JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.9.2011 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Solan, H.P., in Corruption Case No. 3-S/7 of 2009, whereby the appellant/accused, (hereinafter referred to as the “accused” for the sake of convenience), has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for the sake of convenience) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 7 of the Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 13(2) of the Act. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 28.11.2008, a telephonic message was received from PW1 Khem Ram, resident of Majhol, Post Office Nayagram, Tehsil Kasauli, Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, that the accused was demanding bribe money from him for entering mutation. Thereafter, a police party headed by PW15 Inspector Anil Dhaulta went to the spot at Village Kuradi and recorded statement of Khem Ram (PW1) under Section 154 Cr.P.C.. According to the averments contained in the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., on 22.11.2008 he went to Patwar Circle, Tadol and came to know that the land comprised in Khasra No.91/1 measuring 15 Biswas fell under that Patwar Circle. The accused, who was working as Patwari, told him why mutation of the estate was not sought to be incorporated and a lot of time had elapsed. Accused demanded a sum of Rs.4000/- for entering mutation. However, the complainant showed his inability to pay amount. The complainant handed over death certificate of his father to the accused. He did not visit Patwar Circle, Tadol on 25.11.2008 as he could not arrange for money. On 26.11.2008, the complainant made a telephonic call to the accused, who told him to come on 28.11.2008 with Rs.4000/- to get the work done. On the basis of Ruqua, an FIR was registered against the accused. The vigilance personnel gave pre-trap demonstration to the complainant. On 26.11.2008, the complainant made a telephonic call to the accused, who told him to come on 28.11.2008 with Rs.4000/- to get the work done. On the basis of Ruqua, an FIR was registered against the accused. The vigilance personnel gave pre-trap demonstration to the complainant. The vigilance personnel during demonstration before trap noted down the numbers of the currency notes, four in number, each to the denomination of Rs.1000/- produced by the complainant. The currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder. The currency notes were handed over to the complainant with direction to keep the same in his pocket and thereafter hand over the currency notes to Patwari on his demand. The shadow witness was directed to give signal after handing over the currency notes. The complainant along with shadow witness went to the accused and after receiving a signal, the vigilance personnel also went to the accused. The accused was overpowered and his hands were got washed. However, colour of hand-wash did not change. It remained neutral. Solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in a separate glass. When it was added to solution of hand-wash, its colour turned pink. It was put into a small bottle and was taken into possession vide seizure memo. The accused also produced currency notes of Rs.4000/- from the pocket of his pants. The currency notes were tallied with the numbers of the currency notes already noted down. Pocket of the pants of the accused was also got washed the manner in which his hands were got washed. The accused also produced one mutation register, in which mutation to the estate of Khem Ram and others was found to be incorporated on 24.11.2008. The samples were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. As per report Ext.PA, traces of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate were detected. The prosecution sanction against the accused was also obtained. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up in the court after completing all codal formalities. 3. The prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. According to him, he had reprimanded the complainant and he was falsely implicated in the case. According to him, neither he demanded any bribe money nor he accepted the same. The accused also produced two witnesses in his defence. 3. The prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. According to him, he had reprimanded the complainant and he was falsely implicated in the case. According to him, neither he demanded any bribe money nor he accepted the same. The accused also produced two witnesses in his defence. The learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused vide judgment dated 27.9.2011, as stated hereinabove. 4. Mr. H.S. Rana, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. According to him, his client has been falsely implicated in the case. He then contended that mutation was already entered by his client on 24.11.2008. Thus, there was no question of demand of bribe money and acceptance thereof by his client from the complainant. According to him, there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He also argued that shadow witness was declared hostile. 5. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Advocate General, has supported the impugned judgment dated 27.9.2011. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings and record carefully. 7. PW1, Khem Ram, deposed that he lost his father on 22.2.2002. He went to Patwar Circle, Tadol. Accused was Patwari. He after going through the death certificate told that mutation after death was to be attested within fifteen days and there was considerable delay. He further told him that delay could be condoned after paying huge late fee. The accused demanded a sum of Rs.4000/-. He told the accused that he was poor man. The accused told him that the Tehsildar would visit on 25.11.2008 and would attest the mutation. He further deposed that he did not visit the accused on 25.11.2008 because he could not arrange for money. On 26.11.2008, he contacted the accused telephonically, who told him to come on 28.11.2008 with Rs.4000/-. On 28.11.2008, he arranged the money. He informed the vigilance personnel. He visited the Patwarkhana. He did not find vigilance personnel there and went back. However, on the way, he saw vigilance personnel coming in the vehicle. He went to nearby house of Prem Dutt at Kuradi, where vigilance personnel came. They recorded his statement vide Ext. PW1/A. Thereafter, vigilance personnel prepared solutions of two separate powders in two glasses, which remained colourless. He did not find vigilance personnel there and went back. However, on the way, he saw vigilance personnel coming in the vehicle. He went to nearby house of Prem Dutt at Kuradi, where vigilance personnel came. They recorded his statement vide Ext. PW1/A. Thereafter, vigilance personnel prepared solutions of two separate powders in two glasses, which remained colourless. When both solutions were mixed, its colour turned pink. The solution was sealed in a nip and was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW1/B. He produced four currency notes of denomination of Rs.1000/-each, which were treated with a powder and returned to him. He was instructed not to shake hand with the accused and after handing over the currency notes to the accused on demand give signal to the shadow witness. Police prepared memo Ext.PW1/C. At the time of pre-trap demonstration and treating the notes, Prem Dutt and Laxmi Dutt were also present. He went on foot to Patwarkhana and other persons went in a vehicle. He asked the accused whether he did his work or not. The accused told him that why he had not come earlier, but he had done his work and asked him to pay money. The accused showed register to him, where he had made entries on 24.11.2008 and took Rs.4000/- from him. He gave signal to Laxmi Dutt who further gave signal to other person. The vigilance personnel came to Patwarkhana and caught the accused from his wrists. Hands of the accused were got washed. It remained colourless. When solution of other powder was mixed in it, it turned pink. Hand wash of the accused was sealed in a nip and taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/D. The accused took out the currency notes from his pocket of pants, which were the same which were received by the accused from him. Currency notes were sealed in an envelope and were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW1/E. He signed the same. The pants of the accused was also got washed the manner in which his hands were got washed. Memo Ext. PW1/F was prepared to this effect. In cross-examination, he deposed that on 28.11.2008, when he visited the Patwarkhana, four persons were already there. He reached Patwarkhana between 10.00 A.M. or 11.00 A.M. or may be at 11.30 A.M. Earlier he had visited Patwarkhana at 9.30 A.M. when vigilance personnel had not come there. Memo Ext. PW1/F was prepared to this effect. In cross-examination, he deposed that on 28.11.2008, when he visited the Patwarkhana, four persons were already there. He reached Patwarkhana between 10.00 A.M. or 11.00 A.M. or may be at 11.30 A.M. Earlier he had visited Patwarkhana at 9.30 A.M. when vigilance personnel had not come there. There was residential house of Bachana Ram at a distance of about 20 yards from Patwarkhana. He did not know whether Bachana Ram had five sons, who were living with their families there. They were not called during the proceedings. Laxmi Dutt and Prem Chand were his real brother and brother-in-law respectively. There were about 10-12 families residing at village Kuradi, where Prem Dutt, was residing. According to him, the moment he arrived at Patwarkhana, vigilance team also entered the same immediately. He did not remember whether he visited the accused on 22nd or 24th November 2011 for the first time for getting mutation entered. When he visited the accused, he rebuked him saying that did he not see T.V. or hear Radio for information. The vigilance personnel remained in the Patwarkhana for about 1-2 hours. He did not know whether Tehsildar visited Patwar circle for attestation of mutations on 25.11.2008 and attested some mutations of the persons, who were present. He borrowed Rs.4000/- from three persons of his village. One person had given him Rs.2000/- and two had given Rs.1000/- each. He could not narrate whether the vigilance personnel visited the Patwarkhana in government vehicle or private vehicle. However, they visited the Patwarkhana in some Sumo type vehicle. There were five persons sitting in the vehicle including driver. He denied the suggestion that the accused took out the money from his pocket of the pants and threw it on the table. 8. PW2 Prem Dutt, deposed that on 28.11.2008, Khem Ram had come to his house after visiting Patwarkhana. Vigilance personnel had also come there. Khem Ram told vigilance personnel that the accused was demanding Rs.4000/-from him. Statement of Khem Ram was recorded. Khem Ram produced four currency notes of denomination of Rs.1000/-each, which were treated with some powder and handed over to Khem Ram. Nothing else was done in his house. He was declared hostile. In cross-examination conducted by learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted the manner in which pre-trap demonstration was given. Statement of Khem Ram was recorded. Khem Ram produced four currency notes of denomination of Rs.1000/-each, which were treated with some powder and handed over to Khem Ram. Nothing else was done in his house. He was declared hostile. In cross-examination conducted by learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted the manner in which pre-trap demonstration was given. He admitted that Khem Ram was sent on foot to Patwarkhana and was instructed as and when the accused received the amount, he was to give signal to shadow witness Laxmi Dutt. Khem Ram went inside the Patwarkhana and Laxmi Dutt was standing outside the Patwarkhana. He admitted that Khem Ram gave signal to Laxmi Dutt, who gave further signal to them and they all went to Patwarkhana. The accused was caught hold from his arms by the vigilance personnel. He also admitted the manner in which hand wash of the accused was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW1/D. He admitted that the accused produced four currency notes of denomination of Rs.1000/-each from his pants pocket, which were tallied with the numbers of notes, which were earlier treated and given to Khem Raj in his house. He also admitted the manner in which the pocket wash of the pants of the accused was taken into possession. In cross-examination conducted by learned counsel for the accused, he deposed that they went in a Maruti Van to Patwarkhana with vigilance personnel. He did not know who was owner of the vehicle. They reached the Patwarkhana between 9.00 to 10.00 A.M.. They remained in the Patwarkhana till 4.00 P.M. No person from village Kuradi was called or associated with the proceedings. Real sister of Khem Ram was married to him. He also admitted that residential house of Bachana Ram, who had five sons residing with him, was at a distance of 20 yards from Patwarkhana. They were not called by the Vigilance personnel to witness the proceedings. He admitted that the accused took out the currency notes from his pocket and threw the same on the table. 9. PW3, Laxmi Dutt is brother of the complainant, PW1 Khem Ram. He deposed that he went to house of Prem Dutt on 28th, about two years back. The complainant along with vigilance personnel was there. He narrated the manner in which the pre-trap demonstration was given by the vigilance personnel. 9. PW3, Laxmi Dutt is brother of the complainant, PW1 Khem Ram. He deposed that he went to house of Prem Dutt on 28th, about two years back. The complainant along with vigilance personnel was there. He narrated the manner in which the pre-trap demonstration was given by the vigilance personnel. The complainant went to Patwarkhana and he was standing outside the Patwarkhana. After some time, the complainant gave signal to him and he further gave signal to the vigilance personnel. Patwarkhana was visible to them. They along with his brother-in-law came to Patwarkhana and caught the accused. The hands of the accused were got washed. The police recovered the currency notes from the pocket of the accused. The currency notes were put in an envelope, sealed and were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW1/E. Pants and its pocket wash were taken into possession by the vigilance police. In cross-examination, he deposed that there was great rush in Patwarkhana when he and vigilance team reached there. He denied the suggestion that the accused took out the currency notes from his pants pocket and threw it on the table. There were about 14-15 persons in the Patwarkhana during the alleged proceedings. When they reached Patwarkhana, about 4-5 persons were already present there. 10. PW4 Bahadar Singh, proved on record appointment letter and posting order of the accused vide Ext. PW4/A and Ext. PW4/B. 11. PW5, Tek Ram, Field Kanungo, Kasauli, deposed that mutation No.228, Ext.PW5/A was entered by the accused. In cross-examination, he deposed that he was Field Kanungo of Patwar Circle Tadol in the year 2008. The Tehsildar fixed a tour programme for attestation of mutations of Patwar Circle Tadol on 25.11.2008. The Tehsildar visited the Patwar circle on 25.11.2008 and attested mutations of the persons, who were present. On his re-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he deposed that when the mutation was to be entered by the Patwari, the same was to be checked by the Field Kanungo and attested by the Naib Tehsildar/Tehsildar, when he was to come on tour. 12. PW6, Raj Kumar, proved on record death certificate Ext.PW6/A. 13. PW7, Pawan Thakur, proved on record seizure memo Ext.PW6/B whereby death certificate Ext.PW6/A was taken into possession by the Vigilance personnel. 14. PW8, HC Vidya Sagar proved on record Rapats No. 19 and 9 dated 28.11.2008 vide Ext.PW8/A and Ext. PW8/B respectively. 15. 12. PW6, Raj Kumar, proved on record death certificate Ext.PW6/A. 13. PW7, Pawan Thakur, proved on record seizure memo Ext.PW6/B whereby death certificate Ext.PW6/A was taken into possession by the Vigilance personnel. 14. PW8, HC Vidya Sagar proved on record Rapats No. 19 and 9 dated 28.11.2008 vide Ext.PW8/A and Ext. PW8/B respectively. 15. PW9, ASI Kamal Dev, deposed that on the basis of complaint Ext.PW1/A, FIR Ext.PW9/A was recorded. 16. PW10, Madan Lal, deposed that on 28.11.2008, he along with Inspector Anil Dhaulta, Inspector Hari Ram, HHC Karam Chand and Inspector Kewal Ram had gone to house of Prem Dutt at village Kuradi on receipt of telephonic information, where Khem Ram was also present. Inspector Anil Dhaulta recorded statement of Khem Ram vide Ext. PW1/A and after making endorsement sent him with Ruqua to Police Station, SV & ACB, Solan. He handed over Ruqua, Ext.PW1/A to MHC Padam Dev and after registration of FIR, he returned the file to Inspector Anil Dhaulta at the spot. In cross-examination, he deposed that they went in Maruti Car 800 to village Kuradi from Police Station, Vigilance. It was being driven by Inspector Anil Dhaulta. According to him, while coming back with Ruqua, he had to cover some distance on motorcycle and some distance on foot to reach the main road. He had to cover a distance of about 2-5 kms on motorcycle to reach the road. 17. PW11, HC Padam Dev, deposed that on 28.11.2008, on receipt of Ruqua Ext.PW1/A, FIR Ext.PW9/A was registered in Police Station, SV & ACB, Solan at 2.15 P.M. On the same day about 6.30 P.M., Inspector Anil Dhaulta handed over to him case property, which he entered in the malkhana register. He handed over the case property vide R.C. No. 9/08 to HHC Chet Ram for deposit of the same in SFSL. In cross-examination, he admitted that Register No.19, which was printed and prescribed by the Department was supplied to the Police Station as Malkhana Register for entering the case property. The register brought by him was not the same. He admitted that there was entry dated 1.5.2009 qua returning of Rs.4000/- to Khem Ram in Malkhana Register brought by him. He also admitted that neither there was signature of the person, who allegedly deposited the case property nor it was mentioned from where the case property was brought, in the register brought by him. 18. He admitted that there was entry dated 1.5.2009 qua returning of Rs.4000/- to Khem Ram in Malkhana Register brought by him. He also admitted that neither there was signature of the person, who allegedly deposited the case property nor it was mentioned from where the case property was brought, in the register brought by him. 18. PW12, HHC Chet Ram, deposed that on 3.12.2008, he deposited the case property at SFSL. 19. PW13, Amandeep Garg, deposed that he was posted as Deputy Commissioner, Solan from January 2008 to December 2009. He had given prosecution sanction against the accused vide Ext.PW13/A. 20. PW 14, Khushal Chand Sharma, deposed that he prepared the final report in the case and sought prosecution sanction against the accused vide application Ext.PW14/A. 21. PW15, Inspector Anil Dhaulta, deposed that on 28.11.2008 at 8.00 A.M., a telephonic message was received from Khem Ram that the accused had demanded Rs.4000/- for entering mutation of succession. He proceeded along with other police official to the house of Prem Dutt at village Kuradi. He recorded statement of Khem Ram under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and sent the same through HHC Madan Lal vide endorsement Ext.PW15/A to Police Station for registration of FIR. He gave pre-trap demonstration to Khem Ram, Laxmi Dutt and Prem Dutt vide memo Ext.PW1/B. Four currency notes each to the denomination of Rs.1000/- were produced by Khem Ram and the numbers of these currency notes were noted down. Thereafter the currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and were handed over to Khem Ram with direction to give the same to the accused on demand. Memo Ext.PW1/C was prepared to this effect. When the accused received the currency notes, he was caught hold from his wrists. He deposed the manner in which hand wash and pocket wash of the accused were taken into possession. He prepared the spot map vide Ext.PW15/B. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. In cross-examination, he deposed that they reached at Village Kuradi at about 12.00 noon. He associated Laxmi Dutt and Prem Dutt at Village Kuradi. There were about 2-4 house in village Kuradi. He admitted that Prem Dutt was husband of real sister of Khem Ram and Laxmi Dutt was also real brother of Khem Ram. There was one house at a distance of about 25 yards from Patwarkhana. He associated Laxmi Dutt and Prem Dutt at Village Kuradi. There were about 2-4 house in village Kuradi. He admitted that Prem Dutt was husband of real sister of Khem Ram and Laxmi Dutt was also real brother of Khem Ram. There was one house at a distance of about 25 yards from Patwarkhana. He had not shown the place where shadow witness was standing in spot map Ext.PW15/B. He denied the suggestion that moment Khem Ram entered the Patwarkhana immediately thereafter they entered the Patwarkhana. The personal search of the accused was conducted by Madan Lal. He did not inquire about the source of Rs.4000/- from Khem Ram. He did not collect the details of the telephonic call made by the complainant to the accused. He also admitted that the accused had entered mutation in the record on 24.11.2008. He denied that all of them reached in Patwarkhana at 10.00 A.M. 22. DW1, Kashmir Singh has proved on record Rapat Nos. 99 and 103 vide Ext. DW1/A and Ext.DW1/B respectively along with copies of mutations, Ext. DW1/C, DW1/E, DW1/H, DW1/J and Ext. DW1/L. 23. DW2, Rakesh Kumar, proved on record inquiry report Ext.DW2/B. 24. According to prosecution, complainant PW1 Khem Ram visited the office of the accused on 22.11.2008 for attestation of mutation along with death certificate of his father. The accused demanded a sum of Rs.4000/- for entering the mutation. The accused told him to come on 25.11.2008. The complainant did not visit the accused since he was not in a position to arrange the money. He made a telephonic call to the accused on 26.11.2008, who told him to come on 28.11.2008 with Rs.4000/-. The complainant telephonically informed the vigilance police about the demand of bribe money by the accused. His statement was recorded vide Ext. PW1/A, which led to registration of the FIR, Ext.PW9/A. PW1 Khem Ram, in examination-in-chief, deposed that the accused had demanded a sum of Rs.4000/- from him for entering the mutation. The accused told him that the Tehsildar would visit on 25.11.2008 and would attest the mutation. However, PW1 Khem Ram could not visit the Patwarkhana on 25.11.2008. He visited the Patwarkhana on 28.11.2008. He did not find vigilance personnel there. When he came back, he saw vigilance personnel coming in the vehicle. The accused told him that the Tehsildar would visit on 25.11.2008 and would attest the mutation. However, PW1 Khem Ram could not visit the Patwarkhana on 25.11.2008. He visited the Patwarkhana on 28.11.2008. He did not find vigilance personnel there. When he came back, he saw vigilance personnel coming in the vehicle. He went to nearby house of PW2 Prem Dutt at village Kuradi, where his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., Ext. PW1/A was recorded. He went to Patwarkhana on foot and other persons went in a vehicle. He asked the accused whether he did his work or not. The accused showed him entries made by him in the register on 24.11.2008 and took Rs.4000/- from him. He gave signal to Laxmi Dutt who further gave signal to vigilance personnel. He deposed in cross-examination that he reached Patwarkhana between 10.00 A.M. or 11.00 A.M. He again deposed that it may be 11.30 A.M. He earlier visited Patwarkhana at 9.30 A.M.. PW15 Inspector Anil Dhaulta deposed that they reached at Village Kuradi at about 12.00 noon. He associated PW3 Laxmi Dutt and PW2 Prem Dutt of village Kuradi. PW1 Khem Ram, PW2 Prem Dutt and PW3 Laxmi Dutt were closely related to each other. 25. It has come in the statement of PW1 Khem Ram that the house of one Bachana Ram was situated at a distance of about 20 yards from Patwarkhana. No person from the house of Bachana Ram was associated during the pre-trap demonstration and in further proceedings. PW15 Inspect Anil Dhaulta also admitted that he did not associate any other person except Prem Dutt from village Kuradi, though as per statement of PW1 Khem Ram, there were about 10-12 families residing at village Kuradi. He also admitted the close relationship of PW2 Prem Dutt and PW3 Laxmi Dutt with the complainant PW1 Khem Ram. PW2 Prem Dutt also admitted in cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for the accused that there was residential house of Bachana Ram at a distance of 20 yards from Patwarkhana. His five sons were also residing with him. They were not associated by the Vigilance personnel during the proceedings. 26. It is not one of those cases where the independent witnesses were not available. Bachana Ram was residing merely at a distance of about 20 yards from Patwarkhana. His five sons were also residing with him. They were not associated by the Vigilance personnel during the proceedings. 26. It is not one of those cases where the independent witnesses were not available. Bachana Ram was residing merely at a distance of about 20 yards from Patwarkhana. It is not explained by the prosecution why independent witnesses, though available, were not associated during the proceedings. 27. PW1 Khem Ram in cross-examination deposed that when he entered Patwarkhana, vigilance team also entered the same immediately. However, as per PW2 Prem Dutt, PW1 Khem Ram went on foot and other persons went in a vehicle to Patwarkhana. PW1 Khem Ram went inside the Patwarkhana and PW3 Laxmi Dutt was standing outside the Patwarkhana. When PW1 Khem Ram gave signal to PW3 Laxmi Dutt, he gave signal to them and they all entered Patwarkhana. PW3 Laxmi Dutt also deposed that PW1 Khem Ram, who was his brother, went to Patwarkhana and he was standing outside the Patwarkhana. After some time, PW1 Khem Ram gave signal to him and he further gave signal to the vigilance personnel. PW15 Inspector Anil Dhaulta deposed that they proceeded towards Patwarkhana after pre-trap demonstration and on receipt of signal from shadow witness, they entered the Patwarkhana. There is variance in the statements of PW1 Khem Ram, PW2 Prem Dutt, PW3 Laxmi Dutt and PW15 Inspector Anil Dhaulta about the arrival of vigilance personnel at the Patwarkhana. 28. According to PW1 Khem Ram, the vigilance personnel visited the Patwarkhana in some Sumo type vehicle. However, it has come in statement of PW2 Prem Dutt that he along with vigilance personnel went to Patwarkhana in a Maruti Van. However, he did not know the owner of the vehicle. PW10, HHC Madan Lal, in cross-examination, deposed that they went in Maruti Car 800 to village Kuradi from Police Station, Vigilance, which was being driven by PW15 Inspector Anil Dhaulta. It casts doubt whether the vigilance personnel had visited the spot in a sumo type vehicle as per version of PW1 Khem Ram or in a van as per version of PW2 Prem Dutt or in a Maruti Car 800 as per version of PW10 HHC Madan Lal. 29. It casts doubt whether the vigilance personnel had visited the spot in a sumo type vehicle as per version of PW1 Khem Ram or in a van as per version of PW2 Prem Dutt or in a Maruti Car 800 as per version of PW10 HHC Madan Lal. 29. It has come in the statement of PW1 Khem Ram admitted that when he visited the accused for the first time, he reprimanded him for not getting the mutation attested within fifteen days of death of his father. PW5, Tek Ram, Field Kanungo, Kasauli, deposed that mutation No.228, Ext.PW5/A was entered by the accused. The accused had already entered the mutation No.228 vide Ext. PW5/A on 24.11.2008. DW1 Kashmir Singh proved on record Ext. DW1/A copy of roznamcha rapat No. 99, dated 24.11.2008. He also proved on record entry No.103 in roznamcha wakyati dated 25.11.2005, Ext.DW1/B, whereby the Tehsildar was to visit for attestation of mutations on 25.11.2008. PW5 Tek Ram, in cross-examination, deposed that the Tehsildar visited the Patwar circle on 25.11.2008 and attested mutations of the persons, who were present on spot. The Tehsildar attested the mutations vide Ext. PW1/C, Ext. PW1/D, Ext. PW1/E, Ext. PW1/F, Ext. PW1/G, Ext. PW1/H, Ext. PW1/J, Ext. PW1/K and Ext. PW1/L. PW1, Khem Ram had not visited the spot on 25.11.2008. If he had visited the spot on 25.11.2008, the Tehsildar would have definitely attested his mutation as well. The accused was to only enter the mutation, which he had already done on 24.11.2008. The attestation work was to be done by the Tehsildar. Since PW1 Khem Ram was not present on 25.11.2008, his mutation could not be attested by the Tehsildar. Thus, there was no occasion for the accused to ask for the money on 28.11.2008 as per the case of the prosecution. 30. According to PW1 Khem Ram, since he was poor person, he was not in a position to pay bribe money to the accused. He arranged the money from three persons of his village. One person had given him Rs.2000/- and two persons had given him Rs.1000/- each. However, he has not given names of these three persons. PW15, Inspector Anil Dhaulta, in cross-examination, admitted that he had not inquired about the source of money from PW1 brought by PW1 Khem Ram. 31. He arranged the money from three persons of his village. One person had given him Rs.2000/- and two persons had given him Rs.1000/- each. However, he has not given names of these three persons. PW15, Inspector Anil Dhaulta, in cross-examination, admitted that he had not inquired about the source of money from PW1 brought by PW1 Khem Ram. 31. As per version of PW10 HHC Madan Lal, on 28.11.2008, on receipt of telephonic information, he along with PW15 Inspector Anil Dhaulta, Inspector Hari Ram, HHC Karam Chand and Inspector Kewal Ram visited the house of PW2 Prem Dutt at village Kuradi. PW1, Khem Ram, was also present there. His statement was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. vide Ext.PW1/A by PW15 Inspector Anil Dhaulta, who after making endorsement sent him with Ruqua to Police Station, SV & ACB, Solan. He handed over the same to PW11 MHC Padam Dev. After registration of FIR, he returned the file to Inspector Anil Dhaulta at the spot. According to PW11 MHC Padam Dev, on the basis of Ruqua Ext.PW1/A, FIR Ext.PW9/A was registered in Police Station, SV & ACB, Solan on 28.11.2008 at 2.15 P.M.. Though, it is established that Ruqua, Ext.PW1/A was handed over to PW11 MHC Padam Dev by PW10 HHC Madan Lal at Police Station, SV & ACB Solan, however, PW15 Inspector Anil Dhaulta testified that the personal search of the accused was conducted by PW10 HHC Madan Lal. PW10 HHC Madan Lal had already left the place with Ruqua, Ext. PW1/A for registration of the FIR. PW10 MHC Madan Lal deposed the manner in which he reached the Police Station and when came back to the spot along with case file. 32. PW11 HC Padam Dev, in cross-examination, categorically admitted that Register No.19, which was printed and prescribed by the Department, was supplied to the Police Station as Malkhana Register for entering the case property. However, the register, which he brought, was not the same. He further admitted that neither there was signature of the person, who allegedly deposited the case property nor there was any mention from where the case property was brought, in the register brought by him. 33. It has come in statements of PW1 Khem Ram and PW3 Laxmi Dutt that a number of persons were present in the Patwarkhana, however, none of these persons had been associated during the course of proceedings. 33. It has come in statements of PW1 Khem Ram and PW3 Laxmi Dutt that a number of persons were present in the Patwarkhana, however, none of these persons had been associated during the course of proceedings. The prosecution has not explained how PW3 Laxmi Dutt reached the house of PW2 Prem Dutt, that too at 8.00 A.M.. PW1 Khem Ram was not sure whether he visited the accused on 22nd or 24th November 2011 for the first time for getting mutation attested. According to PW1 Khem Ram, he had made telephonic call to the accused on 26.11.2008, however, PW15 Inspector Anil Dhaulta, did not collect the call details of the complainant. PW1 Khem Ram denied the suggestion that the accused took out the money from his pocket of the pants and threw it on the table. According to him, the accused handed over the money to the vigilance personnel. However, PW2 Prem Dutt, in cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for the accused, admitted that the accused took out the currency notes from his pocket and threw the same on the table. PW2 Prem Dutt, real brother in law of the complainant, has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. According to the case of the prosecution, the vigilance personnel had gone to his house where the complainant and his brother PW3 Laxmi Dutt were also present. Pre-trap demonstration etc. was given. He was vital link. Though, statement of PW2 Prem Dutt cannot be discarded only for the reason that he was declared hostile, but it has made a dent on the case of the prosecution. His statement has to be considered with care and caution. There are major contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations and embellishment in the statements of the material witnesses of the prosecution. Learned trial court has overlooked major contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 34. In view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 27.9.2011 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Solan, H.P., under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act is set aside. The accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The fine amount, if any deposited by the accused is ordered to be refunded to him. The bails bonds are ordered to be discharged. The accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The fine amount, if any deposited by the accused is ordered to be refunded to him. The bails bonds are ordered to be discharged. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.