JUDGMENT The appellant challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Nagpur in Special No. 4/2008 convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The appellant was working as Recovery Officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur. The complainant Shri Sanjeev Omprakash Agrawal had purchased one Flat in Apartment No. B, Ward No. 74, constructed on Nagpur Improvement Trust Plot No. 76, Abhyankar Nagar, Nagpur in a public auction held by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur on 11th June, 2007. The auction money of Rs. 10,01,000/- was deposited by the complainant in the Debt Recovery Tribunal within the prescribed limit. The confirmation of sale was also given. Thereafter the complainant was frequently visiting the office of Debt Recovery Tribunal to get possession of the said flat. Since the appellant was working as Recovery Officer in the office of Debt Recovery Tribunal and it was within his jurisdiction to take care of grievance of the complainant in respect of possession of the flat purchased by him. Mrs. Kusum W. Muktewar, who appears to be a defaulter and was in possession of the said flat, continued to possess the said flat and did not vacate the same. It is alleged that the appellant demanded Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant to take effective steps for getting the said flat vacated. The complainant did not want to pay the bribe amount and therefore, he had approached the Office of Central Bureau of Investigation, Nagpur. The complaint of the complainant was recorded. As per usual practice, the complaint was verified by making telephone call to the appellant. The telephonic conversation was recorded on the micro cassette. The said conversion was thereafter copied to a regular cassette. 3. The demand was made on 9th October, 2007. It is the case of prosecution that the appellant had called the complainant at his residence on 9th October, 2007. The complainant had accordingly visited the house of the appellant. The appellant was not present at his house. The complainant, therefore, gave his mobile number to the Security Guard of the building. It is alleged that the complainant received a phone call from the appellant demanding Rs. 25,000/- for taking necessary steps to recover possession from the defaulter Mrs. Kusum Muktewar. The appellant was not present at his house. The complainant, therefore, gave his mobile number to the Security Guard of the building. It is alleged that the complainant received a phone call from the appellant demanding Rs. 25,000/- for taking necessary steps to recover possession from the defaulter Mrs. Kusum Muktewar. The complaint was lodged on next day i.e. 10th October, 2007. As stated earlier, the verification of the complaint was done and trap was arranged. As per usual practice, money was provided by the complainant by way of Indian Currency Notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/-. The said money was smeared with phenolphthalein powder and it was given to the complainant for being handed over to the appellant. The necessary panchanamas in respect of the application of phenolphthalein powder to the notes were drawn and all arrangements were made to trap the appellant at his residence. The appellant was residing at Flat No. 803, 8th Floor, Kalpana Building, Central Bazaar Road, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. 4. The complainant was directed to visit the house of the appellant along with panch witness Mr. Pramod Pekade and was directed to give a missed call to the C.B.I. Officer Shri Rishi as soon as the money was accepted by the appellant. 5. Accordingly, the complainant and panch witness Shri Pramod Pekade visited the house of the appellant. The appellant had accepted Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant by way of part payment and said amount was kept by the appellant in the newspaper lying in the bedroom. A missed call was given by the complainant to the C.B.I. Officer, C.B.I. Officers along with second panch witness Shri Gogate reached 8th Floor and rang call bell of flat No. 803. The door was opened by the panch witness Shri Pramod Pekade. The C.B.I. Officers and another panch witness entered the flat. The complainant disclosed the C.B.I. Officers that he had handed over money to the appellant and money had been kept inside the room. The C.B.I. Officers caught hold of both the wrists of the appellant and dipped both his wrists in Sodium Carbonate solution. A solution in both the containers turned pink indicating thereby that phenolphthalein powder was touched. Thereafter C.B.I. Officers and panch witnesses visited the inner room where the money was allegedly kept by the appellant. Money was collected from the newspaper and it was seized. A solution in both the containers turned pink indicating thereby that phenolphthalein powder was touched. Thereafter C.B.I. Officers and panch witnesses visited the inner room where the money was allegedly kept by the appellant. Money was collected from the newspaper and it was seized. The serial numbers of currency notes recorded in the pretrap panchanama tallied with the notes found in the room and accordingly post trap panchanama was drawn. The appellant was arrested and taken to C.B.I. Office. 6. During the course of further investigation, voice sample of the complainant and the appellant was taken and it was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for opinion of Spectrographer. The positive opinion was given by the Spectrographer. After completion of investigation, sanction was granted by the General Manager of Central Bank of India for prosecuting the appellant. It may be noted here that the appellant was originally employee of the Central Bank of India and he was on deputation to Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur. After getting sanction from the competent authority, chargesheet was filed against the appellant before the learned Special Judge. 7. The learned Special Judge framed charge for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the appellant. The appellant had pleaded not guilty to the charge and had claimed to be tried. The case of the appellant was that he had been implicated falsely in this case and he had not accepted money from the complainant Sanjeev Agrawal. It was his case that money was planted in his room by the complainant. 8. During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined in all six witnesses. P.W.1-Sanjeev Agrawal was the complainant. P.W.2-Pramod Pekade was the panch witness. P.W.3-Girish Chitnis was the sanctioning authority. P.W.4-Chhatarsingh Khanna was the Zonal Officer, Central Bank of India, Nagpur. P.W.5-Hemlata Gajbhiye was working as Registrar of Debt Recovery Tribunal. P.W.6-Rajeev Rishi was working as C.B.I. Inspector and he is the Investigating Officer in this case. 9. At the outset, it may be mentioned here that the recording of conversation between the complainant and the appellant could not be proved in the trial Court because the micro and macro cassettes on which the recording was done were corrupted by the time trial had begun. In view of this, the prosecution had chosen not to examine the expert. 10. In view of this, the prosecution had chosen not to examine the expert. 10. As far as main incident is concerned, the case of prosecution is mainly based on the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6. P.W.1-Sanjeev Agrawal has stated in his evidence that he had purchased the flat in question in public auction and that he had deposited purchase money in the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is further stated that Mrs. Kusum Muktewar was in possession of the flat and she was not vacating the flat. P.W.1 had visited the office of Debt Recovery Tribunal on 9th October, 2007. He was asked by the appellant to meet him in the evening at his house. Accordingly P.W.1 had visited house of the appellant. The appellant was not available at his house and therefore, mobile number was given to the Security Guard of the building. The appellant had contacted P.W.1 on telephone and had demanded Rs. 25,000/-. It is stated by this witness that he had told the appellant that he will pay Rs. 5,000/- next day on 10th October, 2007 and that rest of the amount would be paid later on. Since P.W.1 was not willing to give bribe amount, he approached C.B.I. Office on 10th October, 2007. His report was recorded and verified as usual. 11. P.W.1 has further stated in his evidence that on the date of incident he had told the appellant on phone that as per the discussion on 9th October, 2007, P.W.1 would be paying Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant at his residence and that he would be reaching the house of the appellant within fifteen minutes. Thereafter P.W.1 had produced hundred currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/- which were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and they were kept in right side pocket of full pant of P.W.1 by the C.B.I. Official Shri Bore. P.W.1 was directed not to touch the currency notes unless the bribe amount was demanded by the appellant. Thereafter the tape recorder installed with micro cassette was concealed in shirt of P.W.1 and P.W.1 was directed to visit house of the appellant along with P.W.2. It is noted that P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that though P.W.2 was supposed to accompany, he had, in fact, not accompanied P.W.1. 12. P.W.1 has further stated in his evidence that he had visited house of the appellant alone on 8th Floor. It is noted that P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that though P.W.2 was supposed to accompany, he had, in fact, not accompanied P.W.1. 12. P.W.1 has further stated in his evidence that he had visited house of the appellant alone on 8th Floor. The appellant was sitting in drawing room and watching television. P.W.1 was directed to wait for ten minutes. After about ten minutes, P.W.1 had told the appellant that he had brought money as per the discussion dated 9th October, 2007. It is further stated by P.W.1 that the appellant refused to accept the money. P.W.1 assured the appellant that remaining amount of Rs. 20,000/- would be paid after two to three days. The appellant accepted the amount of Rs. 5,000/- and held the same in his left hand and went to inner room. P.W.1 had demanded drinking water from the appellant. When the appellant went to bring water for P.W.1, P.W.1 had given a missed call to P.W.6. P.W.6 along with both the panchas and C.B.I. Officers reached the house of the appellant. Both the wrists of the appellant were dipped in Sodium Carbonate solution. Both the containers containing Sodium Carbonate solution turned pink. The solution was collected from both the containers and was sealed in two separate bottles. After that, both the panchas and P.W.6 visited inner room and brought the amount wrapped in the newspaper. The currency notes were examined and the serial numbers of the currency notes tallied with the numbers mentioned in the pretrap panchanama. Fingers of left and right hands of P.W.1 were also tested in Sodium Carbonate solution. The Sodium Carbonate solution in which right hand fingers were dipped turned pink and other portion of solution in which left hand fingers were dipped did not turn pink. Panchanama in that regard was drawn. 13. At this stage, it may be noted here that the learned Public Prosecutor in the trial Court felt that P.W.1 was not supporting the prosecution case and therefore, he sought permission from the trial Court to cross-examine P.W.1. P.W.1 was accordingly cross-examined. It appears that it was basically cross-examined to find out whether P.W.2 had accompanied P.W.1 or not. P.W.1 in his cross-examination had denied that P.W.2 had accompanied him to the flat of the appellant. P.W.2-Pramod Pekade has more or less repeated the same story. 14. P.W.1 was accordingly cross-examined. It appears that it was basically cross-examined to find out whether P.W.2 had accompanied P.W.1 or not. P.W.1 in his cross-examination had denied that P.W.2 had accompanied him to the flat of the appellant. P.W.2-Pramod Pekade has more or less repeated the same story. 14. P.W.2 has stated that initially the appellant refused to accept the amount. However, P.W.1 assured that rest of the amount of Rs. 20,000/- would be paid and that he requested the appellant to keep the amount of Rs. 5,000/- for the time being. The appellant had accepted the amount by his left hand and had counted the money. The appellant thereafter had gone to the inner room and came to the drawing room after sometime. P.W.2 has corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 that P.W.1 had demanded drinking water from the appellant and that when the appellant had gone to bring water for P.W.1, P.W.1 had given a missed call from his mobile phone. After sometime doorbell rang. The appellant asked P.W.1 and P.W.2 to go to the inner room and he himself had gone to open the door. This witness has also narrated as to how the wrists of the appellant were caught and dipped into Sodium Carbonate solution and that solution turned pink. This witness has further stated that the appellant had taken the panch witnesses and the C.B.I. Officers to the inner room and that he himself had informed the C.B.I. Officers as to where the money was lying. Money was lying in the newspaper. The money found in the newspaper was seized by the C.B.I. Officers under the panchanama. It was in the denomination of Rs. 50/- currency notes. Total notes were hundred. 15. P.W.6 CBI Officer has also more or less corroborated the evidence of P.W.2. He has stated that as per usual practice, the complainant was directed to visit house of the appellant and was directed to give missed call on acceptance of money by the appellant. He had reached house of the appellant as soon as received missed call from P.W.1. Both the wrists of the appellant were caught hold of by the C.B.I. Officials and were dipped in Sodium Carbonate solution. The solution turned pink. The money lying in the newspaper was shown by the appellant. The said amount of Rs. 5,000/- was seized under the panchanama. 16. Both the wrists of the appellant were caught hold of by the C.B.I. Officials and were dipped in Sodium Carbonate solution. The solution turned pink. The money lying in the newspaper was shown by the appellant. The said amount of Rs. 5,000/- was seized under the panchanama. 16. As stated by me earlier, the whole case of the prosecution depends on the evidence of these three witnesses. Learned Counsel Shri J.M. Gandhi has submitted that the factum of demand has not been proved by the prosecution by cogent and reliable evidence. It is submitted that the evidence, in fact, shows that the appellant had never demanded money from P.W.1 and that P.W.1 wanted to foist money on the appellant. The first ever demand was allegedly made by the appellant on telephone on 9th October, 2007 when a phone call was received by P.W.1 from the appellant. There is no record of the said phone call except oral testimony of P.W.1. The incident was of 2007 and it was not difficult for the Investigating Officer to collect call data record in respect of the alleged phone call made by the appellant to P.W.1. Learned Counsel Shri J.M. Gandhi has also drawn my attention to the evidence of P.W.1 where P.W.1 has categorically admitted that the appellant refused to accept money when the money was offered to the appellant at his residence. The appellant had refused to accept money by gesture. My attention was also invited to the admissions made by P.W.1 in his cross-examination. P.W.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that there was no demand on the part of the appellant on 10th October, 2007. It is submitted by learned Counsel Shri J.M. Gandhi that as far as demand dated 9th October, 2007 is concerned, the only piece of evidence on which the prosecution relies is the oral evidence of P.W.1 that he had received a phone call from the appellant that he wanted Rs. 25,000/- for taking necessary steps for getting vacant possession of the flat in question. 17. Learned Counsel Shri J.M. Gandhi has also brought to my notice that there was a departmental enquiry against the appellant and P.W.1 was the star witness in the said departmental enquiry. P.W.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he had stated before the Enquiry Officer that the appellant got annoyed when P.W.1 offered him Rs. 5,000/-. 17. Learned Counsel Shri J.M. Gandhi has also brought to my notice that there was a departmental enquiry against the appellant and P.W.1 was the star witness in the said departmental enquiry. P.W.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he had stated before the Enquiry Officer that the appellant got annoyed when P.W.1 offered him Rs. 5,000/-. The appellant also got annoyed when P.W.1 told him that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- would be paid later on. The appellant had admittedly scolded P.W.1 and asked him to get out of his house. P.W.1 admitted that the statement made before the Enquiry Officer was correct. Learned Counsel Shri J.M. Gandhi has brought to my notice that true certified copies of the statement made by P.W.1 before the Enquiry Officer had been produced before the trial Court and that in the statement before the Enquiry Officer, P.W.1 had given evidence contrary to what is stated before the trial Court. In this regard, it may be noted here that the previous statement made by P.W.1 before the Enquiry Officer was not brought to the notice of P.W.1 during the course of cross-examination. It is very well settled that if the appellant wanted to contradict P.W.1 with his previous statement, it was incumbent on his part to bring the contents of that statement to the notice of P.W.1. Production of certified copy by itself would not serve the purpose of defence. 18. In any event, what can be seen from the above discussion is that the factum of demand is not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. At one place the appellant had refused to accept the money and at other place P.W.1 has admitted that the appellant had scolded P.W.1 and he was directed to get out of appellant's house. Therefore, argument of learned Counsel Shri J.M. Gandhi that the appellant did not want to accept the bribe money cannot be rejected. The evidence in respect of demand, in my opinion, is not cogent and reliable. The prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that a demand of Rs. 25,000/- was made by the appellant and that P.W.1 had gone to his house to pay Rs. 5,000/- as a part of the amount of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the appellant by P.W.1 in consideration of favour in the nature of getting vacant possession of the flat in question. 19. 25,000/- was made by the appellant and that P.W.1 had gone to his house to pay Rs. 5,000/- as a part of the amount of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the appellant by P.W.1 in consideration of favour in the nature of getting vacant possession of the flat in question. 19. Now let me examine the evidence in respect of the incident which had occurred at the house of the appellant on 10th October, 2007 when the appellant had allegedly accepted Rs. 5,000/- from P.W.1. Admittedly there were two panch witnesses and more than three C.B.I. Officials when the trap was laid. The prosecution has examined P.W.1 the complainant, P.W.2 the panch witness and P.W.6 the Investigating Officer. The panch witness Shri Gogate has not been examined. P.W.1 has denied specifically on more than one occasions in his examination-in-chief and cross-examination that P.W.2-Pramod Pekade had accompanied him to the house of the appellant when P.W.1 had visited the house of the appellant. In the circumstances, it was incumbent on the part of prosecution to examine the second panch witness to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court as to the reliability of evidence of P.W.2. There is no explanation as to why the second independent panch witness has not been examined. It is noted that P.W.1 was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor because the learned Public Prosecutor felt that P.W.1 was not supporting the prosecution case. The learned Public Prosecutor sought permission of the Court to cross-examine P.W.1. In view of the fact that P.W.1 was cross-examined as he resiled from his earlier statement, it was necessary for the prosecution to examine the second independent panch witness to lend support to the evidence of P.W.2. The prosecution was under obligation to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 20. Learned Special Public Prosecutor Shri S.B. Ahirkar has submitted that the part of evidence of P.W.1 could be accepted and if that part of evidence is read along with evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.6, the prosecution case is established beyond all reasonable doubts. No doubt that there is no rule of law that a particular fact is to be proved by particular number of witnesses. It is stated on numerous occasions by the Supreme Court that what is important is quality of evidence and not quantity. No doubt that there is no rule of law that a particular fact is to be proved by particular number of witnesses. It is stated on numerous occasions by the Supreme Court that what is important is quality of evidence and not quantity. But at the same time it cannot be ignored that the evidence in whatever nature produced before the Court must inspire confidence of the Court. But, in my opinion, the evidence of P.W.1 is partially reliable and partially unreliable. What is noted is that P.W.1 has not supported the prosecution case on vital aspects of the case. The case required support of second panch witness or some other C.B.I. Official, who was present at the time of raid, particularly because the P.W.1 was declared hostile and secondly because the micro and macro cassettes on which recording in respect of demand was recorded got corrupted. The argument of learned Special Public Prosecutor Shri S.B. Ahirkar that recording on cassettes was not substantive piece of evidence and that it was only corroborative in nature is acceptable. However, at the same time, it cannot be ignored that if the recording on the cassettes, to the knowledge of C.B.I., was not possible to be proved because it was spoiled, the learned Public Prosecutor in trial Court was under obligation to adduce other evidence to reenforce its case and make it reliable beyond all reasonable doubts. 21. The peculiarity of this case is that the money was not found in the hands of the appellant. The money was found in the newspaper lying in the inner room. It was the case of prosecution that money was accepted by the appellant and it was kept in the newspaper. It was the case of prosecution that when the wrists of the appellant were dipped in Sodium Carbonate solution, the solution turned pink. The learned Special Public Prosecutor Shri S.B. Ahirkar has submitted that this clearly indicates that the appellant had accepted Rs. 5,000/- from P.W.1 and had kept in the newspaper. Sodium Carbonate was sprinkled on the newspaper and there were pink stains on the newspaper. Learned Special Public Prosecutor Shri S.B. Ahirkar has also submitted that the prosecution has led sufficient evidence to establish that the amount was accepted by the appellant and it was kept in the newspaper. 22. 5,000/- from P.W.1 and had kept in the newspaper. Sodium Carbonate was sprinkled on the newspaper and there were pink stains on the newspaper. Learned Special Public Prosecutor Shri S.B. Ahirkar has also submitted that the prosecution has led sufficient evidence to establish that the amount was accepted by the appellant and it was kept in the newspaper. 22. The appellant in his written statement has submitted that he was overawed by the presence of C.B.I. Officers suddenly at his house and he took out the money from newspaper as he was directed by the C.B.I. Officers to do so. 23. Learned Counsel Shri J.M. Gandhi has submitted that the possibility of planting of money in the newspaper by P.W.1 cannot be ruled out. My attention was drawn to the evidence of P.W.1 that the appellant had gone inside his house to bring water for P.W.1. Learned Counsel Shri J.M. Gandhi has submitted that it was at this point of time that P.W.1 got opportunity to plant money in the newspaper. The appellant has explained that he had collected money from the newspaper as directed by the C.B.I. Officers and it is how both the hands of the appellant got stained with phenolphthalein powder and the Sodium Carbonate solution turned pink when his wrists were dipped in the Sodium Carbonate solution. 24. After having examined the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 carefully, what appears to me is that the appellant has been able to create a doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case. The explanation given by the appellant is possible. It is well settled that the accused is not under obligation to prove his defence beyond all reasonable doubts. What the appellant was to do, to falsify the prosecution case or to create doubt about the correctness of the prosecution case, was to probablise his own case. Non-examination of important witnesses coupled with certain admissions given by P.W.1 create a reasonable doubt about the correctness of the prosecution case. The doubt is created about the genuineness of the prosecution case additionally by the fact that the prosecution failed to bring additional evidence though it was available, to establish that P.W.2 had accompanied P.W.1 and he had witnessed the alleged incident of handing over money by P.W.1 to the appellant. 25. Briefly stated, the appellant had been able to demonstrate that the case of the prosecution was doubtful. 25. Briefly stated, the appellant had been able to demonstrate that the case of the prosecution was doubtful. Therefore, benefit of doubt should have been given to the appellant by the trial Court. Hence, I pass the following order. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case No. 4/2008 on 16-1-2013 convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is set aside. The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand cancelled. Fine, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to the appellant. Appeal allowed.