JUDGMENT R.K. Chowdhary, J. - This is an appeal by one Jugul Kishore who has been convicted by a learned Special Judge Anti Corruption, UP Lucknow, u/s 161, IPC, and sentenced to two year's RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000, or further RI for six months in default of payment of fine. 2. The Appellant was prosecuted and tried under the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), so that there were no commitment proceedings. The accused, being a competent witness u/s 7 of that Act, examined himself as such besides producing other witnesses in support of his defence. He was convicted as a public servant by virtue of his office as Station Master of the railway station of Garhmukteshwar on the Northern Railway in this State. 3. It appears that Garhmukteshwar is a railway station for certain important outlying market towns, one such town being Siyana. Any trader intending to transmit goods from Garhmukteshwar had to submit a forwarding note for reservation of a wagon and pay Rs. 35 as a fee for the same. This was the practice in vogue to serve as a check against unnecessary reservations. An entry in respect of the forwarding note and the payment of Rs. 35 was made in the Priority Register and a receipt for the fee paid was granted to the trader. The prosecution case is that the Appellant was in the habit of extorting a bribe of Rs. 25 per wagon by withholding the railway receipt until the payment was made. Dharam Chand PW 1, a partner in the firm Shri Ram Rajendra Kumar Anand doing commission agency business at Siyana, booked a wagon on 6-1-1952 for sending gur to Raniganj. Nand Lal PW 6, another partner of the firm, prepared the forwarding note and deposited Rs. 35 as registration fee. The wagon was loaded on 8-1-1952, but this time the Appellant demanded Rs. 30 instead of the usual Rs. 25 as bribe for issuing the railway receipt. Nand Lal PW 6, another partner of the firm, prepared the forwarding note and deposited Rs. 35 as registration fee. The wagon was loaded on 8-1-1952, but this time the Appellant demanded Rs. 30 instead of the usual Rs. 25 as bribe for issuing the railway receipt. Dharam Chand and Nand Lal therefore went away without being able to obtain the railway receipt, promising to come the following day S. S. Bakshi PW 5, Railway Sectional Officer of the Special Police Government of India, UP Branch at Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the R. S. O.), professes to have come to know from a secret source that the Appellant was a corrupt official, and in order to verify his information he went to Siyana on 8-1-1952 and met Dharam Chand there on the same date. Dharam Chand then told him what had happened in connection with the wagon which had been booked by him on 6-1-1952 and loaded on 8-1-1952. In particular, the RSO was informed that the Appellant had demanded Rs. 30 instead of the usual sum of Rs. 25 for the wagon. He was also told that payment of the bribe for the wagon in question was going to be made on the following day. Dharam Chand requested the RSO to help him and the latter promised to bring a Magistrate and asked Dharam Chand to meet him in the dakbungalow at Garhmukteshwar on 9-1-1952. 4. The same day, i. e. on 8-1-1952, the RSO went to Meerut and presented an application Ext P6 to the Additional District Magistrate there. The following was that application: I have received information that the Station Master Garhmukteshwar, district Meerut, is habitually corrupt in the manner that he demands and accepts an illegal gratification for allotment and booking of wagon loads from Garhamukteshwar to various stations. 5. One Shri Dharamchand of firm Shri Ram Rajindra Kumar Anand Merchants and Commission Agents Siyana (Bulandshahr) had volunteered to cooperate in laying out a trap against the corrupt official. 6. It is therefore requested that a first class Magistrate may kindly be deputed to supervise the trap at Garhmukteshwar railway station. 5. One Shri Dharamchand of firm Shri Ram Rajindra Kumar Anand Merchants and Commission Agents Siyana (Bulandshahr) had volunteered to cooperate in laying out a trap against the corrupt official. 6. It is therefore requested that a first class Magistrate may kindly be deputed to supervise the trap at Garhmukteshwar railway station. The trap has been arranged for tomorrow 9-1-1952 at about 10 a. m." The Additional District Magistrate endorsed on the application an order directing Shri M. C. Chaturvedi PW 3, a first class Magistrate at Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the Magistrate), to do the needful. The RSO showed this order to the Magistrate the same day and made an appointment with him for the following day. On 9-1-1952 the Magistrate accompanised the RSO to the dak-bungalow at Garhmukteshwar, "for laying a trap", as stated by the former. Dharam Chand arrived there after about an hour and thereupon the Magistrare took a search of his person, recovered three currency notes of Rs. 5 each and one Rs. 10, totalliug Rs. 25, from his person, restored the same to him and recorded his statement. The following is the statement of Dharan Chand recorded by the Magistrate: I am a partner in the firm Shri Ram Rajendra Kumar Anand of Siyana. Jugal Kishore the Station Master of Railway Station Garhmukteshwar demanded Rs. 25 from me for allotment of a wagon for my Gur. He demanded it for booking the goods and allotment of wagon. The amount has been demanded from me by way of gratification in addition to the regular charges. He has not given me as yet the Railway Receipt for the booking of my wagon. It has been withheld for the sum of Rs. 25. This wagon was booked yesterday. I made a report of this illegal demand to Shri S. S. Bakshi, Railway Sectional Officer Lucknow, yesterday. I am of my own accord prepared to get the Station Master, who takes bribe, caught redhanded. I have brought Rs. 25 for payment to the Station Master. Their numbers are as follows: Five rupee Note No. A/4 777149 Five rupee Note No. C/87 284812 Five rupee Note No. A/39 156385 Ten rupee Note No. B/80 252310 I have no cash, change or paper with on besides the above. Heard and admitted to be correct. 7. The Magistrate also prepared a recovery memo in respcot of the sum of Rs. Heard and admitted to be correct. 7. The Magistrate also prepared a recovery memo in respcot of the sum of Rs. 25 recovered on search from the person of Dharam Chand, and it was in the following terms: Person of Shri Dharamchand has been searched. He has no money or papers on his person except Notes of Rs. 25 the numbers of which have been mentioned in his statement which money he is to hand over to the Station Master of Railway Station Garhmukteshwar if and when demanded. 8. This done, Dharam Chand was directed to give the said notes as bribe when the same was demanded from him and to talk in such a manner as may signify that the amount was being paid as bribe. Thereafter the Magittrate, the RSO and Daram Chand went in a Tonga to the Railway Station, picking up the Station Officer of Garhmukteshwar in the way. They left the Tonga about a furlong and a half from the railway station and proceeded therefrom on foot. On arrival at the station they were informed that the Station Master had gone home. The Magistrate and Dharam Chand then went to the residential quarters of the Station Master and, while the former room of the Station Master, Garhmukteshwar Station, Shri Dharam Chand delivered notes worth Rs. 25 to the Station Master Shri jugul Kishore in my presence after there were talks about railway receipt for wagon booked for Shri Dharam Chand upto Raniganj from Garhmukteshwar and after the Station Master Shri Jugul Kishore demanded Rs. 25 from Dharam Chand. Then I disclosed my identity to Shri Jugul Kishore Station Master and took from Station Master's hand the notes for Rs. 25. I have checked the numbers of these notes and they tally with the numbers of currency notes left on the person of Dharam Chand for being handed over to the Station Master on demand. The numbers of these notes were checked in presence of Shri S. S. Bakshi. Railway Section Officer and Shri jaipal Sharma, S.O. Garhmukteshwar who accompanied us." 9. The Magistrate then recovered the railway receipt Ext. P2, from the possession of Dharam Chand and prepared the following recovery memo Ext. P3 in respect of it: On taking from the Station Master's hand the currency notes worth Rs. Railway Section Officer and Shri jaipal Sharma, S.O. Garhmukteshwar who accompanied us." 9. The Magistrate then recovered the railway receipt Ext. P2, from the possession of Dharam Chand and prepared the following recovery memo Ext. P3 in respect of it: On taking from the Station Master's hand the currency notes worth Rs. 25 the numbers of which had been noted, I took the search of Shri Dharam Chand and took from his possession Railway Receipt No. 073563 dated 8-1-1952 from Garhmukteshwar to Raniganj, consignor Shri Ram Rajendra Kumar, consignee self. No other money or any paper was found on Dharam Chand's person. 10. The Magistrate asked the Appellant if he would give any statement, but the Appellant replied that he would give his statement in court. This was also noted by the Magistrate in a memo Ext. P8. The currency notes and the railway receiat were then handed over to the RSO by the Magistrate. Certain Railway records were also taken possession of by the RSO, but those records appear to have no relevancy so far as the present case is concerned. The Appellant was released on bail. Full reports of the entire occurrence were submitted by the Magistrate to the A.D.M. on 10-1-1952 and by the R.S.O. to the Superintendent of Police of the S.P.E. at Lucknow on 11-1-1952. The relevant portions of the two reports may be reproduced. The Magistrate's report was as follows: In compliance with your order dated 8-1-1952,I went to Garhmukteshwar with Mr. S. S. Bakshi (Ry. Sectional Officer, Lucknow) on the morning of 9-1-1952 for the purpose of laying 'trap' there as arranged by Shri Bakshi. At Garhmukteshwar waited at a distance of about 10 yards, Dharam Chand knocked at the door. The Appellant asked Dharam Chand to wait at the station where he promised to come in a short while. As the Magistrate and Dharam Chand were then going to the railway station, a broker Shyam Bal by name handed over to Dharam Chand the Railway Receipt Ext. P2 in respect of the wagon in question. After hnndtng over the railway receipt Shyam Lal went away and the Magistrate and Dharam Chand reached the railway station. (It may be stated here shat this Shyam Lal has not been produced as a witness by either party). P2 in respect of the wagon in question. After hnndtng over the railway receipt Shyam Lal went away and the Magistrate and Dharam Chand reached the railway station. (It may be stated here shat this Shyam Lal has not been produced as a witness by either party). After some time the appellnnt came to the Railway Station, opened his room and entered it, followed by Dharam Chand and the Magistrate. The Magistrate had disguised himself by putting on a Gandhi cap; a shirt and a Dhoti. The RSO and the Station Officer (the latter of whom has also not been produced as a witness) did not enter the offiee but posted themselves so near to its door as to be able to see and hear what might transpire inside the office. 11. It is important to note what, according to the prosecution, then tsanspired inside the Appellant's office. It is said that Dharam Chand asked the Appellant as to what was the amount he had to pay him in respect of the railway receipt Ext. PII, which was shown to the Appellant by Dharam Chand. The Appellant replied that Rs. 30 was to be paid. Dharam Chand protested that Rs. 30 was too much for him and he would pay only Rs 25. This haggling was repeated once or twice and thereupon the Appellant agreed to accept Rs. 25 only. Dharam Chand then handed over to the Appellant the currency notes of Rs. 25 the numbers of which had already been taken down by the Magistrate at the dak-bungalow. As soon as the Appellant took the notes his into hand, the Magistrate revealed his identity to him and arrested him, At the same time, the RSO and the Station Officer, who had seen and heard everything on the sly, entered the office. The Magistrate recovered the notes from the Appellant, examined them and found that their numbers tallied with the numbers he had noted down at the daksbungalow and, in the words of the Magistrate," drew up then and there" the recovery memo Ext. P4, in respect of the same. This was the recovery memo prepared by him: I accompanied Sri Dharam Chand after he had the notes worth Rs. 25 the numbers of which had been noted. P4, in respect of the same. This was the recovery memo prepared by him: I accompanied Sri Dharam Chand after he had the notes worth Rs. 25 the numbers of which had been noted. In the Shri Dharam Chand (of Messrs Shri Ram Rajendra Kumar Anand, Merchants, Siana, District Bulandshahr) met me and stated to me on oath that the Station Master of Garhmukteshwar Railway Station, Shri Jugal Kishore, had demanded from him Rs. 25/- as illegal gratification in connection with booking of one Wagon for his above named firm and that he was willing to give that illegal gratification to the Station Master in our presence. I recorded his statement on oath (Paper 2), took search of his person. He had nothing with him except currency notes of Rs. 25/- the numbers of which had been noted in his statement (paper 2). Thereafter I accompanied Shri Dharam Chand to Railway Station Garh., Shri S.S. Bakshi and S.O. Garhmukteshwar following at some distance. The Station Master not being in his office at the time, Shri Dharam Chand accompanied by me went to the Station Master's house nearby where on being called the Station Master told Dharam Chand that he should wait at the station platform and that he (Station Master) would presently come to his office. While Dharam Chand was returning from his house towards the station, a man gave to Shri Dharam Chand a Railway Receipt for booking of one wagon for his firm to Raniganj and Shri Dharam Chand told the name of that person to be Shyam Lal Dalal. After about 20-25 minutes waiting, the Station Master came to his office room at the station and Shri Dharam Chand entered accompanied by me. He went to the Station Master and told him showing the Railway Receipt referred above that he had got this receipt and that he had come to pay to the Station Master the money demanded by him upon it. Dharam Chand asked how much he should give for that receipt at which the Station Master asked him to pay Rs. 30/- but Dharam Chand told that he could pay only Rs. 25/- at which the Station Master agreed and Dharam Chand in my view gave currency notes worth Rs. 25/- to the Station Master. Dharam Chand asked how much he should give for that receipt at which the Station Master asked him to pay Rs. 30/- but Dharam Chand told that he could pay only Rs. 25/- at which the Station Master agreed and Dharam Chand in my view gave currency notes worth Rs. 25/- to the Station Master. As soon as the notes were in the Station Master's hand I disclosed my identity to the Station Master and at this very time Shri Bakshi and S.O. Garh. entered the room who were just outside and they disclosed their identity. On offering give to my search to the Station Master which he refused money was taken from his hand and the numbers of these notes tallied with those already noted which had been left with Dharam Chand. Dharam Chand was also searched and he had only the above referred Railway Receipt with him the No. of which as noted in (paper 5) was 073563 dated 8-1-1952. This receipt was also taken in prossession (paper No. 5) just as the currency notes of noted numbers were taken into prossession from the Station Master's hand (paper 4). On being asked "if he had to make any statement about this case, the Station Master Shri Jugal Kishore stated that he would give his statement in Court and had no statement to make just then (paper 6). The money namely currency notes worth Rs 25/- of noted numbers recovered from the Station Master's hand and the Railway Receipt referred above recovered from Shri Dharam Chand were taken in possession by Shri S. S. Bakshi who also took into possession certain Railway records papers the list of which he prepared at the spot. The Station Master who had been taken into custody for accepting this illegal gratification was released immediately on his furnishing one surety for Rs. 4000/- and entering into a P.B. for Rs. 5,000/.... 12. The relevant portion of the R. S. O.'s report was to the following effect: On receipt of information that the Station Master Garhmukteshwar is habitually corrupt and accepts illegal gratification for booking and allotment of Wagons, I after taking permission from the Supervising Officer, S.P.E. Lucknow, proceeded to that station. On reaching there on 8-1-1952 I met one Shri Dharam Chand a partner of Messrs Shri Ram Rajinder Kumar Anand, Merchants of Saiyana District Bulandshahr. On reaching there on 8-1-1952 I met one Shri Dharam Chand a partner of Messrs Shri Ram Rajinder Kumar Anand, Merchants of Saiyana District Bulandshahr. He complained to me that the S. M. Garhmukteshwar had demanded Rs. 25/- from him for booking of his one Wagon of Gur to Raniganj and showed his willingness to help us in laying a trap against the above Station Master. Accordingly I went to Meerut and contacted the A.D.M. there the same day and requested him to depute a 1st Class Magistrate for Jaying a trap: Shri M. C. Chaturvedi, 1st Class Magistrate, was deputed for the purpose. 13. I along with Shri Chaturvedi returned to Garhmukteshwar on 9-1-1952 for the purpose of laying a trap. At Garhmukteshwar Shri Dharam Chand was produced before the Magistrate by me, who stated before him on oath that the Station Master of Garhmukteshwar Railway Station Shri Jugal Kishore had demanded from him Rs. 25/- as illegal gratification in connection with booking of one wagon of gur for his above firm for Raniganj and that he would give the illegal gratification to the above Station Master in our presence. His statement was recorded by the Magistrate. Shri Dharam Chand at the same time also presented G. C. Notes amounting to Rs. 25/- to the Magistrate who recorded their numbers. Thereafter Shrt Dharam Chand was searched by the Magistrate and after satisfying that he had nothing on his person made over the aforesaid G.C. Notes amounting to Rs. 25/- with instructions to hand over these to the corrupt officer if and when demanded. The raiding party consisting of Shri Dharam Chand (Decoy) Shri Chaturvedi Magistrate, myself and Station Officer Garhmukteshwar Shri Jai Pal Sharma went to the Station. 14. Thereafter the Magistrate and Shri Dharam Chand started for the Railway Station and I and the S.O. Garhmukteshwar followed them at some distance. The Station Master not being at his office at that time Shri Dharam Chand accompanied by the Magistrate went to the Station Master's house nearby. I and S. O. Garhmukteshwar stayed at the Platform. We then saw both Shri Dharam Chand and the Magistrate returning from the house of the Station Master. At about 20, 25 minutes waiting the Station Master came to his office room at the Station and Sri Dharam Chand accompanied by the Magistrate entered therein. I and S. O. Garhmukteshwar stayed at the Platform. We then saw both Shri Dharam Chand and the Magistrate returning from the house of the Station Master. At about 20, 25 minutes waiting the Station Master came to his office room at the Station and Sri Dharam Chand accompanied by the Magistrate entered therein. I stood outside the door and could see and overhear the transaction. I saw Shri Dharam Chand paying some money in G.C. notes to the Station Master in the presence of the Magistrate who was standing by his side and heard all conversation of demand and acceptance of bribe. Immediately after the bribe money passed to the hands of the Station Master, I entered into the room and S.O. Garhmukteshwar reached just after a while. The Magistrate disclosed his identity to the accused and offered to give his own search, but the latter refused. The Magistrate then recovered sum of Rs. 25 in four G. C. Notes one of Rs. 10 and three of Rs. 5 from the hands of the Station Master, the number of which tallied with those already noted by the Magistrate. A recovery memo was prepared by the Magistrate and it was signed by Dharam Chand, myself and S. O. Garh. mukhteshwar. Then Shri Dharam Chand was searched by the Magistrate and only a railway receipt No. 073563 was found on his person which was recovered and a recovery memo prepared, which was signed by me and the S.O. 15. The Appellant admitted payment of Rs. 25 to him in his office on 9-1-1952 by Dharam Chand, but he denied that he accepted it as a bribe, as alleged by the prosecution. According to him, Govind Ram a co-partner of Dharam Chand, had prepared a forwarding note Ext. D6 for a wagon for Ahemdabad and it was handed over to him (The Appellant) by Dharam Chand on 8 1-1952. Dharam Chand did not deposit the registration fee in respect of this forwarding note but promised to send it the following day. The next day he arrived in his office with the Magistrate and placed a sum of money on his table and asked him to register his previous day's wagon. The Appellant counted the money and, finding that it/was only Rs. 25, asked Dharam Chand to make good the balance of Rs. 10. The next day he arrived in his office with the Magistrate and placed a sum of money on his table and asked him to register his previous day's wagon. The Appellant counted the money and, finding that it/was only Rs. 25, asked Dharam Chand to make good the balance of Rs. 10. Dharam Chand asked the Appellant to keep the sum of Rs. 25 and promised to bring the balance of Rs. 10 from his Dalal. As Dharam Chand was in the act of leaving his room, the Magistrate caught hold of the Appellant's hand and said that he had taken the amount as bribe. The Appellant protested to the Magistrate that every thing had taken place in his presence, and that the money had been paid for registration of a wagon. In support of this version of his, the Appellant produced Surajbhan, a timber merchant of Garhmukteshwar, who professes to have been present at the time in the Appellant's office because he had gone there to[take] delivery of a wagon of timber which had arrived from Haldwani, on the previous day. According to this witness, due to the arrest of the apellant J.C. Verma, Assistant Station Master, had to come and do the needful relating to the delivery of the wagon to him. J.C. Verma was also produced as a defence witness. He supported Surajbhan, and he also supported the Appellant's statement with regard to Dharam Chand having given to the Appellant a forwarding note Ext. D6 on 8-1-1952 and promised to pay the registration fee of Rs. 35 the following day. The question therefore this as to which of the two versions was the correct one. 16. Before taking,[up]the question posed at the end of the next preceding paragraph a legal issue, raised unsuccessfully before the learned Special Judge and reiterated here, may be disposed of. The defence contention is that there was no valid previous sanction for the prosecution of the Appellant, as con-templated by S. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. U/Cl. (c) of that section no Court could take cognizance of the offence with which the Appellant was charged except with the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove him from his office. The requisite sanction produced by the prosecuion, which is Ext. U/Cl. (c) of that section no Court could take cognizance of the offence with which the Appellant was charged except with the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove him from his office. The requisite sanction produced by the prosecuion, which is Ext. P5 on the record, purports to have been granted on 10-5-1902 by the Divisional Superintendent of the Northern Railway at Moradabad. According to Shyam Sunder Lal PW 2, a clerk in the office of the Divisional Supdt. in question, who produced the service record of the Appellant in court, the Appellant was appointed on 14-1-1918 by the District Traffic Superintendent of Bareilly when this branch of the Railway was called the O.R. R. There was subsequently an amalgamation of the O.R.R. with the E.I R. and when the railways were later regrouped the erstwhile E.I R. became the Northern Railway and the designation of the District Traffic Superintendant was dropped and three officers were appointed in his place. These three officers were the Divisional Personal Officer, the Divisional Commercial Officer and the Divisional Transport Officer, and all the three were under the Divisional Superintendent. In other words, the Divisional Superintendent, who gave the sanction for the prosecution of the Appellant, was an officer superior to the District Traffic Superintendent of 1918 who had apppinted the Appellant. If this be the correct position, there would be no flaw in the sanction for the prosecution of the Appellant. 17. The Appellant's case however was that he was appointed by the Traffic Manager (Establishment) O.R.R. at Lucknow by his letter Ext. Dl dated 5-3-1918, and that as he was an officer superior to the Divisional Superintendent of the present Northern Railway the sanction in the question was invalid. If this were the correct position, the sanction for the prosecution of the Appellant would no doubt be invalid since, by virtue of the provisions of S. 311 (1) of the Constitution, the authority dismissing a person holding a civil post should not be subordinate to that by which he was appointed. A perusal of the letter Ext. Dl however shows that it did not contain any order of the appointment of the Appellant but only a direction regarding his training. The defence contention regarding the Appellant having been appointed by the Traffic Manager (Establishment) Lucknow therefore stood unproved. A perusal of the letter Ext. Dl however shows that it did not contain any order of the appointment of the Appellant but only a direction regarding his training. The defence contention regarding the Appellant having been appointed by the Traffic Manager (Establishment) Lucknow therefore stood unproved. On the other hand, there was no reason to doubt the specific statement made by Shyhm Sunder Lal PW 2 by a reference to the service record of the Appellant. The learned Special Judge was therefore right in holding that the sanction for the prosecution of the Appellant was a valid sanction. 18. Coming now to the question of whether the prosecution or the defence version of the occurrence that took place on 9-1-1952 in the office of the Appellant was the correct one, it was argued by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the evidence of the three prosecution witnesses Dharam Chand PW1, the Magistrate M. C. Chaturvedi PW 3 and the R. S. O. Bakshi PW 5 was unworthy of credence. He further argued that the defence version was worthy of reliance as it was supported by the forwarding note Ext. DS, which has been admitted to be in the handwriting of one of the partners of Dharam Chand's firm. His argument with regard to the aforesaid three prosecution witnesses was that they were unreliable according to the ordinary standards of judging testimony in criminal cases, but particularly because of their being only trap witnesses. And in support of the latter contention the Learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported as Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Another Vs. The State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 322 . 19. The argument of the Learned Counsel that a witness is to be discarded merely because he is a trap witness does not seem to be borne out by the Supreme Court decision relied upon by him. The trap witnesses in that case were Nagin Das who offered the bribe, Dhanraj Supdt. Special Police Establishment and Shanti Lal Ahuja, Addl. District Magistrate. There were two other witnesses, Gadkari and Perulakar, who were not trap witnesses but were brought into the room where the bribe was offered after the. raid was over. The trap witnesses in that case were Nagin Das who offered the bribe, Dhanraj Supdt. Special Police Establishment and Shanti Lal Ahuja, Addl. District Magistrate. There were two other witnesses, Gadkari and Perulakar, who were not trap witnesses but were brought into the room where the bribe was offered after the. raid was over. The conviction of the Appellant in that case was maintained on the testimony of these independent witnesses and other circumstantial evidence, but the evidence of the three trap witnesses was discarded. A careful perusal of the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court would however show that the testimony of Nagin Das, Dhanraj and Ahuja was not discarded merely because they were trap witnesses but because there were circumstances appearing in the statements of these witnesses which showed that they were witnesses of a partisoned character. Nagin Das had shown his overzealousness for the entrapment of the accused by making false representations to Dhanraj about the sum of money which was required for being offered as bribe and in other ways also. The police officer Dhanraj also showed his overzealousness by becoming a willing tool in the hands of Nagin Das and by even procuring the large sum of Rs. 25,000 which was required to be paid as bribe. The Magistrate agreed to become a member of the raiding party in spite of full kowledge of the part that was being played by Dhanraj. It was in these circumstances that the testimony of the three trap witnesses was held to be tainted evidence of partisan witnesses and therefore unworthy of belief. 20. The offence of bribe-taking being by its very nature of a secretive character, its detection otherwise than by laying trap would be extremly difficult. To discard the testimony of trap witnesses merely because of their being trap witnesses would render detection almost impossible. There should really be nothing discreditable in a witness acting as a trap witness if only he merely performs the duty of being a witness, consistent with the office held by him, and does not become a partisan witness. Ideally speaking, even a police witness should not be discounted simply because of the office held by him, but as he is generally anxious that his efforts to bring a supposedly guilty person to book should succeed, independent corroboration of his evidence may be looked for as a rule of caution. Ideally speaking, even a police witness should not be discounted simply because of the office held by him, but as he is generally anxious that his efforts to bring a supposedly guilty person to book should succeed, independent corroboration of his evidence may be looked for as a rule of caution. Much was said by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant against a Magistrate condescending to become a trap witness, but that would really be a criticism against a system and not against a particular Magistrate. So long as the present system countenances the employment of Magistrates for purposes like the laying of traps to bring would be bribe takers to book, the Magistrates have no option but to perform such functions. The worth of a Magistrate as a witness in such cases should not therefore depend on what he does but on how he does it. If he performs his part of being merely a witness honestly in an independent manner, there should be every reason to accept his testimony as worthy of credence. I find support for my interpretation of the ruling in Shiva Bahadur Singh's case from the interpretation put upon it in the following words in another decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court which is reported as Ram Krishan v. Delhi State. 1956 AWR SC 95 ... it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule that the laying of traps roust be prohibited on the ground that by so doing we hold out an invitation for the commission 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 police authorities themselves supply the money to be given as a bribe, severe condemnation of the method is merited, as in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Another Vs. The State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 322 . 21. The argument of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the testimony of the three witnesses Dharam Chand, the Magistrate and the RSO is to be discarded simply because they were trap witnesses cannot therefore be accepted. His alternative ground that the testimony of these witnesses was unworthy of credence when judged according to the ordinary standards appears however to be well founded. His alternative ground that the testimony of these witnesses was unworthy of credence when judged according to the ordinary standards appears however to be well founded. And the main reason for coming to this conclusion is that the prosecution case as to Dharma Chand and the Appellant having haggled about the amount of bribe in the office of the Appellant on 9-1-1952 appears to be false. It has to be remembered that this was an important part of the prosecution case since, if it was true, it falsified the defence story that the sum of Rs. 25, admittedly received by the Appellant, was paid to him in respect of the forwarding note Ext. D6. As noticed already, when the details of the trap were settled at the dak bungalow in Garhmukteshwar Dharam Chand was directed to talk in such a manner as may signify that the amount was being paid as bribe. The haggling about the amount of bribe was therefore an important factor, indeed the decisive factor, to enable the Magistrate and the RSO to come to the conclusion that the amount paid was really be way of bribe. 22. It is extremely important to note, however, that the earliest versions of all the three witnesses are conspicuous by the absence of any mention of facts supporting the view that there could possibly have been any haggling about the amount of bribe when it is said to have been offered to the Appellant in his office on 9-1-1952. There is no mention of it in the statement Ext. P 1 made by Dharam Chand before the Magistrate in the dak bungalow at Garhmukteshwar. On the contrary, Dharam Chand's version in that statement was that the Appellant had demanded Rs. 25 from him for the allotment of the wagon. He reiterated in that statement that railway receipt for booking the wagon had been withheld for the sum of Rs. 25. The first memo Ext. P4 which the Magistrate prepared immediately after the occurrence is even more important since, in describing the talk that is said to have then taken place between the Appellant and Dharma Chand, the Magistrate stated that the Appellant had demanded Rs. 25 from Dharam Chand. There is no mention of the Appellant having demanded Rs. 25. The first memo Ext. P4 which the Magistrate prepared immediately after the occurrence is even more important since, in describing the talk that is said to have then taken place between the Appellant and Dharma Chand, the Magistrate stated that the Appellant had demanded Rs. 25 from Dharam Chand. There is no mention of the Appellant having demanded Rs. 30 or of there having been a haggling between him and Dharam Chand in respect of the amount paid to the Appellant. That is also true of the report Ext. 13 made by the RSO on 11-1-1952. In this report the RSO referred both to the complaint which Dharam Chand is said to have made to him on 8-1-1952, and to the talk that took place between Dharam Chand and the Appellant in the latter's office on 9-1 1952 before the sum of Rs. 25 was paid to the Appellant. Referring to the complaint of 8-1-1952 the RSO stated that it was to the effect that the Appellant had demanded Rs. 25 from Dharam Chand for booking the wagon It was further stated by him in this report that Dharam Chand had complained to him that the Appellant was a habitual corrupt official. It would appear therefore that, according to this report, Dharam Chand's complaint was, not that the Appellant had raised his customary bribe of Rs. 25 to Rs. 30 but only that the Appellant had demanded Rs. 25 as had been his practice. Referring to the conversation that took place between the Appellant and Dharam Chand in the former's office on 9-1-1952, the RSO stated in his report that he had overheard the entire conversation about the demand and acceptance of bribe, but there was no mention in the report of any haggling about the amount of bribe. It was only in the second report Ext. which the Magistrate made to the A.D.M. on 10-1-1952 that mention was for the first time made of the haggling about the amount of bribe. 23. All the three witnesses were confronted with their previous versions, but the explanations offered by them were lame and halting and wholly unworthy of acceptance. Dharam Chand stated that as he intended to pay only Rs 25 he did not mention about the demand of Rs. 30 before the Magistrate. 23. All the three witnesses were confronted with their previous versions, but the explanations offered by them were lame and halting and wholly unworthy of acceptance. Dharam Chand stated that as he intended to pay only Rs 25 he did not mention about the demand of Rs. 30 before the Magistrate. He stated further that as he did not consider it proper to give all the details at that time, he did not mention about the demand of Rs. 30 and simply mentioned that Rs. 25 had been damanded. Whatever may have been the intention or the sense of propriety of the witness, there could be no excuse for an omission on his part to make mention to the Magistrate of the important circumstance that the Appellant had demanded Rs. 30 from him. Not only did he not speak of the Appellant having demanded Rs. 30 from him, but his specific statement was that a sum of Rs. 25 had been demanded. When the R.S.O. was confronted with his report Ext. P13 he admitted having made no mention therein about the demand of Rs. 30 but offered no explanation for the same. The explanation offered by the Magistrate for making no mention in his earlier memo Ext. P4 of the demand of Rs. 30 by the Appellant in his office on 9-l-1852 was that he had noted in his report only "the final demand". The explanation though ingenious is hardly acceptable since what was material was, not as to what the final demand was, but as to whether there was such haggling between the Appellant and Dharma Chand as lent support to the prosecution case that the amount offered was the bribe which the Appellant had been demanding for release of the railway receipt in respect of the wagon which had been booked on 6-1-1955 and allotted on 8-1-1952 and falsified the defence case that the payment in question mas made in respect of the forwarding note Ext.D6. 24. It would thus appear that the three prosecution witnessess were unable to offer any satisfactory explanation in respect of the omissions in their earlier versions with regard to the important circumstance of haggling about the amount of bribe which is said to have taken place in the Appellant's office on 9-1-1952 immediately before the offer and acceptance of the same. The story about haggling appears therefore to be untrue. The story about haggling appears therefore to be untrue. This inference is confirmed further by the circumstance that when Dharam Chand met the police officer and the Magistrate in the dak-bungalow at Garhmukteshwar before all of them went to the railway station he had brought only Rs. 25 with him. If it be a fact that on 8-1-1952 the Appellant had refused to deliver the railway receipt to Dharam Chand because the latter had declined to accede to his demand of Rs. 30, how could Dharam Chand be sure, when he came to the dak-bunglow the following day, that the proposed trap would succeed on the payment of only Rs. 25 ? It is important to note in this connection that in the earliest report Ext. P6 which the R.S.O. made to the A.D.M. on 8-l-l952 the only allegation against the Appellant was that he was a habitual corrupt official. There was mention in that report of Dharam Chand having volunteered to cooperate in laying a trap against the corrupt official; but there was no mention of his having made any specific complaint to him. In view of all these facts and circumstances, it appears that, realising the difficulty of proving that the Appellant habitually accepted illegal gratification, the prosecution manufactured evidence for the purpose of proving a specific case of bribe taking against him 25. It appears further that the prosecution took advantage of the pendency of the forwarding note Ext. D6 for achieving their object. Dharam Chand's prevaricative reply in regard to the forwarding note Ext. D6 is significant since although the note purports to have been prepared by a copartner of his, named Govind Ram, he professed ignorance as to whether the note had been signed by Govind Ram or not. The other partner Nand Lal PW 6 did admit subsequently in his cross-examination that the note had been prepared by Govind Ram. True, the forwarding note Ext. D6 does not bear any date, but it was admitted by Dharam Chand that a wagon for Ahmdabad was in fact registered on 10-1-1952. The Appellant's case is that when Dharam Chand did not come to him again after leaving with him the forwarding note Ext. D6 on 8-1-1952, another forwarding note Ext D7 was prepared in respect of the same. Nand Lal PW 6 admitted, though only prevaricatively, that Ext. The Appellant's case is that when Dharam Chand did not come to him again after leaving with him the forwarding note Ext. D6 on 8-1-1952, another forwarding note Ext D7 was prepared in respect of the same. Nand Lal PW 6 admitted, though only prevaricatively, that Ext. D7 was also in the hand-writing of Govind Ram. The destination in both the forwarding notes being the same, Ahemdabad, and there being no counter suggestion forthcoming in respect of Ext. D6 from Dharam Chand or Nand Lal, the Appellant's statement in respect of the same is worthy of acceptantce. What is important to note in connection with Ext. D6 is that it is admittedly in the writing of a copartner of Dharam Chand's firm, and that no receipt for payment of the registration fee of Rs. 35 in respect of that note has been produced. It would thus appear that the matter relating to the forwarding note Ext. D6 was pending on 9-1-1952, and that the prosecution took advantage of its pendency to offer the socalled bribe to the Appellant. When therefore the amount in question was offered to him it was natural that he should have at once accepted it since be must have thought that Dharam Chand was paying to him the reservation fee relating to that note which he had promised on 8-1-1952 to pay the following day. That being so, the explanation offered by the Appellant for accepting the amount ought to be accepted. This explanation, and his further statement that on counting the amount and finding it short by Rs. 10 he immediately demanded the deficiency from Dharam Chand, has also been corroborated by the defence witness Suraj Bhan. Suraj Bhan's presence at the time in the Appellant's office has been corroborated by the testimony of J. C. Verma, Assistant Station Master. In view of all the above evidence and circumstances I am clearly of the opinion that the correct version of what happened in the office of the Appellant on 9-1-1952 was that given by the Appellant and not what has been stated by the aforeaid three prosecution witnesses. 26. An imporsant circumstance which deserves notice is that the railway receipt in question had admittedly been handed over to Dharam Chand by Shyam Lal Dalal as Dharam Chand and the Magistrate were proceeding to the Appellant's office from his quarters. 26. An imporsant circumstance which deserves notice is that the railway receipt in question had admittedly been handed over to Dharam Chand by Shyam Lal Dalal as Dharam Chand and the Magistrate were proceeding to the Appellant's office from his quarters. This is irreconcilable with the prosecution case that the Appellant had refused to deliver the railway receipt to Dharam Chand on 8-1-1952 because the latter had not acceded to the Appellant's demand of Rs. 30. It is incredible that the Appellant should have released the railway receipt without payment of the alleged bribe to him, particularly when he and Dharam Chand were at loggerheads with each other in regard to the amount of the bribe. The prosecution has not cared to produce Shyam Lal. It was argued by the Learned Counsel appearing for the State that Shyam Lal stood surety for she Appellant, as admitted by the Appellant, and that it was for this reason that prosecution did not risk producing Shyam Lal as witness. That could really be no valid ground for the non-production of an important witness like Shyam Lal. If it was apprehended that Shyam Lal would turn hostile, his hostility could have been laid bare by cross-examination. It would also appear however from the statement of the Appellant that Shyam Lal was a Dalai of Dharam Chand. This piece of information was elicited in the cross-examination of the Appellant. The argument based upon the apprehended hostility of Shyam Lal has therefore no force. This circumstance of the railway receipt in question having already been delivered by the Appellant to Shyam Lal is therefore further proof of the correctness of the defence version and of the concoction by the prosecution of a case of bribery against the Appellant. It is further noteworthy in this connection that although the Magistrate admits having seen Shyam Lal handing over railway receipt to Dharam Chand, he does not appear at all to have been struck by that circumstance. It would have been natural for him noticing the handing over of the railway receipt to Dharam Chand, to interrogate Dharam Chand about his allegation that the Appellant had with held the receipt from him because of the alleged nonpayment of bribe to him. The Magistrate appears however to have been too much bent on trapping the Appellant to have cared to bestow even a passing thought to the aforesaid circumstance. 27. The Magistrate appears however to have been too much bent on trapping the Appellant to have cared to bestow even a passing thought to the aforesaid circumstance. 27. For all the above reasons, whatever may, or may not, have been the antecedents of the Appellant, the present case against him appears to be. wholly unfounded. In fact, it appears to be a case concocted against him. The appeal in accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentence of the Appellant are set aside and he is aquitted. The fine, if it has been already realised from him, shall be refunded. The Appellant, who is on bail, need not surrender; his bail bonds are discharged.