The failure to follow proper procedures for seizing the bribe money and inconsistencies in the evidence raised doubts about the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

S.A. Khan, J.— The appellant of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 51 of 2000 was working as Amin at Dumraon at the time of the occurrence whereas, the appellant of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 54 of 2000 was working as Consolidation Officer at Dumraon. Appellant Shailesh Chandra Kumar has been found guilty under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. He has also been found guilty under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. No separate sentence is passed against Shailesh Chandra Kumar under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Shambhu Nath Ram has been found guilty under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. He has also been found guilty under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. It was ordered that all the sentences of both the accused shall run concurrently.

2. This case arises out of a complaint made by Krishna Dubey, P.W. 13, addressed to the Deputy Inspector General, Vigilance, Patna alleging therein that he wanted to rectify his Chak and had approached the Consolidation Officer by filing an application. It is alleged that when he went to meet the Circle Officer, he was asked to meet Anil Babu, also working as Amin at Dumraon. Anil Babu met the Circle Officer and thereafter informed the appellant that his "Saheb" had demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for correcting the Chak. The informant requested Anil Babu to lower the rate as he could not afford to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for this purpose. On receipt of the complaint Lakhendra Prasad, P.W. 7 was appointed as a Verifier. He has given his report which is Ext.-4 dated 5.3.1986 wherein he has stated that he alongwith the informant went to the Circle Officer's office at 10 A.M. on 3.3.1986. When they met the Consolidation Officer at about 12 O'clock, they were asked to meet appellant Shailesh Chandra Kumar as Anil Kumar was not available in the office. Shailesh Chandra Kumar similarly demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from the informant. The informant began to bargain with him and finally settled on Rs. 700/- as the rate for making payment. The verification report indicates that all the aforesaid demand and bargain took place in presence of the Verifier. It is further the prosecution case that the informant produced Rs. 700/- before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance who noted down the numbers of the "notes" so produced and returned it to the informant. The informant was to present them to the Consolidation Officer. On the date of occurrence which is 10.3.1986 the raiding party consisting of P.Ws. 1, 10, 7 and 11 went to the Consolidation Office at Dumraon. After sometime at around 3 P.M. it is said that Shailesh Chandra Kumar came out of his office and stood on the road, where the informant is said to have offered him the bribe money, which he accepted and kept in his front pocket of the shirt, he was wearing. On receiving signal, raiding party is said to have surrounded the appellant Shailesh Chandra Kumar made a search and prepared the seizure list. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and allegations the trial of this case commenced.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants have raised the several issues. It is submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove the genesis for the said demand inasmuch. as the documents or objection under 10(3) of the Consolidation Act have not been brought on record to indicate that there was any occasion for Krishna Dubey to approach the Consolidation Office for correction of the Chak. It has also been argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the money was allegedly recovered from Shailesh Chandra Kumar and has also pointed out that there are several contradictions and missing links in the evidence. On behalf of Shambhu Nath Ram, it was argued that none of the