A. N. SURTI, J. ( 1 ) THE learned Special Judge accepted the prosecution case and came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the aforesaid offences and convicted him and sentenced him as stated above. ( 2 ) THE learned Special Judge in the impugned judgment in paragraph 17 thereof has observed as follows :"it was argued that Panch No. 1 is not an independent witness. Now the manner in which the panchas were procured shows that the panchas were selected panchas. Mr. Gadhavi (The Police Inspector) asked Police Constable to call panchas and the police constable went in search of the panchas in a jeep car. The residence of the two panchas was at a distance of about a mile from the office of Anti Corruption Bureau and the police men went there and they picked up these two panchas who were neighbours. It has transpired in evidence that there are several residential premises in the vicinity of the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau. In spite of that the police man went to a colony where the two Panchas were staying and they took them as Panchas. It is natural that when the Panchas were brought Mr. Gadhvi would have inquired about their antecedents. Mr. Gadhvi says that he did not inquire about their antecedents hut he cannot be believed when he says so. It was his duty to have inquired about it from then and think he must have done so. So far as antecedents of Panch No. 1 are concerned same criminal complaints were filed against him before this incident. He had turned hostile when he was examined as a panch in a prohibition case. Mr. Gadhvi admitted that if he had come to know that he had turned hostile he would not have been taken as a Panch. There is nothing on record to show that the panch witness Is convicted in any of the cases which were filed against him. It appears that there were three cases connecting a school. It is not clear on record under that circumstances those cases were filed. But it appears that Panch witness had some troubles with school authorities. Panch witness has admitted about all these cases which were filed against him. . . . . . . It appears that there were three cases connecting a school. It is not clear on record under that circumstances those cases were filed. But it appears that Panch witness had some troubles with school authorities. Panch witness has admitted about all these cases which were filed against him. . . . . . . his evidence cannot be discarded and thrown away as unbelievable if his evidence is found believable in view of the other circumstances on record. . . . . . . . . . . Although it appears that they mere selected as panchas I am unable to discard the evidence of panch No. 1 as untrue". ( 3 ) THE learned Special Judge placed reliance on the evidence of Panch No 1 Arunkumar P W. 2-Ex. 8 and came to the conclusion that the prosecution did prove the alleged offences against accused on the testimony of the complainant the panch the police and the other evidence on the record of the case. ( 4 ) IT is under these circumstances that the present appeal is filed by the accused in this Court. ( 5 ) IN order to prove the case of the prosecution the prosecution examined Ismail Abdul Rehman-P. W 1 Ex. 6 the complainant in the case. His evidence is on the same lines as the prosecution case which we have narrated in the earlier part of our judgment. ( 6 ) THIS being a trap case we had a very anxious look at the evidence of Panch Arunkumar Hiralal Bhatt PW. 2-Ex. 8 who even according to the learned Special Judge was a selected Panch. Panch Arunkumar P. W. 2 is of 23 years of age at the relevant lime. This Panch admitted in his cross-examination that he had trespassed to Gajjar High School compound and had assaulted one Laxmansingh Nathusingh and that the police had filed a case against him. he also admitted in his cross-examination that on March 13 1975 he had given an iron pipe blow on one Jayantilals head and that he was prosecuted for the offence punishable under sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code. he also admitted in his cross-examination that on March 13 1975 he had given an iron pipe blow on one Jayantilals head and that he was prosecuted for the offence punishable under sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code. He has also admitted that on October 21 1974 he was prosecuted for throwing stones on the school building of K. H. Gajjars school He also admitted in his cross-examination that on June 7 1974 a complaint was field against him and one Manubhai as they caused injuries to one Kalubhai Bhikhabhai. He also admitted that save and except the aforesaid cases other cases 3 or 4 cases were filed against him during the Nav Nirman agitation. He also admitted that in one of the prohibition cases he had acted as a Panch in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and he was declared as a hostile witness. He also admitted that when the police contacted him for the purpose of acting as a Panch he had the requisite experience as a Panch. ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid evidence of the Panch can it be said that this Panch is an independent Panch or he is a respectable Panch ? It may be emphasised once again that even the learned Special Judge has observed in the impugned judgment that in the instant case the Panchas were selected. It may be equally emphasised that even MT. Gadhvi the Police Inspector also admitted in his evidence that if he had the knowledge about the antecedents of this very Panch he would not have selected him as a Panch Under the aforesaid circumstances we are not prepared to place any reliance on the evidence of the Panch P. W. 2. He is neither an independent Panch nor a respectable Panch. ( 8 ) IT may be emphasised that in trap cases the evidence of the Panch witness assumes considerable importance. The Supreme Court in Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab A. I. R 1976. Supreme Court 91 in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment has observed as follows :"we must take this opportunity of impressing on the officers functioning in the anticorruption department to insist on observing this safeguard as zealously and scrupulously as possible for the protection on of public servants against whom a trap may have to be laid. Supreme Court 91 in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment has observed as follows :"we must take this opportunity of impressing on the officers functioning in the anticorruption department to insist on observing this safeguard as zealously and scrupulously as possible for the protection on of public servants against whom a trap may have to be laid. They must seriously endeavour to secure really independent and respectable witnesses so that the evidence in regard to raid inspires confidence in the mind of the court and the court is not left in any doubt as to whether or not any money was paid to the public servant by way of bribe. . . . . . . THE evidence in regard to the search of the person of the appellant and the seizure of five marked currency notes from him is in the context or the other facts and circumstances of the Case not such as to inspire confidence and cannot be implicitly accepted". ( 9 ) IN the instant case having regard to the fact that there were large number of criminal cases against the aforesaid Panch it is impossible for us to come to the conclusion that he was either an independent Panch or a respectable Panch. In this view of the matter the evidence in regard to the search of the person of the accused and the seizure of the currency notes is in the context of the evidence of the Panch and the other circumstances of the case cannot inspire any confidence and cannot be implicitly accepted. It nay be emphasised that at the relevant time when the bribe currency notes were alleged to have been given by the complainant P. W 1 to the accused in the rickshaw only Panch No. 1 was present and if his evidence as to the giving and taking on the currency notes cannot be accepted as the Panch was an unreliable witness an order of conviction cannot be founded on the sole testimony of the complainant and the other evidence on the record of the case. Bearing this aspect in mind we requested the learned Public Prosecutor to point out to us any other evidence on the record of the case which would be in the nature of an independent evidence for acceptance of the bribe money but Mr. Bearing this aspect in mind we requested the learned Public Prosecutor to point out to us any other evidence on the record of the case which would be in the nature of an independent evidence for acceptance of the bribe money but Mr. Christie very frankly told us that there is no such evidence on the record of the case. ( 10 ) IN view of the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment in Raghbir Singhs case (supra) we must caution the Anti Corruption department by bringing to their notice that it is high time that the officers of the Anticorruption department should be on special caution to see that in trap cases they secure the services of independent and respectable Panchas. Our experience is that in number of cases the Investigating agency secures the services of a person who cannot be styled as a respectable or an independent panch. In the instant case Panch No. 1 appears to us to be a court bird. His evidence clearly reveals that at least he has involved himself in nine criminal cases. Panch No. 1 admitted that he had even given aa iron pipe blow on the head of a person. This very Panch witness also admitted in his evidence that he was declared hostile to the prosecution in one of the prohibition cases. He also admitted that he had the requisite knowledge as to how to act as a Panch. He was also guilty of throwing stones on an educational institutions. How can such a Panch be ever accepted as an independent or a respectable Panch ? ( 11 ) THE Investigating Officers of the Anti Corruption branch must realise that they are dealing with the life and the liberty of our public servants who are also having a presumption of innocence in their favour. No doubt it is true that they should and must fearlessly endeavour to prove serious accusations of corruption against them but they should not lose sight of the fact that cases of character assassination are also on the increase in the society and hence they must be on special caution to see that they secure the services of independent and respectable Panchas in trap cases. The Anti-Corruption Department must also be conscious of the fact that our public services are constitutionally protected and hence normally the investigating officers should not only be police officers of circumspection and status but should be sufficiently pains taking for securing the services of independent and respectable Panchas in trap cases. ( 12 ) IN the instant case in view of what has been stated above there is no independent corroboration on the acceptance of bribe currency notes by the appellant accused in the rickshaw. It is well settled by now that before we can act on the testimony of the complainant in a trap case we must get independent corroboration on all material particulars from the evidence of the Panch or other independent sources. At this stage it may be emphasised that it was the defence of the accused that the complainant thrusted Rs. 100. 00 in his pocket and that the accused had told him that by way of tax transfer fee etc. the complainant had to pay Rs. 97-50 to the department. ( 13 ) IN the instant case Panch No. 2 was not examined as a prosecution Witness ( 14 ) THE prosecution also examined Anilkumar Pandya P. W. 3-Ex. 16 who merely produced the necessary sanction to prosecute the appellant- accused. The prosecution also examined Police Inspector Gandhvi-P. W. 4-Ex. 13 who also supports the case of the complainant but his evidence in a trap case cannot be used in order to corroborate the testimony of the complainant. Save and except the aforesaid witnesses no other witness was examined by the prosecution. ( 15 ) AS the prosecution has failed to prove satisfactorily that the appellant-accused accepted the bribe currency notes it is not possible for us to agree either with the reasoning of the learned Special Judge or with his ultimate conclusion. ( 16 ) IN view of what has been stated above the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special judge Ahmedabad in Special Case No. 12 of 1976 are set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Fine. if paid is ordered to be refunded. Bail bonds cancelled. The appeal is allowed. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Home Department Sachivalaya Gandhinagar. Appeal allowed. .