Mukta Gupta, J.

1. By the present appeal the Appellant impugns the judgment dated 26th April, 2003 convicting the Appellant for offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 28th April, 2003 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that malafide prosecution has been lodged against the Appellant to wreck vengeance as the Appellant had made complaint against one DSP of CBI namely Shri M.S. Bisht for demanding Rs. 10 lakhs as bribe, which fact has been duly proved by DW14 Inspector D.S. Chauhan. A perusal of evidence on record shows that the case of the prosecution is highly improbable and absurd. PW1 the complainant has categorically stated that the complainant used to often go to Shimla to the house of the Appellant in relation to investigation and there was no offer of bribe when he went to the house of the Appellant. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant it defies all logic that the Appellant did not offer bribe to the complainant PW1 when he came to his house but offered the same while sitting at the CBI Headquarters, CGO complex, Delhi. It is the case of the prosecution that in March 1996 one Amar Jeet approached the complainant and offered him a bribe to help Ms. Shashi Prabha Sharma in the case and the investigation going against him, however no FIR has been registered against the said Amar Jeet Singh and has instead been cited as a witness in the present case as PW19 in the charge-sheet though never examined before the Trial Court. The motive alleged is wholly unbelievable as it is stated that the Appellant was offering money to PW1 so as to link the alleged properties in the name of Ms. Sharma in the case against her regarding disproportionate assets to the Appellant, especially when Ms. Shashi Prabha Sharma had already owned the said properties by filing an application before the CBI Court.

3. It is further contended that the allegations against the Appellant are that on 10th April, 1996 he made a phone call and repeated the offer which conversation was duly tape-recorded and he again sought help to link the properties in the name of Ms. Sharma to be owned by the Appellant. The said tape-recorded conversation has neither been proved to be in the voice of the Appellant nor it has been proved that there was no interpolation/tampering with the tape-recorded version. As per the evidence on record on 8th May, 1996 the investigating officer along with the other witnesses went to Tihar Jail to take the sample voice and finger prints of the Appellant. However, the Appellant refused to give the same and stated that he would consult his laywer before giving the samples. Though PW13 has stated that he had again visited Tihar Jail on 9th May, 1996 when the Appellant refused to give the sample voice and finger prints on the same ground, however no memo of the refusal on 9th May, 1996 has been prepared. Thus, it is evident that the investigating officer did not visit Tihar Jail on the 9th May, 1996. As regards refusal of 8th May, 1996 no adverse inference can be drawn as the Appellant had stated that he would like to consult his lawyer before giving the samples which was both his statutory and constitutional right. PW8 the Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL who examined the tape-recorded conversation has nowhere stated that there was no interpolation/tampering in the cassette, hence the tape-recorded version cannot be looked into. Even assuming that the tape-recorded version is looked into, from the same it is clearly evident that the Appellant has never offered a bribe and the said offer is in fact coming from PW1 the complainant.

4. There is no eye-witness to giving of currency notes by the Appellant to PW1 the complainant. Even as per