According to the accused who had deposed as DW.2, immediately after PW.2 threw his pension pass book, he collected it and handed it over to the Assistant Treasury Officer. On the next day when PW.2 asked for his Pension Paper book, he went to the Assistant Treasury Office room, collected from him and handed over to PW.2. To establish this fact the Assistant Treasury Officer is a necessary witness who would have spoken about whether the pension pass book of PW.2 was in his custody between 06.02.2003 from about 3.30pm till 07.02.2003 at 11.00am. The prosecution witness PW.2 would say that the accused retained the pension pass book on 06.02.2003 and told him to collected the pension pass book after receiving Rs.1,500/- as bribe. On 07.02.2003 at about 11.45a.m, when he met the accused, he asked him to sit on the stool next to his seat and opened the steel bureau and took out the pension pass book. After demand and receipt of Rs.1,500/- bribe, he gave the pension pass book. PW.3 the accompanying witness also corroborate the evidence of PW.2 in this regard. When prosecution has lead clear and clinching evidence regarding demand of bribe by the accused and handing over the pension pass book which was kept in his steel bureau after receiving the bribe amount of Rs.1,500/-. Contrarily by way of defence DW.1 and DW.2 are examined. The evidence of the accused and the testimony of DW.1 a colleague of the accused does not carry the trappings of a plausible explanation regarding custody of the Pension Pass Book or for the motive. When the prosecution would establish the demand and acceptance of money by the accused, the explanation given by the accused that the money was planted on his table does not carry merit and does not provide answer for the presence of phenolphthalein in his hands and shirt pocket. Therefore the finding of the trial Court holding the accused guilty deserves no interference.
