Hrishikesh Roy, J.— The two appellants in these 2 appeals faced trial in the Special Case No. 1/2006 and they challenge the judgment dated 19.3.2008 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Shillong, whereby the accused were convicted under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act"). Both the accused were sentenced to 1 year imprisonment and were fined Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of fine, were sentenced to further imprisonment for 3 months. 2. In pursuant to seizure of 9751 Kgs of ganja on 27.12.2005 hidden in 3 oil tankers, the Chliehriate P.S. Case No. 153(12)72005 was registered under the NDPS Act. At that stage the police inspector Terence Jeffery Synrem (P.W.3) on 29.12.2005 reported to the S.P., Jowai that the accused Panger Aonok and 2 others have offered Rs. 20 lakhs bribe to the police inspector to release the 3 oil tankers, the ganja and to set free the arrested accused Saraj Anwar. Although the police inspector refused, the accused offered to come again on 30.12.2005 to handover Rs. 20 Lakhs in cash to the police inspector. After receiving this complaint, the S.P., Jowai instructed Mr. B.P. Joshi, police inspector, Jowai (W) to enquire and submit a report on the genuineness of the information and after the Mr. Joshi's report was submitted, the S.P. directed registration of a case under Sections 8 & 12 of the PC Act and entrusted Mr. Anurag, IPS, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Chliehriate with the investigation of the 2nd case. After receiving the S.P's order on 30.12.2005, the Chliehriate P.S. Case No. 154 (12)72005 under the P.C. Act was registered and Mr. Anurag took up the investigation of the illegal gratification case. 3. Since the accused had offered to deliver Rs.20 Lakhs in cash to Terence J. Synrem (P.W.3) on the morning of 30.12.2005, the I.O. prepared a Pre-Trap Memorandum (Exbt.-1) requisitioning the presence of the Magistrate (P.W.I), a Coal Trader Pher Rymbai (P.W.2) and the police inspector Terence J. Synrem (P.W.3) to whom the bribe offer was made. The Trap Team was briefed by the I.O. on their hiding position(s) so that they could witness the transaction and hear the conversation of the accused and the police inspector (P.W.3). 4. The Trap Team was briefed by the I.O. on their hiding position(s) so that they could witness the transaction and hear the conversation of the accused and the police inspector (P.W.3). 4. According to the prosecution case, on 30.12.2005 at about 12:15 noon, 3 persons namely Panger Aonok, Kauser Alam (the appellants herein) and one Kama Choudhury entered the office chamber of the O.C., Chliehriate Police Station to offer illegal gratification to the police inspector (P.W.3). The Trap Team members caught the accused red handed while they were offering the cash to P.W.3. Then the I.O. prepared a post-trap Memorandum (Exbt.-3), seizure memo (Exbt.-2) and arrested the accused who were charged under Section 12 of the P.C. Act Since the charge was denied, the case was put to trial. 5. During trial the prosecution presented 6 witnesses, exhibited five documents and 2 Paper Marks. PROSECUTION WITNESSES 6.1 Ms. R.S. Manners (P.W.1) was a Magistrate posted at the Chliehriate Sub-Division. On 30.12.2005, she was informed about the pre-trap arrangement and was requested by the I.O. to be a witness on the exchange of bribe money. The P.W.1 stated that she was briefed at about 8:30 a.m. in the police station by the I.O. (P. W.6) about the possible bribing attempt of the accused in the NDPS case. According to the P. W. 1, the Pre-Trap Memorandum (Extbt-1) was prepared by the I.O. in her presence. She visited the police station a second time at about 11 a.m. and at about 1230 hours (noon), she was asked to hide in the toilet adjacent to the O.C's room to witness the activities of the accused. From her hiding place the witness saw the accused taking out money from the bag carried by the lawyer and place it on the O.C's table. But she couldn't hear the conversation. She stated that she together with Mr. Pher Rymbai (P.W.2) counted the money twice and found it amounting to Rs. 19,82,800/-. 6.2 Mr. Pher Rymbai as the second prosecution witness testified that he has a coal depot near the Chliehriate police station and is a frequent visitor to the police station. On 30.12.2005 morning, P.W.2 was summoned by the O.C. and at about 9/9:30 a.m. when he went inside, the witness saw the cash inside the police station and the police asked the witness to count this money. On 30.12.2005 morning, P.W.2 was summoned by the O.C. and at about 9/9:30 a.m. when he went inside, the witness saw the cash inside the police station and the police asked the witness to count this money. The witness stated that he gave his thumb impression on the Pre-Trap Memorandum (Exbt.-1) only after he counted the cash. On the seizure list (Exbt-2), which recorded the seizure of a Maroon colour bag and cash of Rs. 19,82,800/-, P.W.2 in his evidence-in-chief stated that he gave his LTI only once and he was unsure about his LTI in the Seizure List. P.W.2 couldn't identify the accused in the dock and in his cross stated that he had not seen the occurrence nor did he hear any conversation between the accused and the police. He stated that he counted the money alone in about 2 hours time, without anyone's help. 6.3 P.W.3 Terence J. Synrem was the police inspector, who reported to the S.P. about the bribe offer made to him for freeing the accused, the seized Ganja and the oil tankers in the Chliehriate P.S. Case No. 153(12)72005 registered under NDPS Act. The witness testified that on 30.12.2005, the I.O. Mr . Anurag (P.W.6) arranged a trap team and he stated that on 30th afternoon, all the 3 accused were caught red handed when they were offering the illegal gratification to the P.W.3 at the Chliehriate P.S. In his cross-examination, the inspector stated that the lawyer accused Panger Aonok had earlier made the bribe offer by contacting him on the seized mobile phone, being temporarily used by the inspector. But P.W.3 stated that the mobile phone on which he received the calls from the accused Panger Aonok, was not re-seized in the second case, registered under the P.C. Act He admitted that he is not the I.O. in the NDPS case in connection which, the bribe was being offered by the accused. 6.4 P.W.4 C.S. Shylla was the O.C. of the Chliehriate P.S. and on the relevant dates on 29.12.2005 and 30.12.2005 he was on leave and another sub- inspector W. Pale was i/c of the Chliehriate police station. 6.5 P. W.5 B.P. Joshi was the sub-inspector at Jowai who was asked by the S.P. to give a preliminary report on the information given by the inspector Terence J. Synrem (P.W.3) about the bribe offer in connection with NDPS case. 6.5 P. W.5 B.P. Joshi was the sub-inspector at Jowai who was asked by the S.P. to give a preliminary report on the information given by the inspector Terence J. Synrem (P.W.3) about the bribe offer in connection with NDPS case. Apart from examining the inspector who confirmed about the bribe offer made to him on the mobile phone (seized in connection with the NDPS case), Joshi's report was based only on source information. Acting on Mr. Joshi's report the S.P. ordered for registration of case under Section 8,12 of the PC Act, resulting in registration of the Chliehriate PS Case No. 154(12)72005. In his cross -examination, P. W.5 stated that he gave the preliminary enquiry report to the S.P. before 12 noon on 30.12.2005. Significantly, the witness admitted that the FIR in the RC. Act case was registered only after he submitted his inquiry report to the S.P. The witness admitted that he did not verify the call records of the phone numbers from which bribe offer calls were made to the seized mobile phone being used by the inspector Terence J. Synrem (P.W.3). 6.6 Mr. Anurag was posted as the SDPO, Chliehriate at the relevant time. As the I.O. of the case, the P.W.6 testified that after the information about the bribe offer was given by the inspector (P.W.3) to the S.P., Jowai, a confirmatory enquiry was made by the P.W.5 B.P. Joshi and acting on Joshi's report the S.P. gave written order on 30.12.2005 whereafter the Chliehriate PS. Case No. 154(12)72005 registered under Section 8/12 of the PC Act. After he was entrusted with the investigation at about 7:30 a.m. on 30.12.2005, the P.W.6 organized a Trap Team with P.W.1, P. W.2 and P.W.3 and prepared the Pre-Trap Memorandum (Exbt.1) and briefed the 3 witnesses. He prepared a Sketch Map (Exbt. 4) showing the respective position of the witnesses at noon time and testified that he along with the other trap witnesses saw the 3 accused arrive at police station at about 12:15 p.m. and enter the O.C's room. According to the I.O., the lawyer accused Panger Aonok was carrying the money in a maroon colour bag accompanied by the other 2 accused. The 3 accused sat on the visitor's chairs in the O.C's room while the P.W.3 was seated on the O.Cs chair. According to the I.O., the lawyer accused Panger Aonok was carrying the money in a maroon colour bag accompanied by the other 2 accused. The 3 accused sat on the visitor's chairs in the O.C's room while the P.W.3 was seated on the O.Cs chair. According to the I.O., he heard the accused Panger Aonok requesting the inspector (P.W.3) to release the ganja and the tankers and free the accused after accepting the bribe money brought by him. The witness, saw the accused Panger Aonok taking out the money from the bag and put it on the O.C's table with the help of the other 2 accused. At about 12:30 p.m. the Trap witnesses having witnessed the occurrence emerged from their hiding places and enter the O.C's room. Then the money was counted by P. W. 1 and P. W.2 in presence of the I.O. Thereafter the Seizure List (Exbt.2) for the bag and the cash, the Post Trap Memorandum (Exbt.3) were prepared and the accused were arrested. The I.O. stated that the seized cash was deposited in the Chliehriate Branch of the UBI with permission of i/c Sessions Judge, Shillong. In his cross-examination, the I.O. admitted that the preliminary report given by B.P. Joshi (P.W.5) to the S.P. is not exhibited in the Court and the I.O. also admitted that he had not examined the S.P. at whose instance, the case was registered. According to the witness, the accused came to the police station at about 12:15 p.m. to offer the bribe to the P.W.3, when they were caught red handed by the trap team. ACCUSED'S STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. 7. The appellant accused Panger Aonok who is a lawyer from Shillong in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement while responding to question No.8 answered that "the money seized by police belong to one lady businessman and money was seized from my vehicle". In the same vain, the other accused Kauser Alam while responding the question No.5, answered that: "money belong one Khasi lady and money was seized from a tourist taxi in front of police station." DEFENCE WITNESSES 8.1 D.W.1, Nirmal Kr. Deb claimed to be an employee under D.W.2 Mrs. Crinoline War and stated that he was waiting delivery of Rs. 19,82,800/- from Mrs. War to make payment to the 7 coal mine owners. He testified that the due payment for the coal miners was entrusted by Mrs. Deb claimed to be an employee under D.W.2 Mrs. Crinoline War and stated that he was waiting delivery of Rs. 19,82,800/- from Mrs. War to make payment to the 7 coal mine owners. He testified that the due payment for the coal miners was entrusted by Mrs. Crinoline War to her lawyer Panger Aonok at Shillong for delivery to the D.W.I at Ladrymbai within the jurisdiction of the Chliehrate police station. He later learnt that the money was seized by the police from Mr. Panger Aonok's car on 30.12.2005. 8.2 D.W.2 Mrs. Crinoline War in her testimony stated that she is operating coal and cable T. V. business and D. W. 1 is her manager for the coal business. As payment to the coal mine owners was due to be paid on 31.12.2005, she handed over the payable dues of Rs. 19,82,800/- to her lawyer Mr. Panger Aonok on 27.12.2005 in advance, as she was to go to Guwahati for treatment. The money was received by Mr. Panger Aonok on 27.12.2005 for which a receipt was given to D.W.2 and the said receipt is exhibited as Paper Mark-I. She testified that the money was carried by the lawyer Panger Aonok at her request for delivery at Ladrymbai to her manager Nirmal Kr. Deb (D.W.1). But subsequently she learnt from Mr. Deb and also the wife of Mr. Panger Aonok that, her money was seized from the lawyer and he was arrested on charge of offering bribe to the police. 8.3 The lawyer accused Panger Aonok as the D. W.3 testified that on 29.12.2005 he was approached, at the Shillong Bar Association by one Muktar Ali of Silchar who requested him to visit the Chliehriate Police Station to render assistance to the accused Saraj Anowar, who was detained at the Chliehriate Police Station on 27.12.2005. As the witness was otherwise scheduled to visit Ladrymbai in the same area for delivering the Rs. 19,82,800/- on behalf of Mrs.Crinoline War to her Manager Nirmal Kr. Deb (D. W. 1), he proceeded to Chliehriate at 6 a.m. on 30.12.2005 accompanied by his friend Kauser Alam, the other accused. When he reached Ladrymbai, the lawyer was unable to locate the D. W. 1 and accordingly with the undelivered cash, the lawyer visited the Chliehriate Police Station to enquire about the fate of the NDPS case arrestee Saraj Anowar. When he reached Ladrymbai, the lawyer was unable to locate the D. W. 1 and accordingly with the undelivered cash, the lawyer visited the Chliehriate Police Station to enquire about the fate of the NDPS case arrestee Saraj Anowar. Both the accused reached the Chliehriate P.S. at about 9: 15/9:30 and entered the police station, leaving behind the money bag in the Indica Taxi, they travelled from Shillong to Ladrymbai. According to the D. W.3, he saw the arrestee being tortured in the police station and as a lawyer he protested. Then the police became agitated and the officer directed the policeman to search the lawyer and their vehicle and when the money was found in their car, the police alleged that the money was being brought to bribe them in the NDPS case. Thereafter the good friend of the P. W.3 the police inspector, Mr. Pher Rymbai (P. W.2) was summoned who counted the money and immediately thereafter, the lawyer and his friend and the driver of the taxi were arrested and charged with bribing the police, in connection with the Chliehriate P.S. Case No. 153(12)72005. APPELLANTS SUBMISSION 9.1 Arguments are advanced by Mr. H.R. Nath who represents the appellant Panger Aonok in Criminal Appeal No. 7 (SH)/2008 and Mr. K. Sunar for the appellant Kausar Alam in Criminal Appeal No.6 (SH)/2008. The appellants rely upon the evidence of the defence witnesses to project that the money seized by the police on 30.12.2005 was forcibly removed from the accuseds' car on 30.12.2005 and they contend that a false prosecution story is being projected to show that the accused had visited the police station to offer bribe in connection with the NDPS case. The appellants point out that phone call records of the accused or of the police inspector (P.W.3) were not adduced by the prosecution and accordingly they contend that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged offer of illegal gratification made by the. accused since 27.12.2005 in the NDPS case. 9.2 The Counsel submit that when the accused were allegedly caught red handed while offering bribe in the afternoon on 30th December, and the bribe money was counted thereafter, the reflection of the precise amount, in the FIR registered at 7 A.M. in the morning, shows that a false prosecution case is being projected against the accused. 9.2 The Counsel submit that when the accused were allegedly caught red handed while offering bribe in the afternoon on 30th December, and the bribe money was counted thereafter, the reflection of the precise amount, in the FIR registered at 7 A.M. in the morning, shows that a false prosecution case is being projected against the accused. 93 Questioning the genuineness of the Pre-Trap Memorandum (Exbt.-1), the appellants referred to the evidence of P.W.2 who stated that he signed the Pre-Trap Memorandum only after he finished counting the bribe money. It is also shown from the evidence of P.W.2, a trap witness that he had neither seen the occurrence nor had heard conversation between the accused and the police. More importantly he had seen the cash in the morning itself, inside the police station when he reached there at about 9/9:30 A.M., on being summoned by the O.C. (P.W.3) of the Chliehriate P.S. 9.4 The appellants refer to the Sketch Map (Exbt.-4) prepared by the I.O. to show that presence of the accused was not shown in the Sketch Map and accordingly placing reliance on the decision in the State of M.P. Vs. Ghudan reported in (2003) 12 SCC 485 the learned Counsel submits that the accused's position not being reflected in the O.C's room in the IO's Sketch Map (Exbt-4) should benefit the accused. 9.5 The appellants project that the prosecution witnesses contradict each other on many material points as for instance P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly stated that they didn't hear any conversation and P.W.2 stated that he didn't see the incident. The appellants contend that the evidence being contradictory is not reliable to sustain the conviction. PROSECUTION SUBMISSION 10.1 Supporting the conviction, Mr. K. Khan, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that minor variation on the time of bribe money delivery (morning or afternoon) is not a major discrepancy and he argues that as the prosecution witnesses corroborate each other on most material points, the impugned judgment should be left undisturbed. Referring specifically to the evidence of P. W. 1, Mr. Khan submits that although she couldn't hear the conversation between the accused and the police inspector, she saw the delivery of cash by the accused and accordingly it is argued that since direct eye witness evidence is available, the conviction must be sustained. Referring specifically to the evidence of P. W. 1, Mr. Khan submits that although she couldn't hear the conversation between the accused and the police inspector, she saw the delivery of cash by the accused and accordingly it is argued that since direct eye witness evidence is available, the conviction must be sustained. 10.2 On the mentioning of the specific amount in the FIR registered at 7 A.M. and the seizure and counting of money in the afternoon and the contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses as well as the Post Trap Memorandum (Exbt.3) and the Seizure List (Exbt.2) which too show that the bribe was given in the afternoon hours, the Public Prosecutor submits that this minor discrepancy of time and should have no impact on the order of conviction. 10.3 He further submits that FIR is not a substantial piece of evidence and being only of corroborative value can have no fatal impact on the conviction. 10.4 The learned Public Prosecutor submits that non-production of the report given by Mr. B.P. Joshi (P.W.5) to the S.P., Jowai and non-examination of the S.P. as a witness can also have no bearing on the conviction of the accused and accordingly he submits that the Trial Court's judgment requires no interference. 10.5 Referring to the provisions of Sub-Section 2 of Section 20 of the PC. Act, Mr. Khan submits that legal presumption against the accused should be drawn in the case to the effect that the accused offered illegal gratification as a reward for showing undeserved favour to the accused in the NDPS case. DISCUSSION 11. Before considering the rival submission, it must be noted that the P. W.3 to whom the bribe money was offered is not connected with the investigation of the NDPS Case (Chliehriate P.S. Case No. 153(12)72005). Therefore unless it can be shown that the offeree of the bribe was in a position to influence the outcome of the investigation in the NDPS case, it would be difficult to assume that the accused had offered to bribe the P. W.3 expecting his help in the Chliehriate PS. Case No. 153(12)72005. It is significant that the prosecution didn't adduce evidence of the IO in the NDPS case to establish that the money offered to the P.W.3 (who is not connected with the case), can influence the police action in accused's favour in the NDPS case. Case No. 153(12)72005. It is significant that the prosecution didn't adduce evidence of the IO in the NDPS case to establish that the money offered to the P.W.3 (who is not connected with the case), can influence the police action in accused's favour in the NDPS case. Therefore the story projected by the prosecution in this case has to be tested carefully for its veracity and its truthfulness. 12. Amongst the trap-witnesses, the IO (P.W.6) and PW 4 stated that they saw the accused carry the money to the police station and offer it to the P. W.3 who was seated the O.C's chair in the police station. But in contrast, the Magistrate the other trap-witness had stated that they didn't hear the conversation between the accused and the police inspector. More significantly, the 4th trap witness i.e. P.W.2 stated in his cross-examination that he neither saw the occurrence nor heard any conversation between the accused and the police inspector. The evidence of P.W.2 was never challenged by the prosecution nor the witness was declared hostile and if his testimony is pitted against the testimony of the other trap-witnesses, it is clear that 2 opposite versions are projected by the different trap-witnesses. This definitely is a material contradiction and shows the weakness of the prosecution evidence. 13. The truthfulness of the prosecution version that the accused offered to bribe the police inspector (P. W.3) at about 1230 hours in the afternoon, if tested against the testimony of P.W.2, who on being summoned in the morning to the police station by the O.C., and noticed the bribe money at about 9/9:30 in the morning hours also suggest the falsity of the prosecution version of bribe money delivery in the afternoon. If the money was seen by the P.W.2 in the morning at 9 A.M., the genuineness of the Seizure List (Exbt.2). the Post-Trap Memorandum (Exbt.3) both of which were prepared in the afternoon, loose credibility and it becomes difficult to uphold the conviction on the basis of such inconsistent evidence. 14. In this case the tardy investigation also leave much to be desired inasmuch as, no previous connection between the bribe giver and the recipient was established by adducing the evidence of the phone call records. 14. In this case the tardy investigation also leave much to be desired inasmuch as, no previous connection between the bribe giver and the recipient was established by adducing the evidence of the phone call records. There is nothing by way of evidence to show that the Advocate accused had phoned the P. W.3 as reported by the Inspector to S.P., Jowai on 29.12.2005. There is no evidence to show that P. W.3 received any call on his mobile phone from the accused or that the accused had made any calls to the P. W.3. This certainly is a glaring omission in the investigation which goes to the root of the case as without the phone call records, the connection of the cash carried by the accused with the NDPS case is not clearly established. The genuineness of the Pre-Trap Memorandum (Exbt. 1) also becomes doubtful since P. W.2 stated that he put his LTI on the Exbt.1 only after, he completed counting the money in the afternoon whereas the Pre-Trap Memorandum was prepared by the I.O. in between 8:30 A.M. to 9:30 A.M and the P.W.2 was a witness in the Exbt-1. 15. As regards drawing up presumption against the accused under Section 20 of the P.C. Act;, the presumption under Sub-Section 2 of Section 20 can be drawn only when it is proved that, illegal gratification was offered by the accused. But considering the evidence in the case I feel that offer of gratification by the accused has not been fully proved as there are serious discrepancies in the prosecution evidence. In these circumstances, the conviction should not in my view be sustained, by drawing up adverse presumption against the accused under Section 20(2) of the P. C. Act. 16. Testimony of the defence witnesses are also relevant here as they explain in graphic detail why the lawyer was carrying Rs. 19,82,800/- when they went to Chliehriat from Shillong. The receipt given by the lawyer to Mrs. C. War (D.W. 1) showing receipt of Rs. 19,82,800/- on 27.12.2005, is proved by the defence. The amount mentioned in the receipt also has a material bearing since the P. W.3 had stated that the offer of bribe was to the tune of Rs. 20 Lakhs, whereas the cash recovered from the accused is less than Rs. 20 Lakhs. C. War (D.W. 1) showing receipt of Rs. 19,82,800/- on 27.12.2005, is proved by the defence. The amount mentioned in the receipt also has a material bearing since the P. W.3 had stated that the offer of bribe was to the tune of Rs. 20 Lakhs, whereas the cash recovered from the accused is less than Rs. 20 Lakhs. This discrepancy in the amount suggests in the absence of any reasonable explanation from the prosecution that, the amount recovered from the accused may not be any bribe money offered to the police as illegal gratification, in the Chliehriate RS. Case No. 153(12)72005 but was money carried by D.W.3 on behalf of D. W.2 for the coal mine payment. 17. Another significant discrepancy in the evidence of the case should also be considered at this stage. According to the prosecution version, the FIR (Exbt.5) was registered at 7 A.M. on 30.12.2005. The endorsement of the S.P. on the reverse of Exbt.5 shows that the Chliehriate PS. Case No. 154(12)72005 was registered under Section 8, 12 of the P.C. Act on the S.P's direction who issued his order after considering the report given by Mr. B.P. Joshi (P. W.5). But in his testimony, the P. W.5 stated that his report to the S.P. was submitted before 12 noon on 30.12.2005. If the report on the basis of which the F.I.R. was registered, was submitted before 12 noon, it is not understood as to how the case was registered on S.P's order at 7 A.M. in the morning as because if the evidence of P. W.5 is to be believed, his report couldn't have reached the S.P. before the noonhours of 30.12.2005. 18. Seeing the discrepancies in the prosecution evidence and the deficiencies in the investigation as noted above, I feel that the defence version deserves adequate consideration. 19. In this case I find many loopholes in the prosecution version. For instance, if P. W. 1, P. W.3 and P. W.6 are to be believed, the bribe money was paid in the afternoon of 30.12.2005, but in the FIR registered at 7 A.M., the precise money allegedly delivered by the accused is stated. Moreover, P.W.2 noticed the bribe money in the morning hours at about 9:30 A.M. in the police station. The discrepancy in witness's evidence also cast doubt on the evidentiary value of Exbt. 1 and Pre & Post Trap Memorandum (Exbt. Moreover, P.W.2 noticed the bribe money in the morning hours at about 9:30 A.M. in the police station. The discrepancy in witness's evidence also cast doubt on the evidentiary value of Exbt. 1 and Pre & Post Trap Memorandum (Exbt. 1 & 3) as well as the Seizure list (Exbt.2), which was prepared in the afternoon hours. 20. P. W.3 although was a police inspector, was not the IO in the NDPS Case. But the prosecution did not adduce the evidence of the IO to establish that P. W.3 was capable of influencing the investigation in the NDPS case, dealt by another police officer. Therefore it is difficult to accept that money recovered from the accused was meant as illegal gratification to hush-up the NDPS case. 21. As the prosecution didn't adduce the phone call records of the accused and of PW.3, there is no direct evidence to prove the alleged phone conversation between them prior to 30.12.2005 and since this link was not established by the prosecution, the possibility of the recovered money being legitimately carried by the accused for payment to the coal miners as projected by the defence, can't entirely be ruled out. In this context, the visit of the lawyer to deliver the money to D. W. 1 and using this errand to also to enquire about the accused Saraj Anwar in the other case, can't entirely be brushed aside since the defence version is supported through necessary evidence of witnesses. 22. In the Sketch Map (Exbt.4) prepared by the IO the position of the accused who were allegedly present in the O.C's room is nowhere reflected. This indeed is a vital omission and in my view, the benefit of this should accrue to the accused in the case. 23. In his testimony the P.W.2 had stated that he counted the money all by himself whereas the Magistrate (P. W. 1) stated that she counted the money together with P.W.2. Normally this variation could have been overlooked but since there is discrepancy in the evidence on the time when accused allegedly gave the money to the police, this variation in the testimony of P. W. 1 and P.W.2 can't be brushed aside as immaterial. 24. The evidentiary value of a FIR is certainly limited and can only be used for corroboration and contradiction. 24. The evidentiary value of a FIR is certainly limited and can only be used for corroboration and contradiction. In this case, the FIR was registered at 7 A.M. where itself, the precise amount of the recovered money was mentioned as Rs. 19,82,88/-. But if the rest of the prosecution evidence (barring P.W.2) is to be believed, the money was delivered to the police station at about 1230 P.M. and the counting itself took several hours. Therefore, the evidentiary value of the prosecution evidence is considerably weakened by mentioning of the precise amount in the FIR registered in the morning. 25. The Trap witnesses who were hiding near the place of occurrence in strategic position(s) to hear and see the accused, are not consistent in their testimony about what transpired in the O.C's room. The P. W. 1 did not hear any conversation of the accused with the policeman and surprisingly the P.W.2 stated that he neither heard nor saw anything. Yet the P. W.3 and P.W.6 claimed that they heard the accused and also saw the transaction. Noticing these major discrepancies in the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses I feel that the conviction of the accused on the basis of such contradictory evidence should not be sustained. 26. In view of the above discussion, I find sufficient merit in these 2 appeals. Consequently the impugned judgment dated 19.3.2008 in Special Case No. 1/2006 is held to be unsustainable and the same is quashed and conviction is accordingly set aside. 27. As prayed for by Mr. Nath and Mr. Sunar, the money seized in the case may be dealt by the competent Court on application of the competent party. It is ordered accordingly. 28. The L.C.R. be returned. _____________