( 1 ) IT may be stated that in a criminal case whether it be under the Prevention of Corruption Act or under the Indian Penal Code the burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt is always on the prosecution. It is true that after it is established that the accused accepted the amount presumption under sec. 4 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act would arise. But for the purpose of coming to the conclusion as to whether the accused accepted the amount or not the totality of the evidence led at the trial is required to be appreciated. The prosecution evidence alone cannot be considered for the purpose of coming to the conclusion as to whether the accused accepted the amount or not. The evidence led by the prosecution the suggestions made by the defence in cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses the version given by the defence and the defence witnesses if any examined at the trial every thing is required to be considered in its totality and it is to be seen as to whether the total effect of the entire evidence led before the court is of a nature by which the only conclusion possible was that the accused accepted the amount. If such a conclusion is possible then alone it can be held that the prosecution established the case beyond reasonable doubt. In the first place we may say that all the three prosecution witnesses fully supported the prosecution case. It may here be stated that the complainant at one stage thought that the amount was excessive. He wanted favour from the appellant in the sense that he wanted to know before as to in which area the Inspector was to visit for the purpose of checking. This according to him was necessary for the purpose of getting business of repairing. The offence of bribery can only be completed if the amount is offered and accepted and therefore the person offering the bribe aids the offender who accepts the amount. The complainant is therefore in the eye of law an accomplice and therefore his evidence is required to be corroborated by independent evidence before it could be acted upon. For that purpose in a raid which is carried the panch is chosen and he is kept present throughout in order that he might see the transaction and hear the talk which might take place at the time of the transaction. Choosing of a person as a panch is a most important aspect in a corruption case and an independent person unconnected with the prosecution is required to be chosen so that there is guarantee of his reliability and the learned Special Judge therefore must feel that the person chosen is a person on whom implicit reliance could be placed. It must always be remembered that the whole prosecution case in a corruption case practically hangs on the evidence of this panch witness a single person who either destroys the prosecution case or destroys the career of a public servant. It is at times very difficult almost impossible for a public servant to find out all antecedents of a panch witness and suggest as to why and under what circumstances he is deposing against him. It is therefore necessary that a great care should be taken by the investigating agency to choose a proper person whose integrity and whose reliability cannot be doubted. In regard to Mohanbhai (P. W. 2) panch no. 1 it appears that he was chosen as a panch when he was just standing under a pillar near Pan Cabin. The place where he was standing was at a distance of about one and half or two miles from his house. That place is at a distance of about half mile from the office of the Police Inspector. Now therefore the Police Inspector or his person had travelled a distance of about half mile to find out a suitable person to act as a panch. That person was accidentally found out while he was just standing under a pillar near Pan cabin after taking pan. Curiously another panch had also come there from a different direction and he was found chitchatting with the first panch. This would show that the two persons were kno