket of the trousers of the complainant, but altogether different person kept it which is altogether different to the case of prosecution, but at that juncture, this witness was not declared hostile. Further in para 6 this independent Panch witness says that after receiving signal from the complainant the Head Constable and Constable rushed to the place of occurrence and caught hold hands of the appellant. 48. One of the most important and accute turning point in the case is that independent Panch witness Roshan Singh (PW-6) is saying that first of all appellant was directed to pick up the treated currency notes lying on the ground. According to us, if the appellant was directed to pick up the treated currency notes before the phenolphthalein powder test was conducted on him and if thereafter the phenolphthalein powder test would be conducted on his fingers, certainly the colour of the solution would turn to pink because appellant already came into the contact of treated currency notes. One should not forget that this witness is totally an independent witness and is also a gazetted officer. One should not forget that this witness is totally an independent witness and is also a gazetted officer. This witness was also not declared hostile by the prosecution even when he has given the evidence totally dismantling the case of the prosecution and authenticity of the trap and, therefore, according to us, on this turning point he should have been declared hostile. The examination-in-chief of this witness was recorded on 3-12-2002 and it was deffered for the next day viz. 4-12-2002 since the Court time was over and on the next day only he was declared hostile. According to us, in between one day, ample opportunity was with the prosecution to tutor this witness that if he is cross-examined after declaring him hostile, he would admit that earlier statement given by him was wrong. The Supreme Court in Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari vs. State of M. P., AIR 1991 SC 1853 and Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb & ors. vs. State of U. P., AIR 2006 SC 951 (para 7) has held that if the cross-examination was deffered and later on the witness says altogether different version which is in complete derogation to his earlier version recorded on earlier date, the later version would lose its credential value. Although in these two cases the prosecution witnesses gave altogether different version which were stated by them on earlier date of hearing against the accused persons and later on they changed their version by giving the evidence in favour of accused. But, why this principle cannot be applied in reverse manner. According to us, ample opportunity was there to tutor the independent witness and, therefore, on the next date when he was declared hostile in para 15 he says that earlier statement given by him that first of all appellant picked up the treated currency notes and thereafter his hands were subjected to phenolphthalein powder test was wrong. According to us, this person is a very important witness and is altogether independent witness. According to us, this person is a very important witness and is altogether independent witness. Deliberately he was not declared hostile on 3-12-2002 because if on that date he would have been declared hostile and would have been cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, chances were not sure that after declaring him hostile when cross-examination will be made by the Public Prosecutor, he will say in favour of the prosecution and, therefore, we can infer that after pacifying and tutoring this witness on the next date only immediately he was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor with uttermost object that he may depose in favour of the prosecution, indeed, the Public Prosecutor was having two occasions to declare him hostile on 3-12-2002; firstly when he stated that Constable Dinesh Sharma (PW-1) who applied phenolphthalein powder did not keep the treated currency notes in the pocket of the complainant and altogether different person kept it in the pocket of the appellant. Certainly that person must be Head Constable Bhagwati Prasad Sharma (PW-9) or Constable Ravindra Singh (not examined) and, therefore, if these two persons had already came into contact with treated currency notes and thereafter they will catch hold the hands of the appellant, certainly the particles of the phenolphthalein powder may fall from their hands on the hands of the appellant. Deliberately this witness was not declared hostile on the second time when another turning point carved out that the treated currency notes were picked up by the appellant himself before he was subjected to phenolphthalein powder test. 49. One another very important point which may be the another turning point of the case which this independent Panch witness Roshan Singh (PW-6) is saying in para 27 of his cross-examination that the complainant was not sitting along with him in the jeep, hence, we can infer that if the complainant was not sitting with the Panch witnesses in jeep and came to the spot in another vehicle since any how he wants to get the appellant trapped, deliberately he must have touched the treated currency notes in the vehicle itself before handing it over to the appellant. The factum of sitting of the complainant with independent Panch witnesses has also not been mentioned in pre-trap and post-trap Panchnama Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/8 respectively and, therefore, at this juncture we can also infer that firstly he shook his hands with the appellant. The suggestion was also put to complainant in his cross-examination para 53 and the same defence has been stated by the appellant at several places in his 313, Criminal Procedure Code statement that first of all complainant shook his hands with him. According to us, for holding a fair trap the complainant should not have been allowed to travel in the jeep in which independent Panch witnesses were not sitting and this arrangement the investigating agency deliberately made because the complainant may have ample opportunity to come into contact with the treated currency notes which was carried by him in his pocket prior to handing it over to the appellant. At this juncture, we should not forget that the status of complainant is not better than that of an accomplice and although he is a competent witness and conviction cannot be said to be bad in law on the basis of his statement as envisaged under section 133 of the Evidence Act but this provision should be read conjointly with section 114 illustration (b) of the Evidence Act, which speaks that the evidence of an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless it is corroborated in material particulars and, therefore, right from very beginning law has developed that there should be an independent corroboration of the testimony of the complainant who is an accomplice. In this context, we may profitably place reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Francis Stanly @ Stalin vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, (2006) 13 SCC 210, Lachman Dass vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1970 SC 450 , Raghbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 91 and Gulam Mahmood A. Malek vs. State of Gujarat, 1980 (Supp) SCC 684. 50. All the witnesses are saying that the entire trap party went to the spot in two vehicles. 50. All the witnesses are saying that the entire trap party went to the spot in two vehicles. Panch witness J. P. Sharma (PW-3) after he was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, has stated that he did not state to the police that in his presence the complainant knocked the doors of the house of the appellant and further denied the suggestion put by the Public Prosecutor that in his presence appellant came out from his house and was interacting with the complainant. The portion marked in his case diary statement Ex.P/13, according to this witness, was not stated by him. We should not forget that he is a gazetted officer and is altogether an independent witness. Further the suggestion put to this witness by the Public Prosecutor that he saw complainant handing over the bribe to the appellant and the treated currency notes were kept in the fist by the appellant has been emphatically denied by him (see para 11 of his deposition). Further this witness says that he did not see the actual transaction of bribe which took place between the appellant and the complainant. Again the same suggestions were put to him by the Public Prosecutor in para 12 after declaring him hostile that this witness saw complainant taking out the treated currency notes from his trousers and handing it over to the appellant which was again denied by him and says that this portion in the post-trap Panchnama Ex.P/8 has been incorrectly written. The evidence of this Panch witness cannot be ignored because firstly he is an independent witness and secondly for the first time in this case he was not made as Panch witness, but earlier he was included in the trap cases for 5 to 6 times (see para 15 of his testimony) . 51. The factum of not seeing the actual transaction of bribe has also been so stated by another Panch witness Roshan Singh (PW-6) in para 30 of his cross-examination. 51. The factum of not seeing the actual transaction of bribe has also been so stated by another Panch witness Roshan Singh (PW-6) in para 30 of his cross-examination. Further the suggestion put to this witness (PW-3) in para 14 by the Public Prosecutor that appellant threw the treated currency notes on seeing the trap party was not stated by him and this witness has further stated that he did not see by his own eyes that appellant was throwing the currency notes on seeing the members of the trap party and all these facts have been incorrectly mentioned in the post-trap Panchnama Ex.P/8 and in case diary statement Ex.P/3. 52. When this witness J. P. Sharma (PW-3) was cross-examined by the defence he has stated that on the date of the trap itself on 3-1-2001 he gave case diary statement to the police. There is overwhelming evidence of the prosecution witnesses and almost every witness including the complaint and investigating officer and other witnesses have deposed that a typist accompanied them and after the trap the proceedings were typed. We also find that the documents are typed written. The case diary statement (Ex.P/13) is of dated 5-2-2001 while the date of trap is 3-1-2001. In para 37 of this testimony Panch witness J. P. Sharma (PW-3) has stated that glasses in which the hands of the appellant were washed were brought by the investigating agency or not he cannot say. Further he says that in the Lokayukt office the phenolphthalein powder test was conducted in the glasses made of glass and at the spot also the same test was conducted in the same type of glasses. At this juncture, we would like to scan the testimony of investigating officer (PW-10) R. C. Bhoj para 39 that he brought the glasses from Lokayukt office only and these glasses are the same glasses in which the phenolphthalein powder test was conducted in the Lokayukt office. Indeed, even if the glasses were brought by the investigating agency from its office, those glasses in which phenolphthalein powder test in the office was conducted should not have been brought and different glasses should have been brought. We fail to understand why the same glasses were brought by the investigating officer and were used in the post-trap proceeding. 53. Indeed, even if the glasses were brought by the investigating agency from its office, those glasses in which phenolphthalein powder test in the office was conducted should not have been brought and different glasses should have been brought. We fail to understand why the same glasses were brought by the investigating officer and were used in the post-trap proceeding. 53. It is borne out from the evidence placed on record that it is not for the first time the complainant dealt the matter with the department of Ayurvedic Pharmacy, but earlier also he was supplying the herbal items since 1999 and, therefore, it can be inferred that from beginning of sending the quotations, till the supply order is sent and the payment is made he is well acquainted with the entire procedure. He is also acquainted with the outer limit of Rs. 10,000/- of the Superintendent to sanction and purchase the herbal goods on the recommendation of Purchase Committee and above Rs. 10,000/- the approval has to be taken from Director at Bhopal and thereafter only the purchase order can be issued. In this context, para 34 of his testimony may be seen. Further he is acquainted with the fact that at the time of submitting the tender, sample of the herbal items is also sent to the department and thereafter when the tender is accepted, the supply of the herbal goods is tallied with the sample and the approved sample always remains with Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7). 54. Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) from paras 1 to 3 has stated the procedure of the department how the quotations are received till the supply order is issued and thereafter payment is made. Thereafter, this witness has stated about the rates for herbal items which was accepted in favour of the complainant and in para 9 he has deposed that after the receipt of the quotation and the sample of Kalimirch, a comparative chart was prepared by the purchase committee in which the lowest rate of complainant's firm was found. The comparative chart is Ex.P/39 and in the comparative chart the lowest rate of Kalimirch Rs. 247/- per Kg. of complainant's firm was accepted by the Purchase Committee and because it was exceeding the outer limit of the appellant, on 4-12-2000 appellant called that file from him which was in his custody. The comparative chart is Ex.P/39 and in the comparative chart the lowest rate of Kalimirch Rs. 247/- per Kg. of complainant's firm was accepted by the Purchase Committee and because it was exceeding the outer limit of the appellant, on 4-12-2000 appellant called that file from him which was in his custody. Further he says that the appellant originally wrote that the rates appears to be higher and, therefore, the quotations be called again and accordingly again quotations of Kalimirch were called and those quotations were also sent to the dispatch department where numbers were also endorsed, but those quotations were called back from the Dispatch section and they were kept by the appellant. Hence, it has been submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that why appellant called back all those quotations from dispatch department and, therefore, it can be inferred that appellant was having motive to make demand of bribe. At the first blush this argument appears to be quite attractive, but on deeper scrutiny we find it to be devoid of any substance. Because on 20-12-2000 on the instructions of the Director who was having full powers to accept the quotations irrespective of its rates, a letter was sent by Deputy Director to Superintendent Government Ayurvedic Pharmacy, Gwalior which is Ex.P/40 in which by referring different letters it was directed to the appellant that on account of urgency the herbal items may be purchased from local market upto the extent of the limit of the Superintendent (appellant) and returned the original quotations by this letter to the office of appellant, it would be relevant to mention here that on 4-9-2000 a day earlier to sending the quotation on 5-9-2000 (referred in Ex.P/40) the lowest quotation of complainant's firm in respect to Kalimirch at the rate of Rs. 247/- per Kg. was approved by the purchase committee. But, according to the letter Ex.P/40 which was sent by the Deputy Director on the instructions of the Director it was directed to fulfil the need of urgency from local market and the herbal items may be purchased upto the pecuniary limit of the Superintendent (appellant). 55. 247/- per Kg. was approved by the purchase committee. But, according to the letter Ex.P/40 which was sent by the Deputy Director on the instructions of the Director it was directed to fulfil the need of urgency from local market and the herbal items may be purchased upto the pecuniary limit of the Superintendent (appellant). 55. On going through para 36 of the cross-examination of complainant (PW-4), we find that he has put his inability that appellant received complaints about Vashudev Sharma Purchase Incharge that he tampers with the sample which is being kept by him and instead of the original sample, he changes the sample by introducing altogether inferior quality of sample which was being supplied with an uttermost object that when the tampered sample is tallied with the supply of the inferior quality of herbal items it may tally correctly. Indeed, this witness is trying to avoid to admit this tampering which is being made by the Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) and, therefore, instead of denying that suggestion he is putting his inability on this turning point of the case. At this juncture only, we would like to scan para 20 of the testimony of the Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) who was serving under the appellant. According to him, after obtaining orders of the Superintendent on the note-sheet, indeed this witness issues and actually sent the supply order to the concerning firm to send the herbal items. Hence, it is borne out from the testimony of this witness that this witness has to issue the supply order to the concerning firm after obtaining necessary orders of the Superintendent on the note-sheet. On going through the comparative chart (Ex.P/39) in respect to Kalimirch, we find that in his own writing Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) put a note "adhikar khetra ke antargat ades jari Karen" and in this context, para 39 of the cross-examination of this witness may be seen in which he has admitted that the said note is in his handwriting which is "A" to "A" while the endorsement "B" to "B" of this document is in the handwriting of purchasing committee. Looking to the urgency of the store to provide Kalimirch and in compliance to the directions given by the Director in letter (Ex.P/40) the said instruction to purchase Kalimirch within the limit of the appellant was written by this witness Vashudev Sharma (PW-7). Looking to the urgency of the store to provide Kalimirch and in compliance to the directions given by the Director in letter (Ex.P/40) the said instruction to purchase Kalimirch within the limit of the appellant was written by this witness Vashudev Sharma (PW-7). 56. Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) in para 20 of his testimony has also admitted that during the meeting of the Purchase Committee throughout he has to remain present because he has to produce the entire record before the committee. Further he has admitted that Superintendent after going through the comparative chart put his signature and in compliance to the recommendation of the purchase committee if the supply order is not issued by the Superintendent, then this witness being Purchase Incharge writes a note-sheet and place it to the Superintendent and after obtaining its order this witness use to issue the supply order to the firm. On going through the document (Ex.P/39), we find that purchasing committee accepted the quotation of the complainant's firm for Kalimirch on 19-9-2000. It is also borne out from the evidence that since total valuation of the purchase price of Kalimirch was exceeding the outer limit of Superintendent, the sanction was to be accorded by the Director at Bhopal, but the Director directed vide letter (Ex.P/40) addressed to Superintendent to purchase the herbal items from local market on the basis of lowest rate of the quotation for the financial year 2000-01 so that the manufacturing of the ayurvedic medicines may not be stopped and all the quotations sent to the head office were returned back. Hence, looking to the necessity to purchase Kalimirch within its permissible limit the appellant directed to issue supply order of Kalimirch to complainant. 57. As per the statement of Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) after the quotation of complainant's firm for Kalimirch was accepted by the purchasing committee, on 2-12-2000 on the comparative chart firstly he obtained the order from the appellant that the rates appears to be higher and therefore, quotations be called again and this note was written by him and beneath it appellant put his signature and, therefore, again the quotations were directed to be invited and in that regard notices were also sent to the different firms to send the quotations and those notices were sent to the dispatch section also. According to him (PW-7) the appellant by applying white fluid on the earlier endorsement made on Ex.P/39 in respect of mentioning the fact that the rates appears to be higher and again quotations be called, directed this witness to write endorsement on portion of white fluid "to issue the order within jurisdiction", but before the white fluid could be applied on the earlier endorsement which was in respect to excess of rates and to call quotations again, he got the comparative chart (Ex.P/39) photocopied which is Ex.P/42. Although at the same place he has stated that the note-sheet in respect of Kalimirch was in his possession, but it was called by the appellant and kept with him and, therefore, he was having certain doubt that appellant may tamper the document and for this reason after signing by the appellant on the note written by this witness on Ex.P/39 in respect of calling the quotations again he kept a photocopy of it with him and beneath the signature of appellant dated 4-12-2000 is also mentioned. 58. According to us, if the appellant put his signature on 4-12-2000 on Ex.P/39 beneath the note written by this witness that rate appears to be excessive and quotations be called again, even then it cannot be said that appellant committed some illegality or irregularity by applying white fluid on that note directing this witness to write the new endorsement that "issue the order within the jurisdiction" by overwriting the date 4-12-2000 and putting the date 26-12-2000 for the simple reason that after 4-12-2000 a letter (Ex.P/40) of the Director addressed to the Superintendent (appellant) dated 20-12-2000 was received directing him that the manufacturing of the ayurvedic medicines may not be stopped, the purchase be made from local market within the jurisdiction of the Superintendent (appellant). Therefore, action of the appellant cannot be said to be mischievous or mala fide in any manner. The matter would, have been definitely different if the Director of the department at Bhopal would not have directed the appellant to purchase from local market within its jurisdiction even then the appellant was purchasing within his limit. Therefore, action of the appellant cannot be said to be mischievous or mala fide in any manner. The matter would, have been definitely different if the Director of the department at Bhopal would not have directed the appellant to purchase from local market within its jurisdiction even then the appellant was purchasing within his limit. But, the turning point of the case is that after the letter (Ex.P/40) dated 20-12-2000 was received by the appellant holding the post of Superintendent, he rightly thought it proper to make necessary endorsement on Ex.P/39 in order to follow the verdict and to comply the directions of the Director so that the manufacturing process of ayurvedic medicines may not be stopped. As a matter of fact, the appellant also could have wrote another note-sheet in compliance to the order of the Director given in letter (Ex.P/40), but according to office system, if he applied white fluid on the earlier note in order to comply the directions of the Director mentioned in Ex.P/40 dated 20-12-2000 and directed this witness (Purchase Incharge) to make new endorsement that "issue order within the jurisdiction", the appellant did not commit any illegality. Indeed, he was complying the orders and directions given by his senior most officer of the department and, therefore, even if he directed to call back all those envelops of quotation from the Dispatch section for inviting new quotations for Kalimirch, it was done in good faith in order to comply the directions and orders given in the letter (Ex.P/40) by the Director at Bhopal and, therefore, the testimony of Vijay Upadhyaya (PW-8) Lower Division Clerk of the department in the Dispatch Section that appellant directed this witness to call back the envelops which were sent in Dispatch Section and directed to score the numbers from the dispatch register and, therefore, those quotations could not be sent, does not support the case of prosecution, indeed, as a matter of fact, it supports the probable and effective defence put forth by the appellant. 59. The matter would have been definitely different and the appellant could have been said to be of guilty mind having motive to made demand of bribe if the earlier endorsement on Ex.P/39 "to issue order within the jurisdiction" would have been made after putting fluid and the matter would not have been placed to the Maaldakhila Samiti. 59. The matter would have been definitely different and the appellant could have been said to be of guilty mind having motive to made demand of bribe if the earlier endorsement on Ex.P/39 "to issue order within the jurisdiction" would have been made after putting fluid and the matter would not have been placed to the Maaldakhila Samiti. The relevant register of Maaldakhila Samiti is article 'Ja' and in this register necessary endorsement was required to be made after the receipt of the supply order from the concerning firm and prior to it the matter was placed before the purchasing committee. After the appellant passed necessary order on 26-12-2000 on the document Ex.P/39 to issue order within its jurisdiction the matter was placed before the purchasing committee on 29-12-2000 and the proceeding register is article 'Ja'. On going through the proceedings dated 29-12-2000, we find that the meeting of the purchase committee was convened on this date and it was directed to Maaldakhila Samiti to make necessary endorsement after the receipt of different herbal items including the impugned Kalimirch and the proceeding register is in the handwriting of Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7). In the meeting the Chairman G. S. Kushwah and Member R. P. Khare were present. Since, in the proceedings of the purchasing committee intera alia the impugned herbal item. Kalimirch was also included, therefore, the action of appellant writing the note "to issue within jurisdiction" on Ex.P/39 has been approved by the Purchase Committee because in the proceedings of the committee dated 29-12-2000 the impugned article Kalimirch is included along with the other herbal items. According to us, in order to shift the liability upon the appellant, Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) is deliberately saying that although this proceeding is in his handwriting, but by mistake he wrote Kalimirch. The portion Kalimirch has been marked "B" to "B" in the proceeding register dated 29-12-2000. This proceeding was signed by the Chairman and Member of the purchase committee. 60. The portion Kalimirch has been marked "B" to "B" in the proceeding register dated 29-12-2000. This proceeding was signed by the Chairman and Member of the purchase committee. 60. It has already been admitted by Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) that after the order is received from the Superintendent (appellant) actual supply order was required to be sent by him and, therefore, according to us, the ball was in his Court and not in the Court of appellant and as per complaint(Ex.P/7) of the complainant, despite his quotation of Kalimirch has been accepted the supply order is not being issued by the appellant. Since the appellant already issued the order to supply Kalimirch on the note-sheet and the other relevant record was with this witness PW-7 and as per his own admission, the actual supply order was required to be sent by him only to the concerning firm, according to us, the appellant was not having any occasion to make demand of bribe because he already issued the order in that regard and its implementation was required to be carried out by this witness by sending the actual supply order to the complainant. In this context, we may profitably place reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Ganga Kumar Srivastava (supra) para 22 which reads thus :- "There is yet another aspect of the matter. Admittedly, supply of electricity was restored or his house was connected with electricity supply. According to the prosecution case, the supply of electricity was restored in the month of July, 1985 whereas the appellant took a stand that before the complaint was made by him regarding the allegation of bribe the electricity supply was already given to the complainant. According to the appellant, such connection was given to the complainant on 22-6-1985. If this restoration of electricity connection dated 22-6-1985 to the complainant can be accepted to be correct then there could have been no occasion for demand and acceptance of bribe either on 25-6-1985 and 28-6-1985 for the supply of electricity connection. As noted hereinearlier, according to the prosecution case and also from the materials on record the electricity connection to the complainant was alleged to have been given on 8-7-1985. As noted hereinearlier, the appellant however took a stand that the electricity connection was made on 22-6-1985. As noted hereinearlier, according to the prosecution case and also from the materials on record the electricity connection to the complainant was alleged to have been given on 8-7-1985. As noted hereinearlier, the appellant however took a stand that the electricity connection was made on 22-6-1985. The necessary entry regarding electricity connection was proved by the appellant by relying on Ext.F. Ext.G was also relied on by the appellant which was an intimation by Shri Bachhu Tiwari bearing endorsement of the appellant to the effect that connection was given on 22-6-1985. However, the complainant refused to give any certificate and thereby the appellant advised Shri Tiwary to get certificate from Local Mukhia which is Ext. C in the present case. Ext. K is an application of Ram Deo Rai to the Executive Engineer stating that electricity connection had been given to the complainant on 22-6-1985." 61. We could have inferred if the relevant files, registers note-sheet would have been in possession of the appellant, that although he directed to issue orders to supply Kalimirch, but on account of not sending the relevant files, note-sheets etc. in the department he was having an occasion and motive to make demand of bribe, but, the ball was already thrown in the Court of Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) and it was for him to send the actual supply order and the entire record was with him only and, therefore, it can be safely held that appellant was not having any motive and occasion to make demand of bribe. 62. The question would now arise that why the appellant has been falsely implicated and dragged in this matter. At this juncture, we may again come back to the statement of the complainant Satyendra Kumar Sharma (PW-4) that he is well acquainted with the entire procedure in the department right from sending of quotations till final payment is made. It is also borne out from, his testimony that he was frequently visiting and was meeting-with Vashudev Sharma (PW-7). Vijay Upadhyaya (PW-8) serving in the same department and has admitted in his cross-examination para 7 that complainant often comes to Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7). Further in para 8 this witness has admitted that Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) often makes complaint of each and every employee and the relations between the appellant and Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) were not cordial. 63. Vijay Upadhyaya (PW-8) serving in the same department and has admitted in his cross-examination para 7 that complainant often comes to Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7). Further in para 8 this witness has admitted that Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) often makes complaint of each and every employee and the relations between the appellant and Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) were not cordial. 63. It is further borne out from the testimony of Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) para 21 that after the supply order is received by the Firm, supply of herbal goods which is being sent by the said Firm is again tested to verify its hallmark with the sample which was approved by the purchase committee and if it do tally with the sample, the herbal goods sent by the said Firm is sent to the stores and thereafter only the actual payment of the supplied herbal goods is made on furnishing the bill by the said Firm. Further he has admitted that if the herbal goods sent by the supplier is of inferior quality than that of the approved sample which is sent by the Firm, the entire bulk of the said goods is sent back to the said Firm. 64. Further, a very important fact this witness (PW-7) has admitted that the herbal goods supplied by the complainant firm Sonu Enterprises of harad, bakkal, giloye, sthool and ela were not found to be upto the mark with the approved sample which was sent along with the quotation and the Maaldakhila Committee failed the supply of those herbal goods and the entire bulk of the herbals was sent back to the complainant. Since the inferior quality of the different herbals, which we have mentioned hereinabove, sent by the complainant's Firm were not tallying with the hallmark of the superior quality of approved sample which the complainant's firm sent along with the quotation and they were failed and the bulk was returned back and appellant was having an important role to play because it is borne out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and can also be inferred that several complaints were made by the appellant that Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) interpolates and changes the sample with the sample which was sent along with the quotation by replacing it with the inferior quality of herbal goods so that the tampered sample may tally with the supply of the inferior herbal goods, therefore, Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) by joining his hands with the complainant managed to implicate appellant falsely. 65. Further in para 22 of his testimony Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) has admitted a very material fact and which is another turning point of the case to implicate the appellant falsely that on 1-1-2001 (only two days prior to the date of trap and only one day prior to the date of submitting complaints Ex-P/19 and Ex-P/7) some of the herbals, namely, Giloye and Badi ilayachi supplied by the complainant in compliance to the supply order were failed by the Maatdakhila Committee and in this regard complaint was made by the complainant to the appellant that why his supply of herbals Giloye and Badi ilayachi were failed and, therefore, the suggestion put to this witness, that because the herbals supplied by the complainant were failed he (complainant) has made a complaint in the office of the Special Police Establishment, has been denied by this witness. Further this witness has denied the suggestion put to him that he recommended the appellant to accept the failed herbal items of the complainant. The suggestion put to him in para 26, that he happened to change the sample by inserting inferior sample so that the inferior quality of herbal items may be accepted after verifying it with the hallmark of the approved sample, has been denied by him. Further he has denied the suggestion that the appellant on 30-12-2000 (three days prior to the date of trap) directed this witness to remove the tampered sample of complainant's firm which was tampered by this witness. Further he has denied the suggestion that the appellant on 30-12-2000 (three days prior to the date of trap) directed this witness to remove the tampered sample of complainant's firm which was tampered by this witness. However, he has admitted that the committee in its proceeding dated 29-12-2000 decided to keep the tampered sample with it instead of sending it to him. Again he has denied the suggestion put to him that for all these reasons he became annoyed with the appellant. 66. On analyzing the testimony of this witness minutely, we have taken out the grain from the chaff and we can infer that the superior quality of samples sent by the Firm with the quotations after they are approved by the Purchase Committee all along remains with this witness and he was changing that sample with inferior quality of the herbals which were actually supplied by the traders so that the bulk of inferior quality when tested with the sample (it is tampered and changed) the same may be passed by the committee although even though the herbals are of inferior quality and for this reason Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) and the appellant were not having good relations with each other. It would be relevant to mention here that all the concerning files, note-sheets etc. which were seized by the investigating agency were found in the possession of this witness and they were seized from him only vide seizure memo Ex.P/12 on the date of trap itself i.e. on 3-1-2001 at 11:30 AM and not from the appellant. 67. Now we would like to scan the testimony of complainant Satyendra Kumar Sharma (PW-4) that why he is falsely implicating the appellant. By marshalling the evidence of Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) and also Vijay Upadhyaya (PW-8), we have already found that only one day earlier to making complaint by the complainant to the Special Police Establishment, on 1-1-2000 the supply order of herbals Giloye and Badi ilayachi sent by the complainant were failed and the entire bulk was sent back to the complainant, hence, we can infer that he was having agony against the appellant being the highest officer in the local department and who had played a vital role to fail the inferior quality of herbals sent by him and there is whisper that sample were being changed by Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) by inserting the inferior samples. If we examine para 36 of the testimony of the complainant, we find that he is not denying the suggestion that the inferior quality of herbals Giloye and Badi ilayachi sent by him were failed, but only putting his inability that he has no knowledge about it. He has also admitted in this para that the approved sample all along remains with the Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) and again has not denied the suggestion but has put his inability that Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) changes the approved sample by inserting the inferior quality of the samples. The complainant in para 38 of his cross-examination has admitted that on 14-12-2000 viz. only few days prior to the date of trap supply order of herbals, namely, Harad, Bakkal and Giloye etc. were not accepted by the department since the bulk was found to be of inferior quality and was not tallying with the approved sample. Further he has admitted that if the bulk of supply is not accepted by the department, payment will never be made. Further he has admitted that the supply of the inferior quality of the herbals which were failed by the committee was informed to him and again he requested the department by sending a letter to supply the superior quality of herbals tallying with the hallmark of the approved sample. Further he has admitted that even though his earlier bulk of supply of herbals were cancelled and again when he sent the fresh herbals, but, that too was not approved by the committee on 1-1-2001 viz. two days prior to the date of trap and one day prior to making complaint in the office of Special Police Establishment. Hence, we can infer that since again and again the complainant was not sending the superior quality of the herbal in accordance to the sample which was approved by the committee and again and again was supplying the inferior quality of said items again and again they were being sent back to him and as the appellant was having a vital role in cancelling the herbals, he became annoyed with the appellant. 68. 68. The scene and picture will become more clear if we scan the testimony of this witness (complainant PW-4) particularly paras 41 and 42 wherein this witness has admitted that on 2-1-2001 he received a letter from the department to take back the inferior quality of the herbals which was costing for near aboutRs. 10,000/-. Further he has admitted that he purchased the herbals from the local market and thereafter supplied it to the department and inferior quality of the herbals sent back to him remained with him only which he bought on cash payment from the local market and, hence, he sustained heavy financial loss and, therefore, we can infer that this was the reason of making complaint against the appellant and we can also infer that since there is overwhelming evidence that the complainant was frequently meeting with Vashudev Sharma (PW-7), therefore, both of them conspired to implicate the appellant falsely. It has already been admitted and it is also borne out from the testimony that near relative (brother-in-law of son-in-law) of Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) is serving on the post of Dy. SP in the office of Special Police Establishment. 69. On close scrutiny of the testimony of the complainant paras 41 and 42, it is borne out that because again and again the inferior quality of herbals, which were supplied by him to the department, were failed and he suffered heavy financial loss and this occurred only a day prior to the date of trap and, hence, according to us, the appellant was becoming an eyesore to the complainant and, therefore, we can infer that by conspiring with the Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) against whom also, as per the defence, appellant made several complaints that he was tampering the samples of the herbals by changing and replacing the superior quality of samples approved by the committee with inferior quality so that the bulk of the supply may tally with the said inferior quality of samples and, hence, in order to remove the eyesore, this vile idea carved out in the minds of both the persons and they implemented it on 2-1-2001 when the bulk of the inferior quality was returned, the complainant went to the Lokayukt office and lodged a false complaint implicating the appellant. The complainant had already admitted that earlier to lodging of the impugned complaints (Ex.P/19 and Ex.P/7), he had visited Lokayukt office. The complainant had already admitted that earlier to lodging of the impugned complaints (Ex.P/19 and Ex.P/7), he had visited Lokayukt office. From the testimony of the Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7), we find that one of the relative of this witness is Dy. SP which has also been specifically admitted by the Investigating Officer Mr. Bhoj (PW-10) in para 41 of his testimony. 70. If we further scan the testimony of complainant para 43, we find that earlier to rejection of the inferior quality of herbals supplied by him a day prior to the date of trap viz. 2-1-2001, one more item of this complainant was rejected and he sustained heavy financial loss and, therefore, since repeatedly the bulk of herbals, on account of inferior quality, was being returned to him, he thought it to take out the thorn which was embedded in the sole of his foot as well as which was also becoming an eyesore to him by implicating the appellant falsely. 71. Although hereinabove we have held on the basis of three decisions of Supreme Court Francis Stanly @ Stalin (supra), Lachman Dass (supra) and Raghbir Singh (supra) that the law has always favoured the corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice and at the cost of repetition for ready reference in this context we may again reiterate that it is carved out from the evidence of the complainant that he was annoyed with the appellant and, therefore, it will be highly unsafe to rely his testimony that appellant made demand of bribe and accepted the same and, therefore, independent corroboration is needed. The prosecution has examined Purchase Incharge Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) who was under the appellant but we do not find any corroboration of the evidence of complainant from this witness, on the other hand we find that both of them joined their hands in order to implicate the appellant falsely. The independent Panch witness Roshan Singh (PW-6) firstly states in examination-in-chief that firstly appellant picked up the treated currency notes and thereafter on the next date of hearing after he was declared hostile he changed his version. The evidence of other Panch witness J. P. Sharma (PW-3) is also not firm and this witness was also declared hostile. We have already scanned the testimony of these witnesses hereinabove in detail. 72. The evidence of other Panch witness J. P. Sharma (PW-3) is also not firm and this witness was also declared hostile. We have already scanned the testimony of these witnesses hereinabove in detail. 72. One important, fact which cannot be marginalized and blinked away is that none of the prosecution witness has stated that what actually transpired between the appellant and complainant at the time of passing of bribe money. According to us, this is very much material in view of the decision of Supreme Court Smt. Meena Balwant Hemke (supra) and we would like to quote certain portion of para 9 of the said decision, which reads thus :- "PW-2, one of the panch witnesses, who accompanied PW-1, as a shadow witness, when he tried to give the bribe, did not support the prosecution case. He has been treated hostile and his evidence eschewed from consideration by the Courts below. The lady Constable, Victoria, another shadow witness, who first arrived on the spot after the signal was given by PW-1, was not examined at the trial. Law has always favoured the presence and importance of a shadow witness in the trap party, not only to facilitate such witness to see but also overhear what happens and how it happens also." (Emphasis supplied) Further in the same para the Apex Court held as under :- "The corroboration. essential in a case like this for what actually transpired at the time of the alleged occurrence and acceptance of bribe is very much wanting in this case." In the present case also both the independent Panch witnesses Roshan Singh (PW-6) and J. P. Sharma (PW-3) were declared hostile and they have not seen that what actually transpired between the appellant and the complainant at the time of passing of bribe money. On the contrary, it is borne out from their testimony that from the place where they were standing giving and taking of bribe was not visible. J. P. Sharma (PW-3) in para 15 of cross-examination has already admitted that earlier to the present trap he was introduced as Panch witness in 5-6 more trap cases. One more important fact carved out from the testimony of both the independent Panch witnesses that when appellant was caught, he was shouting that he has been falsely implicated. 73. J. P. Sharma (PW-3) in para 15 of cross-examination has already admitted that earlier to the present trap he was introduced as Panch witness in 5-6 more trap cases. One more important fact carved out from the testimony of both the independent Panch witnesses that when appellant was caught, he was shouting that he has been falsely implicated. 73. One of the defence which appellant has taken during cross-examination as well as in his 313 Criminal Procedure Code statement is that complainant came to his residence and shook his hands with him and thereafter he asked appellant to give one letter to Mr. Siddhi, but, instead of giving letter he tried to thrust the currency notes which appellant refused, as a result of which, they fell on the ground (see answers to questions No. 73, 102, 175 and 206 of 313 Criminal Procedure Code statement). In reply to the last question No. 234 put by the Court to the appellant, he explained that Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) is an indisciplined and mischievous employee and the appellant at several occasions had have altercation with him because the appellant was receiving several complaints against him that by joining his hands with the traders, Vashudev Sharma was changing the approved samples and was successfully allowing the traders to supply inferior quality of herbals and for this reason only on 30-12-2000 before the Purchase Committee appellant requested and put a note that the samples may be kept by the Purchase Committee itself and it may not be given back to Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) and indeed on going through the proceedings of the Purchase Committee dated 30-12-2000, we find that such a note of appellant is very much there. For no rhyme or reason it can be said that the said note was introduced in the official register after the date of trap. 74. Further appellant explained that because the approved sample was not returned by the Purchase Committee to Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) and only after two days on 1-1-2001 (viz. For no rhyme or reason it can be said that the said note was introduced in the official register after the date of trap. 74. Further appellant explained that because the approved sample was not returned by the Purchase Committee to Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) and only after two days on 1-1-2001 (viz. two days prior to the date of trap and one day prior to the date of lodging the complaint by the complainant) the inferior quality of supply of herbals of complainant was rejected, therefore, complainant and Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) by joining there hands with each other to implicate the appellant falsely, asked the complainant to lodge a false complaint against the appellant in the Lokayukt office because the near relative of Vashudev Sharma (PW-7), namely, Shivshanker Samadhiya was serving on the post of Dy. SP in the Lokayukt office. The factum of serving of DSP who is the near relative of PW-7 has been admitted by Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) in his cross-examination para 38 and also by the Investigating Officer R. C. Bhoj (PW-10) in para 41 of his testimony. 75. Further the explanation given by the appellant to the Court in his 313 Criminal Procedure Code statement is that first of all complainant came and shook his hands with him and under the false pretext to give one letter to Mr. Siddhi, who was Superintendent earlier in the office, tried to give bribe to him and when he refused to receive the bribe money, he forcibly tried to thrust the money in his hands, which he did not accept, as a result of which, the currency notes fell on the ground. Thereafter, Bhagwati Prasad Sharma (PW-9) caused marpeet with him and forced him to pick up the treated currency notes and thus, he has been falsely implicated. The factum of thrusting treated currency notes forcibly cannot be said to be an afterthought defence because this was put to the complainant Satyendra Kumar Sharma (PW-4) though he denied the said suggestion. We do not find any substance in the contention of learned Public Prosecutor that, this suggestion was never put to the independent Panch witnesses as well as to the Head Constable and Investigating Officer. We do not find any substance in the contention of learned Public Prosecutor that, this suggestion was never put to the independent Panch witnesses as well as to the Head Constable and Investigating Officer. The answer is very simple because it is borne out from the testimony of the independent witnesses that giving and taking of bribe money was not visible from the place where they were standing and when these witnesses came to the spot, the currency notes were lying on the ground. Both the independent Panch witnesses in singular voice are saying that when appellant was caught by the police, he was shouting and saying that he has been falsely implicated. The Investigating Officer Mr. Bhoj (PW-10) has specifically admitted in para 41 of his statement that Shivshanker Samadhiya is the Dy. SP in the Lokayukt office and further he has admitted that he is the near relative of Vashudev Sharma (PW-7). In these state of affairs it is difficult to hold that on seeing police party, the appellant released the treated currency notes from his fist because the testimony of the police persons is not corroborated by the independent eye-witnesses and in these state of affairs, according to us, the corroboration was very much necessary. 76. The law is well settled that the defence if found to be probable, due weightage should be given to it and the standard of its proof should not be compared with that of the prosecution where the prosecution is obliged to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. In this context, we may profitably place reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court Punjabrao (supra), C. M. Girish Babu (supra), V. Venkata Subbarao (supra) and M. S. Narayana Menon alias Mani (supra). 77. The appellant has also examined Vaidehisharan (DW-1) who is a Priest in a temple. It is borne out from the testimony of all the witnesses as well as from the spot map that adjacent to the place of occurrence which is a gali there is a temple. Indeed, this witness is Pujari of that temple only. According to him, during morning hours he was brooming the temple, at that juncture, one person came to the house of appellant and knocked his doors and asked him that are you going to Bhopal and in reply appellant answered in affirmative. Indeed, this witness is Pujari of that temple only. According to him, during morning hours he was brooming the temple, at that juncture, one person came to the house of appellant and knocked his doors and asked him that are you going to Bhopal and in reply appellant answered in affirmative. Thereafter, that person asked to give one card and instead of card that person took out the notes and on this, the appellant told that why are you giving money, but, that person told that you please accept the money and when appellant refused, that person tried to give the money forcibly, as a result of which, the currency notes fell on the ground. Thereafter, two more persons came there and started causing marpeet to the appellant and when this witness asked that why the appellant is being beaten, they told that they are the police personnels and he (DW-1) should not interfere. We have already found that instead of directing the complainant to give the bribe money only when appellant makes demand of bribe, he was directed by Investigating Officer R. C. Bhoj to give the bribe money and this fact also finds place in the pre-trap Panchnama. Hence, following the direction of I.O. the complainant will certainly try to thrust the currency notes, although it is not proved that appellant made demand of bribe. Looking to the defence which from very beginning the appellant is taking, the testimony of this witness is liable to be taken into consideration because the credential value of the defence witness is similar to that of prosecution witnesses and his evidence should not be thrown out merely because he has been examined in defence. In this context, we may profitably place reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court Ram Singh (supra) para 19 and Munshi Prasad and others (supra) para 3. 78. In the aforesaid backdrop, the decisions placed reliance by learned Public Prosecutor are not applicable and they are distinguishable on facts. The decision of B. Noha (supra) placed reliance by learned Public Prosecutor on the point of proof of demand and motive is not applicable because in the present case since the order was already obtained from the appellant by Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) for the supply of Kalimirch and actual supply order was required to be sent by PW-7 only. The decision of B. Noha (supra) placed reliance by learned Public Prosecutor on the point of proof of demand and motive is not applicable because in the present case since the order was already obtained from the appellant by Vashudev Sharma (PW-7) for the supply of Kalimirch and actual supply order was required to be sent by PW-7 only. The decision of Supreme Court A. Parthiban (supra) and Shambhu Dayal Nagar (supra) which are in respect of applicability of section 20 are not applicable in the present case for the simple reason that sufficient explanation has been given by the appellant and it is borne out from the testimony of independent Panch witness Roshan Singh (PW-6) that first of all appellant was directed to pick up the treated currency notes and, therefore, the statutory presumption has no role to play in the present case. Apart from this, the initial burden to prove the factum of demand of bribe and its acceptance is on the prosecution, which it failed. The decision of Supreme Court Zakaullah (supra) is not applicable because we have already held hereinabove that why the evidence of trap officer should not be relied upon. The decision of T. Shankar Prasad (supra) is not applicable because in the present case the enmity is proved and in this decision the Supreme Court found that the defence of false enmity was not proved. The decision of G. Prem Raj (supra) which is in respect of shifting of burden on appellant after he accepted the money is concerned, we have already held hereinabove that the appellant never accepted the bribe money and even otherwise he has explained the situation. For the similar reasons, the decisions of Division Bench of this Court Ramkrishna Pandey (supra), Cr. A. No. 544/2004, Shivraj vs. State of M. P. (supra) and Cr. A. No. 399/2004, Phoolsingh Kushwah vs. State of M. P. (supra) are not applicable. 79. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are unable to uphold the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by learned trial Court. Eventually, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction of appellant under sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) is hereby set aside and he is acquitted from all the charges. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged. The amount of fine, if deposited, be refunded to him.