JUDGMENT : Rakesh Saksena, J. - Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 22nd Oc­tober, 1997 passed by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (C.B.I.) Jabalpur in Spe­cial Case No. 08/1989, convicting him under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 5000/- on each count re­spectively. Substantive sentences have been di­rected to run concurrently. 2. In short, facts of the case are that in the month of November, 1989, appellant R. K. Goswami was functioning as Branch Manager of Nagan -Deori Branch of Chhindwara -Seoni, Kshetriya Gramin Bank at Nagan- Deori, Dis­trict Seoni. This Bank was sponsored by the Central Bank of India. On the application of complainant Mohanlal Uikey, a loan for a sum of Rs. 6000/- was sanctioned. As first installment, a sum of Rs.1,000/- was paid to him by the ap­pellant on 14.4.2008. When complainant Mohanlal approached to appellant for remain­ing amount of Rs. 5,000/- on 31,10.1989, ap­pellant demanded Rs. 500/- by way of illegal gratification for disbursement of the said amount. 3. Since, complainant did not want to give bribe, he went to C.B.I. Office Jabalpur and submitted a written complaint Ex. P/12. Super­intendent of Police, C.B.I, recorded the first in­formation report Ex. P/17 and deputed Inspec­tor R. K. Shukla (PW6) to inspect the matter. Inspector R.K. Shukla requisitioned services of two independent witnesses namely K.K. Sareen (PW3) and Dr. A.K. Verma (PW4), who were the employees of Oriental insurance Company. These Officers on 2.11.1989 verified the facts from the complainant, R.K. Shukla (PW5) ob­tained Rs. 500/- from the complainant and dem­onstrated the effect of Phenolphthalein powder to complainant and other witnesses. He ar­ranged for a trap and asked complainant to hand over the bribe money of Rs. 500/- to appellant and give a signal. A pre trap panchnama Ex. P/13 was prepared. 4. On 2.11.1989, complainant and the mem­bers of the trap party reached the Bank Nagan Deori, where appellant was working. Complain­ant handed over tainted currency notes of Rs. 500/- to appellant and gave prefixed signal to C.B.I, people. Inspector R.K. Shukla and other members of the trap party caught appellant's hands and washed them with sodium carbon­ate solution which turned pink. Tainted cur­rency notes were recovered from the pocket of appellant. Complain­ant handed over tainted currency notes of Rs. 500/- to appellant and gave prefixed signal to C.B.I, people. Inspector R.K. Shukla and other members of the trap party caught appellant's hands and washed them with sodium carbon­ate solution which turned pink. Tainted cur­rency notes were recovered from the pocket of appellant. When pocket of the pants of appel­lant was washed with sodium carbonate solu­tion, it also turned pink. All the solutions were seized and a memorandum of the trap proceed­ings Ex. P/14 was drawn. On the same day, loan file of the complainant was seized vide memo­randum Ex. P/15 and spot map Ex. P/16 was drawn. After further investigation and obtain­ing the requisite sanction Ex. P/l, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge. 5. On charges being framed appellant pleaded false implication. His defence as per his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was that complainant had given Rs. 500/- to him for getting them depos­ited in his saving bank account. He had handed over the said amount to cashier Ramesh Maravi. He had sanctioned the loan to complainant ac­cording to rules and had asked him to bring li­cense from the forest department. According to him, in the past also complainant often handed over money to him for depositing in the saving account. Receipts were used to be issued by the cashier later on. 6. Prosecution examined six witnesses to es­tablish its case viz. Sudhakar Trimbak Karkhanis (PW1), Hemant Jha (PW2), K.K. Sarin (PW3), Dr. A.K. Verma (PW4), Inspector R.K. Shukla (PW5) and complainant Mohanlal Uikey (PW6). Appellant, to substantiate his defence, exam­ined Remesh Kumar Maravi (DW1) and Somnath Nema (DW2). Learned Special Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, convicted and sentenced the appellant of the charges under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Aggrieved by his convic­tion, appellant has challenged the impugned Judgment in this appeal. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. It was no longer disputed that at the rel­evant time appellant was working as Branch Manager in Chhindwara Seoni, Kshetriya Gramin Bank and as such he was a public ser­vant. 9. Aggrieved by his convic­tion, appellant has challenged the impugned Judgment in this appeal. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. It was no longer disputed that at the rel­evant time appellant was working as Branch Manager in Chhindwara Seoni, Kshetriya Gramin Bank and as such he was a public ser­vant. 9. So far as the sanction Ex p/1 for the pros­ecution against the appellant is concerned, it was proved by Sudhakar Trimbak (PW1), who on 23.12.1989 was functioning as Chairman of Chhindwara- Seoni Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chhindwara. He categorically stated that he had accorded sanction after thorough study of the documents produced before him. He perused the evidence of witnesses, complaint, recovery memorandum and loan file etc. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the appellant has not chal­lenged the validity of sanction accorded by Sudhakar Trimbak (PW1). 10. Hemant Jha (PW2), who in the month of November, 1989 was posted in the head quar­ter of the said Bank as District Coordinator de­posed that appellant was posted in Nagan- Deori Branch as a Branch Manager. He was empow­ered to sanction loans to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-. He had sanctioned loan of Rs. 6000 to Mohanlal Uikey. This fact was not disputed by the appellant himself in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant con­tended that complainant (PW6) had turned hos­tile. He did not say in the Court that he gave Rs. 500/- to appellant by way of bribe. There was no evidence on record to indicate that appel­lant made any demand of illegal gratification. The person, who scribed the complaint Ex. P/12 was not examined in the Court, therefore, it was not established that any demand was made by the appellant. 12. Complainant (PW6) deposed that appel­lant asked him to bring the license of carpenter and said that only then his remaining amount of loan would be paid. He also asked him to deposit Rs. 500/- before bringing license. Since, he had no money at that time, he went away and discussed the matter with some persons who advised him to go to Jabalpur C.B.I. He sub­mitted a written complaint in the C.B.I. Office. He got the said complaint written by Ramesh Shrivastava. He stated that the complaint Ex. P/12 was written according to his instructions. Since, he had no money at that time, he went away and discussed the matter with some persons who advised him to go to Jabalpur C.B.I. He sub­mitted a written complaint in the C.B.I. Office. He got the said complaint written by Ramesh Shrivastava. He stated that the complaint Ex. P/12 was written according to his instructions. He however, stated that the word 'bribe' in it was not written on his instruction, but rest of the part of the complaint was got written by him. Complainant (PW6) admitted his signatures on Ex. P/12. In these circumstances, merely the non examination of Ramesh Shrivastava, who scribed the complaint, in our opinion, does not affect the credibility of complaint Ex, P/12. 13. According to prosecution case, K.K. Sarin (PW3) and Dr. A.K. Verma (PW4)verified from the complainant about his making the complaint. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that K.K Sarin (PW3)was a stock witness of C.B.I. He had appeared as witness for C.B.I, in 3-4 cases, therefore, no reliance could be placed on his evidence. As far as Dr. A.K. Verma (PW4) is concerned, he was also working in the same Office in K.K. Sarin (PW3) was working, there­fore, his evidence was also not trustworthy. Learned counsel submitted that the evidence of Dr. A.K. Verma (PW4) was also not reliable because his statement under Sectionl61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was read over to him before he entered the witness box and he was asked to give evidence in the Court on the same lines. In these circumstances, trial Court committed error in placing reliance on the evi­dence of the aforesaid witnesses. He further sub­mitted that the evidence of Inspector R.K. Shukla (PW5) was inconsistent with the evidence of aforesaid witnesses. It was not proved beyond doubt that tainted currency notes were recov­ered from the pocket of the pants of the appellant. From the spot map Ex. P/16, it seemed that the said notes were recovered from the table of accused kept in the office. Inspector Devendra Singh, who had drawn the said map (Ex. P/16) was not examined in the Court, therefore, learned Special Judge committed error in con­victing the appellant. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in G. V. Nanjundiah Vs. State (Delhi Ad­ministration) AIR 1987 SC 2402 , Banarsi Dass Vs. Inspector Devendra Singh, who had drawn the said map (Ex. P/16) was not examined in the Court, therefore, learned Special Judge committed error in con­victing the appellant. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in G. V. Nanjundiah Vs. State (Delhi Ad­ministration) AIR 1987 SC 2402 , Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2010 SC 1589 and Division Bench Judgment of this Court namely Ramvilas Ramdin and others Vs. State of M.P. 1984 MPLJ 492 . 14. K.K. Sarin (PW3), who was Assistant Manager in Oriental Insurance Company, Re­gional Office, Jabalpur admitted that he ap­peared as witness in three trap cases of C.B.I. Dr. A.K. Verma (PW4) also worked in the same Office. 15. For appreciating the evidence of such witnesses, in the case of G.V. Nanjundiah (Su­pra) the Apex Court observed: "learned Spe­cial Judge and also the High Court have placed much reliance upon the evidence of R.L. Verma and R.N. Khanna and the Deputy Superinten­dent of Police as to the acceptance of the bribe by the appellant and recovery of the bribe amount from him. R.L. Verma and R.N. Khanna have been stated to be two independent wit­nesses. So far as R.N. Khanna is concerned, he categorically admitted in his cross examination that he had earlier joined three or four such raids for traps organized by the C.B.I. Khanna and Verma work in the same office and there is sub­stance in the contention made on behalf of the appellant that both of them are very much Known to the police. It was the Deputy Super­intendent of police who had called them from their office for the purpose of being trap wit­nesses. We do not think that in the circum­stances, either of them can be called an inde­pendent witness." 16. At the relevant time, Dr. A.K. Verma (PW4) was also posted as Assistant Regional Manager in the Oriental Insurance Company in which K.K. Sarin (PW3) was posted. Apart from it, Dr. A.K. Verma (PW4) in para-6 of his state­ment admitted that an Advocate read over to him his previous statements in the verandah of the Court and that he was asked to give same statement before the Court. That Advocate told to him that since the incident had occurred long back, therefore, he was making him to recollect the same. A.K. Verma (PW4) in para-6 of his state­ment admitted that an Advocate read over to him his previous statements in the verandah of the Court and that he was asked to give same statement before the Court. That Advocate told to him that since the incident had occurred long back, therefore, he was making him to recollect the same. In Ramvilas Ramdin (supra) Division Bench of this Court dealt with this aspect in great detail and held that earlier statements of a wit­ness recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read over to him and witness asked to give the same in Court renders his testimony valueless. It was further held that the statement made by the witness to the police during the course of investigation was made use of in contravention of section 162, Criminal Pro­cedure Code. Nobody can say what the witness would have said had his memory not been re­freshed in that manner before he entered the witness box. It does not make any difference that the statement was narrated to him not when he was in the witness box but shortly before entering the witness box because the fact re­mains that it was narrated to him for the pur­pose of giving evidence at the trial. That tanta­mount to making use of the statement at the trial. AIR 1941 PC 75 and 1968 Cri. LJ. 54. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant con­tended that since the evidence of alleged inde­pendent witnesses was not trustworthy, appel­lant cannot be convicted merely on the evidence of complainant, who turned hostile and gave discrepant and inconsistent versions, and on the evidence of Investigating Officer R.K. Shukla (PW5), whose evidence appeared contrary to the spot map Ex. P/16. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Banarsi Dass (Supra) in which complainant and another witness turned hostile. The Apex Court dealt with the matter as under: "PW2 insisted on changing the Khasra Girdawaris and after she got annoyed, she got him falsely implicated. Money alleged to have been recovered from him, in fact, was lying on the table without his knowl­edge or demand. PW-2 has also stated in her statement that she kept the money on the table after some altercation with the accused. Money alleged to have been recovered from him, in fact, was lying on the table without his knowl­edge or demand. PW-2 has also stated in her statement that she kept the money on the table after some altercation with the accused. In these circumstances, it is diffi­cult for the Court to hold that the pros­ecution has established the offence against the accused, that he accepted the money voluntarily as illegal gratification. The ef­fect of the statement of PW2 and PW4 has a substantial adverse effect on the case of the prosecution. There are other witnesses examined by the prosecution which are formal witnesses and in the absence of support of PW2 and PW4, the prosecu­tion had not been able to establish the charge (demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused), thus entitling him to some benefit on the technical ground of two witnesses i.e. PW2 and PW4 turning hostile. In the light of the statement of two hostile witnesses PW2 and PW4, the demand and the acceptance of illegal gratification al­leged to have been received by the ac­cused for favouring PW2 by recording the Khasra Girdawaris in the name of her mother cannot be said to have been proved by the prosecution in accordance with law. We make it clear that it is only for the two witnesses having turned hos­tile and they having denied their statement made under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C. despite confrontation that the accused may be entitled to acquittal on technical ground. But, in no way we express the opinion that the statement of witnesses in­cluding official witnesses PW10 and PW11, are not accepted by the Court. Similarly, we have no reason to disbelieve the recovery of Ex. P-1 to P-4 vide Ex. P-D." 18. On perusal of the evidence of complain­ant (PW6), it is apparent that he stated that though the complaint Ex. P/12 was written ac­cording to his instruction, but he did not men­tion therein the word 'bride'. This indicates his deliberate expression that he did not want to impute criminality on the part of appellant. P-1 to P-4 vide Ex. P-D." 18. On perusal of the evidence of complain­ant (PW6), it is apparent that he stated that though the complaint Ex. P/12 was written ac­cording to his instruction, but he did not men­tion therein the word 'bride'. This indicates his deliberate expression that he did not want to impute criminality on the part of appellant. Of course, it is not always necessary that while de­mand is made by an accused, either accused or the complainant should use specifically the word 'bribe' but here complainant clarified that Man­ager asked him to deposit Rs.500/.When he went in the office, on asking of the Manager, he put the money on the table and gave signal to C.B.I, team. When trap party entered the Of­fice, the money was not found with the Man­ager, it was found on the table of cashier Maravi along with Rs. 150/- of some body else which was separated by the Officers of C.B.I. He ad­mitted that Manager told him that unless he deposited Rs. 500/- he would not get remaining amount of Rs. 5,000 A therefore, he made a complaint with C.B.I. In cross examination, he admitted that he did not give bribe money to appellant. He had two accounts in the Bank. Often Bank Manager took money from him and deposited in his accounts. According to him, when the appellant demanded money, he thought that money was to be deposited in his one of the accounts. Complainant further ad­mitted that he had got Rs. 1,000/- towards loan, but appellant had told him that unless he brought a license from the Forest Department for furni­ture, he would not get remaining amount. Thus, while examining the evidence of complainant Mohanlal (PW6) in the light of ratio of the deci­sion of Apex Court in Banarsi Dass, we find that trial Court committed error in placing reliance on his testimony. 19. In view of the observations made by the Apex Court in G.V. Nanjundiah, we are unable to place reliance on the evidence of K.K. Sarin (PW3) and Dr. A.K. Verma (PW4)who worked in the same Office and one of them namely K.K. Sarin (PW3) happened to be a witness of 3-4 raids conducted by police C.B.I. Apart from it, Dr. In view of the observations made by the Apex Court in G.V. Nanjundiah, we are unable to place reliance on the evidence of K.K. Sarin (PW3) and Dr. A.K. Verma (PW4)who worked in the same Office and one of them namely K.K. Sarin (PW3) happened to be a witness of 3-4 raids conducted by police C.B.I. Apart from it, Dr. A.K. Verma (PW4) gave his statement be­fore the Court after he was read over his previ­ous statement and was asked to state the same in the Court. In case of Reghbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1976 SC 91 , Apex Court observed: "We must take this opportunity of impressing on the officers functioning in the anti-corruption department to insist on observing this safeguard as zealously and scrupulously as possible for the protection of public servants against whom a trap may have to be laid. They must seriously endeavour to secure really independent and respectable wit­ness so that the evidence in regard to raid in­spires confidence in the mind of the court and the court is not left in any doubt as to whether or not any money was paid to the public ser­vant by way of bribe." 20. Learned counsel for the C.B.I, submitted that even if the trap witnesses turn hostile or found not independent, the Court may accept the prosecution version on the basis of evidence of complainant and the police officers. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court ren­dered in the State of U.P. v. Dr. O.K. Ghosh AIR 1984 SC 1453 wherein it was held that in case of an offence of demanding and accepting illegal gratification, depending on the circumstances of the case, the Court may feel safe in accepting the prosecu­tion version on the basis of the oral evidence of the complainant and the police officers even if the trap witnesses turn hostile or are found not to be independent. When besides such evidence there is circumstantial evidence which is consis­tent with the guilt of the accused and not con­sistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding the prosecution case. 21. In the case in hands besides the evidence of trap witnesses, we have found that the com­plainant Mohanlal (PW6) himself did not substantially support the prosecution version and was, therefore, declared hostile. 21. In the case in hands besides the evidence of trap witnesses, we have found that the com­plainant Mohanlal (PW6) himself did not substantially support the prosecution version and was, therefore, declared hostile. Though, he supported the prosecution story to some extent about the demand of Rs. 500/- by the appellant and handing over the tainted money to him, but he in clear terms stated that it was not bribe. On several occasions he gave money to appellant or appellant himself fetched money from him for depositing the same into his accounts. He never took the demand of money made by the appellant as a demand of illegal gratification. In these circumstances, we find the facts and cir­cumstances of the present case different from the case of Dr. G.K. Ghosh (supra). Similarly the decision of the Apex Court in Ramesh Gupta v. State of M.P., 1995 Cr. LJ 3656, wherein it was observed that in a bribery case, for demand and acceptance of bribe corroboration to the evidence of complainant can be by way of cir­cumstantial evidence also, has no application since in the present case the complainant him­self in substance did not support the prosecu­tion version. 22. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. Placing reliance on the decisions of Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1974 SC 1024 , and Hazari lal v. The State (Delhi Admn.) AIR 1980 SC 873 contended that in a trap case the conviction of accused may be based on the evidence of police officer who laid the trap, if his evidence is trustworthy. In case of Hazari lal (supra), Supreme Court observed: "Where the evidence of the Police Officer who laid the trap is found entirely trust­worthy, there is no need to seek any cor­roboration. There is no rule of prudence, which has crystallized into a rule of law, nor indeed any rule of prudence, which requires that the evidence of such officers should be treated on the same footing as evidence of accomplices and there should be insistence on corroboration. In the facts and circumstances of a particular case a Court may be disinclined to act upon the evidence of such an officer without corroboration, but, equally, in the facts and circumstances of another case the Court may unhesitatingly accept the evidence of such an Officer. In the facts and circumstances of a particular case a Court may be disinclined to act upon the evidence of such an officer without corroboration, but, equally, in the facts and circumstances of another case the Court may unhesitatingly accept the evidence of such an Officer. It is all a matter of appre­ciation of evidence and on such matters there can be no hard and fast rule, nor can there by any precedential guidance." 23. In the light of above proposition when we examine the evidence of R.K. Shikla (PW5), we find that he requisitioned two officers of Ori­ental Insurance Company as independent trap witnesses though he must have knowledge that K.K. Sarin (PW3) had been a witness in about 3-4 raids conducted by C.B.I. He stated that the spot map Ex. P/16 was drawn by Inspector Devendra Singh wherein it was mentioned that tainted money of Rs. 500/- was lying on the table, but he did not say that the map was wrong. Inspector Devendra Singh was not produced by the prosecution in evidence. The aforesaid spot map was witnessed by K.K. Sarin (PW3) and Dr. A.K. Verma (PW4), but none of them pointed out the said mistake. On the contrary, Inspector R.K. Shukla (PW5) and K.K. Sarin (PWS) stated that the money was recov­ered from the pocket of appellant and they did not know how it was marked in Ex. P/16 that tainted money was lying on the table. In these circumstances, the evidence of complainant Monanlal (PW6) that appellant kept the money on the table appears probable. It is true that the complainant Mohan lal as well as Ram Kumar Maravi (DW1), cashier of the Bank stated that tainted currency notes were seized from the table of Maravi, but in view of the inconsistencies appearing in the evidence, it becomes suspicious as to where from the money was recovered. 24. In view of the aforesaid infirmities occur­ring in the prosecution case, we are unable to hold that the prosecution succeeded in estab­lishing that demand of illegal gratification was made by the appellant and that the appellant accepted tainted money as a bribe/illegal grati­fication, and thus to prove the guilt of appellant beyond all doubts, in our opinion learned Spe­cial Judge committed error in holding the ap­pellant guilty. 25. 25. After careful consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the statement of appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that prosecution has failed to prove guilt of appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. 26. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is al­lowed. The order of conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Special Judge is set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charges. His bail bond and personal bond are discharged. Appeal allowed.