JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The extant appeal, bearing Cr. Appeal No. 530 of 2015, stands, directed by the aggrieved convict one Rajdev Singh Jasrotia, against, the verdict of conviction recorded, upon, him, vis-a-vis, charges framed, under, Section 7, and, under Section 13(2), of, the Prevention of Corruption Act, and, also stands directed, against, the consequent therewith order, of, imposition of sentences, of, imprisonment, and, of fine, hence upon, him. Cr. Appeal no. 526 of 2015, stands directed, by co-convicts K.V. Krishna Mohan Rao, and, C.H. Reddy, against the verdict of conviction pronounced, upon, them, in, Case No. 2 of 2012( 3 of 2013), vis-a-vis, the charges framed against them, under, Section 12, of, the Prevention of Corruption Act, besides also stands directed, against, the consequent therewith order, of, imposition of sentence, of, imprisonment, and, of fine, hence upon, them. 2. Since, both the afore appeals, are, directed against a common verdict, recorded, upon, Corruption Case No.2 of 2012 (3 of 2013), hence, by the learned Special Judge concerned, thereupon, both are amenable for a common verdict becoming rendered thereon. 3. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that, upon, receipt of a secret information Dy. S.P. Arvind Chaudhary alongwith other police officials went to Banikhet Rest House in their official vehicle. At about 8 a.m. Shri Sandeep Kadam, IAS Probationer A.C. to D.C. Chamba also reached thereat. At about 12.05 noon, against information received that car bearing No. HP-44A-0029, S.D.M. Tiss Rajdev Singh is proceeding towards Kangra along with his personal luggage in Pick up No. HP-44A-0221. It is also reported that he is taking illegally collected money with him, which he has collected from Hydro Electric Companies and its verification is necessary. The police party along with A.C. to D.C. laid a Nakka at place Hatli at about 12.35 P.M. In the meantime, HHC Muni Raj was sent to call ARTO Ravinder Kumar who was associated as a witness. At about 4.30 p.m., one Verna Car bearing No. HP-44A-0029 came from Banikhet side, which was stopped. Addl. S.P. apprised accused Rajdev Singh Jasrotia to give his personal search along with other officials, but he refused. After his refusal, search of the car was taken and one brief case which was kept in the Dikki of the Car which belongs to accused No.1 was opened. Addl. S.P. apprised accused Rajdev Singh Jasrotia to give his personal search along with other officials, but he refused. After his refusal, search of the car was taken and one brief case which was kept in the Dikki of the Car which belongs to accused No.1 was opened. The suite case was containing one feather jacket in which one bag (thaila) of red colour and one bag of almond colour was kept on which words “Parveen Di Hatti” were written, were recovered, in which one bundle has been made of ten bundles of currency notes of Rs.500/- each, containing 100notes, i.e. Rs.5,00,000/-, two bundles of 100 notes each of denomination of Rs.500/- amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-, one bundle of denomination of Rs.1000/- containing 90 notes i.e. Rs.90,000/-, total amounting to Rs.11,90,000/- was recovered. Accused Rajdev Singh Jasrotia could not give any satisfactory reply about the currency notes. The notes were sealed in a separate cloth parcel and the parcel was sealed with seal impression K at 12 places and taken into possession through a seizure memo in the presence of witnesses. Sample seal was also drawn on a a separate cloth piece. From the recovery of huge amount, offence under section 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption was found, on which investigating officer prepared Rukka and sent the same to police station and, after registration of the FIR, Add. S.P. conducted the investigation. During investigation and search of the same car, one LCD LG Plasma T.V. 81 cms packed, one blanket of double bed red colour and one suite case Caravan brown in colouring containing clothes, articles of Pooja and one Radio Mark Kchibo, one camera Samsung digital model digmix 35 mp 3 were also taken into possession. Accused Rajdev Singh was arrested. During investigation, record of banks of Sub Division Tissa and Salooni was also obtained. The record of different Hydro Electric Power Projects regarding theirs accounts were also gone through. Specimen signatures and handwritings of co-accused K.V. Krishna Mohan Rao and Ramesh Reddy were taken and from the report of RFSL, Dharamshala, it was found written by one and the same person. During the course of investigation, longs calls were found to have taken between accused No.1 Rajdev Singh Jasrotia and the officials of Tejas Sarnika Tarela Power Limited and A.T. Hydro Cimreon. During the course of investigation, longs calls were found to have taken between accused No.1 Rajdev Singh Jasrotia and the officials of Tejas Sarnika Tarela Power Limited and A.T. Hydro Cimreon. One ARVS company was found to be working in sub letting basis for the aforesaid companies under the supervision of their local officials. On 8.1.2010 from the accounts of ARVS, Rs.10 lacs of denomination of Rs. 500X 2000 was found withdrawn from PNB Tissa, which was tallied with the currency notes recovered from accused No.1 Rajdev Singh. During the course of investigation, it was found that accused Rajdev Singh Jasrotia, had got prepared files of damage caused to the government land through Patwari Guwad and Tarela to the extent of 86 bighas by Cimereon and 136 bighas by Ginni Glabal Companies and both the files were found missing from the official record. As per record ARVS, on 8.1.2010 out of withdrawn amount of Rs.10 lacs, Rs. 6 lacs were found to have been given to accused K.V. Krishna Mohan Rao and Rs. 4 lacs to accused C.H. Ramesh Reddy and both these officials have not shown this amount in their tax returns nor they have received this amount. Similarly, one TV LCD Plasma of the value of Rs.30,800/- was found to have been given to accused Rajdev Singh Jasrotia from the accounts of Tarela Power Limited. The recovered amount of Rs.11,90,000 was found beyond the total income of accused Rajdev Singh Jasrotia, and, hence challan for offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was prepared against accused Rajdev Singh Jasrotia as he has misused his power during his posting as S.D.M., Churah. Accused K.V. Krishna Mohan Rao, General Manager Tejas Sarnika had given cash/bank payment voucher for giving T.V. LCD Palsma to accused Rajdev Singh Jasrotia, and, he had received Rs. 6 lacs out of Rs.10 lacs and, has committed offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Similarly, C.H. Ramesh Reddy, Project Manager/ Incharge has withdrawn Rs.10 lacs from the accounts of ARVS from PNB Tissa and has received Rs. 4 lacs out of Rs. 10 lacs and he has also committed offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. Similarly, C.H. Ramesh Reddy, Project Manager/ Incharge has withdrawn Rs.10 lacs from the accounts of ARVS from PNB Tissa and has received Rs. 4 lacs out of Rs. 10 lacs and he has also committed offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. On conclusion of the investigations, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared, and, filed before the learned trial Court. 5. Accused/appellant Rajdev Singh Jasrotia, stood charged, by the learned trial Court, for, his committing offences, hence, punishable, under, Sections 7, 13(1)(e), read with Section 13(2), of, the Prevention, of, Corruption Act, whereas, accused K.V. Krishna Mohan Rao, and, accused C.H. Ramesh Reddy, respectively, hence, stood charged, by the learned trial Court, for, theirs committing offences, rather, punishable under Section 12, of, the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In proof, of, the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 39 witnesses. On conclusion of recording, of the, prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused, under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stood recorded, by the learned trial Court, wherein, they claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication, in, the case. Accused Rajdev Singh Jasrotia, has examined six witnesses, in his defence and, also tendered into evidence copy, of, judgment Ex. DX, and, GPF statement bearing Ex. Dy. 6. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction, upon, the accused/appellants herein, for theirs, respectively, committing offences punishable, under, Sections 7, 13(2), and, under Section 12 of the Act. 7. The appellants herein, stand aggrieved, by the findings of conviction, hence, recorded against them, by the learned Special Judge concerned. The learned counsel(s) appearing for the appellants herein, have, concertedly, and, vigorously contended qua the findings of conviction, as, recorded by the learned Special Judge concerned, rather standing not based, on a proper appreciation, of, the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross misappreciation, by him, of the material on record. Hence, they contend qua the findings of conviction, warranting reversal, by this Court, in, the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced rather by findings of acquittal. 8. Hence, they contend qua the findings of conviction, warranting reversal, by this Court, in, the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced rather by findings of acquittal. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing, for the State, has, with considerable force, and, vigour, contended qua the findings of conviction, as, recorded by the learned Special Judge concerned, rather standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation, by him, of the evidence, on, record, and, theirs not necessitating any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 9. This Court with the able assistance, of, the, learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, hence evaluated the entire evidence on record. 10. In proof of the currency, valuing Rs.11,90,00/-, becoming recovered, from, bag Ex.P-4, carried by the accused along with him, in his car bearing, No. HP-44A-0029, and, recovery whereof hence became made, through memo Ex.PW29/A, (I) the, prosecution witnesses, made deposition(s) hence suggestive, of, the afore recovery, becoming made validly therefrom, (ii) besides made depositions qua the apt recoveries, becoming validly made, through, the afore memos hence becoming drawn, at the relevant site. Co-accused K.V. Krishna Mohan, and, one C.H. Reddy, though, were not available, at the site of occurrence, hence, along with principal accused Rajdev Singh Jasrotia, (iii) however, the prosecution, ascribes to them, the role of theirs prior thereto hence handing, over, the afore recovered sums, to, the principal accused, and, obviously they became charged, for, conspiring, and, abetting the principal accused, in his carrying, the afore currency notes, without his meteing any tangible, and, satisfactory explication, vis-a-vis, the valid source, wherefrom, he procured the afore currency notes. Furthermore, the prosecution became enjoined, to, prove, qua the afore recovered cash, from bag Ex.P-4, hence carried, in, the afore vehicle, vehicle whereof, at the relevant time, became also occupied by the principal accused Rajdev Singh Jasrotia, comprising, an illegal gratification, (iv) and, thereafter, was, also enjoined to prove that, the afore sums, becoming an illegal quid proquo, vis-a-vis, illegal favours, being meted to the company, rather by the principal accused, and, wherein, both afore co-accused were employed. In proof of existence, of, the requisite quid proquo, inter se, the illegal source, of, procurement, of, cash, hence recovered from Ex.P-4, though memo Ex.PW29/A, from the car, of, the principal accused Rajdev Singh Jasrotia, who, at the relevant time also was within, the, afore car, the prosecution has made dependence, upon, the testification rendered by PW-16, (v) who in his examination-in-chief, has made a deposition, vis-a-vis, his visiting the site, whereat, debris became stacked, by, the project authorities i.e. Ginny Global Company, as, engaged, for, the relevant purpose, by, the public entity, wherein, the afore co-accused became employed, (vi) also, in his deposition, as, comprised in his examination-in-chief, he has made, an, echoing vis-a-vis his preparing report Ex.PW16/A. Furthermore, the deposition of PW-16, has hence been meted corroboration, by, the deposition of PW-17. The deposition of PW-15, underscores, the factum, vis-a-vis, the afore report becoming dispatched, from, the office, of, the Tehsildar concerned, yet, the incriminatory letters bearing No. 1420, and, 1421, rather not becoming entered in the apposite therewith register, hence, maintained in the office, of, the SDM, Tissa. The effect of the afore depositions, is, capitalized by the prosecution, to be personificatory, vis-a-vis, (a) the apposite fine or composition money becoming neither insisted to be deposited, in the treasury, from, the company concerned, wherein, the afore co-accused were employed; and, (b) thereupons non insistence, upon, the company concerned, by the principal accused, rather marshalling, an, inference, vis-a-vis, the requisite quid proquo rather surfacing, inter se, the recovery of invalid cash, from, the possession of the principal accused, and, non deposit of the composition fee, by, the company concerned, wherein the afore co-accused, were employed, (c) and, besides non insistence qua deposit thereof rather constraining, a, further conclusion, vis-a-vis, the principal accused, refraining to make insistence, only upon, his receiving monetary consideration, from, the afore co-accused. However, the afore deposition(s), does not, make bespeakings, vis-a-vis, the principal accused holding any active incriminatory role, vis-a-vis, the non entry, of, the afore incriminatory letter(s), rather in the apposite requisite record maintained in his office, nor hence, it can become unflinchingly concluded, that, he shared any mens rea, with, the, afore co-accused for his hence not purportedly insisting, for, deposit, of, the apposite fine amount, (d) unless evidence surfaced, hence suggestive, vis-a-vis, his, sharing a mens rea, with, the officials concerned, in the, the office concerned, hence, entrusted with the duties, of, entering the afore, in, the apposite register, or suggestive, vis-a-vis, despite his becoming seized with the apposite damage report, his untenably waiving the deposit of fine, whereas, rather with the afore evidence, being, grossly amiss, thereupon, the bedrock, of, the espoused illegal quid proquo becomes shaken. 11. Be that as it may, the prosecution, for, proving, that, both the co-accused, hence, who shared, a, mens rea, of, abetting the offence, as, committed, by the principal accused, (i) and, furthermore, for connecting, the co-accused, vis-a-vis, the ascribed theretothem, hence, penal misdemeanors, inasmuch, as, of theirs withdrawing, the afore sums, of, money, from, the PNB Tissa, (ii) and, thereafter, theirs handing over the withdrawn sums of money, to the principal accused, as an illegal quiproquo, for, the principal accused, not making insistences, upon, the company concerned, wherein both the co-accused, were, employed, vis-a-vis, the chargeable composition fees, becoming deposited, in, the treasury concerned, (iii) arising, from the debris becoming dumped, upon, the government land, as, proven by PW-16, and, PW-17, the prosecution, has, depended, upon, the statement of PW-10, and, of PW12. 12. The learned Special Judge concerned, despite, the principal accused meteing, an, explication, in, his statement recorded, in the, proceedings drawn under Section 313 Cr.P.C., vis-a-vis, the afore seizure of currency, from, bag Ex.P-4, as, became carried in the car, car whereof, at the relevant time also become occupied by him, (i) and, wherein, he echoes, the apposite explication, vis-a-vis, the valid source, of, the afore recovered sums, of, money, inasmuch, as, theirs being savings, from, his salary, (ii) yet the learned Special Judge disbelieved the afore explication meted, vis-a-vis, the afore recovered sums of money, upon, his placing reliance, upon, the provisions of Section 106, of, the Indian Evidence Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.—When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” (a) and, with echoings borne therein, vis-a-vis, upon, certain facts especially, and, exclusively hence falling within, the, knowledge of any person, thereupon, the burden of proving, the, apposite special fact becoming enjoined to be discharged, by the person hence holding exclusive knowledge, of, the apt special facts. (b) On anvil thereof, the learned trial Court concluded, that, the mere explication meted by the accused, vis-a-vis, his sourcing, the, recovered money hence from a valid source, inasmuch, as, it comprising the apt savings, from his salary, since the years of his employment, upto, the seizure being made, also enjoining him, to, further prove through leading cogent evidence, comprised, in, his adducing, the, savings account maintained by him, in, the bank concerned, (c) and, it failing to make underscoring(s), vis-a-vis, his not making deposits, since, the time of his becoming employed, in, the government service or his making minimal deposits therein(s), (d) and, there occurring no inter se commensuration, inter se, the money seized, at, the relevant site, from, bag Ex.P-4, possessed, by the accused, and, vis-a-vis, the saving bank account, maintained, in, the bank concerned hence by the accused, hence, making the apposite explication rather acceptable. 13. 13. Even though Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, makes incumbent, upon, the person holding special knowledge, of, a fact, to, adduce discharging evidence qua therewith, yet, in the extant case, the learned trial Court remained unmindful, vis-a-vis, the apt discharging evidence, becoming adduced rather by the accused, through, his ensuring, the, stepping, into, the witness box of DW-5, (i) who has proven, vis-a-vis, withdrawals, from, salary by the accused, from, the government treasury, becoming borne in a sum, of, Rs.40,13,513/- from 24.2.1990 to 11.2.2010, (ii) and, has also proven, vis-a-vis, his incurred expenses being limited, only upto Rs.10 lacs, (iii) and, further when the accused, has also, in his statement made, made under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., before the learned trial Court, rather purveyed an explication, vis-a-vis, the expenses appertaining, to the up bringing, of, his children or of his wife, being incurred by his mother, who, is drawing family pension, (iv) explication whereof remained unrebutted, thereupon, it was incumbent, upon, the prosecution to seek, through, an application cast under Section 311, of, the Cr.P.C., hence, adduction into evidence, of, the statement, of, saving bank accounts, maintained at the bank concerned, by the principal accused, (v) for therethrough apt gaugings, becoming, garnered, vis-a-vis, the charged sums, of, money not becoming maintained, at the relevant time, in the afore accounts, (vi) and, thereafter, it being amenable, to, draw a conclusion, vis-a-vis, the seizure of currency notes, from bag Ex.P-4, as, possessed by the accused, becoming not validly sourced, and, rather the afore requisite quid proquo, becoming clinchingly proven, by, the prosecution. However, the, afore remained unrecoursed hence by the prosecution, after the recording, of, the deposition of DW-5, (vii) whereas, adduction into evidence, rather the apt statements of bank accounts, of, the accused, from, the banks concerned, also, when fell within the domain, of, evidence collectable at the instance, of, the prosecution, and, also when, the afore evidence does not fall rather within the realm, of, it hence becoming exclusively possessed by the accused, whereupon, alone, and, qua therewith, he was, to, adduce discharging evidence, given his holding special knowledge qua therewith, (viii) thereupon, any drawing of succor, from, the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, by the learned trial Court, despite, non adduction, of, hence, by the prosecution, the afore evidence, for, thereafter, it, belittling and, belying, the, afore explication, meted by the accused, vis-a-vis, the seized currency, becoming validly sourced, is concluded, to be an inaptly drawn succor, from, mandate(s) thereof. 14. Furthermore, the learned Additional Advocate General has contended, that, the requisite quid proquo also emanating, from, one TV LCD Plasma, valuding Rs.30,800/- becoming recovered, from, the car occupied by the accused, inasmuch, as the bills appertaining, to, the afore LCD, becoming drawn, vis-a-vis, M/s Tarela Power Limited, engaged, by the principal accused, for, executing the relevant works. The afore bills appertaining to the television set, is, borne in Ex.PW7/B. PW-7 in his examination-in-chief, has testified qua, one Raghubir Singh, an employee of Simran Company, visiting his shop, and, his purchasing one 32” LG Plazma LED, and, the latter, upon, his stepping into the witness box, has, testified qua his not handingover the afore LED, to, the principal accused, rather it becoming handed over, for, public viewing, at, the office of SDM, Tissa, and, the afore testification remained uneorded, vis-a-vis, its veracity, (a) and, thereafter even if the afore LED, is recovered, from, the car, occupied by the principal accused, thereupon, it can only tantamount, to, its unauthorised carrying, therein by the principal accused, (b) and, hence, it not begetting, any conclusion, vis-a-vis, it, comprising any illegal quid proquo, vis-a-vis, the afore purported favours granted by the principal accused, vis-a-vis, the company concerned, wherein, the co-accused became employed. 15. 15. Be that as it may, the dereliction, if any, on the part of the principal accused, in, his not charging the apt valid compounding fee, from, company/public entity concerned, wherein, the afore co-accused were employed, for, its/theirs making unauthorised, dumping, upon, the government land, may, when, for the afore reasons, rather with the requisite quid proquo, inter se, the recovery of the cash from Ex.P-4, carried in the car by the principal accused, and, also occupied by the accused at the relevant time, remaining unestablished, hence, cannot hold any overtones, of, penal misdemeanors, rather may only tantamount, to, pure dereliction of duties, qua, wherewith the principal accused, may be, chargeable for misconduct, under, the provisions of CCS Rules. 16. Though, the Manager of the Bank concerned, and, whereat the apposite accounts, of the, public entity concerned, became maintained, and, in public entity whereof, the co-accused were engaged, has deposed, vis-a-vis, the withdrawal, of sums, bearing commensuration, with, the recovered money, from, bag Ex.P-4, hence carried in the car, by the principal accused, (a) and, also has deposed qua the afore sums becoming withdrawn by the co-accused, and, also with the official concerned of the company, who stepped into the witness box, as, PW-10, meteing succor, thereto, (b) yet on anvil, of, depositions of PW-10, and, of PW-14, no capitalization can be drawn, vis-a-vis, the afore withdrawals, made by the co-accused, becoming thereafter handedover, as, the requisite illegal quid proquo, to, the principal accused, as the learned trial Court, has not, meted the apt deference, to, the statement, occurring in the cross-examination, of, PW-14, wherein, he has made vivid echoings, vis-a-vis, the afore sums, of, money becoming respectively validly handed, over to, both the co-accused, as, an incentive, for, their successful completion, of, the project, (c) and, also the learned trial Court has not meted the apt deference, to, the last line occurring in the cross-examination of PW-14, vis-a-vis, the afore sums of money, becoming shown in the income tax return, as, respectively filed hence by both the co-accused. Since, the afore withdrawals became satisfactorily explicated, and, when hence, it was amenable, for, the learned Special Judge to conclude, that, after the afore withdrawals, by, the afore co-accused, they became, not handed over to the principal accused, and, also when it was unbefitting for the learned trial Court, to, conclude that the apposite quid proquo rather becoming shaken. Since, the afore withdrawals became satisfactorily explicated, and, when hence, it was amenable, for, the learned Special Judge to conclude, that, after the afore withdrawals, by, the afore co-accused, they became, not handed over to the principal accused, and, also when it was unbefitting for the learned trial Court, to, conclude that the apposite quid proquo rather becoming shaken. Contrarily, in the learned trial Court rather omitting to mete the apt deference thereto, and, it contrarily concluding, vis-a-vis, the apposite quiproquo becoming proven, inasmuch, as, after the afore withdrawals, becoming made by co-accused, theirs becoming handed, over to the principal accused, and, hence the seized money becoming related, to, the withdrawals, rather is, an inference, which suffers, from, gross perversity, and, absurdity, of, misappreciation, of, the depositions, comprised, in, the cross-examination, of, the afore apposite prosecution witnesses. 17. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned Special Judge concerned, has not appraised, the entire evidence on record in a wholesome, and, harmonious manner, apart therefrom, the analysis of the material on record by the learned Special Judge concerned, suffers, from a gross perversity or absurdity of misappreciation, and, non appreciation of germane evidence on record. 18. Consequently, both the instant appeals, are, allowed, and, the common verdict impugned, before this Court, hence by the appellants herein, and, recorded by the learned Special Judge concerned, upon, Corruption Case No. 2 of 2012 (3 of 2013), is, set aside. Consequently, the appellants/convicts are acquitted of the charged offences. The fine amount, if any, deposited by them, be forthwith refunded to them. Bail bonds stand discharged. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.