JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.:- Appellant has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence for commission of offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) as ordered by the trial Court vide judgment/ order dated 6.11.2003 in FIR No.56 dated 11.8.1997 registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Sukhjit Singh @ Kaka, son of complainant Gurnam Singh, was suspected in connection with theft case of rifle on 3.8.1997. Sukhjit Singh was again summoned on 4.8.1997 to join investigation but out of fear he did not appear before the police officials. On 9.8.1997, complainant along with Neeraj Chawla met the appellant in the police station and requested him not to harass his son Sukhjit Singh any more. Appellant demanded Rs.2,000/- from the complainant as illegal gratification. The deal was settled at Rs.1,000/-. Complainant then approached the Vigilance Bureau. Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP for short) Pinder Singh recorded the statement of the complainant and on the basis of the same, formal FIR was registered. Complainant handed over one currency note in the denomination of Rs.500/- and five currency notes in the denomination of 100/- each to the DSP, who, in turn, returned the same to the complainant after application of Phenol Phthalein Powder (P-Powder for short). Complainant was directed to hand over the tainted currency notes to the appellant on demand. Neeraj Chawla was instructed to act as a shadow witness and was directed to give a signal to the raiding party after the bribe money was accepted by the appellant on demand. Demonstration of the working of the P-Powder was shown to the witnesses. Thereafter, the raiding party left for the raid. Complainant and the shadow witness went inside the police station. Complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant on demand. Appellant kept the same in his shirt pocket. On receipt of signal from the shadow witness, DSP along with remaining raiding party reached the spot. When the fingers of the appellant were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, colour of the solution turned pink. The said solution was put in a nip and was made into a sealed parcel and was taken in police possession. On receipt of signal from the shadow witness, DSP along with remaining raiding party reached the spot. When the fingers of the appellant were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, colour of the solution turned pink. The said solution was put in a nip and was made into a sealed parcel and was taken in police possession. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the shirt pocket of the appellant and the numbers of the same were tallied with the numbers noted down in the memo and were taken in possession. When the shirt pocket of the appellant was dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, colour of the solution turned pink. The said solution was put in a nip and was made into a sealed parcel and was taken in police possession. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. Charge was framed against the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13 (2) of the Act. 4. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined twelve witnesses. 5. Appellant, when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after the close of prosecution evidence, pleaded as under:- “Gun of Amar Singh was stolen. He suspected Sukhjit Singh PW for the same. As such, I joined him in the investigation on 3.8.1997. During investigation, it transpired that Sukhjit Singh was falsely suspected by Amar Singh because of enmity. Being satisfied about his innocence I let him off on 3.8.1997. I had never called him thereafter. Amar Singh complained against me to the Inspector that I have let off the real accused. Sukhjit Singh, thereafter, summoned by the Inspector for verification of my investigation. The Inspector had also given him a clear chit on 5.8.1997. Gurnam Singh PW felt offended humiliated and annoyed with me as to why I had harassed his son and interrogated him on suspicion created by his enemies. Neeraj Chawla is a friend of Gurnam Singh PW. He has got me falsely implicated through his influence. In fact, Gurnam Singh approached me at about 9.00 A.M. in the police station on 11.8.1997 and tried to thrust some money in my pocket to which I resisted. Neeraj Chawla is a friend of Gurnam Singh PW. He has got me falsely implicated through his influence. In fact, Gurnam Singh approached me at about 9.00 A.M. in the police station on 11.8.1997 and tried to thrust some money in my pocket to which I resisted. In the meantime vigilance officials caught hold of me and removed me to the office of vigilance reaching there at about 10.00 A.M. I have been falsely challaned in the case. The simple fact that no bribe money was demanded by me and no such bribe money was settled or paid to me before I let off Sukhjit Singh PW giving him a clean chit is itself is more than enough to establish my bonafide. It inter alia proves my honest and upright conduct.” 6. Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the complainant had admitted in his cross-examination that appellant had let off his son on 3.8.1997 after being satisfied that he was innocent. PW-2 Amar Singh had admitted in his cross-examination that Sukhjit Singh had appeared before the Inspector on 5.8.1997 and was let off by him as he was found innocent during interrogation. Learned counsel has further submitted that since Sukhjit Singh had been found innocent by the appellant on 3.8.1997 and by the Inspector on 5.8.1997, there was no occasion for the appellant to have demanded or accepted bribe from the complainant on 9.8.1997. Appellant had been falsely involved in this case. In fact, PW-6 Neeraj Chawla, shadow witness, was a stock witness of the vigilance bureau. In his cross-examination, shadow witness had admitted that he was a complainant in two cases and shadow witness in 2-3 cases registered under the Act. He also admitted that three criminal cases were registered against him and he had been acquitted in the said cases. 8. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the appellant had been caught red handed, while accepting bribe. 9. In the present case, complainant, while appearing in the witness box as PW-3 and the shadow witness, while appearing in the witness box as PW-6, have deposed as per the prosecution case. However, the prosecution case is rendered doubtful from the cross-examination of the said witnesses. 9. In the present case, complainant, while appearing in the witness box as PW-3 and the shadow witness, while appearing in the witness box as PW-6, have deposed as per the prosecution case. However, the prosecution case is rendered doubtful from the cross-examination of the said witnesses. Complainant, in his cross-examination, admitted that his son had been let off on 3.8.1997 by the appellant after being satisfied qua his innocence. So far as PW- 2 Amar Singh is concerned, he is the uncle of Sukhjit Singh. The said witness, in his examination-in-chief, deposed that Sukhjit Singh had, although, been let off by the appellant on account of his innocence on 3.8.1997 but he had been again summoned by the inspector and had not appeared before him. However, in his crossexamination, he admitted that Sukhjit Singh had appeared before the Inspector on 5.8.1997 and had been let off by him as he was found innocent during investigation. In these circumstances, there was no occasion for the appellant to have demanded bribe from the complainant on 9.8.1997 as Sukhjit Singh, son of the complainant, had been found innocent by the appellant on 3.8.1997 and by the Inspector on 5.8.1997. So far as the shadow witness is concerned, he appears to be a stock witness of the prosecution as in his crossexamination, he deposed that he was complainant in two cases and shadow witness in 2-3 cases and three criminal cases were also registered against him under the Act. Hence, the plea taken by the appellant, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., gains significance. Appellant had not denied the raid but had submitted that the money was being thrust in his pocket on the day of raid. He had also stated that he had found son of the complainant innocent and let him go on 3.8.1997. The said fact is duly admitted by the complainant that the appellant had allowed his son to leave on 3.8.1997 as he was found innocent. In these circumstances, the possibility that the appellant might have been falsely involved in this case cannot be ruled out. 10. It is a settled proposition of law that an accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. Prosecution is required to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. However, in the present case, prosecution case is rendered doubtful in view of the cross-examinations of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-6. 10. It is a settled proposition of law that an accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. Prosecution is required to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. However, in the present case, prosecution case is rendered doubtful in view of the cross-examinations of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-6. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him by giving him benefit of doubt. Consequently, the judgment/ order of conviction and sentence dated 11.8.1997 passed by the trial Court are set aside. ---------0.B.S.0------------