JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13-4-1999 passed in Special Case No.1/1995 by the learned Special Judge, Washim, by which appellant/accused came to be convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years on both these counts and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Briefly, prosecution case can be stated as under :- 2. On 26-12-1993 accused was posted as Police Constable, B.No. 1766 to Police Station Karanja and on that day had demanded bribe from complainant Khannubhai, resident of Mangrulpir for not issuing challan in respect to vehicle Metador bearing registration No.MH-30/A-9280 as the same was found carrying passengers illegally. Said fact of vehicle being detained by accused was informed to complainant by his servant, upon which, on contacting accused, he enquired about detention of his vehicle and as to why same was challaned, when accused demanded Rs.1,000/- for releasing the vehicle and to drop the prosecution which amount was negotiated to Rs.600/-, out of which Rs.200/- was paid to accused on the same day and it was agreed to pay balance amount of Rs.400/- on 28-12-1993 in Chawre Market Area, Karanja. 3. Complainant since was not intending to make payment of said amount, attended office of Ante Corruption Bureau, Akola on 27-12-1993 and lodged his report. Complainant was directed to attend the office on the following day. Accordingly, he remained present, when he was introduced to two panch witnesses and panch witnesses were introduced to him. They were given demonstration of effect of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate solution by which they realised that when said powder comes into contact with sodium carbonate solution, solution turns into violate colour. Complainant thereafter produced bribe amount of Rs.400/- consisting three notes of Rs.100/- each in denomination and two notes of Rs.50/- each in denomination. Serial numbers of these notes were noted in the pre-trap panchanama. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared upon these notes from both of its sides and those were kept in shirt pocket of complainant with instructions to complainant to not to touch the same and to make payment only on demand by accused. He was further instructed to give signal by scratching his head on paying the bribe money. 4. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared upon these notes from both of its sides and those were kept in shirt pocket of complainant with instructions to complainant to not to touch the same and to make payment only on demand by accused. He was further instructed to give signal by scratching his head on paying the bribe money. 4. One of the panchas was instructed to accompany the complainant and co-panch was instructed to remain with the raiding team. Accordingly, trap came to be laid at Chawre Market, Karanja on the same day on 28-12-1993. 5. It is the case of prosecution that complainant Khannubhai along with P.W.3 Vishnu Bhad, the first panch visited the spot in the market where accused arrived on his motorcycle and demanded bribe money, which was paid to accused and on receiving the proposed signal members of raiding team had arrived on the spot and apprehended accused and recovered bribe money from shirt pocket of accused. On testing fingers of both hands of accused as well as of complainant independently in the freshly prepared solution of sodium carbonate, it turned violate. On sprinkling solution on the recovered notes violate colour dots appeared on the notes. The currency notes were accordingly seized along with shirts of accused and complainant respectively. Post-trap panchanama of above facts was drawn. P.W.8 Keshaorao Idoley, Deputy Superintendent of Police (ACB), Akola, the Investigating Officer lodged report on the basis of which offence came to be registered. During the course of investigation, necessary correspondence was made with the Commissioner of Police through the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ante Corruption Bureau for grant of sanction to prosecute the accused and on receipt of same charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned Special Judge. 6. Charge is framed vide Exhibit 14 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which he denied and claimed to be tried. It is the specific case of accused that he had no occasion to challan the vehicle nor demanded bribe, in fact accused had no power to challan the vehicle and that the family members of complainant were earlier prosecuted in several criminal cases instituted by accused for which complainant had grudge against him and in order to settle this score complainant has lodged false report. It is also the case of accused that in fact complainant owed Rs.400/- to P.W.4 Mohd. Rafiq and in fact said amount was virtually foisted in the shirt pocket of accused and he came to be falsely implicated by complainant. 7. Learned Special Judge considering the evidence on record and all material documents convicted accused as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 8. Heard Shri A.S. Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel for the accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. Rashi Deshpande for the State. To effectively evaluate the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the sides, I with their assistance has scrutinised the evidence on record. 9. P.W.1 Kishore Kadam has stated that five to six months prior to the incident he had entered into an agreement with complainant Khannubhai to jointly run transport business and accordingly complainant was looking after the entire transaction of Metador involved in this case bearing registration No.MH-30/A-9280. 10. According to P.W.2 Khannubhai Khetiwale, complainant, he along with P.W.1 Kishore were running the transport business while the vehicle numbered above was registered in the name of Kishore Kadam. Said business was run on the basis of agreement on that count. 11. On the point of incident complainant has stated that it was a weekly bazaar at Karanja and the Metador was sent by him which was driven by one Prakash Bhoyar and was conducted by Babbu Hiriwale, while one Satish Sharma had accompanied them to Karanja. The vehicle started from Mangrulpir at around 6-30 a.m. loaded with goods and reached Karanja at 9-00 a.m. Satish Sharma informed that the vehicle was challaned by police alleging that it was used for carrying passengers and thus he arrived in the market. On his arrival, driver informed that the documents in respect of vehicle were taken away by police constable from Karanja. At that moment, accused arrived on the spot with whom complainant enquired and informed that he was owner of the vehicle, upon which accused told him that vehicle was challaned by him for above reason. On his arrival, driver informed that the documents in respect of vehicle were taken away by police constable from Karanja. At that moment, accused arrived on the spot with whom complainant enquired and informed that he was owner of the vehicle, upon which accused told him that vehicle was challaned by him for above reason. Upon which complainant informed accused that same was not used for carrying passengers and thus requested not to challan the same and informed the accused that he will inform this fact to the Senior Police Officer, when accused threatened him that he will have to pay double the amount if he reports the matter to Senior Police Officer and informed the complainant that he should pay Rs.1,000/- and then he will tear the challan. Said amount was however negotiated to Rs.600/- out of which Rs.200/- was paid by complainant while balance amount of Rs.400/- was agreed to be accepted by accused on Tuesday i.e. on 28-12-1993 at Chawre Market, thereafter accused returned back the documents of the vehicle and informed that challan will be torn off on paying Rs.400/-on 28-12-1993. 12. Complainant further stated that in the background of above incident, he visited office of Ante Corruption Bureau on 27-12-1993 and lodged his report Exhibit 30 as he was not interested to pay the bribe. After lodging his report, he was instructed by Officer of Ante Corruption Bureau to attend the office on the following day. Complainant thereafter has stated about his visiting the office of Ante Corruption Bureau and about P.W.8 Keshaorao Idoley, Investigating Officer introducing him to P.W.3 Vishnu Bhad, the panch as well as co-panch. He further stated about the demonstration of chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate solution from which he learnt that when the phenolphthalein powder comes into contact of sodium carbonate solution, solution turns into purple colour. He further deposed that upon his producing bribe amount of Rs.400/- consisting three notes of Rs.100/- each in denomination and two notes of Rs.50/- each in denomination and about staff of Ante Corruption Bureau applying phenolphthalein powder to said currency notes and about keeping these notes in his shirt pocket. He has further deposed about instructions given to him to not to touch the notes and to pay the same on demand by the accused and to give signal by scratching his head. He has further deposed about instructions given to him to not to touch the notes and to pay the same on demand by the accused and to give signal by scratching his head. It is further stated that instructions were given by Investigating Officer to P.W.3 Vishnu to accompany him and the co-panch to accompany the members of raiding party. 13. On the point of incident complainant has stated that he along with two panchas went to Chawre Market and accused arrived on motorcycle. On seeing accused, he stood up and informed that he has brought cash amount and told the accused to accept the same and to tear the challan. He has further stated that accused informed him to first pay the amount and thereafter he will tear the challan and accordingly he tendered the amount which was accepted by accused, which was kept in his shirt pocket and thereafter he gave the proposed signal when the officers of the raiding team arrived and apprehended the accused. 14. Complainant further stated about testing of his hands in the solution of sodium carbonate when it changed into violate colour and about seizure of currency notes. 15. In the cross-examination, complainant stated to have mentioned in his statement recorded by police about his partnership agreement entered into with P.W.1 Kishore Kadam, however could not put forth any reason as to why said fact is not mentioned in his statement. Defence has duly got proved said omission in the evidence of P.W.8- Keshaorao Idoley, who has recorded statement of complainant. In that view of the matter, complainant appears to have materially improved case to establish that on the date of incident he was running transport business in partnership with P.W.1 Kishore. In the background of above omission, I find much substance when it is suggested to complainant that there was no any partnership between him and P.W.1 Kishore in respect of running of vehicle though said suggestion is denied by him. Admittedly, the partnership agreement as alleged by complainant is not registered nor complainant or P.W.1 Kishore has given any information with reference to their alleged transport business to Regional Transport Office. Moreover complainant is even otherwise not the registered owner of Metador bearing registration No. MH-30/A-9280. 16. Admittedly, the partnership agreement as alleged by complainant is not registered nor complainant or P.W.1 Kishore has given any information with reference to their alleged transport business to Regional Transport Office. Moreover complainant is even otherwise not the registered owner of Metador bearing registration No. MH-30/A-9280. 16. Similarly, complainant though claims to have stated before police that on 26-12-1993 vehicle was sent from Mangrulpir to Karanja, which was driven by Prakash Bhoyar and conducted by one Babbu Hiriwale and was occupied by one Satish Sharma, is unable to put forth any reason as to why said facts are not mentioned in his statement. In fact neither of these persons are examined by prosecution nor any reason is put forth by prosecution for non-examination of these witnesses though they appeared to be material in view of the case of prosecution to the effect that after the vehicle reached Karanja, same was alleged to be detained by accused alleging that it was illegally used for carrying passengers and though according to further case of prosecution, after the detention of vehicle, Satish Sharma by visiting complainant to his shop at Mangrulpir at 10.30 a.m. gave information of detention of vehicle. In fact, case of prosecution about complainant receiving information of detention of vehicle as above also does not appear to be convincing as it has come in the evidence of complainant that on 26-12-1993 said vehicle having been driven by above named driver and conducted by Babbu Hiriwale as well as occupied by Satish Sharma and left for Karanja from Mangrulpir at about 6-30 a.m. and reached Karanja at 9.30 a.m. Nothing has come on record establishing distance between Mangrulpir and Karanja. However, from the evidence of complainant it has come on record that three hours were required for them to reach to Karanja. However, in contrary to above evidence the complainant has deposed that at 10.30 a.m. Satish Sharma contacted him and informed about the detention. No explanation is put forth as to how Satish Sharma informed the complainant in a short period. This aspect in the case of prosecution thus, also raises sufficient doubt. 17. However, in contrary to above evidence the complainant has deposed that at 10.30 a.m. Satish Sharma contacted him and informed about the detention. No explanation is put forth as to how Satish Sharma informed the complainant in a short period. This aspect in the case of prosecution thus, also raises sufficient doubt. 17. Further it is material to note that complainant admits to have not stated in his statement that after the vehicle was detained, he informed accused that he will report said fact to his superior police officer and has materially improved his case with reference to demand of Rs.1,000/- by accused as has admitted to have not stated before police in his statement that said amount was demanded by accused, which was negotiated to Rs.600/- and that accused on accepting Rs.200/- informed complainant that on complainant's making payment of balance amount of Rs.400/- he will tear the challan. Above evidence of complainant, which is found to be full of omissions clearly establishes that complainant has materially proved his case so as to falsely implicate the accused. In fact, even on considering the evidence of complainant on the point of demand and acceptance, same is not convincing to establish that amount was demanded by the accused upon which same was paid as what is stated by complainant is that after arrival of accused on his motorcycle, he stood up while he was sitting on the bridge and on seeing the accused told him that he has brought cash amount and by going a step further complainant has stated that he told the accused to accept the amount and to tear the challan. Above evidence of complainant thus creates reasonable doubt in the case of prosecution of accused demanding and accepting bribe as alleged. 18. Similarly, though according to the case of prosecution, P.W.3 Vishnu, the first panch was to accompany complainant, it has come in the complainant's evidence that at the time of incident he and two panchas were present at Chawre Market. No explanation is put forth by prosecution with regard to third person who according to complainant was present with him and P.W.3 Vishnu at the time of incident. 19. No explanation is put forth by prosecution with regard to third person who according to complainant was present with him and P.W.3 Vishnu at the time of incident. 19. In the light of above evidence of complainant, when evidence of P.W.3 Vishnu, the independent panch is considered on the point of demand and acceptance, same appears to be totally contrary to the evidence of complainant on this material aspect when he has stated that after accused stopped his vehicle near Pan Stall, he along with complainant went to the accused. At that time one unknown person gave some amount to accused in their presence and thereafter accused asked complainant if he has brought the amount to which complainant informed that he has brought the amount and asked accused to return the challan, upon which accused told complainant that he had not challaned the vehicle and demanded amount, upon which complainant took out bribe money from his shirt pocket and paid to accused, which accused counted and kept in his shirt pocket. According to P.W.3 Vishnu, accused thereafter removed one diary from his pocket and made some entry and thereafter complainant gave the proposed signal. All this conversation as stated by P.W.3 Vishnu is not found corroborated by the evidence of complainant. In fact, in the evidence of P.W. 3 Vishnu, it has come on record that when complainant informed the accused that he has brought the amount and thus accused should return the challan, accused has informed him that he had not challaned the vehicle. Even otherwise on the day of incident accused admittedly was not attached to the Traffic Branch of Karanja Police. In the circumstances, since evidence of both these witnesses does not inspire confidence, being contrary to each other on material aspect, cannot be acted upon. On the contrary, the probable case as set out by the accused appears to be more reasonable when it is suggested to complainant that prior to the incident accused was working as Police Constable at Mangrulpir, which fact is denied by complainant for want of knowledge, however has admitted that twelve to thirteen cases under the Bombay Prohibition Act were instituted against his father by Mangrulpir Police. Though the complainant has further denied for want of knowledge that in six or seven of cases accused was raiding party member. Though the complainant has further denied for want of knowledge that in six or seven of cases accused was raiding party member. Complainant further denied to know Kaliprasad Pande, Head Constable and has denied to have been prosecuted for commissions of offence under Bombay Prohibition Act. He has further denied that accused was writer constable of Head Constable Kaliprasad, who had lodged cases against him under Bombay Prohibition Act. Complainant has admitted that police had filed two-three cases under Bombay Prohibition Act against his brother Natthu, however, denied that in these cases accused was one of the witness. Complainant has admitted that he has many relatives at Karanja and riot cases are instituted against them on the report of accused by Karanja Police Station. 20. In view of above stated evidence of complainant having no material corroboration from the evidence of P.W.3 Vishnu on the point of demand and acceptance, I find it useful to rely upon the case of M.K. Harshan v. State of Kerala reported in 1995 Cri.L.J. 3978, wherein the evidence of complainant was not having any corroboration and was suffering from infirmities. The plea of accused, on the other hand, was that the money was planted in the drawer without his knowledge which case of accused was held to be more probable and the accused was acquitted giving him benefit of doubt. 21. At this juncture, when evidence of P.W.4 Mohd. Rafiq is considered along with the case of accused, he has stated that he is the owner of a Garage for loading and unloading goods at Karanja and the owners' of goods vehicle on depositing their goods pay him commission. He has stated that complainant was having a vehicle and in the year 1993 when the incident took place, certain amount was due from complainant. In the cross-examination, P.W.4 Mohd. Rafiq admitted that amount of Rs.400/- towards commission was due from Khannubhai prior to incident. According to him, complainant was avoiding to make said payment and thus he had informed this fact to the knowledge of accused. He has further admitted that on 20-12-1993 i.e. eight days prior to the incident, he, complainant as well as accused met at Karanja when accused asked complainant to pay the amount to Mohd. Rafiq, which was due to him and has further instructed complainant that if he fails to pay said amount, he will prosecute him. P.W.4 Mohd. He has further admitted that on 20-12-1993 i.e. eight days prior to the incident, he, complainant as well as accused met at Karanja when accused asked complainant to pay the amount to Mohd. Rafiq, which was due to him and has further instructed complainant that if he fails to pay said amount, he will prosecute him. P.W.4 Mohd. Rafiq further admitted that complainant told him that he will pay said amount of commission to accused on 28-12-1993 and has further admitted that he has asked accused to accept said amount of Rs.400/- on his behalf from the complainant. It is further admitted that on 28-12-1993 complainant has informed him that he has paid the amount of Rs.400/- to the accused. Above discussed evidence of P.W.4, therefore, further creates a reasonable doubt in the case of prosecution and in fact probabalises the defence of accused as suggested aforesaid to the complainant. 22. In the background of above evidence, when evidence of D.W.2 Tarasingh Chavan is considered, further probabalises the case of defence when he has stated that he is also running business of Metador and as such knows the complainant and has stated that on the day of incident when accused arrived on the motorcycle, complainant went to him and asked accused to receive Rs.400/-. As per this witness, said amount was accepted by accused on behalf of P.W.4 Mohd. Rafiq, which was kept by complainant in the pocket of accused. Nothing material is brought on record to doubt evidence of this witness in his cross-examination. In the light of above discussed evidence, I find it useful to refer to the decision in the case of State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma reported in 2013(4) Crimes 41 (SC), wherein in para 7 of the judgment, it is observed that : "7. The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Act, 1988. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantiative evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantiative evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act 1988, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the Act 1988. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the Court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain, how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the Court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person." 23. Referring back to the evidence of P.W.3 Vishnu, the independent panch witness, learned Counsel for the accused submitted that evidence of complainant Khannubhai on the point of demand and acceptance of bribe on 28-12-1993 do not find trustworthy corroboration from this witness and by referring to his admission given in the fag end of his cross-examination that the officers of Ante Corruption Bureau Officers asked him to prepare notes to give evidence in the Court and that accordingly he had prepared the notes as per say of Ante Corruption Bureau Officer and further admitting that he had gone through all such notes before giving evidence, learned Counsel for the accused submitted that since said witness was not stating the facts from his memory, his entire evidence would be inadequate to provide any corroboration to the evidence of complainant. As against this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that since the incident was more than ten years old, there was nothing wrong in the witness refreshing his memory before deposing about the incident giving minute details. In that view of the mater, I find that there would be nothing wrong in the witness refreshing his memory, but that ought not to be done before the Court or outside the Court. In order to test veracity of a witness, he would be required to recollect the incident out of his memory and should he falter on some material aspect, in that case, he could be allowed to refresh his memory with regard to the contemporaneous records of the incident created by the police and it would not be permissible for such a witness to stealthily refresh his memory before entering the Court and deposing about the entire evidence giving minute details. Under these circumstances, I find much substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the accused. 24. In the light of above submissions, I find it necessary to reproduce sub-section (1) of Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, which lays down as follows. Under these circumstances, I find much substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the accused. 24. In the light of above submissions, I find it necessary to reproduce sub-section (1) of Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, which lays down as follows. "No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made : Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution to contradict such witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872); and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination." In the backdrop of above provisions, I further find it useful to refer to the decision in the case of Zahiruddin v. Emperior reported in AIR 1947 PC 75 , wherein with regard to use of the statement for refreshing memory, their Lordships observed as follows :- "The use by a witness while he is giving evidence, of a statement made by him to the police raises different considerations. The categorical prohibition of such use would be merely disregarded if reliance were to be placed on the evidence of a witness who had made material use of the statement when he was giving evidence at the trial. When, therefore, the Magistrate or Presiding Judge discovers that a witness has made material use of such a statement it is his duty under the Section to disregard the evidence of that witness as inadmissible." 25. When, therefore, the Magistrate or Presiding Judge discovers that a witness has made material use of such a statement it is his duty under the Section to disregard the evidence of that witness as inadmissible." 25. In the light of above, very little value needs to be attached to the evidence of P.W.3 Vishnu because he appears to have deposed the particular incident not by recollecting the evidence of that incident but what has been read out by him from the police statement, short time before he deposed. Under these circumstances, in the first place, entire evidence of this witness becomes inadmissible and even if it be held that it is admissible evidence, no value whatsoever can be attached to his evidence, which evidence even otherwise as already stated aforesaid does not appear to be convincing and is contrary to the evidence of complainant on the material aspect of demand and acceptance. Evidence of complainant as well as P.W.3 Vishnu, the panch apart from being contrary on the point of demand and acceptance is further found contrary with reference to sequence of events, which are alleged to have taken place at the time of incident. When according to the evidence of P.W.3 Vishnu, as per the instructions given, complainant had first asked accused about challan to which accused informed that he had not challaned the vehicle. Similar is the contents of pre-trap panchanama where from it is revealed that complainant was instructed to first enquire from the accused about the challan and then if demanded to make the payment of bribe money. However, from the evidence of complainant, as already aforesaid, what has come on record is that immediately on arrival of accused on the spot, complainant stood up and on seeing him informed that he has brought cash amount and has further told accused to accept the same and to tear the challan. Above contrary evidence on record thus also establish the probable case of accused. 26. Another material point needs to be considered is the report lodged by accused on 28-12-1993 immediately after his apprehension in this crime. Above contrary evidence on record thus also establish the probable case of accused. 26. Another material point needs to be considered is the report lodged by accused on 28-12-1993 immediately after his apprehension in this crime. With reference to said fact, evidence of P.W.8 Keshaorao Idoley, the Investigating Officer when perused, it reveals that during the raid, accused has stated to him that he had not challaned the vehicle and has further denied for want of knowledge if accused had lodged any complaint to Karanja Police Station on that day. Investigating Officer further stated to have not noticed during the course of investigation if accused had lodged any complaint with Karanja Police Station on 28-12-1993. In view of evidence of Investigating Officer, defence to establish the innocence of accused has examined D.W.1 Janardhan Sirsat, ASI, who on the date of incident was attached to Karanja Police Station and has stated that on 28-12-1993 when he was Station Diary Incharge of Karanja Police Station, accused had lodged a written report of which he had obtained station diary entry as per station diary extract on record Exhibit 93. On considering Exhibit 93, it appears that at Sr. No.4 on 28-12-1993 at about 7-40 hours accused had lodged his report of which station diary is made by D.W.1 wherein accused had in clear terms reported that on 26-12-1993 complainant's Metador was found parked on the road in the evening for which objection was raised and on 28-12-1993 at 2-00 O'Clock in the afternoon when accused was collecting information in the town with D.W.2 Tarasingh Chavan, complainant asked accused to accept Rs.400/- to be paid to P.W.4 Mohd. Rafiq, Garagewala, which he accepted, however was immediately apprehended by two persons who introduced themselves as officers of Ante Corruption Bureau. It is further stated in the report that as the vehicle of complainant was parked on the road on 26-12-1993, the complainant mischievously and falsely involved accused in this case. In view of above evidence of defence witnesses, accused appeared to have tendered the explanation of his false involvement by complainant, by lodging his report to Karanja Police Station, immediately after the incident at 7.45 p.m., as the post-trap panchanama Exhibit 41 appears to have been commenced at 2-00 p.m. and is concluded at 7-30 p.m. 27. In view of above evidence of defence witnesses, accused appeared to have tendered the explanation of his false involvement by complainant, by lodging his report to Karanja Police Station, immediately after the incident at 7.45 p.m., as the post-trap panchanama Exhibit 41 appears to have been commenced at 2-00 p.m. and is concluded at 7-30 p.m. 27. The explanation put forth by accused certainly needs consideration as it is an important circumstance which is found established from the evidence of D.W.1 Janardhan and station diary entry extract Exhibit 93. For the reasons best known to the prosecution this document is not brought on record by the prosecution at the time of trial, which was thus brought on record by defence by examining D.W.1 Janardhan, ASI. It is material to note that P.W.8 Keshaorao Idoley, the Investigating Officer has not uttered a single word about the explanation tendered by accused in the form of his report lodged at Karanja Police Station, which is his first version given in writing after the trap was sprung and has on the contrary deposed that nothing transpired to him during the course of investigation that report was lodged by accused with Karanja Police Station on the day of incident. This circumstance of prosecution's suppressing the material version of accused is an important circumstance which raises a shadow of doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case. It is material to note that it is the duty of the prosecution to bring the entire truth before the Court, however it appears that prosecution has deliberately kept back this vital document during the trial though it could have been very much available to the investigating agency and could have placed on record along with the charge-sheet or could have been brought on record at least during the course of trial. However, since material evidence was not brought on record, I find it necessary to raise presumption as contemplated under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that had this document Exhibit 93 been produced, it would not have favoured prosecution and such has withheld the same. In the circumstance, useful reference can be made to illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. 28. In this view of the matter, in my view, the criminal appeal must succeed. The criminal appeal is allowed. In the circumstance, useful reference can be made to illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. 28. In this view of the matter, in my view, the criminal appeal must succeed. The criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 13-4-1999 passed by the Special Judge, Washim in Anti Corruption Case No.1/1995 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 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years on both these counts and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the said offences. The bail bond of the appellant stands cancelled.