Sharma, J.— This is an appeal by Kishan Dayal against his conviction by the learned Session Judge (Special Judge) Kotah u/s 161, IPC. He has been sentenced to one years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- and indefault to further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. 8. The prosecution story is that the accused was a Head Constable in-charge of police station Khatoli in Dec, 1954. On or about 18th December, 1954 he sent Noor Mohd. constable to call Nandlal Mahajan of village Bagli to the said police station. Nandlal did not accompany Noor Mohd. to Khatoli at that time but promised to go to Khatoli on the next market-day which was to fall on the next Tuesday, that is, 23rd December, 1954. On 23rd December, 1954 Nandlal went to police station Khatoli in the company of Motilal Patel of Bagli, (hereinafter to be referred to as Patel). The accused was found there. He told Nandlal that he had abducted a Brahman woman of Bagli whose name was Lakhi. Nandlal denied the allegation. The accused however persisted and a demanded a sum of Rs. ]50/- for hushing up the matter. Nandlal had to agree and promise to the amount on the next market day. On coming back from Khatoli Nandlal went to one Bhuramal a congress man, of village Gothra and told him all that had happened between him and the accused. Thereafter some time about the 28th December, 1951 Nandlal with Bhuramal went to Swaimadhopur taking six notes of the total value of Rs. 150/- along with him. Of these notes one was of the value of Rs. 100/- and five of the value of Rs. 10/-each. Leaving Nandlal at Sawaimadhopur. Bhuramal proceeded to Jaipur and contacted Sri Lalit Narain. S. P., Anti Corruption Department and told him all that had passed between the accused and Nandlal, Sri Lalit Narain issued an order Ex. P. 5, dated ;28th December, 1954 to Sri Motilal, Dy. S.P. Anti Corruption Department directing him to go to the spot and do the needful. Moti Lal Dy. S. P. (hereinafter to be referred to as the Dy. S.P.) then left for Sawaimadhopur in the company of Bhuramal and some of the members of his staff with the order Ex. P. 5. At Sawaimadhopur the Dy. S.P. Anti Corruption Department directing him to go to the spot and do the needful. Moti Lal Dy. S. P. (hereinafter to be referred to as the Dy. S.P.) then left for Sawaimadhopur in the company of Bhuramal and some of the members of his staff with the order Ex. P. 5. At Sawaimadhopur the Dy. S. P. met Nandlal who put up a report before him which is dated 29th December, 1954 and is Ex. P. 3 on the record and handed over the hundred rupee note to him. It is Art. 1 on the record. The Dy. S.P took that note to Sri Shishram, S. P., Sawaimadhopur and got it initialled by him and kept it with his ownself. Nandlal returned on foot to his village Bagli and the Dy. S. P. with Bhuramal and his staff and the note Art. 1 proceeded in a car to Khatoli. Nandlal in the company of the Patel also reached Khatoli and met the Dy. S. P. and his party on 30th December, 1954. The Dy. S. P. handed over the signed currency note Art. 1 to Nandlal after preparing the memo Ex. P. 2 for the purpose of handing it over to the accused. Nandlal was told that after the note had been delivered, he should make a signal so that the police party might know that the note had been delivered to the accused. Nandlal in the company of Patel then went to deliver that note to the accused who was found in the company of the Circle Inspector concerned. The note could not therefore be delivered to the accused at that time and Nand Lal along with Patel returned to the Dy S. P. and told him that no opportunity could be found to deliver the note to the accused and that he would go again in the evening to nana it over to the accused. Ac about dusk time Nandlal with Patel went to Noor Mohd. constable and asked him to take him to the accused. Noor Mohd. told Nandlal that that was not the proper time to see the accused, and asked Nandlal to see him next morning, as the Circle Inspector was to leave in the night. Nandlal and the police party had to stay at Khatoli in the night. constable and asked him to take him to the accused. Noor Mohd. told Nandlal that that was not the proper time to see the accused, and asked Nandlal to see him next morning, as the Circle Inspector was to leave in the night. Nandlal and the police party had to stay at Khatoli in the night. Next morning, that is, on 3st December, 1954 when Nandlal was sitting at a temple known as Mdtaji-ka-temple, the accused and Noor Mohd. were brought by Patel to that place Nandlal thereupon handed over the note Art. 1 to the accused. The accused asked him why he was paying Rs. 100/- only and not the agreed sum of Rs. 150/- whereupon Nandlal replied that he was able only to procure that amount. The accused put that note Art. 1 in the upper front pocket of his khaki coat which he was wearing at that time and asked Nandlal to go away. In the meanwhile on a signal made by Patel the police party came up to the accused and asked him to deliver the hundred rupee note Art. 1 which he had taken from Nandlal. The accused at first tried to put off but on the insistence of the police party he had to take out and hand over the note to the Dy. S.P. A recovery memo was prepared and it is Ex. P. 4 on the record. The recovery was made in the presence of Gopilal Brahman and Chagganlal Maha-jan who were procured by the police party to witness the search. They attested the recovery memo Ex. P. 4. The accused was arrested and sanction u/s 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was obtained from the D.I.G.P., Udaipur Range to prosecute the accused. Thereafter the accused was prosecuted u/s 161, IPC in the court of the learned Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Kotah. 3. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses. Nandlal P. W. 4 is the complainant himself. P.W. 1 is Shri Sultan Singh D I.G.P, who had sanctioned the prosecution of the accused. Akbar Khan P. W. 2 and Chagganlal P. W. 3 are the witnesses of the delivery of the note Art. 1 by the Dy. S. P. to Nandlal on 30th December, 1934 at Khatoli. Nandlal P. W. 4 is the complainant himself. P.W. 1 is Shri Sultan Singh D I.G.P, who had sanctioned the prosecution of the accused. Akbar Khan P. W. 2 and Chagganlal P. W. 3 are the witnesses of the delivery of the note Art. 1 by the Dy. S. P. to Nandlal on 30th December, 1934 at Khatoli. Gopilal P. W. 6 and Chagganlal P. W. 7 are the witnesses of the recovery of note Art. I from the pocket of the accused and are also the attesting witnesses of the recovery memo Ex. P. W. 4 Motilal P.W. 5 is the witness of the alleged demand of illegal gratification by the accused from Nandlal and also about the recovery of the note Art. 1 by the police party from the pocket of the accused. Bhuramal P. W. 8 is the Congressman of Gothra who obtained the order Ex. P. 5 from Shri Lalitnarain and went in the company of the Dy. S. P. first to Sawaimadhopur and then to Khatoli and is also the witness of the recovery of the note Art. 1 from the pocket of the accused. P. W. 9 is Sri Shishram Sharma, the then S.P. of Sawaimadhopur who initialled the note Art. 1. P. W. 10 is Shri Lalit Narain, S.P. Anti Corruption Department who issued order Ex. P. 5 to the Dy. S. P. to go to the spot and do the needful and to lay a trap. P.W. 11 is the last witness and he is Shri Motilal Dy. S. P. 4. The accused denied the charge and pleaded that the case had been falsely brought against him through the instigation of Shri Bhuramal who was a relation of Seth Meghjiwala of Khatoli who had enmity with the accused. He examined two defence witnesses, one of them was Noor Mohd. constable and the other was Subabkhan Head Constable, Police Station, Khatoli, who proved certain reports in the diary of the said police station. 5. Learned Sessions Judge took P.W. 4 Nandlal and P.W. 5 Motilal Patel to be accomplices and P. W. 6 Gopilal, P. W. 8 Bhuramal and P.W. 11 Motilal Dy. S. P. to be partisan witness and held that Chagganlal P. W. 7 was an altogether disinterested witness. It appears from his judgment that in his view the evidence of Nandlal, Patel, Gopilal, Bhuramal and Dy. S. P. to be partisan witness and held that Chagganlal P. W. 7 was an altogether disinterested witness. It appears from his judgment that in his view the evidence of Nandlal, Patel, Gopilal, Bhuramal and Dy. S. P. would not have been sufficient without independent corroboration but he held that their evidence being corroborated by the evidence of the independent witness Chagganlal, it was sufficient to bring the guilt home to the accused. He consequently convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned in the opening part of this judgment. The accused has come in appeal. 6. I have heard Sri V. P. Tyagi on behalf of the appellant who has very ably argued the case and Sri G. B. Bhargava, Deputy Government Advocate who has with equal ability placed his argument on behalf of the prosecution. Sri Tyagi argued that the learned trial court itself has not considered the evidence of Nandlal, Bhuramal, Patel, Gopilal and the Dy S. P. to be sufficient for conviction of the accused. There was no documentary evidence to show that any report had been made against Nandlal regarding the alleged abduction of Mst. Lakhi. For that there was the oral evidence of Nandlal and Patel only who have been held to be accomplices by the learned trial court itself. There was no satisfactory evidence on the record that there was any complaint against Nandlal about the abduction of Lakhi. There was therefore no foundation for the demand of any bribe by the accused. It was argued that there was discrepancy between the statements of Nandlal and Patel regarding the demand of illegal gratification by the accused. Nandlal has said that the matter was settled between Patel and the accused and that Patel told him what amount had been agreed to for hushing up the matter, whereas Patel has stated that the talk about the demand was directly between the accused and Nandlal, It was argued that it has been proved that there was some ground for grievance against the accused to the Maghjiwala Seths of Khatoli who were related to Bhuramal and that the whole eases had been manufactured through the machination of Bhuramal. It was argued that the learned Sessions Judge has relied mainly on the evidence of Chhaganlal P.W. 7, but the said witness too was not an altogether disinterested witness. It was argued that the learned Sessions Judge has relied mainly on the evidence of Chhaganlal P.W. 7, but the said witness too was not an altogether disinterested witness. According to his evidence he was summoned by the police party at about 5 a.m. on the date of the occurrence to Gopilals place and that he went there and from that time right upto the alleged recovery of the note Art. i he was in the company of the police party. He was therefore also an interested witness. 7. Reliance was placed upon the rulings of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Shivbahadur Singh vs. State of Vindhya Pradesh (1) in order to show that witnesses like the witnesses in this case including Chhaganlal P.W. 7 Were no more than partisan witness and therefore on their evidence conviction was unjustified. Learned counsel also cited the following rulings 1—In re M. S. Mohiddin (2), Bijailal vs. The State (3). Learned counsel also emphasised the point that Patel Stated that after the note had been taken out from the pocket of the accused it fell down on the ground, but this is denied by other witnesses. The evidence about the recovery of note was therefore discrepant and should not have been believed. 8. On behalf of the State it was argued by Sri Bhargava that none of the prosecution witnesses can be taken to be an accomplice. The demand for illegal gratification came from the accused and it was under pressure that Nandlal consented to pay him the sum of Rs. 150/-. From the subsequent conduct of Nandlal it is quite clear that he was not a willing party to pay the bribe and had only to promise to pay it so that he might not be illegally detained. As soon as he was free, he sought the assistance of Bhuramal to bring the accused to took. He cannot therefore be said to be an accomplice. Patel also cannot be said to be accomplice because he simply stood as a surety for Nandlal to get his release for the time being. It was argued that at best all that can be said so far as Nandlal is concerned is that he was a partisan witness. It was argued that the view of the learned Sessions Judge that Gopilal was a partisan witness was not correct. It was argued that at best all that can be said so far as Nandlal is concerned is that he was a partisan witness. It was argued that the view of the learned Sessions Judge that Gopilal was a partisan witness was not correct. Gopilal had no interest in the success or failure of the trap laid out against the accused. He was simply asked to witness the payment of illegal gratification to the accused and the recovery of the amount which might be paid to the accused. The mere fact that he was present at the time the currency note Art. 1 was given by the Dy. S.P. to Nandlal would not turn this witness into a partisan witness. It was argued that in the most important part of this case, that is the delivery of the currency note Art. I to the accused and its recovery from him, the evidence of other witnesses, who might be taken to be partisan witnesses, was corroborated by the evidence of the independent witnesses Gopilal P.W. 6 and Chhaganlal P.W. 7. The evidence of Nandlal and Patel that the amount was demanded on account of the alleged abduction of Lakhi is corroborated by the report Ex. P. 3 made by Nandlal to the Dy. S. P. at Sawai Madhopur. The fact of the recovery of the note from the accused also makes the evidence of Nandlal and Patel that the amount was demanded from Nandlal on account of the alleged abduction of Lakhi believable. There was therefore sufficient evidence on the record to prove that the accused had obtained the note Art. 1 as illegal gratification. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in order to show that none of the witnesses in this case could be called an accomplice and that Gopilal and Chhaganlal could not be taken as partisan witnesses by any observations of their Lordships in the said rulings. Learned counsel also cited a ruling of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramjanas Singh vs. State of Bihat(4) in order to show that a strap like the one laid in the present case could neither be considered to be an illegitimate trap nor the sort of trap which was condemned by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rao Shivbahadur Singhs case. Learned counsel also relied upon a ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ramchand Tolaram Khatri vs. The State (5) in order to show that the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Rao Shivbahadur Singh has not laid down any such principle that the witnesses like Gopilal and Chhaganlal P. Ws. 6 and 7 respectively in this case should be taken to the partisan witnesses. As regards the discrepancy pointed out between the statements of Patel and other witnesses as to what happened to the Art. 1 immediately after its being taken out of the pocket of the accused, it was argued that that was not a material discrepancy and did not affect the broad fact that Art. 1 was recovered from the pocket of the accused. As regards the discrepancy between the statements of Nandlal and Patel as to with which of them the settlement about the payment of bribe was made, it was argued that it was not a material discrepancy. 9. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel, and have very carefully gone through the record of the case and the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both the parties. The most important ruling produced in this case is that of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rao Shivbahadur Sings case cited above. 10. In that case Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh, who was the then Minister of Commerce and Industries in the State of Vindhya Pradesh, demanded some illegal gratification from Nagindas Mehta who was sent to Rewa, capital of Vindhya Pradesh to represent Sir Chinubhai, who in turn represented the Panna Diamond Mining Syndicate for the extension of the lease to carry on diamond mining operations. When informed by Nagindas, Sir Chinu Bhai did not approve of the idea of giving a bribe and suggested that Nagindas should lay a trap for catching the accused. One Pannalal who was the Field Manager of the Panna Diamond Mining Syndicate, was also trying on behalf of the Syndicate in the matter of the extension of the lease. This Pannalal was informed that the accused Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh was leaving for Delhi on 4th April, 1949 and that he should go to Bombay and send Sir Chinu Bhai to Delhi to meet him there. This Pannalal was informed that the accused Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh was leaving for Delhi on 4th April, 1949 and that he should go to Bombay and send Sir Chinu Bhai to Delhi to meet him there. A telegram was also sent to Sir Chinu Bhai by the accused to meet him at Delhi on 7th, 8th or 9th April, 1949 for talks regarding Panna Diamond Mining Syndicate. In response to this Sir Chinu Bhai sent a telegram replying that his Personal Assistant Nagindas and Pannalal were reaching Delhi on 9th April, 1949. Nagindas and Pannalal reached Delhi and there Nagindas contacted the I. G. P. of the Special Police Establishment on the morning of 10th April, 1949 and told him how the accused was coercing him to pay bribe. The I. G. P. referred Nagindas to one Pt. Dhanraj, Superintendent, Special Police Department and Nagindas told him the whole story and it was then decided to lay a trap for the accused. Nagindas had no money with him and was neither able to send for it from Bombay. The bribe demanded was sum of Rs. 26,000/-. This amount was procured by the Super intended, Special Police Establishment himself and after taking down their numbers, Pt. Dhanraj in the company of Pannalal, Nagindas and Sri Shantilal Ahuja, Additional District Magistrate went to the Constitution House, Delhi where the accused was staying. Nagindas with the bundle of notes went inside the suite of rooms occupied by the accused who took him to his bed-room and after closing the door which connected the bedroom with the sitting room where Pannalal was waiting, the accused handed over the resumption order to Nagindas and Nagindas handed over the currency notes of Rs. 25,000/- to the accused. Pannalal then made a signal and the police party along with Shri Shantilal Ahuja rushed into the sitting room and asked the accused to hand over the currency notes which he has taken as a bribe from Nagindas. After some hesitation the accused was made to hand over the currency notes to Pt. Dhanraj. On inquiry by Sri Ahuja as to how he came into the possession of the said notes, the accused stated that that was the amount which had remained as a balance out of Rs. 40,000/-which he had brought from his home. After some hesitation the accused was made to hand over the currency notes to Pt. Dhanraj. On inquiry by Sri Ahuja as to how he came into the possession of the said notes, the accused stated that that was the amount which had remained as a balance out of Rs. 40,000/-which he had brought from his home. In the meanwhile two respectable witnesses, Sri Gadkari and Shri Perulakar were brought to the bedroom of the accused by the police. The accused repeated the same statement and gave the same explanation before these two witnesses which he had given and made before Shri Ahuja and Pt. Dhanraj a little while before. Nagindas was searched in presence of these two witnesses and the two copies of the order, which had been given to him by the accused, were recovered from his person. The numbers of the notes were tallied with the numbers of the notes in the list prepared by the police party in the presence of Shri Gadkari and Shri Perulakar and after the seizure of certain minor things from the bed-room of the accused, he was arrested. At the trial the defence taken by the accused was a denial of the prosecution case and it was suggested that the currency notes recovered from the bed-room were some how planted there by Nagindas. Their Lordships considered the evidence of Nagindas and Pannalal to be the evidence of partisan witnesses although not of accomplices. Their Lordships observed as follows :— "It must be said however that neither Nagindas nor Pannalal nor as a matter of fact Sir Chinubhai their principal was a willing party to the giving of the bribe to the appellant No. 1 (Rao Shivbahadur Singh) and were only actuated with the motive of trapping the appellant No. 1. Their evidence therefore could not be treated as the evidence at accomplices. Their evidence was nevertheless the evidence of partisan witnesses who were out to entrap the appellant No. 1. A perusal of the evid ence of Nagindas and Sir Chinubhai leaves in the mind the impression that they were not witnesses whose evidence could be taken at its face value." (Page 327 para 11(2)). 11. Their Lordships did not consider the evidence of Pt. A perusal of the evid ence of Nagindas and Sir Chinubhai leaves in the mind the impression that they were not witnesses whose evidence could be taken at its face value." (Page 327 para 11(2)). 11. Their Lordships did not consider the evidence of Pt. Dhanraj and others of the Special Police Establishment to be worthy of credit without independent corroboration in the circumstances of the case and observed as follows : "Pt. Dhanraj and the Special Police Establishment were also willing tools in the hands of Nagindas. They thought that there was a great opportunity of trapping appellant No. 1 who was an important person occupying the position of the Minister of Industries in Vindya Pradesh and they did not want to miss the opportunity and there fore procured the moneys even though Nagindas was not in a position to do so. It almost appears as if they were out to oblige Nagindas and brought about a situation whereby through the instrumentality of Nagindas they got at the appellant No. 1." (P. 328 para 12 (4)). 12. About the evidence of Sri Shantilal Ahuja, Additional District Magistrate also their Lordships made the following observation :— "Not only was the police force requisitioned in the organising of the raid but they also enlisted the aid of Shantilal Ahuja, the Additional District Magistrate who took down the statement of Nagindas, searched his person, prepared a memorandum of the notes which were handed over to him and actually accompanied the raiding party to the Constitution House. The Additional District Magistrate was thus made a member of the raiding party itself and was reduced to the position of a witness. The evidence of the police witnesses as also of the Additional District Magistrate thus was tainted as that of partisan witnesses and no corroboration could be derived by Nagindas from the evidence of these witnesses." (P. 328 para 12 (5)). 13. Thus all the four witnesses mentioned above were, according to their Lordships, partisan witnesses and their evidence required corroboration by independent evidence. In that case it was not denied that the currency notes of Rs. 25,000/- were found inside the bedroom of the accused by the police at the time of its raid. The only question to be determined was whether those notes were surreptitiously planted there or were accepted by the accused as a bribe. In that case it was not denied that the currency notes of Rs. 25,000/- were found inside the bedroom of the accused by the police at the time of its raid. The only question to be determined was whether those notes were surreptitiously planted there or were accepted by the accused as a bribe. It was the evidence of Sri Gadkari and Sri Perulakar that the accused had claimed the currency notes of Rs. 25,000/- as his own being the balance out of the money which he had brought from his home when he came to Delhi. It also appears to have been the evidence of these witnesses that on the numbers of the notes being tallied and his explanation in that behalf being asked for by the police authorities, the accused was confused and could furnish no explanation in regard thereto. Their Lordships believed these two witnesses as perfectly independent witnesses and held that their evidence sufficiently corroborated the evidence of other witnesses whom their Lordships considered to be partisan witnesses and it was consequently found that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- was accepted by the accused as a bribe. Their Lordships observed as follows with respect to the evidence of Sri Gadkari and Sri Perulakar :— "They came on the scene after the whole affair was practically over and the stage had been reached when it was necessary to compare the numbers of the notes which had been recovered from the bedroom of the appellant No. 1 with the numbers of the notes which had been handed over to Nagin-das when the raid was being organized. It was at that stage that they figured in the transaction. Their evidence could certainly not be impeached as that of partisan witnesses." (P. 328 last para of para 12) 14. Their Lordships condemned the action of Pt. Dhanraj in procuring the amount of Rs. 25,000/- for payment as a bribe by Nagindas to the accused. Their Lordships also condemned the practice of involving the Magistrates in such traps and also condemned the conduct of Shri Shantilal Ahuja in lending himself to the police for the purpose of trapping the accused. Their Lordships expressed their disapproval as follows— "We cannot however leave this case without expressing our strong disapproval of the part which the police authorities and Shanti Lal Ahuja, the Additional District Magistrate took in this affair. Their Lordships expressed their disapproval as follows— "We cannot however leave this case without expressing our strong disapproval of the part which the police authorities and Shanti Lal Ahuja, the Additional District Magistrate took in this affair. As already observed this offence would never have been committed by the appellant No. 1 but for the fact that the police authorities provided Nagindas with the wherewithal of the commission of the offence, Sir Chinubhai as it appears from the evidence was not in a position to provide Nagindas with this sum of Rs. 25,000/ - or any large sum and in fact in spite of the telephone calls made by Nagindas upon him had not provided any amount beyond Rs. 3,000/- which was meant for the other expenses of Nagindas to him. Nagindas was therefore not in a position to provide this sum of Rs. 25,000/- for payment of the bribe or the illegal gratification to the appellant No 1. But for the adven-titious aid which he got from the police authorities the matter would not nave progressed any further, and Nagindas would have left Delhi empty handed. The police authorities however once they got scent of the intention of Nagindas thought that it was too good an opportunity to miss for entrapping the appellant No. 1 who occupied the position of the Minister of Industries in the State of Vindhya Pradesh They therefore provided the sum of Rs. 25,000/-on their own and handed it over to Nagindas. The police authorities in this step which they took showed greater enthusiasm than Nagindas himself in the matter of trapping the appellant No. 1. It may be that the detection of corruption may some times call for the laying of traps, but there is no justification for the police authorities to bring about the taking of a bribe by supplying the bribe money to the giver where he has neither got it nor has the capacity to find it for himself. It is the duty of the police authorities to prevent crimes being committed. It is no part of their business to provide the instruments of the offence. We cannot too strongly disapprove of the step which the police authorities took in this case in the matter of providing the sum of Rs. It is the duty of the police authorities to prevent crimes being committed. It is no part of their business to provide the instruments of the offence. We cannot too strongly disapprove of the step which the police authorities took in this case in the matter of providing the sum of Rs. 25,000/ to Nagindas who but for the police authorities thus coming to his aid would never have been able to bring the whole affair to its culmination. Not only did the police authorities thus become active parties in the matter of trapping the appellant No. 1, they also provided a handy and an ostensibly independent witness in the person of Shantilal Ahuja, the Additional District Magistrate. Even though he was a member of the judiciary he lent his services to the police authorities and became a limb of the police as it were. The part which Shantilal Ahuja , the Additional District Magistrate took in this affair cannot be too strongly condemned." (Paras 27 and 28 at p. 334-335) 15. Applying the test laid down for an accomplice and a partisan witdas ness in a case of bribery by their Lordships in the above case, I come to the conclusion that Nandlal P. W. 4 in this case cannot be said to be an accomplice. As observed by their Lordships in para 11 of Shiv Bahadur Singhs case, neither Nagindas nor Pannalal nor Sir Chinu Bhai was a willing party to the giving of the bribe to the accused and were only actuated with the motive of trapping he accused and so their evidence could not be treated as the evidence of accomplices. In the present case Nandlal was not a willing party to the giving of the bribe to the accused. The proposal came from the accused and it was only under the fear of being illegally detained by him that Nandlal apparently agreed to pay him the sum demanded. Soon after his release from the pressure of the. accused, Nandlal contacted Bhuramal and with his help secured the assistance of the Anti Corruption Police in trapping the accused. In Ex. P. 3 Nandlal says that he sought the assistance of the Anti Corruption Police as he had been harassed by the accused. He also said in this document that he did not want to pay bribe to the accused, but wanted to get him arrested. In Ex. P. 3 Nandlal says that he sought the assistance of the Anti Corruption Police as he had been harassed by the accused. He also said in this document that he did not want to pay bribe to the accused, but wanted to get him arrested. This clearly shows that Nandlal was a together unwilling to pay the bribe demanded by the accused, but gave his seeming consent simply to get away from the accused. So far as Patel is concerned, he was neither to give nor to take the bribe. He conveyed the demand made by the accused and offered to stand as surety when the accused would not let Nandlal go unless he was assured that the bribe demanded would be paid to him. As regards him I will discuss later on in this judgment as to whether he may be taken to be an accomplice or a partisan witness or an altogether disinterested witness. 16. Before proceeding further it would be worthwhile to examine whether the trap laid in this case was a legitimate or illegitimate trap or if legitimate, suffered from the defects which the trap in Shivbahadurs case noted above suffered from. In this case an offence had already been born inasmuch as demand had already been made by the accused for the payment of bribe to him for hushing up the matter of the alleged abduction of Lakhi against Nandlal. It is not a case where the offence had not been born and simply because accused was suspected of accepting bribes, a trap was laid to induce him to accept bribe. The difference between a legitimate and illegitimate trap in the matter of bribery has been clearly brought out in a ruling of the Madras High Court in the case of In Re M. S. Mohiddin (2), referred to above. In that case bribe was demanded by the accused, who was a Train Movement Inspector from a Station Master to cover up any irregularities or derelictions of duties committed by the said Station Master. The Station Master instead of paying him the bribe, which the accused was alleged to call his mamools, approached the Special Police Establishment and handed over the notes of Rs. 30/- to be offered as bribe and got their numbers recorded by the police. The Station Master instead of paying him the bribe, which the accused was alleged to call his mamools, approached the Special Police Establishment and handed over the notes of Rs. 30/- to be offered as bribe and got their numbers recorded by the police. The notes were delivered to the accused and he was prosecuted for an offence u/s 161, I.P.C. The trap laid in that case was held to be a legitimate trap and the following observations were made— "There are two kinds of traps a legitimate trap, where the offence has already been born and is in its course, and an illegitimate trap where the offence has not yet been born and a temptation is ottered to see whether an offence would be committed, succumbing to it, or not. Thus, where the bribe has already been demanded from a man, and the man goes out offering to bring the money but goes to the police and the Magistrate and brings them to witness the payment, it will be a legitimate trap wholly laudable and admirable and adopted in every civilized country without the least criticism by any honest man. But where a man has not demanded a bribe, and he is only suspected to be in the habit of taking bribes and he is tempted with a bribe, just to see whether he would accept it or not and to trap him, if he accept it, it will be an illegitimate trap and, unless authorised by an Act of Parliament, it will be an offence on the part of the person taking part in the trap who will all be accomplices whose evidence will have to be corroborated by untainted evidence to a smaller or larger extent as the case may before a conviction can be had under a rule of Court which has ripened almost into a rule of law. But, in the case of a legitimate trap, the officers taking part in the trap, like P. Ws. 9 to 11, and the witnesses to the trap, like P. W. 8 would in no sense be accomplices and their evidence will not require under the law, to be corroborated as a condition precedent for conviction though the usual rule of prudence will require the evidence to be scrutinised carefully and accepted as true before a conviction can be had." 17. The evidence of Nandlal P. W. 4 shows that he was called from Bagli by the accused through Noor Mohd. constable and that in pursuance of that call he went to Khatoli on 23rd December, 1954 taking along with him Patel P. VV.5. The accused threat end the witness that he had abducted Mst. Lakhi. Although the witness denied yet the accused persisted and would not let him go unless he had promised to pay Rs. 150/- as demanded by the accused and furnishing Patel as a surety for the same. The evidence of Patel P. W. 5 also shows that he had gone along with Nandlal to Khatoli on the market day and that when Nandlal reached the police station, the accused charged Nandlal with having abducted a woman. Nandlal denied and told him that he had never abducted any woman, but that the woman, the accused was referring to, had gone to Brindavan after Nandlal had reached there and he came across her only at Brindavan. Nandlal also asked the accused to make an inquiry on the spot as to with whom that woman was living, but the accused said that he would not go out for making any inquiry and that Nandlal should stay there as the accused had a right to detain him and start a case against him. Nandlal still persisted that he had not committed the act charged against him and asked the accused to show him if any report had been lodged against him. The accused however abused Nandlal and asked a constable to put him in the lock up saying that he could detain any body for 24 hours in the lock up. Thereafter the accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 150/- from Nandlal which the latter had to agree to and the witness (Patel) stood as a surety for its payment. 18. On a careful reading of the evidence of these two witnesses, I find that although there are some slight discrepancies in their statements on this point yet as a whole their evidence in this respect bears a ring of truth. These two witnesses were described by Sri Tyagi as accomplices and the lower court has also considered them to be so, but to my mind Nandlal cannot be said to be an accomplice. These two witnesses were described by Sri Tyagi as accomplices and the lower court has also considered them to be so, but to my mind Nandlal cannot be said to be an accomplice. Nandlal of course was certainly an interested witness, but he was not a willing party to the giving of the bribe to the accused and was only actuated with the motive of trapping the accused. Although he seemingly consented to pay the amount demanded, yet far from taking any steps to quietly pay the amount demanded he approached Bhuramal P. W. 7 and with his assistance brought this matter to the knowledge of the Anti Corruption Police and succeeded in securing the services of the Dy. S.P. for laying a trap against the accused. Applying, therefore, the test laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shiv Bahadur Singhs case referred to above, Nandlal cannot be said to be an accomplice and can be described only as partisan witness. Patel also does not appear to be an altogether willing party to the giving of the bribe to the accused. He was neither to give nor to take the bribe. He only helped Nandlal out of a difficult position by agreeing to stand as a surety for him for the payment of the bribe and thus obtained his release for the time being. However in view of the fact that the amount of bribe was settled by the accused through his instrumentality, some suspicion can be entertained against him that he was not so unwilling regarding the payment of bribe as was Nandlal. For the purposes of this case therefore I may not differ with the learned lower court and may take it that this witness was more or less in the position of an accomplice. His evidence therefore if standing alone might not have been sufficient to prove that the accused demanded bribe from Nandlal. However his evidence in this matter is corroborated by the evidence of Nandlal and is also supported by the statements made in Ex. P. 3 which is a report made fay Nandlal to the Dy. His evidence therefore if standing alone might not have been sufficient to prove that the accused demanded bribe from Nandlal. However his evidence in this matter is corroborated by the evidence of Nandlal and is also supported by the statements made in Ex. P. 3 which is a report made fay Nandlal to the Dy. S. P. at Sawaimadhopur In this report the statement when translated into English runs as follows was made:— "This year in the month of Sawan last I had gone to Brindavan Four days after that Lakhi wife of Chatura, caste Brahmin, resident of Bagli, aged 30 years, also arrived at Brindavan having run away from her house. Hazarilal Chaturvedi of Khatoli telling me that she belonged to my village gave her in my custody and told me that I should take her to Bagli. One day after I brought her to Bagli along with other companions of mine and at Madhopur I handed her over to Ramniwas of Bagli and Gopal Brahmin of Jatwari, who had come to Sawaimadhopur in her search, as both these persons were caste fellows and relations of this wife of Chatura. Thereafter I came back to my house. That woman is still with her husband. Thereafter on 23rd December, 1954, the police station in-charge Kishendayalji Heal Constable called me. I appeared before him and he asked me to get into the lock up and told me that he had abducted Chaturas wife a few days back and abusing me as sola told me that he would send me to jail. Then he called me lucahha (scoundrel). Thereafter he settled for the payment of a bribe of Rs. 150/-through my companion Patel and then he released me on the security of Patel. I have come before you at Sawaimadhopur on account of the worry which has been caused to me by the pressure of Head Sahib and I present before you a currency note of Rs. 100/- No. X/I 193504. I do not want to pay the bribe rather I want that the accused might be arrested, and appropriate proceedings might be taken." 19. On the above report Ex. P. 6 there is the endorsement of the Dy.S.P. that a currency note of Rs. 100/- No. X/l 193504 was presented before him by Nandlal. The evidence of the Dy. S.P. also shows that he was sent to Khatoli under orders Ex. On the above report Ex. P. 6 there is the endorsement of the Dy.S.P. that a currency note of Rs. 100/- No. X/l 193504 was presented before him by Nandlal. The evidence of the Dy. S.P. also shows that he was sent to Khatoli under orders Ex. P. 5 of Sri Lalitnarain, S.P., Anti Corruption Department and that Nandlal had made a report to him at Sawaimadhopur which is Ex. P. 3 and that a hundred rupee note was delivered by Nandlal to him for laying a trap against the accused and that this note was kept by the witness (Dy.S.P.) for being offered to the accused. Sri Lalitnarain P. W. 10 has also stated that he issued orders Ex.P. 5 to the Dy. S. P. for doing the needful in the matter of the alleged demand of bribe by the Head Constable, police station, Khatoli from Nandlal. All this evidence coupled together leaves no room for doubt that a demand had been made by the accused for the payment of a bribe of Rs. 150/-from Nandlal for hushing up the matter of the abduction of Mst. Lakhi and that Nandlal unwillingly promised to pay the said amount simply to purchase his liberty for the time being and far from having intention to pay it in fact, he wanted to have the accused caught red-handed for his misbehaviour. I am perfectly satisfied that the offence in this case had been born and Nandlal had supplied the amount to be offered as bribe from his own pocket. 20. It was argued by Sri Tyagi that no report of the alleged incident of abduction had been made at the police station and so there was no basis for the accused having put any pressure on Nandlal. It is true that no report had been lodged at the police station about the alleged abduction. But that does not show that the accused could not have ill-treated Nandlal and demanded a bribe from him. If there had been a report probably it would have been more difficult for the accused to let Nandlal go by paying some bribe to him. As there as no report it was easy for the accused to demand a bribe from Nandlal telling him that the matter would be hushed up if he paid the bribe. If there had been a report probably it would have been more difficult for the accused to let Nandlal go by paying some bribe to him. As there as no report it was easy for the accused to demand a bribe from Nandlal telling him that the matter would be hushed up if he paid the bribe. I do not agree with Sri Tyagi that the direct evidence of Nandlal and Patel corroborated as it is by the report Ex P.5 should be rejected simply because there was no direct evidence to show that any complaint had been brought against Nandlal or the abduction of Mst. Lakhi. Nandlal has given a very vivid description as to how he met Lakhi at Brindavan and how be was persuaded by Hazarilal Chobey of Khatoli to take her along with him and hand her over to her usband. He has given the date on which he brought Lakhi from Brindavan and the date on which both of them got down at Sawaimadhopur. He has also given the names of the two Brahamans to whom he handed over Lakhi for taking her to her husbands place. He has also stated that Lakhi had been with her husband ever since then. I do not think that all this could have been invented by Nandlal without any basis. I am therefore of the view that the bringing of Lakhi by Nandlal from Brindawan furnished an opportunity to the accused for putting pressure upon Nandlal to extract some bribe out of him by threatening to take criminal action against him and as there was no written report against Nandlal the accused thought it quite convenient to hush up the matter after taking the bribe. 21. Mr. Tyagi has argued that there is some discrepancy between the statements of Nandlal and Patel about the demand of bribe. Nandlal has stated hat the amount was settled with Patel whereas Patel said that it had been settled with Nandlal. Of course this discrepancy exists but I think that it is due either to defect of memory of Patel or the apprehension entertained by him that he might be suspected of having assisted the accused in the matter of bribe if he admitted it was settled through him. Of course this discrepancy exists but I think that it is due either to defect of memory of Patel or the apprehension entertained by him that he might be suspected of having assisted the accused in the matter of bribe if he admitted it was settled through him. The evidence of Nandlal that the talk ok place through Patel is corroborated by the statements in the report Ex.P. 3, The accused himself confronted Patel with his statement Ex. D 2 before the police in which Patel had stated that the accused had demanded a bribe of Rs. 150/- and the witness after consulting Nandlal gave a promise to the accused that it would be paid within 8 or 10 days and the witness stood as a surety. Patel denied having made such a statement at the trial but it appears to be due to the lapse of memory or because Patel wanted to get out of what he considered to be a difficult position by showing that the settlement was made directly with Nandlal and not through him. I have no hesitation in believing the evidence of Nandlal and the statements made in Ex, P. 3 that the accused demanded the bribe from Nandlal through Patel. 22. It was further suggested by Sri Tyagi that the circumstances show that the currency note Art. 1 was supplied by the police itself and that it did not come out of the pocket of Nandlal. This suggestion is altogether in-acceptable in the face of the direct evidence of Nandlal and the statement in Ex. P. 3 and the evidence of the Dy. S. P. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Nandlal and the Dy. S. P. when it is corroborated by the statement in Ex. P. 3. The suggestion is simply founded upon the fact that their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shiv Bahadur Singhs case referred to above distrusted the complainant and the police officer who was responsible for laying the trap specially on the ground that amount of bribery was furnished by the police itself. 23. Now we have to see if it is proved without doubt that the currency note Art. 1 was delivered to the accused. For this there is the evidence of Nandlal and Patel and it is supported by the evidence of Patel, Dy. 23. Now we have to see if it is proved without doubt that the currency note Art. 1 was delivered to the accused. For this there is the evidence of Nandlal and Patel and it is supported by the evidence of Patel, Dy. S. P. Bhura Mal, Gopilal P. W. 6 and Chaganlal P. W. 7. No doubt that Nandlal is a partisan witness and Patel may be taken to be an accomplice. Bhuramal can also be said to be a partisan witness because on hearing the complaint against the accused, he took Nandlal to Sawaimadhopur and brought the Dy. S. P. from Jaipur and accompanied him to Khatoli where the trap was to be laid. The Dy. S. P. can also be said to be a partisan witness because he had laid the trap. Even in the matter of the evidence of an accomplice it has been laid down that corroboration is not required in every detail of the occurrence but corroboration in some of the material particulars alone might be sufficient to believe the evidence of the accomplice. The law about the evidence of an accomplice is almost the same in England as in this country and the following principles regarding the evidence of an accomplice have been very clearly laid down in the celebrated English case of R.V. Baskerville (6) by a strong Bench of the Court of Criminal Appeal consisting of five Judges including the famous and renowned lawyer and Judge Lord Reading. They have been restated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar vs. State of Rajasthan (7). 1. It is not accessary that there should be independent confirmation of every material circumstances in the sense that the independant evidence in the case, apart from the testimony of the complainant or the accomplice, should in itself be sufficient to sustain conviction. As Lord Reading says: "Indeed, if it were required that the accomplice should be confirmed in every detail of the crime, his evidence would not be essential to the case, it would be merely confirmatory of other and independent testimony." All that is required is that there must be "Some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice (or complainant) is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it." 2. The independent evidence must not only make it safe to believe that the crime was committed but must in some way reasonably connect or tend to connect the accused with it by confirming in some material particular the testimony of the accomplice or complainant that the accused committed the crime. This does not mean that the corroboration as identity must extend to all the circumstances necessary to identify the accused with the offence. Again all that is necessary is that there should be independent evidence which will make it reasonably safe to believe the witness story that the accused was the one, or among those, who committed the offence. The reason for this part of the rule is that: "a man who has been guilty of a crime himself will always be able to relate the facts of the case, and if the confirma tion be only on the truth of that history without identifying the persons, that is really no corroboration at all.....It would not at all tend to show that the party accused participated in it." 3. The corroboration must come from idependent sources and thus ordinarily the testimony of one accomplice would not be sufficient to corroborate that of another. But of course the circumstances may be such as to make it safe to dispense with the necessity of corroboration and in those special circumstances a conviction so based would not be illegal. I say this because it was contended that the mother in this case was not an independent source. 4. The corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime. It is sufficient if it is merely circums tantial evidence of his connection with the crime. Were it otherwise, "many crimes which are usually committed between accomplices in secret such as incest, offences with females" (or unnatural offences) "could never be brought to justice." 24. In Baskervilles case (7) referred to above, the accused was charged with having committed offences u/s 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act with two boys. The only evidence in corroboration was as follows — "A letter was sent by the accused to one of the boys in his hand-writing signed by him with his initial B, without any address on the letter enclosing a 10s. The only evidence in corroboration was as follows — "A letter was sent by the accused to one of the boys in his hand-writing signed by him with his initial B, without any address on the letter enclosing a 10s. note to "Dear Harry", one of the boys for himself and "charlie", another of the boys, and making an appointment for them to meet the appellant "as arranged" without naming the place and at a time stated- The prisoner had admitted to the police that the boys had been at his flat, that he knew one as a page boy at the Trocadero Restaurant, and that this boy had been to see him on several occasions with another boy, and the :appel lant suggested to the police that he belonged to a boys club and, therefore, was entitled to invite any of the members to his place. The appellant was not a member of a boys club. The appellant gave evidence at the trial and admitted that he had given money to the boys on various occasions, and that on hearing a peculiar whistle outside his flat, he had gone downstairs to let the boys in." Although there was no corroborative evidence regarding the actual offence, yet the above evidence was considered sufficient for the corroboration of the boys testimony. | 25. In Rameshwars case (7) referred to above, their Lordships had to consider the corroboration of the evidence of the raped girl. It may be noted that the rule of prudence requires the corroboration of the evidence of the raped girl or woman just as it requires corroboration of the evidence of an accomplice. Their Lordships in that case considered the evidence of the mother of the raped girl that she had told her immediately after the occurence that she had been raped by the accused and it was considered to be sufficient corroboration of the evidence of the raped girl for the conviction of the accused. The reason why the evidence of an accomplice is looked upon with disfavour is that he has his own axe to grind inasmuch as he desires to get away with a pardon and he is interested in securing his release by involving other persons and that is why prudence dictates that there should be corroboration in some materials particulars of the evidence of such a witness. In the case of a partisan witness it cannot be said that hi3 evidence is tainted just as that of an accomplice. Some caution is of course required in the matter of the evidence of the partisan witness also but to my mind the corroboration, which might be required for the evidence of the partisan witness, may not be just of that type which is required in the case of an accomplice Some corroboration in one or two materials particulars might inspire confidence in the evidence of a partisan witness. Gases there are in which convictions have been maintained on the evidence of the complainant alone with slight corroboration. In the cases of hurt even when there is no direct witness excepting the complainant himself convictions may be recorded only on the corroboration by medical evidence although the medical evidence cannot show as to who was the person who inflicted the injuries. Every case depends upon its own facts and it cannot be said that because in one case partisan evidence was not believed, it should not be believed in the other case also. General observations made by the highest courts are of course of great value, but it is the duty of the court deciding a particular case to carefully examine the circumstances in the context of which those observations were laid down. Before therefore examining whether there is any corroboration by independent evidence of the evidence of Nandlal, Patel, Dy. S.P. and Bhuramal, I have to examine whether by virtue of the ruling of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shiv Bahadur Singhs case referred to above, the evidence of these four witnesses deserves to be discarded if there is no evidence in corroboration. I may say here that after reading the entire report of Shiv Bahadurs case, I do not find any thing in that case to support the view that the evidence of a partisan witness without any corroboration is in every case to be discarded altogether. The court has to form an opinion on a very careful reading of such evidence. I may say here that after reading the entire report of Shiv Bahadurs case, I do not find any thing in that case to support the view that the evidence of a partisan witness without any corroboration is in every case to be discarded altogether. The court has to form an opinion on a very careful reading of such evidence. Of course keeping in view the care and caution, which is required in acting upon such evidence, the most objectionable feature of Shiv Bahadurs case was that although neither Sir Chinu Bhai nor Nagindas nor Pannalal had any funds for the offering of the bribe, the police itself supplied the considerable amount of Rs. 25,000/- for offering to the accused Shiv Bahadur Singh. This gave an impression, to their Lordships that the police had shown undue zeal in the matter which was not deserving of it. The duty of the police is to detect crimes, but not to supply the instruments of crimes and then bring about a crime. It would be quite evident from the following observations of their Lordships that it was this objectionable act of the police authorities in question which made their Lordships very reluctant to accept the evidence of the raiding party of the police without corroboration by independent evidence :— "Pt. Dhanraj and the Special Police Establishment were also willing tools in the hands of Nagindas. They thought that there was a great opportunity of trapping appellant No. 1 who was an important person occupying the position of the Minister of Industries in Vindhya Pradesh and they did not want to miss the opportunity and therefore procured the moneys even though Nagindas was not in a position to do so. It almost appears as if they were out to oblige Nagin das and brought about a situation whereby through the instrumentality of Nagindas they got at the appellant No. 1." (P. 327 para 12 (4)). 26. Their Lordships also strongly disapproved of the idea that a Magis-trate should offer himself as a limb of the police and therefore their Lordships were not willing to place reliance on the evidence of the Additional District Magistrate Sri Shantilal Ahuja also. 26. Their Lordships also strongly disapproved of the idea that a Magis-trate should offer himself as a limb of the police and therefore their Lordships were not willing to place reliance on the evidence of the Additional District Magistrate Sri Shantilal Ahuja also. The subservience of Shri Ahuja to the police in that case made their Lordships very sceptical about his evidence and consequently their Lordships were anxious to find independent corroboration for the evidence of the police officers and Shri Ahuja in that case. The conduct of the police officers concerned in that case as also of Shri Ahuja gave an impression that their zeal outran their discretion and their sense of duty and consequently it was not considered sufficient to rely upon such evidence. Their Lordships on perusing the evidence or Nagindas and Sir Chinu Bhai got an impression that they were not witnesses whose evidence could be taken as its face value. The necessity for corroboration was not sought simply because they were partisan witnesses but because their evidence itself gave an impression that it could not be taken as its face value. 27. In the present case the funds for offering to the accused were supplied by the complainant Nandlal himself. A perusal of his evidence shows that it bears a ring of truth and that no exaggeration has been made by this witness. It was argued that this witness was playing as a tool in the hands of Bhuramal. From the evidence on the record I do not think that he was such a tool in Bhuramals hands. The evidence shows that bribe had been demanded by the accused a few days before Nandlal saw Bhuramal. It was not at the instigation of Bhuramal that Nandlal had concocted any false case against the accused. It was argued that there was some enmity between Meghjiwala Seths who were relations of Bhuramal and the accused and that is why Bhuramal had set Nand Lal after the accused. The evidence of Gopilal P. W. 6 was read out to show that a poster had been affixed in Khatoli sometime before the occurrence that Amritlal dacoit would commit a dacoity at Meghjiwala Seths5 place. The evidence of Gopilal P. W. 6 was read out to show that a poster had been affixed in Khatoli sometime before the occurrence that Amritlal dacoit would commit a dacoity at Meghjiwala Seths5 place. I have very carefully examined the evidence in the case with a view to satisfy myself whether there is any force in the argument of Sri Tyagi that there was enmity between the Meghjiwala Seths and the accused and on this account this case has falsely been brought by Nandlal through the instrumentality of Bhuramal who is related to Meghjiwala Seths. I find that there is no evidence on the record to show that there was any enmity between the accused and Meghjiwala Seths. The affixing of a poster that dacoity would be committed by Amritlal dacoit at Meghjiwala Seths place does not lead to the conclusion that there was enmity between the accused and Meghjiwala Seths. There is no doubt that Meghjiwala Seths are related to Bhuramal but unless it is proved that Meghjiwala Seths had any enmity with the accused simply because Bhuramal a relation of theirs has assisted Nandlal in bringing the accused to book, it cannot be said that Bhuramal had any improper motive to have the accused brought to book through Nand Lal. Then there is not the slightest evidence on the record to show that Nandlal is in any way-related to Bhuramal or Meghjiwala Seths. The question was put in cross-examination to Nandlal whether he was related to Meghji wala Seths or had| money dealings with them. Nandlal gave a stout denial and said that he was neither related to Meghjiwala Seth nor had money landings with them. No question was put to him whether he had any relationship with Bhuramal. No question was put to Bhuramal also whether he was related to Nandlal or Nandlal was related to Meghjiwala Seths. My attention was drawn to the evidence of Sri Lalit Narain P. W. 10 wherein he had stated that Bhuramal had been to him on 28th December, 1954 at Jaipur an told him that his relation Nandlal was being harassed by the Head Constable of Khatoli, Police Station, and that the latter was demanding bribe from Nandlal, It was argued that this shows that Nand Lal was related to Bhuramal. Sri Lalit Narain however did not know personally that Nandlal was related to Bhuramal. Sri Lalit Narain however did not know personally that Nandlal was related to Bhuramal. His evidence was recorded on 28th August, 1956 whereas Bhuramal had been to him on 28th December, 1954. The witness was produced simply to prove the order Ex. P. 5 which was issued by him and after a lapse of about two years he could not have vivid impression as to what exactly was told to him by Nandlal. In his order Ex. P. 5 Sri Lalit Narain does not say that Bhuramal had said that Nandlal was his relation. It may be that Sri Lalit Narain was carrying the impression that Bhuramalwas related to Nandlal because he had moved the witness in the matter of the alleged demand of bribe. From this statement of Sri Lalit Narain it cannot be taken to be proved that Nandlal was related to Bhuramal. If the accused wanted to show the relationship between Nandlal and Bhuramal, it ought to have been brought out either from them in cross examination or some other legally admissible evidence ought to have been produced to prove such relationship. Nandlal had altogether an independent complaint against the accused and if Bhuramal has assisted him in the matter of having the accused caught red-handed, it does not adversely affect the complainant of Nandlal. 28. It was argued by Sri Tyagi that if the currency note Art. 1 had come out of the pocket of Nandlal it was not necessary for him to have gone away to Bagli leaving the Dy. S. P. Bhuramal at Sawaimadhopur who were to go in a car to Khatoli. I do not understand how this inference can be drawn that the currency note Art. 1 did not come out of the pocket of Nandlal simply because Nandlal went away to Bagli leaving the currency note Art. 1 with the Dy. S. P. He had delivered the note Art. 1 to the Dy. S. P. in the presence of Bhuramal and he could not so much distrust the Dy. S. P. as to remain constantly with him till the note was delivered to the accused. Bhuramal and Dy. S. P. were to go by a bus service to Khatoli and Nandlal might not have liked to spend the fare. It was argued that when he had Rs. S. P. as to remain constantly with him till the note was delivered to the accused. Bhuramal and Dy. S. P. were to go by a bus service to Khatoli and Nandlal might not have liked to spend the fare. It was argued that when he had Rs. 150/- along with him, he could have very well met out of it the fare of the bus, but it is not necessary that having some surplus amount with him Nandlal must spend some amount out of it on fare. Then it was argued that if Nandlal had taken the notes worth Rs. 150/- along with him why he produced the note of Rs. 100/- only before Dy. S. P. at the time of making the report Ex. P. 3. It is not necessary that Nandlal should have given the entire amount of Rs. 150/- to the Dy. S. P. for offering to the accused. If Nandlal thought that his purpose would be served by delivering lesser amount it was unnecessary for him to offer the full amount. Nandlal was not put any question in cross-examination as to why he gave only a currency note of Rs. 100/- for being offered to the accused and not a full amount of Rs. 150/-. 29. It is quite clear from the report Ex. P. 3 and the endorsement on the same by the Dy. S. P. that the note Art. 1 was given to Dy. S. P. by Nandlal and therefore there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Nandlal and other witnesses who have deposed that note Art. 1 was given by Nandlal to Dy. S. P. at Sawaimadhopur along with the report Ex. P. 3. In this case therefore the amount to be offered came from the pocket of the complainant himself, and was not procured by the police as was done in Shiv Bahadur Singhs case referred to above. The main ground therefore on which the evidence of the police witnesses in that case was rot considered to be reliable does not exist in this case. No undue zeal was shown in this case by the Dy S. P. or other police officials as was shown by Pt. The main ground therefore on which the evidence of the police witnesses in that case was rot considered to be reliable does not exist in this case. No undue zeal was shown in this case by the Dy S. P. or other police officials as was shown by Pt. Dhanraj in Shiv Bahadur Singhs case, The trap therefore laid in this case was quite a legitimate trap and did not suffer from the defect from which the trap in Shiv Bahadur Singhs case sufferred and on account of which it was denounced in strong terms by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. The trap laid in this case was an ordinary trap of the type laid in the case of Ram Krishna vs. State of Dslhi and Gianchand vs. State of Delhi (8) which appears to have met with approval by their Lordships as would be shown from the following observations :— "It has been stated already that a trap was laid for catching the appellants and this circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, should be taken into account in the matter of sentence. In this connection, our attention was invited to the well-known and weighty observations of Lord Goddard, C.J., in Bnranan vs. Peek, 1947-2 ALLER 572 (A) where his Lordship expressed the hope that— "the day is far distant when it will become a common practice in this country For police officers to be told to commit an offence themselves for the purpose of getting evidence against someone ; if they do commit offences they ought also to be convicted and punished, for the order of their superior would afford no defence." While there is much to be said in support of the opinion expressed by the learned Chief Justice, it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule that laying of traps must be prohibited on the ground that by so doing we hold out an invitation for the commis sion of offences. The detection of crime may become difficult if intending offenders, especially in cases of corruption are not furnished opportunities for the display of their inclinations and activities. Where matters go further and the police authorities themselves supply the money to be given as a bribe, severe condemnation of the method is merited, as in Shiv Bahadur Singh vs. State of Vindhya Pradesh. "(Para 11 at page 479) 30. Where matters go further and the police authorities themselves supply the money to be given as a bribe, severe condemnation of the method is merited, as in Shiv Bahadur Singh vs. State of Vindhya Pradesh. "(Para 11 at page 479) 30. The evidence of Nandlal, Bhuramal and Dy. S. P. therefore cannot be rejected simply because the evidence of Pt. Dhanraj, other police officials, Shri Ahuja, Nagindas and Pannalal was not considered to be worthy of reliance without corroboration by other independent evidence in Shiv Bahadur Singhs case referred to above. As has already been discussed above, the circumstances in that case where extraordinary and the conduct of the police officials and that of Shri Ahuja on account of the special features of that case was open to disapproval and that is why their Lordships had to search for corroboration by independent evidence. In the present case there are no such circumstances. as would merit disapproval of the conduct either of Nandlal or of the police party. In a bribery case it often becomes necessary to lay a trap like the present and if simply on account of such a trap the evidence of the complainant and the police party is to he discarded it would be very difficult to bring the offenders to book. Of course as the complainant in bribery case is interested like the complainants in other cases and the police officials are more or less anxious that the trap might succeed it might be said that it is advisable that some corroboration from independent sources might be sought. But to say that on account of the observations of their Lordships in Shiv Bahadur Sings case, in no case should the evidence of the complainant and the police officials of the raiding party be acted upon without corroboration, would be going beyond what their Lordships meant by their observations in that case. 31. In this case it is not necessary for me to say as to what would have been the result if there were no corroboration from independent evidence of the evidence of Nandlal, Patel, Bhuramal and Dy. S. P. as we have not to act upon their evidence alone without any corroboration. Corroboration is forthcoming about the demand of bribe by the statements in Ex. P. 3. S. P. as we have not to act upon their evidence alone without any corroboration. Corroboration is forthcoming about the demand of bribe by the statements in Ex. P. 3. In the matter of the acceptance of the note Art. 1 by the accused corroboration is forthcoming from the independent evidence of Gopilal PW6 and Chagganlal PW7. It was argued that the learned lower court itself has branded Gopilal as a partisan witness and that Chagganlal has been wrongly held to be an independent witness. It is true that the lower court has taken Gopilal to be a partisan witness, but with this view of the lower court I do not agree. Gopilal was not at all interested in the success of the trap. He was neither the person on whom pressure had been put for the payment off the bribe nor was he a police official who had conceived the idea of laying a trap. To him at mattered little whether the trap succeeded or failed. The only argument that has been made against him is that he was a congress man and that Bhuramal was also a congress man. The other argument is that he was present when the note Art. 1 has handed over by the Dy. S.P. to Nandlal and that he was present right up to the time the note was delivered and the note was recovered from the possession of the accused. It was also argued that Gopilal had slated that he had heard complaints of bribery against the accused. I was consequently argued that this witness had sufficient interest in the success of the trap. I do not agree with the arguments of the learned counsel in this respect. The argument that because both Bhuramal and Gopilal were members of the congress and therefore Gopilal must be interested in the success of the trap which had been set in motion through the activities of Bhuramal has to my mind no force. Congress men are just as much interested in bringing corrupt official to the book as any other reasonably minded citizen. It is therefore unfair to say that in a matter where one congress man is taking interest in bringing a corrupt official to book, the other congress man would go to the length of supporting the case against such a official even falsely. It is therefore unfair to say that in a matter where one congress man is taking interest in bringing a corrupt official to book, the other congress man would go to the length of supporting the case against such a official even falsely. I do not agree that simply because a witness is present when the amount to be offered as bribe is given to the complainant and is also present when the recovery is made, he is to be taken as a partisan witness. It may happen by accident that both the events might take place in the presence of the same witness. It may also happen that some witnesses might be asked to witness the recovery of the amount of the bribery from the bribe taker and thereafter the amount to be offered might be delivered by the officer in their presence to the complainant. This is just what happened in this case. Shortly before the occurence the Dy. S.P. took his seat at Gopilals house and asked him to witness the recovery of the amount which might be paid to the accused. As the Dy. S. P. had taken the currency note Art. 1 from the complainant Nandlal at Sawaimadhopur, it had to be given to him so that he might offer it to the accused If there fore Gopilal was present at that time, it would not show Gopilal was interested in the success of the trap and was therefore a partisan witness. Similarly with respect to Chagganlal P. W. 7, it is not fair to say that he was partisan witness. This witness has been taken to be an independent witness by the lower court and to my mind also he was a perfectly independent witness. He had been simply asked to witness the recovery of the amount of the bribe from the accused and if he was present at the time the amount was handed over by the Dy. S. P. to Nandlal, it would not show that he was in any way interested in the success of the trap. He had been simply asked to witness the recovery of the amount of the bribe from the accused and if he was present at the time the amount was handed over by the Dy. S. P. to Nandlal, it would not show that he was in any way interested in the success of the trap. I do not find any observations in the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Bahadur Singh on the basis of which it might be said that the witnesses, who are asked by the police officials to witness the recovery of the amount of the bribe from the bribe taker, are to be taken as partisan witnesses and therefore the evidence should not be accepted unless corroborated by independent evidence. The observation of their Lordships, which have been relid upon by Sri Tyagi, were subject of consideration by Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the recent case of Ramchand Tolaram Khatri vs. The State (5) referred to above. Corroboration was sought in that case to the evidence of the partisan witnesses from the evidence of the two Panchas who were called to witness the recovery and in whose presence the bribe amount was recovered from the accused. Their evidence was attacked on behalf of the accused on, the ground that as they were taken to the spot to witness the recovery they were to be taken as partisan witnesses on the basis of the observations of their; Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shiv Bahadur Singhs case cited above. This argument was repelled and the following observations were made : "The Panch witness Laxman and Ravji were neither accomplices nor could they be called partisan witnesses. They were not members of raiding party. Mr. Somjee for accused has invited our attention to certain observation of their Lordships of the Sup-reme Court in the above mentioned Supreme Court case and has argued that these observations would show that in their Lordships view, if the panchas were taken by the police with themselves before the raid, they would be members of a raiding party and would, therefore, be partisan witnesses. The observations relevant on this point are to be found in paragraph 12 at page 328 of the Supreme Court judgment and they are— "No such criticism could however be-levelled against the evidence of Gadkari and Parulakar, who were absolutely independent witnesses brought into the bedroom of the appellant after the raid was over. They bad nothing to do with the affairs of the syndicate nor with the intention of Nagin-das or the police authorities to trap appellant." Now, it is undoubtedly true that since Gadkari and Parulakar had arrived on the spot after the raid was over, they could not be called members of a raiding party ; but it would not be correct in our view to deduce a reverse proposition by inference from the above observations of their Lordships that they wanted to lay down a rule that, if the police took panchas with themselves, before the raid, the panchas would become members of the raiding party and should, therefore, be looked upon as partisan witnesses. Nowhere in the judgment of their Lordships do we find a positive proposition laid down that the panchas, in whose pretence the raid, is effected, are members of a raiding party and, therefore, partisan witnesses. In our view, the panchas whom the police take with themselves before going for a raid cannot be called members of a raiding party. The panchas have nothing to do with the raid or the operations of the raid. They are not participators in the act of raiding. The decision to effect a raid is the decision of the police. The panchas are not parties to that decision nor do they subsequently become parties to it at any stage of the raid. The raid is decided upon the information supplied by the informant who is generally the complainant and the panchas have nothing to do with that decision or the result of it, viz, the actual raid. Unless the panchas are sharers in the police intention to raid, we fail to see how they can be characterised as components of a raiding party. The intention to raid comes into existence first in the mind of the police and then they collect the panchas. So the panchas are no parties to that intention nor do they subsequently become parties to it by any conduct on their part. The intention to raid comes into existence first in the mind of the police and then they collect the panchas. So the panchas are no parties to that intention nor do they subsequently become parties to it by any conduct on their part. At no stage of the raid does the conduct of the panchas become the conduct of persons actively interested in the result of the raid. The police, who are a raiding party, carry out the raid and wish that the raid should succeed. The informant who really initiates the police decision to make a raid would also like that the raid should also succeed. Therefore, he too is a member of the raiding party. He is really responsible for bringing about the raid. He would accordingly be a partisan witness, unless he is a willing participator in the crime in which case he would even be an accomplice. But the panchas who are taken to accompany the police have nothing to do with the raid or the result of the raid. They are indifferent about it. It matters nothing to them whether the raid succeeds or fails. They have no partisan interest in the raid or its result. The police do not take them with themselves in order that they should take any part in the raid itself. They are taken merely to see and hear what takes place during the raid which is carried out by the police with the help of the informant. They dispassionately see what takes place during the raid and record what they see and hear and the record is the panchanama. To put the matter in a nutshell, the police take the panchas with themselves so that they should watch what happens. They are not interested in what happens nor are they parties to the trap. The law of the land requires that certain things should be done by the police in the presence of independent, respectable persons so that the presence of the said persons may put the particular transaction beyond the pale of suspicion. In these circumstances to construe the conduct of independent and respectable people accompany the police at the asking of the police to serve as panchas, as being the conduct of partisan persons would be grossly unfair to these people. In these circumstances to construe the conduct of independent and respectable people accompany the police at the asking of the police to serve as panchas, as being the conduct of partisan persons would be grossly unfair to these people. The panchas who accompany the police at the invitation of the police or doing a civic duty, a duty to the society, a duty to the administration of law and justice and if the reward of it is that their evidence becomes dubbed as partisan evidence and, therefore, weak or suspect evidence in the absence of corroboration and they them-selets become dubbed as members of a raiding party and lose their independent and respectable character, then it is time that the revision of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code on the subject is seriously considered. For it is a serious matter indeed if the panchas of accompany the police as independent, impartial people to do a duty of helping the course of administration of justice lose in the bargain for doing their duty, their independent character and acquire a stigma of being partisan witnesses. Take for instance an extreme case in which a highly respectable and educated person of status is required by the police to accom pany them when they go for a raid. Are we to take it that the evidence of that witness becomes a partisan evidence and would be unworthy of acceptance unless it is independently corroborated ? The answer to this question could only be an answer in the negative." (Para 9) 32. To my mind Gopilal and Chagganlal were altogether independent witnesses Their evidence shows that the note Art. 1 was recovered from the front left pocket of the coat of the accused in their presence. Their evidence therefore supports the evidence of the Dy. S. P., Patel and Bhuramal all of whom have said that the bote Art. I was recovered from the left front pocket of the coat of the accused. There is therefore ample evidence on the record to show that the note Art. 1 was recovered by the Dy. S. P. from the left front pocket of the coat of the accused. There is therefore ample evidence on the record to show that the note Art. 1 was recovered by the Dy. S. P. from the left front pocket of the coat of the accused. This recovery lent support to the evidence of Nandlal and that of Patel that the note Art. 1 was accepted by the accused from Nandlal and put into his pocket and then the accused returned to his house It was argued that there was some discrepancy in the evidence of Patel on one side and the evidence of other witnesses of the recovery inasmuch as Patel had said that after the accused had been accosted by the Dy. S. P. and asked to deliver the note Art. 1 which he had accepted as a bribe from Nandlal, there was some skirmish between the accused on one side and the raiding party on the other and in that process the note Art. 1 fell down on the ground whereas other witnesses have denied this. It is true that Patel has stated as has been pointed by Sri Tyagi. But the unanimous evidence of Gopilal, Chagganlal, Dy. S. P. and Bhuramal shows that it did not fall down and that it was directly handed over by the accused to the Dy. S. P. On a careful reading of the evidence I am of opinion that what Gopilal, Chaganlal Bhurmal and Dy. S. P. have stated in this matter is the fact and that the little discrepancy which has been made by Patel is due to the lapse of his memory. It was also argued that all the witnesses of the recovery have said that after the Dy. S. P. had asked the accused to take out the note which he had taken as a bribe and hand it over to him (Dy. S. P. ) the accused said whit goondagiri it was but when the Dy. S. P. disclosed his identity the accused took out the note Art. 1 and handed it over to the Dy S.P. The Dy. S. P. has said that the accused did not utter any such words, ft was argued that this shows that the evidence about the recovery is unreliable I have considered the evidence of all the witnesses and come to the conclusion that the evidence of Patel, Gopilal, Changgalal and Bhuramal that on being asked by the Dy. S. P. has said that the accused did not utter any such words, ft was argued that this shows that the evidence about the recovery is unreliable I have considered the evidence of all the witnesses and come to the conclusion that the evidence of Patel, Gopilal, Changgalal and Bhuramal that on being asked by the Dy. S.P. to hand him over the note Art. 1, the said accused said what goondagiri it was is quite correct, and it appears that either the Dy. S. P. has forgotten that any such language was used by the accused or he has considered it derogatory to himself that such language was used to him by subordinate of his and so he has denied that any such language was used by the accused. It was argued that the fact that it was admitted by Chagganlal that Krishna Swaroop, one of the attesting witnesses of the recovery memo Ex. P. 4, was called after the note Art. 1 had been recovered from the accused, shows that the recovery memo was a mere take and does not represent the true facts It is true that Krishna Swaroop is said to have come to the spot after the note had been recovered and he had attested the recovery memo relating to the recovery of the note, but this mere fact cannot be taken to throw doubt upon the evidence of Gopilal and Chaggan Lal that the note Art. 1 was recovered from the accused in their presence. It may be that Krishna Swaroop had come immediately after the recovery of the note Art. 1 and before the recovery memo was prepared and the police officials were not very careful in this matter and so obtained the signatures of Krishna Swaroop also. The recovery memo in fact was prepared in the presence of Krishna Swaroop and if his signatures were obtained it cannot be said that they were obtained out of any improper motive The police had already two witnesses, namely, Gopilal and Chagganlal, who were quite sufficient for the attestation of the recovery memo and therefore they had nothing to gain by the addition of one more witness. It is only the result of inadvertence that Krishna Swaroops signatures were also obtained on the recovery memo. It is only the result of inadvertence that Krishna Swaroops signatures were also obtained on the recovery memo. In Shiv Bahadur Singhs case referred to above the same mistake was made by the police concerned in obtaining the signatures of Gadkari and Parulakar inasmuch as although they had reached the spot after the recovery of the notes in question, their signatures were obtained on the Panchnama of the currency notes recovered from the accused which Panch-nama contained the statement that on being asked the accused had produced the bundles of the currency noted from the top drawer of the dressing table. Their Lordships observed as follows :— "This statement was not factually correct as both these witnesses were brought into the bedroom of the appellant No. 1 alter the recovery of the Government currency noes by the police from the appellant No. 1. It was certainly indiscreet on their part not to have scrutinised the contents of the Panchnama before they appended their signatures thereto. That is however a far cry from coming to the conclusion that they acted in a highly irresponsible manner and their testimony was unreliable." (P. 333) 33. In this case Krishna Swaroop has not been produced and has not stated that recovery was made in his presence. Therefore no necessity arises for any criticism against the evidence of Krishna Swaroop. The only thing which has been said is that because one of the witnesses to the recovery memo fix. P.4 was not present at the time the recovery was made the evidence of the other two witnesses also, who have attested the recovery memo, should not be believed that the recovery took place in their presence. I do not think that the fact that one of the witnesses of the recovery list came after the recovery and before the preparation of the recovery memo does not throw any doubt upon the positive testimony of Gopilal and Chagganlal that they were present at the time of the recovery of the currency note Art. 1 from the accused. 34. It has been argued that the evidence of Patel and Nandlal shows as if Patel had not come to know right upto the 30th Decembers 1954 when he was taken before the Dy. S. P. that a trap was being laid against the accused and that it is improbable. 34. It has been argued that the evidence of Patel and Nandlal shows as if Patel had not come to know right upto the 30th Decembers 1954 when he was taken before the Dy. S. P. that a trap was being laid against the accused and that it is improbable. I do not think that there is any improbability in it. Nandlal appears to have kept all of his village people including Patel ignorant of the intended trap before it was laid because he might have thought that if some leakage occurred the trap might fail. As it was through Patel that the amount had been settled he had particular reason to be suspicious that Patel if taken into confidence about the intended trap might divulge the information to the Dy, S. P. and therefore he might have considered it proper to keep this thing secret from Patel. Nandlal was not put any any question in cross examina-tion as to why he kept the matter of the intended trap secret from Patel and if he had been asked he would nave been able to furnish explanation as to why he kept to Patel ignorant about the intended trap. 35. The defence produced Noor Mohd. constable, who according to the prosecution had been to Bagli to call Nandlal at the instance of the accused. He has of course denied that he was ever sent to Bagli by the accused to bring Nandlal. It was but natural for him. He was the subordinate of the accused and it was natural for him to be afraid that if he showed any complicity of his in the matter he might also come to trouble. His evidence has been rightly disbelieved by the lower court. 36. I am fully satisfied from the evidence on the record that the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 150/- from Nandlal for hushing up the matter of Lakhis abduction and that he accepted the currency note Art. 1 from Nandlal in the payment of the bribe. I am therefore fully satisfied that an offence u/s 161, IPC had been committed, beyond reasonable doubt by the accused. 37. 150/- from Nandlal for hushing up the matter of Lakhis abduction and that he accepted the currency note Art. 1 from Nandlal in the payment of the bribe. I am therefore fully satisfied that an offence u/s 161, IPC had been committed, beyond reasonable doubt by the accused. 37. The sanction for the launching of the prosecution was duly obtained u/s 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 from Sri Sultan Singh, D. I. G, of Police, Udaipur Kotah Range in whose Range the accused was posted and the sanction has been duly proved by Sri Sultan Singh P.W.I. Thereafter the report was lodged by Sri Motilal Dy. S. P. and the prosecution was launched. 38. Coming to the question of sentence I do not think that the sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- is in any way severe A corrupt official is a menace to the society and for from helping in the proper functioning of the Government and the implementing of the laws brings the Government and the society at large into disrepute It is through agency of the public servants that the policy of the Legislature as well as of the Govt. is implemented. It is through the public servants that crimes are detected and offenders are brought too book. It is through strictly honest and incorruptible public servants the welfare of the society can be ensured. If such public servants or open to corruption and coerce the public into paying them illegal gratification, the whole structure of the society would be up-set and the policy of the Government of the Legislature howsoever beneficial it may be would gravely suffer. A public servant therefore once he is found to be guilty of accepting or obtaining illegal gratification, deserves no soft corner or indulgence from the courts of law. 39. I maintain the conviction as well as the sentence of the accused and dismiss the appeal. The accused is on bail and shall atonce surrender to undergo the remaining part of his sentence of imprisonment.