11. Further, according to the prosecution, the appellant after receiving the bribe amount, gave passbook to PW.4, by taking it from out of the dickey of the scooter, but PW.6-DSP, ACB did not cause the chemical test conducted on the passbook. If really the version of the prosecution is true, the chemical test if conducted on the pattedar passbook would have also yielded positive result. The appellant examined DWs.1 and 2, who supported the version of the appellant that PW.4 borrowed an amount of Rs.1,000/- from him, though there is a discrepancy in their evidence as to their presence at the time of actual borrowing, their testimony being the persons of the same village cannot be totally discarded. The appellant and PW.4 hails from the same village, PW.4 stated in his evidence that he used to borrow some amounts from the appellant and used to repay them. As he could not repay the amount of Rs.1,000/- borrowed from the appellant, the appellant abused him and being enraged by the act of the appellant, on the advise of the villagers, he approached the DSP, ACB and gave complaint against the appellant and thereafter followed the instructions of the DSP, ACB. In this case, PW.4, who is the de facto complainant specifically stated in his evidence before the trial Court that he paid the amount of Rs.1,000/- to the appellant as repayment of loan. There is no other evidence showing that the appellant at any
