JUDGMENT V.D. Bhargava, J. - This is an appeal by Ram Chet Shukla, who has been convicted u/s 161, IPC read with Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947, and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/ -, in default to a further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. 2. The prosecution story in brief is, that one Har Swarup Sharma (P.W.1) was a resident of mohalla Acharyan Chandausi. He had earned a bad reputation and the residents of the town as well as the police suspected his hand in a number of undesirable activities, and he was also called several times by the police for interrogation. Several anonymous and signed letters were also received against this man. According to these letters he was a murderer, a cheat, a thief, a gambler and an organiser of a gang of bad characters. Enquiry was being made about the undesirable activities of Har Swarup Sharma. Mohalla Acharyan where Har Swarup Sharma was residing, was within the Khurja Gate outpost. The accused Ram Chet Shukla was a head constable posted at that outpost and he is alleged to have come to Har Swarup and told him that action was contemplated against him and history sheet was likely to be opened for him Har Swarup Sharma was, according to the prosecution, taken to the Station Officer. Chandausi in that connection. On 12-10-1952 Ram Chet Shukla met Har Swarup and wanted some illegal gratification in order to hush up the enquiry, and assured him that in case he paid the money to him and to the sub-inspector no history-sheet would he opened. He further said, that the station officer usually did not accept bribes directly but accepted bribes through him. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 50/ - for the station officer and another sum of Rs. 50/ - for himself should be arranged for. Har Swarup Sharma said that he was agreeable to pay Rs. 100/ - and went away. He contacted one Devendra Gupta (P.W.2) and told him the details of the talk that he had had with the accused. Devendra Gupta told him that he would get she sub-inspector arrested and, therefore, he contacted Sri Devendra Sen (P.W.8), Superintendent of Police, Moradabad on the phone and apprised him of the details. 100/ - and went away. He contacted one Devendra Gupta (P.W.2) and told him the details of the talk that he had had with the accused. Devendra Gupta told him that he would get she sub-inspector arrested and, therefore, he contacted Sri Devendra Sen (P.W.8), Superintendent of Police, Moradabad on the phone and apprised him of the details. Devendra Gupta was informed by Sri Devendra Sen that a trap to catch the head constable would be laid. It may be noted that along with the accused there was one other co-accused Radhey Shyam who was a constable at that outpost, but he has been acquitted by the Sessions Judge. Sri Devendra Sen is alleged to have contacted the District Magistrate Sri K.C. Chaudhary to depute some magistrate for laying the trap. Consequently Sri T.N. Chaturvedi, Magistrate first class, who was officiating as the Joint Magistrate in the district and was deputed for the purpose and was accompanied by Sri Bashir Husain, Dy. Superintendent of Police, left Moradabad in the evening of the 13th at about 6 o'clock. They had already arranged that they would meet Devendra Gupta there on the road near Chandausi town. All these persons who were sitting in a police truck reached Chandausi. Thereafter, they decided upon a plan for laying the trap. According to that plan the accused and Radhey Shyam were to be invited to a dinner at the house of Har Swarup Sharma at about 8 p.m. that night and arrangement for drink was also made. Sri T.N. Chaturvedi, Magistrate, Sri Bashir Husain, Dy. Superintendent of Police, and Devendra Gupta went to the house of the complainant Har Swarup Sharma and found that the ladies were busy in cooking food and they took their seats in a room adjoining the room where the accused and the other co-accused were to come and sit for the dinner. Nine 10 rupee notes and one two-rupee note were given by Har Swarup Sharma to the Magistrate for signature on them and he made his initials on these notes. Thereafter they waited. Shortly after these persons had reached there the accused came and conversation started between Har Swarup and the Appellant. Nine 10 rupee notes and one two-rupee note were given by Har Swarup Sharma to the Magistrate for signature on them and he made his initials on these notes. Thereafter they waited. Shortly after these persons had reached there the accused came and conversation started between Har Swarup and the Appellant. It is alleged that Har Swarup Sharma wanted an assurance from Ram Chet Shukla that if the payment was made no history sheet would be opened, as Dhyan Chand had falsely accused him for undesirable activities; and this conversation is alleged to have lasted for a few minutes. Thereafter the notes were passed on by Har Swarup Sharma to the accused who kept notes worth Rs. 50 in one pocket and worth Rs. 30 in the other pocket and he gave Rs. 10 to the other accused who also kept this note in his pocket. As soon as this transfer of money had been made, Sri Chaturvedi, Sri Bashir Husain and Devendra Gupta entered the room where the accused were taking food and Sri Chaturvedi asked the accused to raise their hands and a search was made. On the search, currency notes worth Rs. 80 were found with the accused and Rs. 10 with Radhey Shyam. A recovery list was prepared and thereafter they were taken to the police station and a report was lodged. The accused were found drunk at that moment. 3. The defence case was that this money was not taken by the accused, but a trap was laid to implicate the Appellant on account of enmity with Devendra Gupta because he had refused to act according to the directions of Devendra Gupta and failed to assist him in the local politics. The Appellant admitted that they had gone to the house of Har Swarup Sharma for dinner and that they were drunk at the time when the Magistrate and the Deputy Superintendent of Police appeared. But he further added that on account of the drink the Appellant had felt a little hot and had put off his shirt aside and possibly it was at that time that these notes were put in the pocket of his shirt and when he again put it on the Magistrate came and found the notes. 4. The case was started after obtaining the sanction of the Superintendent of Police, Moradabad and the case was investigated by one Mr. Sarin. 4. The case was started after obtaining the sanction of the Superintendent of Police, Moradabad and the case was investigated by one Mr. Sarin. He was dead and his evidence could not be taken. 5. The prosecution had produced ten witnesses out of whom seven were more or less formal witnesses and really there are three witnesses who are said to have proved the case against the Appellant. 6. Among the three important witnesses are Har Swarup Sharma (P.W.1), Devendra Gupta (P.W.2) and Sri T.N. Charturvedi (P.W.3). In a case of bribery when a trap is laid, it cannot be denied that those who take part in the trap are in the nature of accomplices. They are as have been called, agents provocateur. It is true that practically no case of bribe can be detected without employing these agents. But at the same time great precaution has to be taken and their evidence has to be scrutinise very carefully before any conviction can be based on it. It has been laid down in Lieutenant Hector Thomas Huntley v. Emperor 1944 AWR F.C. 66. A charge u/s 161 Penal Code, is one which is easily and may often be lightly made, but is in the very nature of things difficult to establish, is direct evidence must in most cases be meagre and of a tainted nature. These considerations cannot however be suffered to relieve the prosecution of any parts of the burden which rests upon it to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. If after everything that can legitimately be considered has been given its due weight, room still exists for taking the view that however strong the suspicion raised against the accused every reasonable possibility of innocence has not been excluded, he is entitled to an acquittal. 7. While it is true that independent corroboration may not be possible in bribery cases yet the courts have to be very careful at the time of recording a finding of conviction that the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The courts cannot allow suspicions, however strong, supported by tainted evidence, to take the place of proof only because it is difficult to find good evidence justifying a conviction of the accused person. 8. It is difficult to lay down what evidence should be or could be regarded as corroboration. The courts cannot allow suspicions, however strong, supported by tainted evidence, to take the place of proof only because it is difficult to find good evidence justifying a conviction of the accused person. 8. It is difficult to lay down what evidence should be or could be regarded as corroboration. Its nature and extent will always vary with the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down. In these circumstances, the evidence of the three witnesses has to be closely examined. 9. (Thereafter his lordship after examining the evidence of the witnesses held that the prosecution case had not been established and acquitted the accused.)