JUDGEMENT KULDIP Singh, J.- 1. THE appellant having been convicted and sentenced by learned Special Judge, Chamba in Sessions Trial No. 05/2010 on 30.12.2011 has come in appeal against his conviction and sentence. 2. THE prosecution case, in brief, is that in the year 2009 the appellant was posted as Credit Planning Officer in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Chamba. PW-5 Subhash Chand used to supply material to government schools through his firm Shubh Kamal Traders. On 31.3.2009 PW-5 received supply orders from the Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Chamba for supplying sports material to government schools. The Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Chamba had constituted an inspection committee consisting of three members including the appellant as nominee of Deputy Commissioner, Chamba for inspection of material to be supplied. On 30.6.2009 the appellant called complainant to his office and asked him to pay an amount of Rs. 58,000/- commission and told him that in case said money was not paid to him, he would get the supply order rejected. At this, the complainant gave cheque Ex.PW-5/A amounting to Rs.58,000/- to appellant. The further case of the prosecution is that, after six days, the appellant changed his mind and instead of payment through cheque, he demanded on phone Rs.58,000/- from Subhash Chand in two instalments, Rs. 45,000/- in cash before inspection and Rs.13,000/- in cash after inspection. PW-5 lodged complaint Ex.PW-2/A to the police and thereupon FIR Ex.PW-2/B came to be registered. PW-5 handed over Rs.45,000/- in cash to the police for laying trap. PW-13 D.K.Chaudhary constituted a raiding party and told the procedure to be adopted by the raiding party for laying trap to nab the appellant on receiving the bribe money. PW-5 was told to hand over Rs.45,000/- currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder to appellant on demand. 3. IT has been alleged that PW-5 and others went to Circuit House, Chamba. PW-5 and PW-7 Sandesh Kumar went inside the room No.2 of Circuit House Annexe. At about 5.00 p.m. appellant came there to receive the bribe money. On demand, the currency notes worth Rs.45,000/- were handed over to appellant, the shadow witness PW-7 Sandesh Kumar gave signal to the police and immediately the police entered the room No.2 Circuit House Annexe. The appellant on seeing the police, took out currency notes from his pocket and threw them on the floor. 4. On demand, the currency notes worth Rs.45,000/- were handed over to appellant, the shadow witness PW-7 Sandesh Kumar gave signal to the police and immediately the police entered the room No.2 Circuit House Annexe. The appellant on seeing the police, took out currency notes from his pocket and threw them on the floor. 4. PW-6 Amar Singh, Tehsildar, Chamba was called and in his presence as well as in presence of other witnesses Narinder, PW-7 Sandesh Kumar and police officials, currency notes worth Rs.45,000/- thrown on the floor by the appellant were taken into possession vide. memo Ex.PW-5/C. The hands, pocket and handkerchief of the appellant were got washed in separate bowls with clean water. A solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in another bowl and said solution was added to the hand, pocket and handkerchief wash bowls, the colour of the bowls turned pink and taken into possession separately. Pw-13 on personal search of the appellant, recovered Ex.Pw-5/A cheque amounting to Rs.58,000/-. The site plan Ex.Pw-13/A was prepared. FSL report Ex.Pw-12/C was obtained. On completion of investigation and after obtaining the sanction Ex.Pw-9/A to prosecute the appellant, challan was submitted in the Court. The appellant was charged for offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) (D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'Act'). The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. The statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant in defence examined DW-1 Joginder Sharma. 5. ON conclusion of trial on 30.12.2011 the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and fine Rs.20,000/- for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. In default payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for two months. The appellant has also been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and fine Rs.30,000/- for offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. It has been ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently, hence appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. It has been ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently, hence appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Special Judge has misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence in convicting and sentencing the appellant. It has been submitted that there are material contradictions in the evidence which go to the root of the case which have not been appreciated by the Court below. The prosecution story is highly improbable. He has relied C.M.Girish Babu vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala (2009) 3 SCC 779 , Sanjiv Kumar vs. State of Punjab (2010) 3 SCC (Cri.) 330 and State of Kerala and another vs. C.P.Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450 . The learned Additional Advocate General has supported the impugned judgment. He has submitted that the prosecution has proved the case. He has relied Krishna Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (2009) 11 SCC 708 . He has submitted that there is no merit in the appeal. There is no dispute that the appellant on 7.7.2009 was working as C.P.O. in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Chamba. PW-5 Subhash Chand, complainant has stated that on 30.6.2009 he was called by the appellant to his office and was asked to pay Rs.58,000/- as Commission and said that in case the amount was not paid, the supply order would be rejected. Ex.PW-5/A cheque amounting to Rs.58,000/- was handed over to the appellant. After six days, the appellant told him telephonically that he should be paid the amount in cash. He went to Circuit House Annexe, Chamba, Room No.2, Sudesh Kumar was also accompanying him. Inside the room the appellant was present to whom the currency notes were handed over, who put the currency notes in front pocket of his shirt. Immediately, the police entered the room and on seeing the police, the appellant threw the currency notes on the floor. 7. PW-5 continued, the police personnel got hands of the appellant washed, pocket of the shirt, handkerchief of appellant were also got washed and water turned pink. During the search of the appellant, Ex.PW-5/A cheque which he (witness) had already issued was also recovered from the appellant. 7. PW-5 continued, the police personnel got hands of the appellant washed, pocket of the shirt, handkerchief of appellant were also got washed and water turned pink. During the search of the appellant, Ex.PW-5/A cheque which he (witness) had already issued was also recovered from the appellant. In cross-examination, he has stated that inspection of the sports items to be supplied was to be conducted by the Committee presided over by the Deputy Director of Education. One sports expert, one nominee of Deputy Commissioner, Chamba and dealing hand from the department concerned were the members of the said Committee. The appellant had telephonically called him. He denied that he tried to put the currency notes in the pocket of the appellant who threw them away asking him as to what he was doing. 8. PW-6 Amar Singh was posted as Tehsildar, Chamba on 7.7.2009. He has stated that the then Deputy Commissioner, Chamba on 7.7.2009 telephonically directed him to go to Circuit House Annexe, Chamba by about 6.30 p.m. On his reaching room No.2 of the Annexe Circuit House, Chamba, the appellant was in custody of the police. He was told that currency notes have been recovered from the appellant. The amount was told to be Rs.45,000/- and was kept on the side. The pocket of the shirt of the appellant was got washed, handkerchief and hands of the appellant were also got washed in a bowl. The water colour changed which was put in three bottles. He entered Annexe No.2 of Circuit House, one ASP, some police officials, Subhash and one witness from Dharog Mohalla were also present. He remained there till 8.00 p.m., during that period none-else had entered the said room. He was told cheque Ex.PW-5/A was taken out of the pocket of the appellant. Pw-7 Sandesh Kumar, shadow witness has stated that he and others alongwith police went to Circuit House. He accompanied by Subhash went inside room No.2 of Annexe. The appellant Balram came inside the room. He (witness) as per advice of the police went out to call some person with water. He on watching the appellant had received currency notes from Subhash from window gave signal to the police as told by the police. The police immediately over-powered the appellant, who threw the currency notes from his pocket. The appellant cleaned his hands with handkerchief. He (witness) as per advice of the police went out to call some person with water. He on watching the appellant had received currency notes from Subhash from window gave signal to the police as told by the police. The police immediately over-powered the appellant, who threw the currency notes from his pocket. The appellant cleaned his hands with handkerchief. The hands, pocket and handkerchief of the appellant were got washed and water turned pink. The washed water was put into three bottles Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3. In cross-examination, he was confronted with his statement Ex.DC where it is not recorded that when Balram came inside the room, he (witness) went out to bring water. When Tehsildar reached, the appellant had been caught hold by the police, the currency notes had been placed on the table. 9. PW-10 Rameshwar Singh, Senior Assistant office of the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Chamba has proved supply orders Ex.PW-10/A to Ex.PW-10/J. He has also stated that Subhash had indulged in bungling. PW-11 ASI Madan Lal has stated that he alongwith ASP D.K.Chaudhary came to Circuit House and room No.2 of the Annexe where the appellant Balram was also present and as soon as they entered into the room, the appellant took out the currency notes from the pocket of his shirt and threw the same on the floor. The Tehsildar, Chamba was also called and currency notes were taken into possession by ASP. Narinder Kumar, Amar Singh, Tehsildar and one other person were also present. In cross-examination, he has stated that phenolphthalein powder and carbonate powder were with the ASP. PW-12 Dy. S.P. Arvind Chaudhary has stated that he had sent a request letter to BSNL to supply the call details of the complainant and the appellant. 10. PW-13 D.K.Chaudhary, was Additional S.P.,Chamba on 7.7.2009. He has stated that he had received complaint Ex.PW-2/A and on his direction FIR Ex.PW-2/B was registered. At about 5.00 p.m. appellant Balram reached Circuit House, Chamba and proceeded to room No.2 of Rest House Annexe where the complainant and shadow witness were waiting for him. As soon as the appellant accepted the bribe money, the shadow witness signaled the completion of process, the police raiding party entered the room. The appellant on seeing the police party, took out the currency notes from his pocket and threw them on the floor. As soon as the appellant accepted the bribe money, the shadow witness signaled the completion of process, the police raiding party entered the room. The appellant on seeing the police party, took out the currency notes from his pocket and threw them on the floor. He was over-powered by the police but appellant was successful in wiping his hands with handkerchief. Tehsildar, Chamba Amar Singh was called to witness the process of washing hands, shirt pocket and handkerchief in the presence of Sandesh Kumar, H.C. Dev Raj, Narinder Kumar, Tehsildar Chamba, Amar Singh and Subhash Chand. Rs.45,000/- currency notes which were thrown on the floor by the appellant were recovered vide memo Ex.PW-5/C. Pw-13 in cross-examination has stated that he has not ascertained that the appellant was the sole incharge of the committee. The appellant was Credit Planning Officer. He could not say that the appellant was sole person, who could approve the items and place the supply order or cancel the same at his own. Narinder is resident of Mohalla Dharog, Chamba. He does not know that there was an entry in the Malkhana register for taking phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate from MHC. He could not say that without reservation nobody can enter in the Annexe of the Circuit House. He had not verified who was staying in room No.2. He had not associated Chowkidar of the Circuit House. The seal after use was handed over to Narinder Kumar. When Tehsildar entered the room, the currency notes were on the floor. 11. THE appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied the prosecution case. DW-1 Joginder Sharma, Chowkidar, Circuit House, Chamba on the basis of visitor book, Circuit House Annexe deposed that on 7.7.2009 Subhash Kumar, VPO, Ladrour, District Hamirpur had stayed in set No.3. He occupied the said room at 8.15 a.m. and left the Circuit House at 4.00 p.m. on that day. As per record, Chander Pal Sharma had stayed on 7.7.2009 in set No.2, which he occupied at about 5.30 a.m. on 7.7.2009. He left the Circuit House on 8.7.2009 at 6.30 a.m. In cross-examination, he has repeated that on 7.7.2009 set No.2 was in the name of Chander Pal Sharma. He has proved Ex.DW-1/A relevant extract of the register. 12. EX. He left the Circuit House on 8.7.2009 at 6.30 a.m. In cross-examination, he has repeated that on 7.7.2009 set No.2 was in the name of Chander Pal Sharma. He has proved Ex.DW-1/A relevant extract of the register. 12. EX. PW-2/A dated 6.7.2009 is the complaint of PW-5 Subhash Chand addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Chamba and on that basis FIR Ex.PW-2/B dated 7.7.2009 was registered. Ex.PW-5/A is the cheque dated 1.7.2009 amounting to Rs.58,000/- in the name of Balram Kumar issued by Subh Kamal Traders and signed by Subhash. Ex.PW-5/C is the recovery memo of Rs.45,000/- signed by Sandesh Kumar, Narinder Kumar as well as complainant and appellant. Ex.PW-5/D is the search memo. Ex.PW-5/E is the recovery memo of cheque amounting to Rs.58,000/-. This recovery memo is signed by Sandesh Kumar, Narinder Kumar, Subhash and HC Dev Raj. Ex.PW-6/A is the memo of hands, pocket and handkerchief wash of the appellant. Ex.PW-6/B and Ex.PW-6/C are the seal impressions 'A'. Ex.PW-9/A is the sanction order dated 5.4.2010. Ex.PW-10/A, Ex.PW-10/B, Ex.PW-10/C and Ex.PW-10/D are the supply orders dated 31.3.2009. Ex.PW-10/F is the letter dated 2.5.2009 of appellant who was posted as Credit Planning Officer, Chamba addressed to Deputy Director, Elementary Education; Deputy Director, Higher Education; Chief Medical Officer and Deputy Director, Horticulture, Chamba. Ex.PW-10/G is the office order dated 28.5.2009 issued by the Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Chamba constituting inspection committee for purchasing duel desks/sports articles etc. Ex.PW-10/H and Ex.PW-10/J are the minutes of meeting dated 26.3.2009 of purchase committee. Ex.PW-12/C is the FSL report. Ex.PW-13/B is the spot map. Ex.DW-1/A is the extract of visitors book. As per prosecution PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-11 and PW-13 are witnesses to the payment of bribe money Rs.45,000/- to appellant and its recovery. The close scrutiny of their statements would show that there are material contradictions, additions or omissions in their depositions made by them in the Court. PW-5 Subhash complainant has deposed that he went to Circuit House Annexe, Chamba, room No.2, Sudesh Kumar (Sandesh Kumar) was also with him. Inside the room, the appellant was present to whom currency notes were handed over, who put the currency notes in his front shirt pocket. The police entered the room immediately and on seeing the police, the appellant threw currency notes on the floor. Inside the room, the appellant was present to whom currency notes were handed over, who put the currency notes in his front shirt pocket. The police entered the room immediately and on seeing the police, the appellant threw currency notes on the floor. PW-5 has been contradicted on this point by PW-7 Sandesh Kumar, shadow witness who has stated that he accompanied by PW-5 Subhash went inside room No.2 of the Annexe, the police came inside the room, appellant was present inside the room when he and PW-5 went inside the room. 13. PW-7 has stated that as per advice of the police he went out to call some person with water and after seeing that the appellant had received the currency notes from complainant he signaled to police as instructed by the police. PW-5 has not stated that when shadow witness PW-7 Sandesh Kumar went alongwith him inside the room, thereafter PW-7 came out of the room. PW-5 has not deposed that appellant on seeing the police used his handkerchief to wipe out his hands, whereas PW-7 has stated that the police over-powered the appellant, who threw currency notes from his pocket. The appellant cleaned his hands with handkerchief. PW-11 ASI Madan Lal has contradicted shadow witness PW-7 Sandesh Kumar and has stated that when he alongwith ASP D.K.Chaudhary came to Circuit House Annexe room No.2, the appellant was also present and as soon as they entered into the room, the appellant took out the currency notes from the pocket of his shirt and threw them on the floor. He has not deposed that the appellant after throwing the currency notes wiped out his hands with handkerchief. 14. THE prosecution case is that hands, handkerchief, pocket wash of the shirt of the appellant were collected in Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 and on addition of sodium carbonate in those bowls their colour turned pink. PW-6 Amar Singh, Tehsildar deposed that shirt pocket of the appellant was got washed so also handkerchief and hands of the appellant in a bowl. The water colour changed which was put in three bottles. The only inference which emerges from the statement of PW-6 on this point is that the hands, handkerchief and shirt pocket wash of appellant were collected in a bowl, the water colour changed which was put in three. bottles. The water colour changed which was put in three bottles. The only inference which emerges from the statement of PW-6 on this point is that the hands, handkerchief and shirt pocket wash of appellant were collected in a bowl, the water colour changed which was put in three. bottles. This means that the hands, shirt pocket wash and handkerchief wash were not collected separately in three bowls rather the collection of wash was made in one bowl which was divided into three bottles. The Investigating Officer did not take into possession shirt which appellant was wearing at that time nor he took into possession handkerchief used by the appellant for wiping his hands after throwing the currency notes on the floor. The seal used by the investigating officer for sealing various articles has not been produced and proved in the Court. Ex.PW-5/C is the recovery memo of Rs.45,000/-. The recovery memo is witnessed by PW-7 Sandesh Kumar, Narinder Kumar, H.C. Dev Raj. This is also signed by PW-6 Amar Singh, Tehsildar in addition to complainant PW-5. In Ex.PW-5/C it has been stated that recovery was made in presence of witnesses mentioned in the recovery memo as well as in presence of Executive Magistrate-cum-Tehsildar, Chamba. PW-5 has stated that memo Ex.PW-5/C was prepared which bears the signatures of Narinder, Sudesh (Sandesh), Amar Singh, Tehsildar and the appellant. He has not specifically stated that the currency notes were taken into possession in presence of witnesses mentioned in memo Ex.PW-5/C. PW-7 Sandesh Kumar has not stated recovery of Rs.45,000/- nor he has stated anything about the recovery memo Ex.PW-5/C. The prosecution has not examined Narinder Kumar and Dev Raj. 15. THE prosecution case is that on seeing the police, the appellant threw currency notes from his pocket on the floor from where the currency notes were taken into possession in presence of witnesses including Amar Singh, Tehsildar. This part of the story of the prosecution. has not been supported by PW-6 Amar Singh, Tehsildar. He has deposed that on his reaching room No.2 of Circuit House Annexe, Chamba, the appellant was in custody of police, he was told that currency notes have been recovered from the appellant, the amount was told Rs.45,000/- and was kept on the side. has not been supported by PW-6 Amar Singh, Tehsildar. He has deposed that on his reaching room No.2 of Circuit House Annexe, Chamba, the appellant was in custody of police, he was told that currency notes have been recovered from the appellant, the amount was told Rs.45,000/- and was kept on the side. He has stated that when he entered Annexe room No.2, one ASP, some police officials, Subhash and one witness from Dharog Mohalla, who has been named by PW-13 D.K.Chaudhary as Narinder were also present. PW-6 has not deposed that PW-7 Sandesh Kumar was present at that time when he entered the room. It emerges from the statement of PW-6 that currency notes worth Rs.45,000/- were already collected and were kept on the side. Thus from the statement of PW-6 it can be safely concluded that collection of currency notes worth Rs.45,000/- and taking them into possession was not done in the manner as mentioned in memo Ex.PW-5/C. This creates suspicion in the prosecution story regarding recovery of Rs.45,000/-. 16. PW-13 D.K.Chaudhary headed the raiding party, according to him, at about 5.00 p.m. the appellant Balram reached Circuit House, Chamba and proceeded to room No.2 Rest House Annexe. It is not the prosecution case that thereafter some time was spent before money was handed over by PW-5 to appellant. In other words, the money was given to appellant at about 5.00 p.m. on 7.7.2009. PW-6 Amar Singh has deposed that on 7.7.2009 Deputy Commissioner, Chamba on telephone directed him to go to Circuit House Annexe, Chamba after about 6.30 p.m. It has not come in the statement of PW-6 that despite the direction of Deputy Commissioner, he reached room No.2 of the Annexe before 6.30 p.m. The only inference which can be drawn from the statement of PW-6 is that he reached room No.2 of Circuit House Annexe at about 6.30 p.m. This creates suspicion in the prosecution story that the raid was conducted at about 5.00 and during raid, currency notes worth Rs.45,000/- were recovered from the appellant. The suspicion in the prosecution story is further magnified by DW-1 and Ex.DW-1/A, the extract of visitors book register of the Circuit House Annexe. The prosecution case is that Rs.45,000/- currency notes were recovered from room No.2, Circuit House Annexe, Chamba during raid at about 5.00 p.m. on 7.7.2009. The suspicion in the prosecution story is further magnified by DW-1 and Ex.DW-1/A, the extract of visitors book register of the Circuit House Annexe. The prosecution case is that Rs.45,000/- currency notes were recovered from room No.2, Circuit House Annexe, Chamba during raid at about 5.00 p.m. on 7.7.2009. Ex.DW-1/A reveals that one Chander Pal Sharma occupied room No.2 of Circuit House Annexe, Chamba. DW-1 has stated that Chander Pal Sharma occupied room No.2 at about 5.30 a.m. on 7.7.2009. Ex.DW-1/A further reveals that room No.2 was vacated by Chander Pal Sharma on 7.7.2009 at about 6.30 p.m. It is not the prosecution case that entry showing Chander Pal Sharma occupying room No.2, Circuit House Annexe on 7.7.2009 is fictitious. Once room No.2, Circuit House Annexe was found occupied by Chander Pal Sharma, it has not been explained by prosecution how appellant got entry in the said room No.2. 17. IT is nobody's case that the appellant was occupying room No.2, Circuit House Annexe alongwith Chander Pal Sharma on 7.7.2009. The prosecution has not examined Chander Pal Sharma nor has explained how entry was available to appellant in room No.2 of the Circuit House Annexe when it was already occupied by Chander Pal Sharma at the relevant date and time and when Rs.45,000/- were allegedly handed over to appellant and recovered from said room. DW-1 and DW-1/A extract of visitors book register completely de-rails the prosecution case. Once room No.2 Circuit House Annexe was found occupied by Chander Pal Sharma at the relevant date and time, how and under what circumstance the appellant got entry in the said room No.2 remains a mystery. 18. IN Sanjiv Kumar vs. State of Punjab (supra) the Supreme Court has held that principle that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, cannot lose sight, the defence of the accused has to be tested on the touchstone of probability. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution in all criminal trials, though the onus may shift to the accused in given circumstances, and if so provided by law. The evidence has to be appreciated to find out whether the defence set up by the accused is probable and true. The learned Special Judge has wrongly put the burden on the appellant to prove probable defence which emerges from the prosecution case itself. The evidence has to be appreciated to find out whether the defence set up by the accused is probable and true. The learned Special Judge has wrongly put the burden on the appellant to prove probable defence which emerges from the prosecution case itself. In Krishna Ram (supra) relied by State, the amount was admittedly received by appellant. According to him the money was handed over to him by complainant as loan. On these facts Supreme Court held that burden under Section 20 shifts on appellant, which he failed to discharge. The facts in the present case are entirely different. The appellant has not admitted that money was paid to him. In these circumstances, prosecution cannot take protection under Section 20 of the Act, the Section 20 will apply only after the proof that tainted money was paid and recovered from the appellant. The evidence led by the prosecution on the handing over of Rs.45,000/- to appellant and their recovery does not inspire confidence. On the basis of evidence, it is not possible to hold that the appellant demanded Rs.45,000/- from PW-5 which were paid by PW-5 to appellant and thereafter Rs.45,000/- were recovered from the appellant. The prosecution even otherwise merely on the basis of recovery of Rs.45,000/- cannot forward its case for recording a finding guilt of the appellant. In C.M.Girish Babu (supra), it has been held that mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. The mere recovery of itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. In State of Kerala vs. C.P.Rao (supra), the Supreme Court has reiterated the principle laid in C.M.Girish Babu (supra). 19. IN G.V.Nanjundiah vs. State (Delhi Administration) 1987 (Supp) SCC 266, the trial Court convicted the accused under Section 161 IPC and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 which was affirmed by the High Court. The prosecution story in that case was that the amount was recovered by the police from the pocket of the bush shirt of the appellant. The prosecution story in that case was that the amount was recovered by the police from the pocket of the bush shirt of the appellant. The fingers of the appellant and the pocket of the bush shirt when dipped into the sodium carbonate solutions, the same turned pink. The explanation of the appellant was that DSP touched his fingers with his fingers and dipped them along with his own fingers in the solutions. The pocket of the bush shirt was dipped by him alongwith his own fingers in the solution. The Supreme Court has held that it casts a great doubt on the prosecution story of handing over of the bribe money to the appellant by the contractor and the recovery of the same from his pocket by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The defence has put to PW-5 that he (PW-5) had tried to put the currency notes in the pocket of the appellant, who threw them away asking the complainant as to what he was doing. This does not mean that the appellant demanded Rs.45,000/- from the complainant. In these circumstances, it was obvious that hands wash etc. of the appellant would turn pink, but that does not mean that appellant accepted the bribe from the complainant. 20. THE Ex.PW-10/A, Ex.PW-10/B, Ex.PW-10/C and Ex.PW-10/D are supply orders all dated 31.3.2009 addressed to M/s Shubh Kamal, firm of the complainant for supplying material worth Rs.65,317.20, Rs.2,07,361.44, Rs.32,727.50 and Rs.45,598.80 respectively total amounting to Rs.3,51,004.94. Ex.PW-10/G is the office order dated 28.5.2009 issued by the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Chamba appointing inspection committee for the purpose of purchase of duel desks/sports articles. The committee consisted of C.P.O. office of Deputy Commissioner, Chamba, Dy. DEO, Chamba, M.T.I-Wood Crafts GSSS (B), Chamba (for duel desk) and ADPEO (sports). The office order does not indicate that the appellant being C.P.O. was to head the inspection committee. PW-5 has stated that the committee was to be presided over by Deputy Director Education. It is not understandable when committee was to be presided over by Deputy Director, Education, then how the appellant in his capacity as a member of the committee could influence the other members for preparing report after inspection. In any case in normal course in the event of difference of opinion the majority opinion was to prevail. It is not understandable when committee was to be presided over by Deputy Director, Education, then how the appellant in his capacity as a member of the committee could influence the other members for preparing report after inspection. In any case in normal course in the event of difference of opinion the majority opinion was to prevail. In the teeth of these facts, it is highly improbable that appellant would demand Rs.58,000/- as bribe money from the complainant to give favourable report for clearing the material to be supplied by the complainant. The supply orders collectively were of worth Rs.3,51,004.94. In view of worth of supply orders, demand of bribe money Rs.58,000/- creates suspicion. It is also intriguing that earlier on 30.6.2009 during meeting between appellant and complainant, a bearer cheque of Rs.58,000/- dated 1.7.2009 Ex.PW-5/A in the name of appellant was handed over by the complainant to the appellant as bribe money but after six days the appellant refused to encash the cheque and demanded bribe money Rs.58,000/- in cash in two instalments of Rs.45,000/- before inspection and Rs.13,000/- after inspection. The attempt to pay bribe money through cheque is highly suspicious inasmuch as normally no officer would accept bribe money through cheque. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe money worth Rs.45,000/- from appellant. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In view of above discussion, the learned Special Judge has misconstrued, mis-interpreted the evidence in convicting and sentencing the appellant. The view taken by the learned Special Judge is perverse, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is not sustainable. 21. THE result of above discussion is that the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence recorded by learned Special Judge, Chamba of the appellant is set-aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge and his bail bonds are discharged.