In a bribery case, the prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses must be reliable and sufficient to convict the accused. The court should also consider whether there are any independent witnesses who can corroborate the prosecution story.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal u/s. 5 (1) (d), read with S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1955, and also u/s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code, by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Jabalpur in Special Criminal Case No. 1 of 1982, decided on 17-4-1982.

( 2 ) THE respondent Vishnu Prasad Babele was prosecuted on the allegation that, on 15-3-1980, while working as Reader to the Executive Magistrate, accepted Rs. 50/- as bribe from Shri P. K. Tiwari (P. W. 1), Advocate, and Shri M. A. Khan ( P. W. 2), Advocate, for releasing one Ganesh Prasad son of Shambhoo Prasad, who was apprehended under S. 107/116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on bail. The aforesaid Advocates were appearing for Ganesh Prasad and had applied for grant of bail on 13-5-1980. The said Ganesh Prasad was not released on 13-5-1980, but was sent to the jail. It is alleged that on 14-5- 1980, two other accused persons were released, but not Ganesh Prasad, because the bribe was not given as demanded. The Advocates requested the Presiding Magistrate Shri U. D. Chaube (P. W. 6) to pass in order for release of Ganesh Prasad, but the Presiding Magistrate asked them to go and contact the Reader. Being disgusted with the attitude of the Magistrate and his Reader, the said Advocates made an application (Ex. P. 1) to the Vigilence Department for taking the Reader to task. Shri Hanumant Singh (P. W. 13) arranged a trap. Rs. 50/- were treated with phenolphthalein powder and Panchnama (Ex. P. 2) was prepared in the presence of P. W. 5 Shri Mahadeo Prasad Khare and other Officers. The money was handed over to the Advocates and a trap was laid on 15-5-1980.

( 3 ) AT about 3-00 p. m. on 15-5-1980, P. W. 1 Shri P. K. Tiwari and P. W. 2 Shri M. A. Khan along with P. W. 3 Shri S. K. Shukla, Advocate, went into the court-room No. 12 of Collectorate at Jabalpur and after some conversation with the accused-respondent, passed on the bribe money to him. The accused-respondent kept the money in his pocket. After receiving the signal, P. W. 5 Shri M. P. Khare and P. W. 13 Shri Hanumant Singh and others, reached the spot. The hands of the accused were washed with lotion of sodium carbonate powder and the same turned into pink colour. His pocket of the pant was also washed-which also turned into pink colour. Thereafter, a panchanama was prepared, which is Ex. P. 7. Seizure of the pant etc. was made vide Exs. P-4 and P-5. The concerning file was also seized vide Ex. P-6 Ex. P-7 is the Panchanama of the proceedings. Sanction to prosecute the respondent was obtained vide Ex. P-9 which is proved by P. W. 7 B. D. Jugade. The allegation of the prosecution is that the property in question had been changed, except the notes, which were seized from the possession of the respondent. The application for grant of bail dated 13-5-1980, filed by the learned Advocates, is also missing from the record. ( 4 ) THE learned Special Judge held that the demand of bribe and acceptance thereof, has not been proved. He further held that no independent witnesses were examined. The Executive Magistrate P. W. 6 Shri U. D. Chaube did not support the prosecution case. He was not declared hostile. The story of the prosecution is unbelievable. There had been material variations in the statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. Thus, the trial Court was of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the State argued that the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge are perverse. There is no variation in the prosecution story. The file of the Magistrate had been tampered with and there had been material interpolations. The Magistrate Shri U. D. Chaube (P. W. 6) was out and out to help the accused respondent. Though he had not been declared hostile, but no reliance should have been placed on his version. No enmity between the accused-respondent and