JUDGMENT By Court.-The State of Jharkhand, through Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Dhanbad has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 29.11.2000 passed by Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 11 (A) of 91 (o) whereby the Special Court has acquitted the sole accused-respondent, namely Madan Mohan Singh from the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Prosecution case, in short, is that the complainant L.B.P. Shrivastav, Contractor of BCCL lodged a written complaint dated 27.6.1991 with the S.P., C.B.I., Dhanbad stating therein that the accused-respondent demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- from him as illegal gratification for preparation of bills relating to the civil works done by him. Mr. R.S. Kuril, Sub-Inspector of Police, C.B.I., Dhanbad verified the complaint under the order of the S.P., C.B.I., Dhanbad and on such verification, the allegation made by the complainant against the respondent-accused was found to be correct and well founded. Thereafter, on the basis of the said complaint and on the basis of the verification report the instant case was registered under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section ....3(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and, thereafter, investigation was taken. up by one BK Birdi, Inspector of Police, C.B.I., Dhanbad who arranged an assembly of, two independent witnesses, Mr. S.K. Choudhary, Group Clerk, Region No.1, D.G.M.S., Dhanbad and Jagannath Roy, L.D.C., Examination Section, D.G.M.S., Dhanbad. Then the complainant was introduced to all the members. The purposes of the assembly was explained to all the members of the trap team. All the members of the C.B.I. Trap Team and both the witnesses and the complainant were introduced to each other. After following the entire Pre-Trap Proceeding procedure, the Pre-Trap Memorandum was prepared. The contents of which were read over and explained to all the members of the team who put their signatures thereon. The independent witness; Jagannath Roy was instructed to follow the complainant as shadow witness so that he could hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused and see the transaction between the complainant and the accused. He was further advised to give a signal by scratching back portion of his neck as soon as the tainted amount was handed over by the complainant to the accused. 3. He was further advised to give a signal by scratching back portion of his neck as soon as the tainted amount was handed over by the complainant to the accused. 3. Further case of the prosecution is that after holding Pre-Trap Proceeding, the C.B.I. Raiding Party alongwith both the independent witnesses and the complainant went to the office of the Dy. C.M.E., E.K.O.C.P, Dhansar Colliery, BCCL, Dhanbad on the same day at about 13 hours. Thereafter, members of the raiding party took their suitable position. The complainant L.B.P. Shrivastav and the witness Jagannath Roy went to the room of the accused-respondent where he used to sit but they could not find the accused there and they came to know that the accused respondent had already left the office for his residence at about 15-20 minutes earlier. Then, it was decided to go to his residence situated at Hirapur. Accordingly, the team proceeded to the residence of the accused situated at Professors Colony, Chiragora, Hirapur, Dhanbad. On arrival there, all the members took their position by the side of the road passing by the boundary wall of the accused. As instructed, the complainant, L.B.P. Shrivastav alongwith shadow witness Jagannath Roy entered through the boundary gate and went up-stairs where the accused was living with his family. When the accused saw the complainant at his door, he came out of his room. The complainant wished the accused and informed him that he was a little late in reaching at Dhansar K.O.C.P. Office and after ascertaining that the accused had left for his house to meet him at his residence. At that the accused asked the complainant to come inside the room. The shadow witness, Jagannath Roy too followed the complainant. Both the complainant and the shadow witness who were introduced as 'Gumasta' of the complainant, were made to sit on the wooden cot. Immediately, thereafter, the complainant requested the accused to expedite the preparation of the bills in respect of the Barbed wire fencing in the East Basuria. At this request of the complainant, the accused Madan Mohan Singh asked "500/RUPYE HUM JO AAPKO LANE KE LIYE BOLE THE, LAYE HO?" : The complainant replied, JI, SJR, AAPKE KAHE MUTABIK RUPYA LE AAYE HAIN'. The accused then stretched his hand and said "LAO DE DO". On this, the complainant took out the tainted amount of Rs. At this request of the complainant, the accused Madan Mohan Singh asked "500/RUPYE HUM JO AAPKO LANE KE LIYE BOLE THE, LAYE HO?" : The complainant replied, JI, SJR, AAPKE KAHE MUTABIK RUPYA LE AAYE HAIN'. The accused then stretched his hand and said "LAO DE DO". On this, the complainant took out the tainted amount of Rs. 500/from the left upper chest pocket of his shirt and handed over the same to the accused who accepted the same by his right hand and after counting the bribe a amount with both of his hand the accused kept the same on the cot beneath the papers relating to the agreement of the work which had been just then taken by him from the complainant. Soon after money transaction was over, the shadow witness Jagannath Roy came out of the room and gave a signal by scratching the back portion of his neck with his left hand. On receipt of the signal, the I.O. alongwith other witness S.K. Choudhary reached to the spot and after disclosing his identity, the I.O. challenged the accused about his having demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification from the complainant for showing him favour in preparation of his bill. On being thus challenged, the accused became perplexed and could not offer any explanation. After a few moments, the accused however confessed to have accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- from the complainant. By then, all the members of raiding party had reached the spot. On being pointed out by the complainant and the shadow witness, the tainted money was recovered from beneath the paper. The numbers and denomination of the recovered tainted money were compared with that of G.C. introduced as 'Gumasta' of the complainant, were made to sit on the wooden cot. Immediately, thereafter, the complainant requested the accused to expedite the preparation of the bills in respect of the Barbed wire fencing in the East Basuria. At this request of the complainant, the accused Madan Mohan Singh asked "500/RUPYE HUM JO AAPKO LANE KE LIYE BOLE THE, LA YE HO?" : The complainant replied, JI, SJR, AAPKE KAHE MUTABIK RUPYA LE AAYE HAIN'. The accused then stretched his hand and said "LAO DE DO". On this, the complainant took out the tainted amount of Rs. At this request of the complainant, the accused Madan Mohan Singh asked "500/RUPYE HUM JO AAPKO LANE KE LIYE BOLE THE, LA YE HO?" : The complainant replied, JI, SJR, AAPKE KAHE MUTABIK RUPYA LE AAYE HAIN'. The accused then stretched his hand and said "LAO DE DO". On this, the complainant took out the tainted amount of Rs. 500/from the left upper chest pocket of his shirt and handed over the same to the accused who accepted the same by his right hand and after counting the bribe a amount with both of his hand the accused kept the same on the cot beneath the papers relating to the agreement of the work which had been just then taken by him from the complainant. Soon after money transaction was over, the shadow witness Jagannath Roy came out of the room and gave a signal by scratching the back portion of his neck with his left hand. On receipt of the signal, the I.O. alongwith other witness S.K. Choudhary reached to the spot and after disclosing his identity, the I.O. challenged the accused about his having demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification from the complainant for showing him favour in preparation of his bill. On being thus challenged, the accused became perplexed and could not offer any explanation. After a few moments, the accused however confessed to have accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- from the complainant. By then, all the members of raiding party had reached the spot. On being pointed out by the complainant and the shadow witness, the tainted money was recovered from beneath the paper. The numbers and denomination of the recovered tainted money were compared with that of G.C. Notes recorded in the Preliminary Memorandum prepared in the C.B.I. Office. On comparison, all of them tallied in toto. Then the recovered tainted G.C. Notes were preserved in a small envelope which was sealed and signed by all the present members. Subsequent to that a solution of Sodium Carbonate with water was prepared in a glass-tumbler in which the accused on being asked, dipped his right hand fingers. Consequently, milky solution became pink which was preserved in a clean glass phial which was sealed and signed by all of them. Subsequent to that a solution of Sodium Carbonate with water was prepared in a glass-tumbler in which the accused on being asked, dipped his right hand fingers. Consequently, milky solution became pink which was preserved in a clean glass phial which was sealed and signed by all of them. Another alike solution was also prepared in which the accused dipped his left hand finger as a result of which milky solution turned pink. That solution was also preserved in another glass phial which was also sealed and signed by all the members of raiding party. All these materials were marked as Exhibits. The accused was then put under arrest and thereafter his personal search was made by the investigation officer. Thereafter, the arrest memo was prepared separately. On search certain incriminating documents were recovered and for that seizure list was prepared separately. Thereafter, the memo of recovery was prepared and all the members of raiding party put their signatures. A copy of the memorandum of recovery was handed over to the accused. After obtaining sanction order from the competent authority, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet under the aforesaid Sections of the P .C. Act, 1988 against the respondent-accused. Cognizance was taken and the trial proceeded. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him and claimed to be tried. He, in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, clearly denied the entire allegation brought against him. He very categorically stated that without doing the contract work, the complainant L.B.P. Shrivastav pressurised him (accused) to prepare his favourable bill. On 22.6.1991 at about 12.30 P.M. the complainant came to him and asked him to prepare his bill. In reply thereto, the accused told him that since even less than half of the contract work had not been done by him, he would not prepare the complete bill. On that, the complainant abused him. Thereupon, it is said that the accused pushed him out of his house. Thereafter, the complainant went away from there grumbling and holding out threat that he would take revenge against the accused and spoil his life. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined altogether nine Witnesses. Out of them S.K. Choudhary is PW. 1 and Jagannath Roy is PW. 2. They are the independent witnesses who claimed to have participated and witnessed all the Pre-Trap and Post Trap proceedings. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined altogether nine Witnesses. Out of them S.K. Choudhary is PW. 1 and Jagannath Roy is PW. 2. They are the independent witnesses who claimed to have participated and witnessed all the Pre-Trap and Post Trap proceedings. They have also adduced evidence in respect of the same. P.W. 2 acted as a shadow witness. P.W. 3 is the C.F.S.L. Expert who had chemically examined the wash of both the hands of the accused and the concerned portion of his bed-sheet taken during the Post Trap Memorandum. P.W. 8 is the complainant. P.W. 4 verified the complaint petition of the complainant. P.W. 9 is the I.O. 5. Mr. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. has submitted that the trial court, without considering the evidence of the witnesses and the shadow witness, acquitted the accused respondent. He has further submitted that the witnesses have stated clearly that the aforesaid money had been accepted by the accused and recovery was also made. 6. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent has submitted that according to the prosecution case only the complainant and the shadow witness went to the up-stairs and entered into the room of the accused respondent. Other witnesses were present at the time of the alleged incidence near the boundary wall of the residence of the accused. Nowhere it has come that from that position they could have heard or seen the alleged incidence. Furthermore, Mr. Tewari has submitted that as the other persons were at the ground floor, it was not possible for them either to hear or to see the alleged incidence. Therefore, the complainant and the shadow witnesses are only the most important witnesses. Mr. Tewari has also pointed out that P.W. 8, the complainant in his evidence has stated that the accused had asked him, "AAP PAISA LAVE HAI". On which the complainant had replied, "JI, SIR, AAPKE KAHE MUTABIK RUPVA LE AAVE HAIN" and handed over the same to the accused. After getting the same, the accused kept the said amount beneath the bed of his chowki in a newspaper. In this regard, the shadow witness, P.W. 2, has simply stated that the accused, Madan Mohan Singh,' demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- on which the complainant had given Rs. After getting the same, the accused kept the said amount beneath the bed of his chowki in a newspaper. In this regard, the shadow witness, P.W. 2, has simply stated that the accused, Madan Mohan Singh,' demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- on which the complainant had given Rs. 500/- of G.C. currency notes and the accused kept the same in a newspaper under his bed. PW. 2, in his cross-examination has stated that he could not remember whether the said amount were kept under the bed-sheet of the cot of the accused-respondent or not. To this, he could not say as to whether thE! C.B.I. team counted and compared the said notes with" their list regarding G.C. notes given in the Pre-Trap proceeding. Though he stated that, thereafter, the recovered notes were compared and kept in a envelope. Mr. Tewari has further pointed out that the complainant P.W. 8, in his evidence has not stated as to who said to the C.B.I. party regarding the accepted money kept under the bed. Therefore, it is very doubtful as to how the C.B.I. party came to know that the accepted money was kept under the bed. He has further pointed out that it has also come in the evidence of these. PWs 2 & 8 that the said bribed money was kept in a newspaper and there after the entire thing was kept under the bed of a cot but according to the prosecution case the accused-respondent had kept the said money in the measurement book of the agreement. Furthermore, it has come in the evidence that the number of one of the G.C. notes did not tally with the number of the notes incorporated in the preliminary memorandum. P.W. 9, the I.O. has admitted these facts in his evidence. P.W. 1 has also stated and accepted this fact in his evidence that one of the recovered G.C. notes did not tally with the number of any of the G.C. notes mentioned in the preliminary memorandum. Mr. Tewari has further pointed out that the evidence of P.W. 7 who is a Civil Engineer of the department has admitted in his statement that in the measurement book from Pages 176 to 184 entries were made regarding the work of barbed wire fencing which was given to the complainant. Mr. Tewari has further pointed out that the evidence of P.W. 7 who is a Civil Engineer of the department has admitted in his statement that in the measurement book from Pages 176 to 184 entries were made regarding the work of barbed wire fencing which was given to the complainant. He has further stated that if the contractor had any grievance regarding any measurement, the procedure is to make a complaint before the Civil Engineer but the complainant did not lodge any complaint either before him nor before any officer of the department regarding the measurement. Mr. Tewari has further pointed out that if the complainant had any grievance regarding measurement of these work, he could have very well complained the same to P.W. 7. Mr. Tewari has further contended that since the complainant had not completed the contractual work according to the contract, he had no courage to complain about it to P.W.7. 7. All these evidences also support the defence of the accused-respondent which the accused-respondent had very specifically mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Considering the entire submissions of both the parties as discussed above, in my opinion the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused-respondent beyond all reasonable doubt. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.