12 . There is no evidence on record with regard to the conversation that allegedly took place between appellant no. 1 and appellant no. 2 . Admittedly, the bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- was never recovered in the present case. No evidence has also been brought on record to establish that appellant nos. 1 and 2 were known to each other prior to the date of the incident. It is the case of the prosecution that after apprehension of appellant no. 2, he took the party to appellant no. 1’s office, where the latter was apprehended. Much reliance has been placed on the handwash of the appellant no. 1 to demonstrate that the money accepted by appellant no. 2 was handed over to appellant no. 1. In this regard, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants that various contradictions have come in the testimonies of the witnesses with respect to the said handwash. As per the complainant/PW-6, both the appellants were taken to the Anti-Corruption Branch where the handwash was taken. PW-7, panch witness, also states that handwash of both the appellants was taken at the Anti-Corruption Office, however, both the Raid Officer as well as the Investigating Officer in their testimonies have stated that the handwash was taken at the MCD workshop, where the appellant no.1 was apprehended. Thus, it is the case of the prosecution that the handwashes were taken at the spot , i.e., Model Town Workshop Office, which is contradicted by both the complainant/PW-6 as well as by PW-7 (Panch witness). In these
