Credibility of prosecution evidence defeated bribery conviction where no independent witnesses supported the alleged offer or seizure.

Conviction under Section 165A IPC was found unsustainable because the prosecution evidence rested only on the complainant-police officer and other police personnel, with no independent witness to the alleged bribe offer or seizure of currency notes. The complainant also lodged the FIR and investigated the case, undermining credibility. The seizure memo failed to explain the surrounding circumstances, and available respectable witnesses were not joined. A permit covering the transport of gram, though apparently expired by a day, made the defence version plausible and weakened the inference of a deliberate bribe attempt. The cumulative effect was substantial doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code could be sustained on the evidence adduced by the prosecution.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested entirely on the testimony of the complainant-police officer and other police personnel, with no independent witness to the alleged offer of bribe or the seizure of currency notes. The complainant himself had lodged the first information report and also investigated the case, a circumstance that cast a serious cloud on the credibility of the prosecution version. The seizure memo did not explain the surrounding circumstances, and independent respectable witnesses who were available were not associated. The existence of a permit covering the transport of gram, though apparently expired by a day, made the defence version plausible and weakened the inference of a deliberate attempt to bribe. The cumulative effect of these circumstances created substantial doubt about the prosecution story.

Conclusion: The conviction was not sustainable and the appellant was entitled to acquittal on the charge under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code.

---