MODI, J.—Accused Ganpat Singh has been convicted of an offence under sec. I.P.C. and sec. 6(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-and in default of payment of fine to a further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three monts, by the learned Special Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur by his judgment dated the 31st August, 1964. He now appeals. 2. The case for the prosecution may shortly be stated as follows. The accused Ganpat Singh was Head Constable in charge of the police out post Asalpur within the jurisdiction of police station Phulera. On the 30th September, 1961, there was a quarrel between Nana P. W. 2 son of Bhima D. W. on the one side and Lalaram P. W. 6 on the other. Both Nanu and Lalaram are residents of Guda Berisal Singh. On the 1st October, 1961, at 12 mid-day, Bhima and his son Tanu filed a report Ex. P. 8 at the police outpost Asalpur in which it was complained that there was a quarrel between Nanuda and Ladhuram as a result of the formers cattle trespassing into the latters field during the course of which Lalaram struck Nanuda with a fist on his forehead and thereby caused him an injury on that part of his body, which was of a simple nature. The accused, it is alleged, then sent for Lalaram through D. W. Guman Singh, a police constable, at Asalpur, and when Laluram arrived at the police outpots at about 11 A. M., the accused abused him and also beat him with a Danda, held out a threat to him that he would be sent to jail. It may be pointed out at this place that Laluram had also made a report Ex. P. 6 complaining that Nanduas cattle had trespassed into his field and verbal altercation arose between them during the course of which Nanuda had beaten his brother Moolas son with a Lathi. This report was registered at 1 P. M. on the 1st. After both these reports were recorded in the daily Roznamcha, the accused came to the conclusion that the offence reported fell under sec. 323 I.P.C, and therefore, the parties should seek their remedy in the competent court. The thumb marks of both Nanuda and Lalaram were taken on the respective entries in the Roznamcha. After both these reports were recorded in the daily Roznamcha, the accused came to the conclusion that the offence reported fell under sec. 323 I.P.C, and therefore, the parties should seek their remedy in the competent court. The thumb marks of both Nanuda and Lalaram were taken on the respective entries in the Roznamcha. Be that as it may, the accused is then alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs. 200/-from Lalaram. The deal was settled, however, for a sum of Rs. 80/- only. Lala Ram paid him Rs. 20/- which he had with himself and he took a further sum of Rs. 20/- from his brother Moola who had also followed to the outpost after his brother. As for the balance of Rs. 40/-, he promised to pay it after one or two days when he would have arranged for the same. Lalurams version further is that he had been detained at the police outpost by the accused until about 4-30 on the 1st and then allowed to go. After he and his brother had gone out of the police outpost, they met Surajmal P. W. 10, Sarpanch of village Boraj and related the whole story to him. Surajmal advised him not to pay any bribe to accused and instead asked him to accompany him to Jaipur where it was settled they would lodge a complaint before the Anti Corruption Department. 3. The story further is that Surajmal wrote out the report Ex. P. 6 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department, Jaipur, in which it was stated that there was a quarrel between Nanuda and Laluram on the 30th September, 1961, and both parties had made their reports at the police chowki. And thereafter on the 1st October, 1961, constable Guman Singh went to his house to call him at about 9 A. M. and abusively asked him to accompany him to the police Chowki. Thereafter he went to the Chowki where Ganpat Singh accused and P. W. 9 Ghisu Singh were sitting. Thereafter he was abused and threatened and they said that he would have to go to jail for a period of seven years. Lalaram then inquired whether they would be able to save him. Thereupon they said that he will have to pay Rs. 200/. Thereafter he was abused and threatened and they said that he would have to go to jail for a period of seven years. Lalaram then inquired whether they would be able to save him. Thereupon they said that he will have to pay Rs. 200/. Then Lalaram and his brother made entreaties for the reduction of the amount whereupon the whole matter was settled for Rs. 80/-. It was further stated that out of this amount Rs. 40/- were paid then and there and as for the remaining Rs. 40/-, a promise was made that it would be paid on the 2nd October, 1961. It was further stated that this incident was known to the people at large at the railway station Asalpur. Soon after they had left the Chowki, they met the Sarpanch of village Boraj, Surajmal, to whom they related the entire story to which he said that they should not pay the remaining amount of Rs. 40/-in any case, and that Lalaram should arrange for the remaining sum and that if he succeeded in doing that, he should bring the money to him (Surajmal). With considerable difficulty Lalaram was able to arrange for the sum of Rs. 40/- through the intervention of his brother-in-law (sisters husband) Kalla P. W. 4 and took the money to Surajmal. Thereafter they had proceeded to Jaipur. It was prayed in this application that in view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, a trap be laid to catch the accused Ganpat Singh red handed. It further appears that four currency notes (Exs. 1 to 4) Nos. B/51 455717, A/82 047527, F/47 351603 and H/35 035220 of Rs. 10/-each were presented by Lalaram to the Superintendent, Anti Corruption Department Shri Panne Singh who initialled them, and made them over to the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department, R. Shekhar P. W. 11 and asked him to arrange for a trap. The latter accordingly proceeded to Asalpur on the 2nd October but nothing could be done on that day as his jeep had gone out of order on the way and therefore he returned to Jaipur. He again came to Asalpur on the 3rd at about 10 A. M. On enquiry he was told by Laluram that the accused had left for Sambhar and was expected back by the evening train on that very day. He again came to Asalpur on the 3rd at about 10 A. M. On enquiry he was told by Laluram that the accused had left for Sambhar and was expected back by the evening train on that very day. The story further is that about 4 P. M. in a Bajra field some 50 yards away from the Asalpur railway station, the Assistant Superin-of Police gave the notes Exs. 1 to 4 to Lalaram in the presence of two Motbirs Ramesh Chandra P. W. 1 and Jagannath P. W. 5 which bore the initials of the Superintendent of Police Shri Panne Singh and prepared the Memo Ex. P. 1 in that behalf. It is said that it was arranged that Jagannath and Ramesh Chandra should accompany Lalaram and watch the giving of the bribe to the accused, and that as soon as the money had been passed to the accused, Lalaram should place his hand on his head which was to serve as a signal to the Assistant Superintendent of Police to proceed to the spot. Lalaram and the two Motbirs went inside the station platform. The train arrived at 6-45 P. M. on that day from which Ganpat Singh got down. Lalaram and the two Motbirs came out of the exit gate simultaneously with the accused and the Assistant Superintendent of Police and his staff had remained outside the station platform and followed the accused and Lalaram and the Motbirs some 10 to 15 paces behind. At a distance of about 20 to 25 paces from the exit gate, there was a Khejra tree. There the accused, it is alleged, asked Lalaram whether he had brought the money. Lalaram replied in the affirmative. Thereafter the latter handed over the currency notes to the former. The accused, according to Laluram, put the notes in the front pocket of his trousers while according to the Motbirs he put them below the front portion of his belt. As soon as the notes had been passed on, a signal was given by Lalaram by placing his hand on his head whereupon the Assistant Superintendent of Police Shekher rushed to the spot. As soon as the notes had been passed on, a signal was given by Lalaram by placing his hand on his head whereupon the Assistant Superintendent of Police Shekher rushed to the spot. He seized the accused in his arms and caught hold of one of his hands, then announced to him that he was the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department, and called upon him to hand over the currency notes which he had received from Lalaram. The accused denied having taken any bribe from Lalaram. Meanwhile the accused, it is said, somehow managed to slip the notes from under his belt or according to the alternative version from the pocket of his trousers down on the ground. The Assistant Superintendent of Police asked him to pick up the notes but he refused. Thereafter he himself picked them up, and after sending for a petromax lamp from the shop of one Hanuman D. W. nearby, he found that the numbers of the notes tallied with those noted down in the memo Ex. P. 1. The Assistant Superintendent of Police then made the first information report Ex. P. 10 which was registered at the police station Jaipur. The necessary sanction for the prosecution of the accused was accorded by Shri Santram Deputy Inspector General of Police. The accused was then challaned in the court of the Special Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, and has been convicted and sentenced as already stated above. 4. The defence of the accused is a complete denial. His version is that the whole case has been manufactured by Surajmal Sarpanch of village Panchayat Boraj who is on terms of considerable enmity with him. It is admitted by Surajmal PW.10 that the accused Ganpat Singh had registered a case against him under secs.420 and 221 I.P.C. on the 21st of April, 1961, which case was still pending at the time of the prosecution of the accused. The defence has further tried to prove that of the two Motbirs Ramesh Chandra and Jagannath, the former had made a complaint against the accused before the Superintendent of Police Phulera on the 25th January, 1961, that the accused was inimical towards him and was bent upon harassing him; and so far as the latter was concerned, it is said that he belongs to the party of Surajmal. The accused has produced 13 witnesses in his defence, examined himself on his side as D.W. 13 and denied in his cross-examination that he had accepted any currency notes from Lalaram or that he had thrown them away when the Assistant Superintendent of Police had come to arrest him. 5 At this Stage, I should like to summarise the findings of the learned Special Judge. In the first place, he found that the story that the accused had sent for Lalaram through camel sowar Gumansingh D.W.4 on the morning of the 1st October, 1961, cannot be unhesitatingly relied on. In the second place he has found that the further story that the accused had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 40/- from Lalaram on the first October, 1961, is also not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. In the third place, he has found that although the four currency notes were not recovered actually from the the possession of the accused, they were found lying quite close to the spot where he was arrested by the Assistant Superintendent of Police R. Shekhar and that the counter story put forward by the defence witnesses that they had been recovered at some distance from the place of the accuseds arrest and only after a search for them had been made with the help of a petromax lamp was untenable. In the forth place, his finding is that although P.Ws. Ramesh Chandra and Jagannath Motbirs "do appear to have a grudge against the accused, there is no reason to doubt or to reject the evidence of Lalaram and the Assistant Superintendent of Police Lhekhar. Fifthly, the learned Judge found that although Lalaram was a trap witness and therefore some corroborative evidence should be looked for before the conviction of the accused could be founded on his evidence, such corroborative evidence was available in the statements of P.W.S. Ramesh Chandra and Jagannath. Lastly the learned Judge went on to hold that even if the testimony of Ramesh Chandra and Jagannath was altogether excluded, the case against the accused was still proved beyond all manner or doubt on the testimony of Lalaram supported as it was by that of the Assistant Superintendent of Police R. Shekhar. The learned Judge then sums up his conclusion thus: "Therefore it is reasonably true that Lalaram had given him the four currency notes (Ex.1 to Ex. The learned Judge then sums up his conclusion thus: "Therefore it is reasonably true that Lalaram had given him the four currency notes (Ex.1 to Ex. 4), but the accused appears to have been cautious of the tainted money in his possession and immediately as he was caught, he somehow managed to slip them down............therefore I find it proved beyond any manner of doubt that the accused Sampat Singh had accepted Rs. 40/from Lalaram on 3.10.61 as illegal gratification for forbearing to proceed officially against him and therefore hold him guilty of an offence under S. 161 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.........." 6. Now before I deal with the evidence of the eye-witnesses, I should like to make a few general observations with respect to the value to be put on the evidence of trap witnesses. For it is in the light of the correct law bearing on this subject that the evidence of the various eye-witnesses must fall to be evaluated in the present case. 7. The question has many a time come before the courts as to whether a person who participates in a trap laid for apprehending another, accused of accepting a bribe, is an accomplice or not, and is not free from a certain amount of difficulty. In H.T. Huntley vs. Emperor (1) the evidence of a decoy or a trap witness has been treated as that of an accomplice. In Public Prosecutor vs. A. Thomas (2) it was held that a trap witness is not an accomplice and he does not come under the category of witnesses whose evidence cannot be accepted in the absence of material corroboration. But at the same time as the system of employing a trap witness will land itself to abuses, the court will closely scrutinise his testimony and the weight to be attached to his evidence will depend upon the character of each individual trap witness. But at the same time as the system of employing a trap witness will land itself to abuses, the court will closely scrutinise his testimony and the weight to be attached to his evidence will depend upon the character of each individual trap witness. It was further held that while prudence requires that the courts should demand and the prosecution should adduce some corroborative evidence, it need not be so strong or absolutely convincing or sufficient in itself to support a verdict of guilty and that any corroborative evidence—documentary or oral, direct or circumstantial legitimately tending to connect the accused with the commission of the offence would be sufficient to warrant a conviction although standing by itself it would be only slight proof of accuseds guilt and entitled to but little consideration and even though it is not wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. It was, however, made clear further that evidence which merely raises a suspicion that the accused is guilty is not sufficiently corroborative of the testimony of a trap witness to warrant a conviction nor will uncertain or equivocal corroboration suffice. Indeed it was felt that no general rule could be formulated with respect to the quantum of evidence corroborating a trap witnesses testimony and that each case must be governed by its own circumstances keeping in view the nature of the crime, the character of the trap witnesss testimony and the general requirements necessary to sustain a conviction. 8. In Shiv Bhadur Singh vs. State of Vindh. Pra.(3), it was held by our Supreme Court that witnesses who are not willing parties to the giving of a bribe to the accused but who are actually activated with the motive of trapping the accused cannot be treated as accomplices; but their evidence was nevertheless the evidence of partisan witnesses who are out to entrap the accused, and, therefore, their evidence requires to be scrutinised with considerable caution and care and should not be ordinarily relied upon without independent corroboration. 9. 9. In States of Bihar vs. Basawan Singh (4), the decision of the Supreme Court in Rameshwar vs. State of Rajasthan (5) was reaffirmed and it was laid down that a person who was not a willing giver of a bribe could not be correctly treated as an accomplice and it was further made clear, relying on the rule laid down in King vs. Baskerville (1916-2 K. B. 658) that the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is admissible in law and that a conviction can be founded on it; but it has long been a rule of practice which virtually becomes equivalent to a rule of law that the judge must warn the jury of the danger of convicting a prisoner on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. In Ramsehmers case, supra, Bose, J. speaking for the Court had laid down that the only clarification which was necessary for the purposes of this country where this class of offence was sometimes tried by a Judge without the aid of a jury was that in such cases the judge should give a clear indication in his judgment that he has had this rule of caution in his mind and then should proceed to give reasons for considering it unnecessary on the facts of the particular case before him so that he-consider it safe to convict without corroboration. Having thus enunciated the law with respect to accomplice evidence, their Lordships then went on to observe that there could be no universal or inflexible rule that the evidence of partisan or interested witnesses could be rejected out of hand because the value of the testimony of a witness depends on diverse factors, such as the character of the witness, to what extent and in what manner he is interested, how he has fared in cross-examination etc. It was then laid down that the testimony of partisan or interested witnesses must be scrutinised with care and caution and that there may be cases where as a matter of prudence, the court will look for independent corr6boration before convicting the accused, but it would be wrong to deduce from this that there was any universal or inflexible rule that the evidence of the witnesses of the raiding party must be discarded unless independent corroboration was available. 10. 10. The matter again came before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Major E.G. Barsay vs. State of Bombay (6) and it was laid down that a trap witness is certainly an interested witness in the sense that he was interested to see that the trap laid down by him succeeded, and, therefore, he could at least be equated with a partisan witness and it would not be advisable to rely on such evidence without corroboration. It was further laid down that it would be equally clear that his evidence was not a tainted one but it would only make a difference in the degree of corroboration required rather than the necessity for it. 11. Learned counsel for the accused placed strong reliance on the passage referenced to above in support of his submission that this Court cannot in law uphold the conviction of the accused without material corroboration of the testimony of the main trap witness Lalaram from an independent source as to the commission of the crime by the accused. I desire to point out that this passage should be read in its entirety in order to find out its true import. I do not think that their Lordships intended to lay down any such universal or infiexibe proposition as learned counsel seems to think. Indeed it seems to me that the last sentence of the passage namely that "it would only make a difference in the degree of corroboration required rather than the necessity for it" is equally important It is also important to bear in mind that their Lordships have referred with approval to the principles laid down by the Court of Criminal Appeal in R. Baskerville (1961) 2KB 658 (Supra) which has been accepted as the locus classicus of the law on the subject and has been followed by the courts in India. Again, with all respect, it does not seem to me that their Lordships intended in deciding this case to depart from the law which had been earlier laid down in State of Bihar vs. Basawan Singh (Supra). 12. As a result of the discussion made above, the true legal position with respect to a trap witness seems to be somewhat like this. A trap witness is really not an accomplic because he is not a willing party to the giving of a bribe. 12. As a result of the discussion made above, the true legal position with respect to a trap witness seems to be somewhat like this. A trap witness is really not an accomplic because he is not a willing party to the giving of a bribe. He is, however, a highly partisan witness and therefore his evidence must be scrutinised with very considerable care and caution. Further, as a matter of substantive saw there would seem to be no rule which stands in the way of a conviction being founded on the evidence of such a witness in a proper case, but the courts, as a matter of prudence should normally and ordinarily look for material corroboration of the evidence of such a witness from independent sources though it seems to me that perhaps it would be open to a court to depart from this course for valid reasons to be stated by it in an exceptional case. Again, in seeking corroboration of the evidence of such a witness the courts need rot look for corroboration of every part or detail of the prosecution story, and it would be sufficient if corroboration is forthcoming as the material circumstance of the crime and the identity of the accused in relation thereto. 13. In the light of the above principles, I now propose to examine the evidence led by the prosecution in this case. 14. The case for the prosecution mainly rests on the evidence of the two motbir witnesses P.W. 1 Ramesh Chandra, and P.W. 5 Jagannath and P.W.9 Ghisusingh and P.W. 11 R. Shekhar apart from the evidence of Lalaram himself, the principal (trap) witness of the prosecution. 15. Now so far as Ghisusingh is concerned, his evidence can be disposed of very briefly. He was sought to be relied on by the prosecution as a person who had witnessed the handing over of the four currency notes to the accused on the evening of the 3rd October, 1961, along with the other eye-witnesses. This Ghisusingh was a literate constable at the police outpost Asalpur and was the person who had written out the two reports Exs. P-8 and P-6 respectively filed by Nanuda and Lalaram as already referred to above. This Ghisusingh was a literate constable at the police outpost Asalpur and was the person who had written out the two reports Exs. P-8 and P-6 respectively filed by Nanuda and Lalaram as already referred to above. His evidence is that camel sowar Guman Singh had been sent by the accused to call Lalaram on the morning of the 1st October, 1961 and that Lalaram came to the Chowki at about 1 P. M. and that after he had written out the reports Exs. P-8 and P-6, he had read them over to the persons concerned, that is, to Nanuda and Lalaram; and that so far as the events which took place on the 3rd October, 1961, were concerned, he happened to come to Asalpur the same evening from Jaipur and had got down at that railway station and that while the accused Ganpat Singh and Lalaram were going ahead he was some ten paces behind them and seen Lalaram giving something like currency notes to the accused. His evidence further was that some body caught the accused in his arms and told him that he had accepted bribe but the latter refused. The Assistant Superintendent of Police R. Shekhar by this time apprehended the accused and searched his person but nothing was recovered from him. The witness was declared hostile at this stage as he had in his earlier statement before the police stated that when the Anti-Corruption party caught hold of the accused, the latter had thrown away the notes. The witness was confronted with that part of his statement but he replied that he did not see the accused throwing the currency notes and that they have been recovered lying on the ground about seven paces from him behind some stones. 16. Now there is some material on the record to show that the relations of Ghisusingh with the accused were somewhat strained. But apart from that, I find it utterly impossible to accept the evidence of this witness at its face value for the simple reason that if he was a genuine eye-witness of the events to which he deposes how and why he should have been examined by the police as late as the 26th April, 1962, for the first time more than seven months after the occurrence had taken place as was conceded before me by the learned Deputy Government Advocate. It is further curious that the name of this witness was not indicated or even suggested as an eye-witness in the first information report Ex. P-10. Under the circumstances, I have not the slightest hesitation in holding that this Ghisusingh was a spurious witness and his evidence is not worth the paper it has been written upon. 17. I shall next take up the evidence of the two motbir witnesses, namely, PW 1 Ramesh Chandra and PW 5 Jagannath. The learned trial Judge has himself accepted that both these witnesses bore a grudge against the accused. So far as the first witness is concerned, the defence has endeavoured to prove that this Rameshchandra had made a complaint Ex. D-3 to the Superintendent of Police, Sambhar on the 25th January, 1961, to the effect that the accused was inimically disposed towards him and was harassing him from time to time. The Superintendent had ordered an inquiry to be made into the matter, but what happened later is not known. The learned Deputy Government Advocate strenuously contended that I should not accept this story of enmity between the accused and Ramesh Chandra because the latter had not been confronted with Ex. D-3 while he was in the witness-box. This argument is correct so far as it goes. It should have been much better if Ramesh Chandra had not merely been put a number of questions on the enmity he bore against the accused to which he gave more or less evasive answers, but he should have been faced with Ex. D-3 which is alleged to have been signed by him. This could not be done because the defence had not sent for Ex. D-3 from the police record at that stage but did so later when the defence evidence was to be recorded and so they examined DW 2 Narsingh Deo, reader to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sambhar, apart from the Deputy Superintendent himself to prove that document. This officer proved that Ex. D-3 had been submitted to him by one Ramesh Chandra but he said that he would not be able to identify Ramesh Chandra. D.W. Narsingh Deo deposed that he was posted as reader to the Deputy Superintendent of Police Sambhar in 1961, that he knew Ramesh Chandra resident of Dhani Asalpur quite well and that the latter had given the report Ex. D.W. Narsingh Deo deposed that he was posted as reader to the Deputy Superintendent of Police Sambhar in 1961, that he knew Ramesh Chandra resident of Dhani Asalpur quite well and that the latter had given the report Ex. D-3 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police in his presence on the 25th January, 1961. This witness further stated that this Ramesh Chandra was son of Sabaldan 18. Now it has not been suggested by the prosecution either in the trial court or here that there were two Ramesh Chandra in the Dhani of Asalpur and that both of them were sons of two different Sabaldan. In this state of circumstances, I agree on the whole with learned counsel for the accused that the Ramesh Chandra who had made the complaint Ex. D-3 against the accused is the same person as Ramesh Chandra P.W. 2. 19. Apart from this, I have very carefully read the evidence of this witness and he does not strike me as at all satisfactory and that indeed is an aspect of the present case which, to my mind, goes to the very root of it. The evidence of this witness is that he and Jagannath were throughout in close proximity to Lalaram (the exact wording used by the witness is this— ^^ml oDr eSa eqyfte ds utnhd gh Fkk vkSj txUukFk esjs ikl Fkk&ykyk Hkh ikl gh FkkA** A little later,^^eSa txUukFk ykyk o eqyfte lkFk lkFk gh QkVd rd pysa** as indeed they had been asked to remain so by the Assistant Superintendent of Police R. Shekhar and they had gone into the station platform along with Lalaram and come out back in his and the accuseds company and that they were quite close to the accused and Lalaram when the latter offered money to the former who immediately accepted it and thereafter he had given a signal to the Assistant Superintendent of Police by placing his hand on his head whereupon the latter immediately rushed to the scene and grappled with the accused. Now we are asked to believe that it was within the hearing of Rameshchandra, a known enemy of the accused, that the latter had asked Lalaram whether he had brought the promised bribe. Lala replied that he had and then he is said to have passed the four marked currency notes to the accused. Now we are asked to believe that it was within the hearing of Rameshchandra, a known enemy of the accused, that the latter had asked Lalaram whether he had brought the promised bribe. Lala replied that he had and then he is said to have passed the four marked currency notes to the accused. According to this witness, and in this version he is supported by the other Motbir witness Jagannath, the accused having received the notes lodged them behind the belt which he was wearing on his trousers, though Lalaram has a different version to give on this aspect of the case and that the accused had lodged the currency notes into the front pocket of his trousers. The evidence of this witness does not stop there. He further says that when the Assistant Superintendent of Police R. Shekhar had interrogated the accused to produce before him the currency notes he had taken from Lalaram, the accused had flatly denied that he had done anything like that but, at that time the notes were visible behind the accuseds belt and that the accused with his other hand which was obviously free let them fall down on the ground and it was at that time that he shouted to the Assistant Superintendent of Police that the accused was letting the notes slip on to the ground which had not fallen down until that time. 20. Now adverting to this last point first, the Assistant Superintendent of Police does not support him at all. His evidence is that he did not see the notes falling down nor does he say that Ramesh Chandra had said any such thing to him that the notes were visible and that the accused was maneuvering to drop them down. That apart, what I find utterly impossible to accept is the witnesses story that although he was quite close to the accused and Lalaram, still the accused had not only asked for a bribe from Lalaram in his (witnesss) presence but had accepted it as if he wanted to create evidence against himself of his being a bribe taker. Such conduct is completely opposed to the natural course of human conduct, and I am not prepared to accept for a moment that the accused who was a police man was so stupid as to behave in that fashion. Such conduct is completely opposed to the natural course of human conduct, and I am not prepared to accept for a moment that the accused who was a police man was so stupid as to behave in that fashion. To put it bluntly the evidence of this witness does not appear to me to be natural or worthy of any credence. Indeed it appears to be intrinsically false, and that is one more reason why it should not be accepted or taken at its face value. 21. The evidence of Jagannath follows the same pattern as that of Ramesh Chandra. The defence has tried to prove that Jagannath is a party-man of Sura] Mal who is indeed proved to be an inveterate enemy of the accused. There is abundant material on the record to show the vital role which he (Surajmal) has played throughout this case. He is the scribe of Ex. P-5, the report which was made to the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Department, Jaipur; he accompanied Lalaram to Jaipur to lodge that report; and further there is material to show that he has been taking tremendous interest in the trial of this case. And I feel bound to point out that the agency responsible for the trap should have been better advised than to lay its hands for the selection of Motbirs to witness the actual passing of the bribe to the accused upon persons other than those who were either the enemies of the accused or the party men of Surajmal. In fact Jagannath admitted in his cross-examination that there were two parties in his village—one of Surajmal and the other of the Maharani (presumably meaning thereby the Maha-rani of Jaipur) and that he belonged to the party of Surajmal. It would not have at all been difficult in a small village to know who is ones friend or not. In any case, Jagannath and Ramesh Chandra were both closely accompanying Lalaram, and the presence of Ramesh Chandra by itself should have been enough to put any reasonably intelligent person on his guard that he should not play the fool at all he wanted to do so in the presence of a known enemy. The evidence of Jagan Nath thus suffers from the same infirmities as that of Ramesh Chandra. 22. The evidence of Jagan Nath thus suffers from the same infirmities as that of Ramesh Chandra. 22. This leaves us with the evidence of Lalaram who is the main trap witness in this case. The learned Special Judge seems to have been greatly impressed by his evidence and indeed formed the view that the against the case accused was established beyond all reasonable doubt by his evidence alone. With this view I entirely disagree. I have read the evidence of Lalaram with all the care and attention which it deserves more than once, and I have no hesitation in saying that it does not appear to me to be that type of evidence which could be unhesitatingly accepted as a sound basis for conviction of the accused. In the first place, the learned Special Judge has himself disbelieved his version that he had been sent for by the accused through constable Gumansingh DW 4 at the police outpost on the morning (9 A.M.) of the 1st October, 1961. As I have already pointed out above, there is nothing to show that any report had been made at the said outpost before 120 clock mid-day on the 1st. The only witness who has trotted out that story is P.W. 9 Ghisusingh, but he is an entirely discredited witness. It appears that Lala Ram had himself filed the report Ex. P-6 at the outpost, and, therefore, he should have gone there on his own. Curiously enough, he denies to have made any report like Ex. P-6 which, let it be remembered, bears his thumb mark. There is the evidence of PW 9 Ghisusingh himself who is by no means a friend of the accused that he had recorded Ex. P-6 and read it out to Lalaram and thereafter obtained his thumb mark on it. It may be noted here that the report Ex. P-8 was got recorded by Nenuda at 12 noon while Ex. P-6 by Lalaram was recorded at 1 PM and both these were written out by Ghisusingh. In both these entries in the Roznamcha it was further recorded that the respective parties were asked to seek their redress in the competent courts of law. 23. It was strenuously urged before me that the story that under the circumstances the accused should have asked for a bribe of Rs. In both these entries in the Roznamcha it was further recorded that the respective parties were asked to seek their redress in the competent courts of law. 23. It was strenuously urged before me that the story that under the circumstances the accused should have asked for a bribe of Rs. 200/- from Lalaram and that the bargain should have been settled for Rs. 80/- is extremely difficult to believe, for the matter was a very trivial one and even villagers in the country-side now know that the police have hardly any function to perform in such a case. 24. That may or may not be so. But there are other vital infirmities in the evidence of Lalaram. His version further is that he had paid a sum of Rs. 40/- to the accused on the 1st October. We are asked to believe that he had taken Rs. 20/- with himself when he went to the police outpost and that when his brother Moola followed to the outpost he brought with him another sum of Rs. 20/-, and this is how Rs. 40/- were given to the accused. Now, it does not seem to me to be at all probable that while Lalaram went to the police outpost, either to make his own report or because he was called by the accused, he should have taken any money with himself. And in any case, why should his brother Moola have further taken any money with him ? The learned trial Judge has held that unhesitating reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of Lalaram on this part of his case. I would go a step further and say that I have no hesitation in holding that the story put forward by Lalaram is entirely unacceptable. Besides, Moola was a very important witness to the unfoldment of what had happened at the police outpost and for some unaccountable reason he has been withheld by the prosecution from the witness-box. This failure quite clearly seems to me to be a good ground for thinking that if Moola had been produced he would not have supported this part of the prosecution case. 25. This failure quite clearly seems to me to be a good ground for thinking that if Moola had been produced he would not have supported this part of the prosecution case. 25. Coming then to the events which took place on the 3rd October, I have already pointed out that Lalaram, Ramesh Chandra and Jagannath went all together to the station platform and came out all together even after the accused Ganpatsingh had met Lalaram. This is what Lalaram has to say on this part of the case: ^^eqakhth fVdV dh QkVd ls ckgj fudysA eSa t; jketh dh dj lkFk gks fy;kA eqakhth us dgk fd :i;s r; fd;s og yk;k ;k ughaA eSaus dgk yk;k gwWA ;g ckr djrs djrs [kstM+s ds ikl pys x;saA jesk o txUukFk esjs ikl FksA eSaus og 40½ eqakhth dks ns fn;sA ;g og gh nl nl ds pkj uksV Fks tks lkgc us fn;sA eqakhth us isV ds lkeus dh tsc esa uksV Mky fn;s vkSj eSaus gkFk flj ij QsjkA bl ij lkgc us eqakhth dk gkFk idM+ fy;kA nwljk gkFk tks [kkyh Fkk] mlls eaqkhth us uksV uhps fxjk fn;s tks eqakhth ds iSjk esa fxjsA jeskth eqakhth ds cjkcj FksA mUgksaus dgk fd uksV ;g iVd fn;sA uksV jeskth us tehu ls mBk dj lkgc dks fn;sA It is thus clear that at the time the entire demand for bribe and the acceptance thereof took place between the accused and Lalaram, Rarnesh Chandra and Jagan Nath both were with him. As I have already pointed out, this is too thick a story to believe. No man in his senses, much less a police man, would accept a bribe from another in the presence of his enemy or enemies. I cannot help observing that this aspect of the case seems to have been completely missed by the learned Special Judge and I have no doubt that if he had taken proper note of it, he would not have come to the conclusion to which he did. 26. In the second place, the version of Lalaram is that the notes were kept by the accused in the front pocket of his trousers while both the other eye-witnesses namely Ramesh Chandra and Jagannath have deposed that the accused had placed them under the front part of his belt. 26. In the second place, the version of Lalaram is that the notes were kept by the accused in the front pocket of his trousers while both the other eye-witnesses namely Ramesh Chandra and Jagannath have deposed that the accused had placed them under the front part of his belt. A contradiction like this on such a vital part of the prosecution case is not without considerable significance and there can be no escape from the conclusion that either Lalaram was telling a lie or the other two witnesses. In any case, I cannot help pointing out that such contradictions usually arise when the alleged eye-witnesses have failed to observe the things to which they are prepared to testify and indulge in imagination to somehow support: the case on the side of which they have aligned themselves. 27. Again I cannot help pointing out that according to the prosecution itself the accused was carrying on a bag with himself at the relevant time. Normally and naturally, not suspecting any foul-play at all, any person in his position when he had accepted a bribe would be obviously tempted to put the currency notes inside the bag rather than that he should squeeze them below the front part of his belt which was, to say the leasts a very insecure place, and this is what the two motbirs would have us believe and they clearly contradict Lala on this part of the case. The further story of a signal having been given by Lalaram by placing his hand on his head and having been seen by the Assistant Superintendent of Police Shekhar from some distance in the darkness that could not but have descended on the scene at the material time is also hard to believe. According to the almanac the sun had set on that day at 5.52 P.M. and there being admittedly no light at the place where the accused accepted the bribe, more than one hour after sunset, it is strange indeed that R. Shekhar should have been in a position to see the signal. According to the almanac the sun had set on that day at 5.52 P.M. and there being admittedly no light at the place where the accused accepted the bribe, more than one hour after sunset, it is strange indeed that R. Shekhar should have been in a position to see the signal. Again, assuming that immediately after the acceptance of the bribe and the passing of the signal, A.S.P. Shekhar had rushed at the accused obviously unnoticed from behind and had bodily seized him, it sounds not a little strange that the latter should have been in a position to pull out the notes from the pocket of his trousers as Lala would have us accept, and drop them down. 28. There is yet another insuperable criticism against the evidence of this witness when he said that he was detained by the accused at the police outpost until 4.30 P.M. on the 1st October, 1961. According to him, although he had reached the outpost at about 11 AM and Moola had followed him there at 12 or 12.30 P.M., the accused did not raise the talk of bribe until 2 P.M. The evidence of this witness further is that negotiations then commenced and the bargain was struck for Rs. 80/- and he was allowed to go from the outpost at about 1.30 P.M. Now there is almost incontrovertible evidence in the shape of official documents, which is supported by independent evidence that the accused had left his outpost on the 1st at 2 P.M. because he had been called by the Sarpanch of Asalpur Panchayat for helping him to remove an encroachment made by one Basantilal on certain Panchayat land. In support of this version, we have the Roznamcha entries Exs.P-5 and P-6 which I see no reason to doubt. And then there is the evidence of D.W. Fatehsing, Sarpanch of Asalpur Panchayat who has clearly deposed that the accused had come to the Panchayat on the 1st at 2.30 P.M. I see no valid reason to doubt his testimony. The result, therefore, is that the version of Lalaram that for the first time the accused had asked for a bribe at 2 P.M. and thereafter there were certain negotiations as a result of thick the bargain was settled for Rs. 80/-and thereafter he was allowed to leave the police outpost at 4.30 P.M. cannot possibly be accepted as correct. The result, therefore, is that the version of Lalaram that for the first time the accused had asked for a bribe at 2 P.M. and thereafter there were certain negotiations as a result of thick the bargain was settled for Rs. 80/-and thereafter he was allowed to leave the police outpost at 4.30 P.M. cannot possibly be accepted as correct. 29. Before concluding my discussion of Lalarams evidence, I should also like to point out that although Surajmal was emphatic in his statement during the course of his cross-examination that he did not know Lalaram prior to the happenings of the 1st October, this cannot be accepted as correct because we have it from Surajmals own brother-in-law Kalla PW 4 that not only Surajmal and Lalaram knew each other but that Lalaram was on fairly cordial terms with Surajmal. To use his own words, ^^esjs lkys ykyk dh mB cSB lwjtey ds ;gka gSA** We further have it from this witness that Surajmal was present in court when he was examined that is on the 6th September, 1963, whereas Surajmal PW 10 himself came to be examined on the 25th March, 1964. This is proof positive and shows the kind of interest which Surajmal was taking in the case. It is ofcourse correct that when the accused was asked a question in his cross-examination whether he bore enmity or ill-will against Lalaram, his reply to that question was in the negative. But that would be no good reason for holding that Lalaram did not bear any animus against him or that he was such an independent person situated as he was that he would not fall under the evil influence of Surajmal who seems to be the chief actor behind this whole case. 30. For the reasons mentioned above, I am unable to agree with the learned Special Judge that the evidence of Lalaram is so good or is of such worth that by itself it will sustain the conviction of the accused. 31. The only other witness which then remains to consider is the Assistant Superintendent of Police R. Shekhar. The material part of the evidence of this witness is that the train which brought the accused to Asalpur arrived there at about 6.40 P.M. and that Lalaram, the Motbirs and the accused all came out of the platform and proceeded towards the police outpost. The material part of the evidence of this witness is that the train which brought the accused to Asalpur arrived there at about 6.40 P.M. and that Lalaram, the Motbirs and the accused all came out of the platform and proceeded towards the police outpost. According to this witness the accused and Lalaram were going together while the two Motbirs followed them a few paces behind. I pause for a moment to point out that this is not exactly what the two Motbirs Rameshchandra and Jagannath and PW Lalaram have said and I need not repeat their evidence which I have already discussed in the foregoing part of my judgment. The evidence of this witness then is that the accused and Lalaram had gone some 20 to 25 paces from the exit gate when they had a talk and shortly after, says he, "I saw Lalaram handing the money over to the accused. I saw him giving currency notes to Ganpatsingh. At that time I was about 10-15 paces away from him." I am afraid in saying all this the Assistant Superintendent of Police had allowed his zeal to prove the case for the prosecution to overpower his regard for truth. I have already pointed out that the sunset took place on the 3rd October, 1961, at 5.52 P.M. The train which brought Ganpatsingh to Asalpur had arrived at the station at 6.45 P.M. There must have been some time before the accused and Lalaram and others could get out of the railway station and go up to the Khejri tree where the notes are said to have been passed by Lalaram to the accused and accepted by the latter. But even if no allowance were to be made for that, there would be such darkness prevailing at the time that it would be practically impossible for anybody in the position of the witness to be able to see that Lalaram had passed the money to the accused. The witness was closely questioned in his cross-examination whether there was any lighting arrangement where Lala Ram gave the bribe to the accused. He admitted that there was none and that the sun had set but still he was emphatic that the visibility was good. A little latter he felt compelled to accept that it was dark at that time, but he persisted in his statement that the visibility was there. He admitted that there was none and that the sun had set but still he was emphatic that the visibility was good. A little latter he felt compelled to accept that it was dark at that time, but he persisted in his statement that the visibility was there. He was then asked whether he could tally the numbers of the notes after he had picked them up with the memo which had been earlier prepared in that connection and he was forced to admit that he could not read the numbers except with the help of a lantern, and, therefore, a petromax lamp had to be sent for from a neighbouring shop. The story of this witness that he had seen the notes being handed over by Lalaram to the accused becomes all the more difficult to accept when it is remembered that in addition to the factor of darkness there were admittedly other persons passing and repassing in between the accused and Lalaram on the one hand and the Assistant Superintendent and his party on the other. To add to the impossibility of his version, we further have it from him that the tree under which the transaction took place was thick and about 30 feet high which should have further added to the darkness of the scene. We also have it from this witness that he did not see the currency notes falling down on the ground, which must have been seen by him if the version of Ramesh Chandra whom I have already discussed above were correct. I should further like to point out in this connection that in the first report Ex. P-10, the version put forward was that it was only the two Motbirs who had seen the notes being given by Lalaram to the accused and that so far as this witness is concerned, he had only seen them after they had fallen down on the ground. I have no hesitation in saying that the evidence of this witness is not at all satisfactory and lends no corroboration, worth the name, to the evidence of Lalaram. 32. I have no hesitation in saying that the evidence of this witness is not at all satisfactory and lends no corroboration, worth the name, to the evidence of Lalaram. 32. While I am on this aspect of the case, I cannot help quoting the paragraph in the judgment of the trial court which reads as follows: "There is yet another circumstances which leads to the irresistible conclusion that Lala Ram did give the currency notes to the accused at that time. Even supposing for a minute that the accused had not settled any amount of bribe with Lalaram previously and the latter was out to concoct a case against him, Lalaram would still offer the amount to the accused as he had brought the trap party for the purpose and he had a plausible ground also for his conduct in the eyes of the accused as a case under sec. 323 IPC had already been registered against him at the police outpost Asalpur. Therefore, it is reasonably true that Lalaram had given him the four currency notes (Ex. 1 to Ex. 4), but the accused appears to have been cautious of the tainted money in his possession and immediately as he was caught, he somehow managed to slip them down." I am afraid I do not understand the learned Special Judge when he says all this. The prosecution has come forward with a positive case and it is by that case that it must fall to be judged. It is no part of the duty of the court to make out an entirely different case by indulging in speculation which may or may not be well founded. 33. Judging the whole case by the principles which I have discussed above, I find that the evidence of the main trap witness Lalaram cannot be accepted as unquestionably true. Nor does that evidence receive any satisfactory corroboration from the other witnesses produced by the prosecution. 34. Before concluding my judgment, I should like to point out that at the best there may be suspicion against the accused that he had asked for and accepted a bribe from Lalaram; but as observed by their Lordships of the Federal Court in H.T. Huntley vs. Emperor (supra), although a charge under sec. 34. Before concluding my judgment, I should like to point out that at the best there may be suspicion against the accused that he had asked for and accepted a bribe from Lalaram; but as observed by their Lordships of the Federal Court in H.T. Huntley vs. Emperor (supra), although a charge under sec. 161, Penal Code, is difficult to establish, that would not relieve the prosecution of the burden which rests upon it to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and that if after everything that can legitimately be considered has been given its due weight, room still exists for taking the view that however strong the suspicion raised against the accused, if every reasonable possibility of innocence has not been excluded, he is entitled to an acquittal. 35. For the reasons mentioned above I hold that the conviction of the accused under sec. 161 I.P.C. and under sec. 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be sustained and it is, therefore, set aside. 36. In the result, I allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused and hereby acquit him. As the accused is on bail, he need not surrender to his bail bond.