RANAWAT, J.—This is an appeal by Bijailal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge. Jaipur, dated the 30th October, 1953 convicting the appellant under sec. 161 I. P. C. and sentencing him to two months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one Tejaram deposited a sum of Rs. 1032/3/- in the Government Treasury as the price for a lease of two villages. Somehow or other the lease could not be accomplished and the property was not delivered to Tejaram by the Government. He, therefore, applied for a refund of this amount. On his application of the 19th of February, 1953 the Collector, Bharatpur, wrote to the Commissioner for according sanction for refund. This letter of the Collector was received in the office of the Commissioner on the 11th of March, 1953. Bijailal who is the accused in this case was Reader to the Commissioner and this paper came to him on the same date, for placing it before the Commissioner. Tejaram met him as his papers had gone to him and requested him for quick disposal of the case. Bijailal asked him to see him the next day. On the next day when Tejaram again met him he pointed out certain defects in the papers that the Accountant Generals remarks were not there and that no reference regarding Bank Account in which the money had been deposited appeared from the papers. He, however, demanded some money for disposal of the papers. Tejaram flatly refused to pay anything. The next day he again approached him and Bijailal said that as he could not find any money for him the papers were lying with him. He then asked for an amount of Rs. 5/- only and Tejaram then came out promising him to pay that amount. Tejaram went to the Anti-Corruption Departments Office and he moved a petition stating these facts along with a five-rupee note which was duly initialled by Mr. Banerjee and was returned to him for giving it to the accused. Mr. L. N. Sharma, Deputy Superintendent, Anti-Corruption Department, also accompanied him. Tejaram went in the Commissioners Office while Mr. L. N. Sharma kept outside it. After a while it is said the accused came out of the office at about 1-30 P. M. and Tejaram also followed him. Banerjee and was returned to him for giving it to the accused. Mr. L. N. Sharma, Deputy Superintendent, Anti-Corruption Department, also accompanied him. Tejaram went in the Commissioners Office while Mr. L. N. Sharma kept outside it. After a while it is said the accused came out of the office at about 1-30 P. M. and Tejaram also followed him. While both of them were proceeding towards Ajmeri Gate from the Commissioners Office near about the traffic constables post. Tejaram gave that five-rupee note to the accused Bijailal while Mr. L. N. Sharma was looking at them. Soon after this Mr. L. N. Sharma approached the accused and took his search and recovered the five rupee note in the presence of two witnesses Abdul Rahman and Ismail. A case was registered against the accused Bijailal and he was challaned under sec. 161 I. P. C. before the Additional Sessions Judge. 3. The case of the accused was that Tejarams papers were received by him in the Commissioners Office on the 11th March, 1953 and the papers could not be put before the Commissioner as the Commissioner was on leave from the 9th so the 17th of March, 1953. Tejaram did not give him any five-rupee note and when he was apprehended by the police he told the Deputy Superintendent of Police that there was no five-rupee note with him and that Tejaram did not give him any such note. However, on a search a five-rupee note was recovered from the lower pocket of his achkan which, it was alleged, must have been planted by some one without the knowledge of the accused. Evidence was led by the accused about his good character. 4. The prosecution examined Tejaram and Mr. L.N. Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police, both of whom stated that an initialled five-rupee note was handed over by Tejaram to Bijailal and it was recovered from his possession on a search. The two search witnesses, Abdul Rahman and Ismail, were also produced by the prosecution and according to them the said currency note was recovered from the lower left hand side pocket of the accuseds achkan, as alleged by the defence. Abdul Rahman also stated that he was a person with a yellow turban going behind the accused Bijailal and putting something in the latters pocket. Abdul Rahman also stated that he was a person with a yellow turban going behind the accused Bijailal and putting something in the latters pocket. The other witness Ismail did not notice planting anything in the pocket of Bijailal but in his cross-examination said that Abdul Rahman told him that the yellow turbanned man had put something in the pocket of Bijailal. He also stated that he saw Bijailal walking ahead of him before the recovery of five-rupee note was made by the police. Both Abdul Rahman and Ismil were together at the time. 5. Radheyshiam before whom five rupee note was initialled by Mr. Banerjee was also produced by the prosecution as P. W. 8 and he after saying that the said note was initialled by Mr. Banerji stated that he was also asked by the police to keep a watch on Tejaram as the latter wanted to pay it to some one as bribe. He, therefore, kept an eye over Tejaram and he states that Tejaram put a five-rupee note in the lower pocket of Bijailals achkan, after which the latter was arrested and searched by the police and the recovery was made. The learned trial court disbelieved the evidence of Abdul Rahman, P. W. 2, Ismail P. W. 3 and Radheyshiam P. W. 8 in so far as these witnesses supported the defence version and on the strength of the evidence of Tejaram and Mr. L.N. Sharma it was held that a five-rupee note was paid by Tejaram to Bijailal accused as illegal gratification. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced as noted above. 6. In this appeal, it has been urged on behalf of the accused that Tejaram was prejudiced against the accused because he thought that the accused was sitting over his papers in the Commissioners Office and he on this account had a motive to implicate the accused rightly or wrongly. His evidence, it is argued, should not be taken on its face value unless it is supported by some other independent witness. As regards the statement of Mr. L. N. Sharma it is argued that his statement that he saw Tejaram handing over a five-rupee note to Bijailal is inconsistent with his note in the recovery memo where he has specified that on receiving information of payment of illegal gratification he arrested Bijailal and recovered the five-rupee note from his search. As regards the statement of Mr. L. N. Sharma it is argued that his statement that he saw Tejaram handing over a five-rupee note to Bijailal is inconsistent with his note in the recovery memo where he has specified that on receiving information of payment of illegal gratification he arrested Bijailal and recovered the five-rupee note from his search. It is further argued that the lower pocket of Bijailals achkan was loose enough to render it possible for Tejaram to slip in it a five-rupee note without the knowledge of Bijailal. Abdulrahman and Radheyshiam have supported the version of the defence and their evidence is certainly not in keeping with the statements of Tejaram and Mr. L. N. Sharma. This being so, it is urged that this was a case in which benefit of doubt should have been allowed to the accused. 7. Mr. Bhargava on behalf of the prosecution has pointed out that the trial court was in the best position to judge about the credibility of the witnesses who were produced in that court. The learned trial court, it is said, disbelieved the evidence of Abdul Rahman, Ismail and Radhey Shiam in so far as they supported the defence story and believed the statements of Tejaram and of Mr. L.N. Sharma. It is also argued that Tejaram had no personal motives of his own to falsely implicate Bijailal if no money had been demanded from him. Similarly, Mr. L.N. Sharma also had seen the occurrence with his own eyes and his testimony should not be discarded. 8. The evidence of Tejaram and Mr. L.N. Sharma is a very specific that a five-rupee note was passed by Tejaram to Bijailal accused and if the statements of both these witnesses can be believed, the defence version that the five-rupee note was planted in the accuseds pocket would not remain sustainable. The learned counsel of the accused has referred to the case of Lieutenant Hector Thomas Huntley vs. Emperor (1) (A.I.R. 1944 F.C. 67.) where the testimony of a person who gave a bribe was considered no better than that of an accomplice. The relevant observations of his Lordship Zafarullah Khan are as follows: "In this case as in all cases of this kind, the direct evidence of the guilt of the appellants is that of an accomplice, namely that of P.W. 1. The relevant observations of his Lordship Zafarullah Khan are as follows: "In this case as in all cases of this kind, the direct evidence of the guilt of the appellants is that of an accomplice, namely that of P.W. 1. We have considered his testimony very carefully and find that on several matters with reference to which the truth of the story told by him could be tested, he has either prevaricated or contradicted himself." 9. The learned Government Advocate has referred to the cases in The King vs. S.N. Singh Rai (1) (A.I.R. 1951 Orissa, 297.) and In Re: M.S. Mohiddin (2). In The King vs. S. N. Rai the learned Chief Justice Ray discussed whether in cases of offences of bribery where a trap was laid against the accused the person who gave bribe will not be regarded as an accomplice, After discussing the case of Emperor vs. Chattarbhuj Sahu(3) and Emperor vs. Anwar Ali(4) (A.I.R. 1948 Lah., 27.) the following observations were made :— "I cannot however go so far as that, I should lay down a golden rule. The evidence of a spy does not stand in need of corroboration either as a principle of law or as a fundamental rule of practice necessary for safe administration of justice. It is always for the Judge of facts in each particular case to decide whether it is safe to rely and act upon a decoy witness. Each case depends upon its own merits. This much has to be borne in mind, that he has entered into a design with the police to entrap the prisoner and as such his partiality for the prosecution is a factor which can hardly be ignored. The character, position in life and social standing of the witness would go a great way in helping the Judge to appreciate his evidence." 10. In Re: M. S. Mohiddin(2) the learned Judge draws distinction between cases of legitimate trap and those of illegitimate trap in offering bribes and in cases of illegitimate trap a person offering bribe has been considered to be an accomplice requiring corroboration in support of his evidence, whereas in cases of legitimate trap it has been held that such a person cannot be regarded as an accomplice and in law his evidence does not require to be corroborated by other evidence. After having discussed this aspect of the law the learned Judge further points out a rule of prudence requiring such evidence to be carefully scrutinised and accepted as true before a conviction can be had. 11. According to the decision In re : M.S. Mohiddin(2) (A.I.R. 1952 Mad., 561.) the present case is one of legitimate trap and the man who offered bribe cannot be considered to be an accomplice, as per observations made in that judgment. A legitimate trap is one where the offence has already been born and is in its course, and an illegitimate trap is one where the offence has not yet been born and a temptation is offered to see whether an offence would be committed, succumbing to it or not. 12. There seems conflict of opinion among the decisions of the various High Courts in India on the point whether a spy or a decoy witness in a case of bribery should be regarded as an accomplice. In Emperor vs. Chattarbhuj Sahu (3) (I.L.R. 38 Cal., 96.) it has been held that a person who makes himself an agent for the prosecution with the purpose of discovering and disclosing the commission of an offence either before associating with wrongdoers or before the actual preparation of the offence is not an accomplice but a spy, detective or decoy whose evidence does not require corroboration. At the same time it has been added that the weight to be attached to the evidence of such a witness depends on the character of each individual witness in the particular case. It has further been noticed in this case that a person who is associated with an offence with a criminal design and extends no aid to the prosecution till after its commission is an accomplice requiring corroboration. The decision in this case was based on some English rulings. 13. In K.H. Bhattarharjee and another vs. Emperor (5) (A.I.R. 1944 Cal., 374.) Lodge J. observed as follows :— "It is true in a sense that a person who pays bribe is an accomplice of the person who receives the bribe; but the position is essentially different from that of, say, one dacoit deposing regarding the dacoity against his fellow dacoits. In the present case, Kunja Behary Ghosh was not in danger of prosecution. He had nothing to gain by falsely implicating other accused persons. In the present case, Kunja Behary Ghosh was not in danger of prosecution. He had nothing to gain by falsely implicating other accused persons. Though technically an accomplice, he was essentially, as the learned Magistrate has pointed out, a victim. There is no hard and fast rule regarding the corroboration of an accomplice. The Legislature has left the courts free to act on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice if the courts believe that evidence. 14. In Hazura Singh vs. Emperor (1) certain observations have been made about the value of the evidence of a spy. It has been observed that such evidence is looked upon with suspicion and should be seldom relied upon in support of a conviction. It may be noted that these are general observations relating to the value of the evidence of spies. This case was not of an offence under sec. 161 I. P. C. and these observations do not directly refer to the case of a spy in a case of bribery. 15. In Emperor vs. Anwarali (1) (A.I.R. 1929 Lah 436.) which was a case of an offence under sec. 161 I. P. C. it has been observed that it is of the utmost importance in cases of this kind that there should be independent corroboration of the statement of the decoy witness, that the money was received by the accused person for on illegal purpose. 16. In Des Raj Sharma vs. The State (2) (A.I.R. 1951 Simla 14.) which is also a case of bribery, it has been observed that a decoy witness could not be said to be not interested in entrapping the accused and for this reason conviction should not be based on the evidence of such witness without independent corroboration. A contrary view has been expressed in Mahabirprasad vs. The State (3) (A.I.R. 1951 Punjab 424.) which is against the opinions expressed in the earlier cases of the same High Court referred to above. In that case Bhandari J. after referring to certain observations of Cornelius J. from the case referred to above, observed as follows :— "I regret I find myself unable to accept the proposition that in cases of this kind there should be independent corroboration of the decoy witness that the money was received by the accused person for an illegal purpose. Informers, that is, persons who have joined in, or even provoked, the crime as police spies have not been regarded as accomplices and there are at least two English decisions in which it has been held that the rule requiring the corroboration of accomplices does not apply to this class of accomplices vide (R. V. Bickley 73 J. P. 239 R. V. Heuser, 6 Cri. App. Rep. 77). Lam of the opinion that every case in which decoys are used must be decided on its own peculiar facts and no general principles as to corroboration can be laid down". 17. In Surat Bahadur vs. Emperor (4) (A.I.R, 1925 Oudh, 158.) it has been observed that the evidence of a spy requires corroboration practically to the same extent as that of an accomplice. But it may be noted that it was not a case of an offence under section 161 I. P. C. 18. In Bhuneshwari vs. Emperor (5) (A.I.R. 1938 Oudh. 172.) which was a case of an offence sec.161 it has been noted as follows:— "A person who allies himself with the prosecution before the commission of the offence and before he associates with the accused in the perpetration of the offence cannot be called an accomplice, the object in such case being not the perpetration of the offence but the detection of it. Such a witness is a mere spy or detective and he cannot be regarded as an accomplice. The evidence of such a witness is legally admissible in evidence without corroboration; but some degree of disfavour attaches to the evidence of persons playing the role of a spy or informer. Their evidence must be carefully scrutinised and the weight to be attached to it must depend upon the character of each individual witness. " 19. In T. A. Basheeruddin Ahmed and another vs. Government of Mysore(6) (A.I.R. 1952 Mysore 42.) it has been held that spy witnesses are not accomplices and evidence of such witnesses does not require corroboration in law but in some instances courts may require to he satisfied about the truth of the version given by such witnesses. 20. In Re: Koganti Appayya and others (7) (A.I.R. 1938 Mad. 20. In Re: Koganti Appayya and others (7) (A.I.R. 1938 Mad. 893.) it has been observed as follows: "It seems to me that the motive of the person who investigates is not the only determining factor; in other words, even if the object of the person who instigated another to committing a crime is to catch him in the act of committing the crime, instigation by him nevertheless amounts to abetment of the offence, and the abettor must be regarded as an accomplice when the object of the instigation is to take the offender commit the offence, and the person who was instigated actually commits the offence. In any case even if these witnesses are not to be regarded as accomplices in the strict legal send, nevertheless their conduct has been such that their evidence requires to be viewed with caution." 21. It may be noted that this case was not a bribery case but it was a case of dacoity, and these observations may not apply with equal force to the case of a spy in a bribery case. 22. In Papa Kamalkhan and other vs. Emperor (1) (AIR 1935 Bom. 230.) Beaumount C.J. observed as follows : — "In my opinion the rule of the court which requires corroboration of the evidence of an accomplice as against each accused, if it applies at all, applies with very little force to a case like the present, in which the accused is charged with extorting a bribe form other persons. The objections which usually arise to the evidence of an accomplice do not really apply where the alleged accomplice that is the person who pays the bribe is not a willing participant in the offence, but is really a victim of the offence. " 23. In Mohanlal Moolchand vs. Emperer (2) (AIR 1947 Nag. 109.) it has been held that one who as a spy or a detective associates with criminals solely for the purpose of discovering making known their crime and without any criminal intent, is not an accomplice and it is immaterial that he encourages or aids in the commission of the crime. 24. In State vs. Bashamber Dayal (3) (AIR 1953 Pepsu 82.) the observations in Emperor vs. Chaturbhuj Sahu (4) (ILR 38 Cal. 24. In State vs. Bashamber Dayal (3) (AIR 1953 Pepsu 82.) the observations in Emperor vs. Chaturbhuj Sahu (4) (ILR 38 Cal. 96.), which have been referred to above were quoted with agreement and it was observed that in cases of illegal gratification the uncorroborated evidence of a decoy witness can from the basis of a valid conviction provided it can warrant the safe and unhesitating conclusion that what it divulges is true, convincing and credible. The rule of caution which has become a recognised rule of law that it is unsafe to convict a person on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice does not equally apply where the witness is simply a decoy witness. A decoy witness has to be kept apart from the rank of accomplices who are actual criminals as they intentionally and voluntarily participate in the commission of a crime. Mere aiding in the detection of a crime by becoming an instrument of detection without any intention to commit the crime and without any intention to make gain out of the perpetration of the crime cannot make the person so aiding an associate in crime. 25. It would be noticed from the authorities discussed above that on the one hand there are decisions in which a spy or a decoy witness has been treated to be no better than an accomplice requiring corroboration. There are cases in which it has been held that the evidence of a decoy or a spy can from the basis of a conviction without any corroboration, provided the court is satisfied about the truth of such statements. In a number of cases in which a decoy witness has not been considered to be an accomplice, a rule of prudence has been taken note of that the evidence of such witness should be carefully examined before it can form the basis of a conviction. 26. In the observations of His Lordships Zafarullah Khan, which have been referred to above in Lieutenant Hectory Thomas Huntley vs. Emperor(5) (AIR 1944 F.C. 67), though the decision in that case proceeded on a careful examination Of the evidence of a decoy witness yet such a witness was styled as an accomplice. 26. In the observations of His Lordships Zafarullah Khan, which have been referred to above in Lieutenant Hectory Thomas Huntley vs. Emperor(5) (AIR 1944 F.C. 67), though the decision in that case proceeded on a careful examination Of the evidence of a decoy witness yet such a witness was styled as an accomplice. A decision of the Federal Court carries more weight than the judgments of any one of the High Courts in India and even though the aforesaid remarks of the Federal Court were without any discussion of the law on the subject they cannot be lightly looked at. In any case it is evident that the evidence of such a witness should be carefully examined before it can form the basis of a conviction. 27. In the present case Tejaram has stated that on the 14th of March, 1953, after the office hours when the accused came out of his office he accompanied him towards the Ajmeri Gate and after he had crossed the post of the traffic constable and had also gone ahead of the petrol pump on the right side of the road he gave the marked note to the accused who placed it in the top pocket of his achkan while they were both walking. He traced back a few paces and the police caught hold of the accused and recovered the said note from his possession i.e., from the top pocket of his achkan. In support of the statement of this witness Mr. L. Sharma, P. W. 7 has been produced who stated that he saw Tejaram giving the marked five-rupee note to the accused and he arrested him subsequently and recovered the said note from his possession. The witness also stated that the note was found in the top pocket of the accuseds achkan. In his necessary memo however this witness did not make any note of his having seen delivery of the marked note to the accused but instead he noted that because he had received Rs. 5/- as bribe from Tejaram son of Gullaram Jat of Kherwara, Tehsil Nagaur, the person of Bijailal son of Gopinath was searched in the presence of Abdul Rahman and Ismail etc. 5/- as bribe from Tejaram son of Gullaram Jat of Kherwara, Tehsil Nagaur, the person of Bijailal son of Gopinath was searched in the presence of Abdul Rahman and Ismail etc. It was pointed out that the contents of the search memo prepared by this witness were inconsistent with his statement on the point of his having seen payment of the marked five-rupee note to the accused. Mr. L. N. Sharma has stated that he saw the occurrence while he was standing on the payment in front of the clock tower near the Edward Memorial. Tejaram has stated that he gave the marked five-rupee note to the accused when both of them had gone a little beyond the petrol pump on the right hand side of the road and while they were both proceeding towards the Ajmeri Gate. The faces of the accused and Tejaram at the time the alleged payment was made must have been in a direction opposite to where Mr. L.N. Sharma was standing. It appears therefore difficult to believe that Mr. Sharma could have seen passing of the note which should have occurred behind the persons of the accused and Tejaram. Mr. L. N. Sharma cannot, therefore, be believed that he actually saw the passing of the marked note in the hands of the accused. Abdul Rahman P. W. 2 has supported the version of the defence that he saw a yellow turbanned man putting something in she lower pocket of the accused while the letter was going ahead of the former. A few minutes later, according to this witness, the accused was held up by the police and his person was searched and five-rupee note was found in the lower pocket of his achkan. Ismail has not supported Abdul Rahman as having seen the incident stated by him but he has only said in the cross-examination that Abdul Rahman told him that he had been some one approaching the accused and stocking something in his pocket. This statement of Ismail, it is urged by the Government Advocate, is not in keeping with his statement in the examination-in-chief, because earlier he had stated that he saw the police arresting the accused and searching him while he was coming from the motor stand. This statement of Ismail, it is urged by the Government Advocate, is not in keeping with his statement in the examination-in-chief, because earlier he had stated that he saw the police arresting the accused and searching him while he was coming from the motor stand. There is some inconsistency in the statement of this witness but the prosecution did not try to clarify the position by putting clear questions to this witness. Radheyshiam P. W. 8 has also supported the defence version. According to this witness Tejaram while he was walking behind the accused on the road placed something in his pocket. This witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution. It is urged by the learned Government Advocate that the evidence of Abdul Rahman, Ismail, and Radheyshiam should not be believed in so far as it goes in support of the case of the accused. Merely because the evidence of a particular prosecution witness goes in favour of the accused it cannot be said that it should be rejected on that ground alone. In view of the evidence of Abdul Rahman, Ismail and Radheyshiam the prosecution case has become a little doubtful. The trial court has disbelieved these witnesses solely because their evidence was not favourable to the prosecution. The learned counsel of the accused also pointed out that Tejaram was prejudiced against the accused from the very beginning and that is why his evidence should not be taken at its face value. It has also been argued that the accused would not have dared to take bribe from Tejaram in the middle of the road when he could have done so while both of them were all alone. This is also a circumstance which can be considered in favour of the accused. In view of the inconsistencies between the statements of Abdul Rahman, Ismail and Radheyshiam on the one hand and the statement of Tejaram and Mr. L. N. Sharma on the other, the prosecution case is not free from doubt and the possibility of the innocence of the accused cannot be rule out. The accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. 28. This appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the lower court are set aside and the accused is acquitted. The fine, if recovered, shall be refunded to him. As he is on bail he need not surrender to it.