JUDGMENT : Barman, C.J. - This case arises out of one of the trap cases in which the Assistant Station Master, Barang Railway Station was convicted on a charge of taking illegal gratification and the Pointsman of the said Railway Station was convicted on a charge of having abetted the offence. The Assistant Station Master of the said Railway Station was convicted u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months; he was also convicted u/s 161 Indian Penal Code, but no separate sentence was passed on that Court. The Points man of the said Railway Station was convicted u/s 165-A Indian Penal Code for abetment of the offence and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both of them have filed this appeal against the order of conviction and sentence. 2. The amount of alleged illegal gratification is a total sum of Rs. 6.00. The prosecution case, in substance, is that on July 8, 1964, the accused-Assistant Station Master (hereinafter referred to as A.S.M.) received Rs. 1'00 from the informant (p.w.5), a hawker in glass-ware as motive or reward for some illegal act in connection with the booking of baskets of glass-ware from the Barang Railway Station to Khurda Road and Puri; that again two days thereafter on July 10, 1964 at 530 p.m., he accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 5'00 as motive or reward for booking certain baskets of glass-ware from Barang to Puri. The accused-Pointsman was charged for having abetted the A.S.M. in the commission of the offence. The defence, in substance, is that the said money represented the railway fare for three tickets for going from Barang to Pori and not illegal gratification as alleged. 3. The prosecution case is mainly based on the evidence of the two trap witnesses-Havildar, Special Police Establishment (p.w.4) and Sk. Raffique, Hawker in Glass-ware (p.w.5) who was the informant. P.ws.2 and 3 are witnesses to the seizure of the money from the accused-Appellants; p.w.7 who is a police officer is a seizure witness to the railway documents; p.w.6 is the Station Master and p.w.9 is the Investigating Officer. 4. It is mainly on the evidence of p.ws.4 and 5 who are decoy witnesses that the prosecution case stands. P.ws.2 and 3 are witnesses to the seizure of the money from the accused-Appellants; p.w.7 who is a police officer is a seizure witness to the railway documents; p.w.6 is the Station Master and p.w.9 is the Investigating Officer. 4. It is mainly on the evidence of p.ws.4 and 5 who are decoy witnesses that the prosecution case stands. The question is: Can these witnesses be safely relied on in support of the prosecution version of the case? They both are partisan witnesses interested in getting the accused-Appellants trapped, in the manner they were, at the instance of these witnesses. In assessing the merit of the evidence of such witnesses, it has to be kept in view that a decoy witness will be extremely keen that his trap should not fail, and having in the forefront of his mind that the marked money should be passed to the intended victim, and assuming a certain elasticity of moral character in the decoy witness, there is a real danger that he may pass on the money under some pretext which may perhaps not be guilty in the relevant sense or which may even be wholly innocent but in giving his evidence may represent that he gave the money for the purpose relevant in the case, feeling confident that having taken care that the money was passed with as little publicity as possible; the case on this point will resolve itself into a conflict between his evidence on solemn affirmation and the statement of the accused person which must necessarily be made without an oath AIR 1948 27 (Lahore) . 5. In the ultimate analysis of the evidence of the two trap witnesses (p.ws.4 and 5, the prosecution version as stated by them appears to be this: On July 8,1904, the accused A.S.M. collected Rs. 1'00 from p.w.5 as mamuli saying that otherwise he (A.S.M.) cannot take the goods in the same train, and so with difficulty he (p.w.1)) paid him (A.S.M.) Re. 1'00 more. Evidently, the police came to know of it and a trap was laid two days thereafter on July 10, 1964. 6. Then how the trap was laid and executed was stated by the two trap witnesses (p.ws.4 and 5.). It was in substance this: P.w.5 hawker in glass-ware produced Rs. 1'00 more. Evidently, the police came to know of it and a trap was laid two days thereafter on July 10, 1964. 6. Then how the trap was laid and executed was stated by the two trap witnesses (p.ws.4 and 5.). It was in substance this: P.w.5 hawker in glass-ware produced Rs. 8'00 in one-rupee notes for paying mamuli and Rs.: 20.00 in one-rupee notes for paying the freight; Inspector Panda (p.w.9) processed the 8 notes with a powder, asked one of the witnesses to handle it and when the witness dipped his finger in a solution, the solution turned violet; the hawker (p.w.5) was asked to carry the marked notes only and to pay mamuli from them if demanded; the hawker (p.w.5) was searched to see that he had nothing else; Rs. 20'00 meant for paying freight and passenger fares was given to the Havildar, Special Police Establishment (p.w.4) then p.ws.4 and 5) went in a jeep to Barang Railway Station; they two (p.ws.4 and 5) got down, proceeded ahead and took 8 baskets of glass-ware from the god own of the glass factory to the Barang Railway Station; accused-Pointsman weighed the baskets, then p.w.5 went inside the room of the A.S.M. and asked the A.S.M. to book the goods to Puri; he (A.S.M.) demanded Rs. 5.00 as mamuli and asked the hawker (p.w.5) to band it over to the accused-Pointsman; in the meantime, the accused-Pointsman bad written down the booking form which the hawker (p.w.5) signed; the accused Points man after receiving Rs. 5'00 as mamuli from p.w.5 paid it to the accused-A.S.M. who held it in his left band; p.w.4 paid Rs. 5'00 as freight to the accused-A.S.M.; the accused A.S.M. gave the hawker (p.w.5) a receipt with which he (p.w.8) came out and gave signal to the Investigating Officer as previously instructed. What followed thereafter leading to the seizure is stated hereunder. 7. After getting the signal from the hawker (p.w.5) Inspector Panda (p.w.9) and other witnesses came to the room of the accused-A.S.M., seized the money from his hand and asked both the accused persons to dip their hands in separate solutions which turned violet and were preserved and sealed in two bottles; thereafter, p.ws.4 and 5 were searched; Rs. 3'00 from p.w.5 and Rs. 3'00 from p.w.5 and Rs. 15'00 from p.w.4 were recovered; the numbers of the notes were verified by the witnesses with the numbers noted down trailer and they tallied; all these were written down and p.w.5 signed it; the Inspector (p.w.9) seized all the notes as also the Bilti. 8. The defence version, however, as stated by the A.S.M. in his statement u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure was, in substance, this: He denied having taken an illegal gratification of Re. 1.00 from the hawker (p.w.5) for booking two baskets of glass-ware as alleged on July 8, 1964. As regards the incident on July 10, 1964, what he said, in defect, is this. He was on duty from 4.00 p. m. till 12 midnight; at about 5.30 p.m. p.ws.4 and 5 and another came and asked him to weigh 8. baskets which they wanted to book; he (accosted A.S.M.) got them weighed by the accused-Pointsman and himself checked the weight; them the accused-A.S.M. asked p.ws.4 and 5 if they wanted to go by the train and they said that they would want three railway tickets to Puri; the price of the passenger railway ticket to Puri was Re. 1.82; the A.S.M. asked p.ws.4 and 5 to write the forwarding note and attended to other work; after the presentation of the forwarding note, p.w.4 gave the accused A.S.M. five one-rupee notes having ascertained from him (A.S.M) that the freight was Rs. 4.40 Ps. 1.82; the A.S.M. asked p.ws.4 and 5 to write the forwarding note and attended to other work; after the presentation of the forwarding note, p.w.4 gave the accused A.S.M. five one-rupee notes having ascertained from him (A.S.M) that the freight was Rs. 4.40 Ps. as the safe containing- change was at the back of the accused-A.S.M. and as he was "busy in giving line clear, he asked p.w.4 to wait for the change having already written out the p.w. bill; thereafter, the accused-Pointsman gave the accused-A.S.M. 5 one-rupee notes asking for the 3 passenger tickets and said that the accused-A.S.M. had to return the change of freight and that may be utilised in the passenger tickets; as there were no printed tickets to Pari available then, and the accused-A.S.M. had to give passenger tickets in plain rapers by writing them, there was some delay; when the accused-A.S.M. was about to write out the passenger tickets, Inspector Panda (p.w.9) came and seized the money from the accused-A.S.M. asked him why he was catching hold of his (accused-A.S.M's) hand, the Inspector told him that he had accepted the money as illegal gratification; the accused A.S.M. told the Inspector that it had been paid to him as price of the passenger tickets and freight of goods booked; the Inspector said that the accused-A.S.M. might say so when his statement would be recorded and got the accused-A.S.M.'s hands washed in a solution; another Inspector and a man with a rifle were with the Inspector (p.w.9); after getting the accused-A.S.M.'s hand washed in solution, they allowed the accused. A.S.M. to carry on his duties as A.S.M. police party had also searched the accused-A.S.M.'s shirt pocket and taken away Rs. 1.44 belonging to him. 9. The question is: Is the defence version given by the accused probable? In my opinion, having regard to the fact that the prosecution case mainly rests on the testimony of the two trap witnesses, who are naturally interested in their traps not failing, the probability of the truth of the defence explanation cannot be ruled out. In any event, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt the charge against the accused persons. 10. This view is further supported by the manner in which the prosecution witnesses deposed at the trial. In any event, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt the charge against the accused persons. 10. This view is further supported by the manner in which the prosecution witnesses deposed at the trial. In course of examination, the hawker (p.w.5), who is the main witness in this case, on whose information the prosecution was initiated against the accused-persons, stated, on being asked by the Special Public Prosecutor, that Rs. 20.00 was given to Havildar (p.w.4.) to pay the freight of the baskets only, though earlier he had stated clearly that Rs. 20.00 was given to p.w.4 to pay the freight and passenger fare. The learned Sessions Judge, while recording his evidence, noted that at that stage of his deposition, the hawker (p.w.5) said that he was not to travel in the train and was to stay at Barang. The doubt on this aspect of the prosecution case is further confirmed by the Station Master (p.w.6) who said that on the date of the incident on July 10, 1964, there was no passenger train towards Puri from 4.00 p.m. till 9.58 p.m. that booking opens one hour before the train is due to arrive at the station. According to the prosecution case, the incident was at 5.30 p.m. on that date. It is not understandable how more than four hours before the passenger train was due to arrive at Barang Railway Station, there would be any occasion for purchase of tickets for going to Puri at 5.30 p.m.. 11. In the ultimate analysis, therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed to establish beyond doubt the charges against the accused persons. 12. In the result, the order of conviction and sentence passed on both the accused-Appellants cannot he upheld and must he set aside. This criminal appeal is accordingly allowed. Appeal Allowed. Final Result : Allowed