Judgment M.M. Gupta, J. 1. THESE appeals have been preferred by Dharambir and Surendra Pal Singh who were convicted under section 161 IPC and under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Under the former section they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years while under the latter section they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 500/-. 2. ACCORDING to the prosecution case, Sri Surendra Pal Singh was the Sanitary and Food Inspector in Ghaziabad district. Moradnagar was in his circle. At Moradnagar Bus Stand Jagdish Chandra Sharma was running a Shudha Bhojnalya. Surendra Pal Singh used to visit Moradnagar and in the course of his visits to the shop of Jagdish Chandra Sharma he used to threaten him to take a sample and he also threatend him that if he paid him Rs. 200/- the sample would not be taken and he would be able to run his hotel in peace. Jagdish Chandra Sharma showed some repugnance against the act of giving the illegal gratification to Surendra Pal Singh appellant. He,, therefore, moved an application on 8th October 1977 before the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) Meerut informing him of the intentions of Surendra Pal Singh appellant in asking for the illegal gratification. The Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) gave directions to Om Prakash Tyagi and Sri Dharampal (Vigilance) Inspectors to lay a trap for the arrest of Surendra Pal Singh appellant. On 12th October 1977 at about 1 P. M. Dharambir appellant who was vaccinator serving under the appellant Surendra Pal Singh, went to the shop of Jagdish Chandra Sharma and asked him to pay Rs. 200/- for being paid to Surendra Pal Singh appellant in,lieu of the fact that Sri Surendra Pal Singh would not take a sample of any edible article sold by him. Jagdish Chandra Sharma, however, insisted that if he has to pay any illegal gratification he will pay it to Sri Surendra Pal Singh direct. Thereafter Om Prakash Tyagi along with other witnesses went to Jagdish Chandra Sharma who provided the currency notes of Rs. 200/- They consisted of one currency nolle of Rs. 100/- denomination and five currency notes of Rs. 20/-denomination. These currency notes were initialled; by Sri Om Prakash Tyagi and they were treated with phenolphthlene powder. Thereafter Om Prakash Tyagi along with other witnesses went to Jagdish Chandra Sharma who provided the currency notes of Rs. 200/- They consisted of one currency nolle of Rs. 100/- denomination and five currency notes of Rs. 20/-denomination. These currency notes were initialled; by Sri Om Prakash Tyagi and they were treated with phenolphthlene powder. They were handed over back to Jagdish Chandra Sharma after their memo was prepared. Sri Om Prakash Tyagi and other members of his party took their seat on a side bench at the shop of Jagdish Chandraj Sharma. They were served with tea and other edibles. At about 3.30 P. M. Dharambir came to the shop of Jagdish Chandra Sharma. He was told by Dharambir appellant that Surendra Pal Singh had sent him and wanted the appellant to make the payment to him. When Jagdish Chandra Sharma again insisted that he would pay the money to Surendra Pal Singh appellant he told him that he need not worry about it as the money would safely reach Surendra Pal Singh and he was acting under his direction. Thereafter the aforementioned currency notes of Rs. 200/- were handed over to Dharambir who kept them in his pocket. Soon after the money passed in the hands of Dharambir appellant and he had put them in his pocket, Sri Om Prakash Tyagi and other members of his party immediately arrested Dharambir appellant. On search being taken the currency nates treated with phenolphthlene powder and bearing the initials of Om Prakash Tyagi were recovered. The hands of Dharmbir appellant were got washed with sodium carbonate solution. The solution turned pink. The shirt of Dharambir was also taken into possession. A recovery memo witnessed by the witnesses was duly prepared. Dharambir was taken into custody and along with the sealed property of the case he was taken to Police Station Moradnagar where Om Prakash Tyagi lodged the report at 6. 15 P. M. on 12-10-1977. 3. THE investigation of the case was entrusted to Sri Jagdish Lal Chawla, Inspector Vigilance, under the orders of the Superintendent of Police. He recorded the statements of Dharampal Singh Inspector Vigilance and of Sri Om Prakash Tyagi on 18-10-1977. He recorded the statement of Jagdish Chandra Sharma on 19-10-1977. THE other witnesses were also examined on the same date. He inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared the site plan. He recorded the statements of Dharampal Singh Inspector Vigilance and of Sri Om Prakash Tyagi on 18-10-1977. He recorded the statement of Jagdish Chandra Sharma on 19-10-1977. THE other witnesses were also examined on the same date. He inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared the site plan. THE statement of Dharambir appellant was got recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C. before a Magistrate. THE statement of some witnesses 'were also recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C. Sanction for the prosecution of Dharambir appellant was accorded by the District Magistrate and by the Administration of Nagarpalika, Ghaziabad. THE Director, Medical Health, accorded sanction for the prosecution of Surendra Pal appeallant. After the sanctions for their proseuction were obtained charge- sheet was submitted against the two appellants in the court of the Special Judge, Ghaziabad. 4. SURENDRA Pal Singh appellant denied that he had ever threatened Jagdish Chandra Sharma to pay him illegal gratification in view of his not taking the sample of edible articles sold by him. He has also denied that he had sent Dharambir to take Rs. 200/- from him for that purpose. He further stated that Jagdish Chandra Sharma got himself converted as a Muslim and runs a Hotel. This was objected to by the Hindus. He is, therefore, inimical to him. Dharambir Singh appellant denied the prosecution allegations. He denied having gone to the shop of Jagdish Chandra Sharma to take from him a sum of Rs. 200/- towards illegal gratification on behalf of Surendra Pal Singh appellant. He, however, stated that the currency notes were forcibly put in his pocket. He wanted to throw them away but the Vigilance people caught hold of his hands. He, however, admitted the fact of his hands being washed with sodium carbonate solution and of the solution turning pink. On the date of occurrence he was present in front of the shop of Jagdish Chandra. Sharma. Some-body called him. He got down from his bicycle. He was called by Jagdish Chandra Sharma and as he was approaching him the currency notes were forcibly put in his pocket and he was told to give them to Surendra Pal Singh appellant. He took out the currency notes and told him to give them to Surendra Pal Singh appellant. In the meantime he was caught hold by the Vigilance Officers. He took out the currency notes and told him to give them to Surendra Pal Singh appellant. In the meantime he was caught hold by the Vigilance Officers. He made a statement before a Magistrate under temptation given by the Vigilance Officers who promised to get him released. 5. THE prosecution in support of its case examined Jagdish Chandra Sharma PW 6, PW 5 Om Prakash Tyagi and PW 7 Dharam Pal Singh. PW 9 K. N. Singh is the Magistrate who had recorded the confession of Dharambir appellant. Besides these witnesses the prosecution in support of its case examined PW 1 Onkar Singh, PW 2 Nooruddin, PW 3 Ghanshyam Pandey and PW 4 Dalip Singh. THEse witnesses, however, did not support the prosecution case. PW 10 Suresh Chandra was the constable who has proved the signature of the Head moharrir who had received the written report, lodged by Sri Om Prakash Tyagi at Police Station Moradnagar. PW 11 Chaman Lal was the Officer in charge of Nagarpalika Ghaziabad who had given sanction for the prosecution of the appellant Dharambir Singh. On 9-8-1977 PW 8 Jagdish Lal Chawla Inspector Vigilance had conducted the investigation. Appellant Dharambir Singh also examined one Padam Singh in his defence. 6. THE learned Special Judge relied on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses PW 6 Jagdish Chandra Sharma, PW 5 Om Prakash Tyagi and PW 7 Dharampal Singh and convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. He, however did not place any reliance on the testimony of PW 1 Onkar Singh, PW 2 Nooruddin, PW 3 Ghanshyam Pandey and PW 4 Dalip Singh. He did not find the defence witness a reliable witness. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings of the learned Special Judge and has contended that on the evidence on record the prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellants. 7. SRI Jagdish Chandra Sharma PW 6 claims that he was running a Hotel at the Bus Station of Moradnagar. He claimed that about three years before his statement was recorded in Court Surendra Pal Singh appellant who was a Sanitary Inspector-he is also a Food Inspector-had come to him and had asked him if he had taken the licence for running the Hotel. He claimed that about three years before his statement was recorded in Court Surendra Pal Singh appellant who was a Sanitary Inspector-he is also a Food Inspector-had come to him and had asked him if he had taken the licence for running the Hotel. He told him that he had not taken the licence but if that was at all required he would obtain it. Surendra Pal Singh appellant, however, told him that he: should also pay him some gratification towards his expenses as the samples of flood were being taken. He also told him that after payment of gratification he would be at liberty to do whatever he liked. Surendra Pal Singh appellant again came to him 15 or 20 days after and enquired from him, "Dimag Theek Hua". The witness told him that he would not pay him any illegal gratification. Thereafter on 8th October 1977 the appellant Surendra Pal Singh met at the Doctors shop which was adjacent to his Hotel. Surendra Pal Singh appellant asked him to extend his electricity to the shop of the Doctor. Thereafter appellant Surendra Pal Singh accompanied by another person came to his Hotel. Then he asked the appellant to settle the amount that he will have to pay to him. Another person who had accompanied Surendra Pal Singh appellant from the shop of the Doctor told him that he might pay Rs. 500/- to Surendra Pal Singh appellant. The witness then replied that he was not in a position to pay him so much money. Appellant Surendra Pal Singh thereafter agreed to accept Rs. 200/- only. The witness, however, told him that he would pay the sum of Rs. 200/- to him after 12th October 1977 as he would be able to realise all his dues by that date. Thereafter in consultation with one SRI Garg who was his partner he got prepared an application Ex. Ka-19 dated 8th October 1977 and gave it to the Vigilance Authorities. He had told them that 12th October 1977 was the date fixed for taking the bribe by Surendra Pal Singh appellant. So far as these facts are concerned Jagdish Chandra Sharma is the sole witness who speaks about them. No other witness corroborates him. This witness is a bribe giver. The giving of the bribe is also an offence under section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code. So far as these facts are concerned Jagdish Chandra Sharma is the sole witness who speaks about them. No other witness corroborates him. This witness is a bribe giver. The giving of the bribe is also an offence under section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, both bribe giver and the bribe taker are equally liable in the matter of giving and accepting of the illegal gratification. The position of Jagdish Chandra Sharma PW 6 is that of an accomplice. The court as a matter of prudence does not place reliance on the testimony of an accomplice unless his testimony is corroborated on material particulars by other circumstantial evidence or by direct evidence. Dharambir appellant had made a confession which was recorded by PW 9 K. N. Singh. That confession could have provided material for corroboration against appellant Surendra Pal Singh. However that confession too, has been retracted. However, for good and adequate reasons the learned Special Judge has not held that confession to be reliable. It was recorded by a Magistrate who had not the faintest idea of how a confession should be recorded. Although the Magistrate was not expected to know the facts of the case before recording the statement but he went on putting facts in questions and obtained answers of them from appellant Dharambir Singh. Either the recorded confession or his statement does not show that there was no Police Officer present in the Court room before he recorded the confessional statement. The learned Special Judge was, therefore, fully justified in ignoring that confession. 8. JAGDISH Chandra Sharma PW 6 claims that after he had moved an appplication before the Superintendent of Polic Vigilance Sri Om Prakash Tyagi PW 5 and PW 7 Dharam Pal Singh who were the Inspectors of the Vigilance Department were entrusted with the task of laying the trap On 12th October 1977 he had informed that Surendra Pal Singh appellant would come to accept the illegal gratification on that day. On that day at about 12 or 1 in the day Dharambir appellant came to his shop and told him that Surendra Pal Singh appellant had sent him and had asked him to pay him Rs. 200/- which he would take to Surendra Pal Singh appellant. The witness alone claims that he had promised to pay the sum of Rs. On that day at about 12 or 1 in the day Dharambir appellant came to his shop and told him that Surendra Pal Singh appellant had sent him and had asked him to pay him Rs. 200/- which he would take to Surendra Pal Singh appellant. The witness alone claims that he had promised to pay the sum of Rs. 200/- to Surendra Pal Singh appellant and he would pay the money to him. The Vigilance Inspectors had not come till then. Dharambir Singh appellant thereafter went away. This Vigilance Inspector thereafter came to him and enquired from him the facts. He gave him the entire facts, and also produced before them a one hundred rupee note and five currency notes of Rs. 20/- each. They prepared their memo and obtained his signature on them. The currency notes were treated with phenolphthlene powder after they were initialled by them. The memo was duly witnessed by the witnesses also. Another document of returning those currency notes to them (Ex. Ka-20) was prepared and thereafter those currency notes were given to him. He was told that those very currency notes were to be given in illegal gratification whenever it was demanded from him. These currency notes were initialled by those two Vigilance Inspectors, and thereafter they were returned to him. Thereafter the Vigilance Inspectors and the witnesses took their seats in his Hotel and they started taking tea and other edibles. After some time Dharambir appellant who was a Vaccinator again came to him and told him that he was sent by Surendra Pal Singh appellant and he asked him to give him the money otherwise Surendra Pal Singh would himself come and take the sample. He might have to repent for it later on. The witness, however, told him that he would give the money to Surendra Pal Singh and not to him. Thereafter the appellant again told him, "APP BEPHIKAR RAHEN MAIN UNHI KO RUPAYE DUNGA". The witness then gave the currency notes to Dharambir appellant. They were the same currency notes which were given to him in his supurdigi by the Vigilance Inspectors. As Dharambir appellant put those currency notes in his pocket he was apprehended by the Vigilance Inspectors. They searched him and recovered the money. After recovery its memo was prepared. The witness then gave the currency notes to Dharambir appellant. They were the same currency notes which were given to him in his supurdigi by the Vigilance Inspectors. As Dharambir appellant put those currency notes in his pocket he was apprehended by the Vigilance Inspectors. They searched him and recovered the money. After recovery its memo was prepared. The hands of Dharambir appellant were got washed with sodium bicarbonate solution and the solution after washing of the hands of the appellant and of the witness were kept in separate bottles which were also sealed. The solution had turned pink. The appellant Dharambir was arrested and was taken into custody and the currency notes were duly sealed. The manner in which the appellant Dharambir was arrested after he accepted the money from JAGDISH Chandra Sharma is amply supported and corroborated by the testimony of Om Prakash Tyagi PW 5 and PW 7 Dharam Pal Singh. Both these witnesses were Vigilance Inspectors and they were authorised to lay the trap. Both these witnesses corroborated the statements of JAGDISH Chandra Sharma PW 6 in all particulars about the manner in which they laid the trap and arrested and apprehended appellant Dharambir and recovered from his possession the currency notes which were treated with phenolphthlene powder. The hands of the appellant were got washed with sodium carbonate solution which turned pink. It is very often contended that reliance should n?t be placed on the trap witnesses as they are interested in the success of the prosecution of the accused. The answer to this contention is found in a number of cases decided by the Supereme Court and other Courts. It has been emphasized that there was no rule of prudence which has crystallised into a rule of law, nor indeed into any rule of prudence, which requires that the evidence of such officer should be treated on the same footing as evidence of accomplice and there should be insistence on corroboration. This was the view categorically expressed by ihe Supreme Court in Hazari Lal v, State (Delhi Administration), 1980 CrLJ 564 . Thus, the testimony of these officers who bad laid the trap would leave to be judged on their merits and they will not be treated as interested witnesses merely because they are interested in the successful prosecution of the case. Thus, the testimony of these officers who bad laid the trap would leave to be judged on their merits and they will not be treated as interested witnesses merely because they are interested in the successful prosecution of the case. It may, however, be mentioned that there may be such cases where the very what off the testimony of such trap witnesses may require corroboration but it will have to depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. So far as this case is concerned I do not think that there was any such circumstances which require independent corroboration of these two witnesses. I have gone through their statements. I have no reason to doubt their statements that they arrested the appellant after he had accepted the sum of Rs. 200/- from JAGDISH Chandra Sharma. The appellant Dharambir has, however, stated that when he was passing in front of the shop of Jagdish Chand Sharma he was called by him and he forcibly had put the currency notes in question in his pocket for giving them to Surendra Pal Singh appellant but as he tried to take out the money and return it to Jagdish Chandra Sharma he was put under arrest by the Vigilance Inspector. Appellant Dharambir has examined in his defence one Padam Singh. He states that he was working as an employee at the shop of Jagdish Chandra Sharma PW 6. He further states that as Dharambir appellant was passing in front of his shop Jagdish Chandra Sharma called him on which the appellant Dharambir came inside the Hotel. Jagidish Chandra Sharma put the money in his pocket and told him to give them to Surendra Pal Singh appellant. Appellant Dharambir, however, took out the money and told Hum to give them himself to Surendra Pal Singh appellant. From his cross-examination it appears that eight days after the occurrence he had left services of Jagdish Chandra Sharma. This witness has further stated in cross-examination that the Police Inspectors did not get the hands of the appellant Dharambir washed with any solution. However, the appellant Dharambir himself has admitted that his hands were got washed with sodium carbonate, and it had turned pink. He did not even tell the Inspectors after the arrest of the appellant Dharambir that he was being falsely implicated. However, the appellant Dharambir himself has admitted that his hands were got washed with sodium carbonate, and it had turned pink. He did not even tell the Inspectors after the arrest of the appellant Dharambir that he was being falsely implicated. His conduct on the facts stated above go to show that he was not present at the shop of Jagdish Chandra Sharma at the time the appellant Dharambir was arrested. The learned Special Judge was, therefore, fully justified in discarding the testimony of the defence witness. 9. FROM the evidence discussed above I have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove successfully beyond all reasonable doubt that appellant Dharambir had come to the shop of Jagdish Chandra Sharma PW 6 at about 3 PM on 12-10-1977 and had accepted a sum of Rs. 200/- from him on behalf of 'Surendra Pal Singh appellant after stating that Surendra Pal Singh had sent him to take the money and he had also told him after Jagdish Chandra Sharma, refused to give him money or if the money was not paid Surendra Pal Singh appellant would come and take the sample. 10. THE contention that has now been raised is that appellant Dharambir himself had not taken the money in his own name but had taken the money in the name of Surendra Pal Singh appellant. He had no right to issue the licence. In such circumstance the offence under section 161 IPC or under section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be said to have been made out. He had no right to issue the licence. In such circumstance the offence under section 161 IPC or under section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be said to have been made out. Section 161 IPC runs as below: "Whoever, being or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or for forbearing to do any official act or for snowing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person, or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or with any public servant, as such, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." There is no doubt the fact that the appellant Dharambir himself was a public servant being a Vaccinator, an employee under Nagar Palika Ghaziabad and in this case it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that he had accepted illegal gratification for Surendra Pal Singh Sanitary and Food Inspector. He would, therefore, be clearly liable under section 161 IPC Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Criminal misconduct) which runs as follows :- "5(1). A public servant is said to commit the offence of Criminal misconduct......... (a) ........(b) .... (c).......... (d) if, he, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine ; Provided that the Court may, for any special reasons recorded in writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year. Thus, Dharambir appellant would be guilty of criminal misconduct if he accepted the illegal gratification on behalf of Surendra Pal Singh appellant." 11. Thus, Dharambir appellant would be guilty of criminal misconduct if he accepted the illegal gratification on behalf of Surendra Pal Singh appellant." 11. THUS, there is no doubt that appellant Dharambir is clearly guilty of the offences under section 161 IPC and of criminal misconduct under section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act punishable under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 12. HOWEVER, so far as Surendra Pal Singh appellant is concerned, I have already found that the only evidence against him is uncorroborated testimony of Jagdish Chandra Sharma PW 6 who is in the position of an accomplice. There is no other independent witness to show that he had himself authorised Dharambir appellant for accepting the money on his behalf. In such circumstances he will be entitled to get the benefit of doubt. 13. THE learned counsel for the appellant Dharambir has also contended that the sentence imposed against him in the circumstances of the case are severe. After giving a careful thought to it, I am also of the view that the sentence imposed are severe. THE sentences of the appellant Dharambir shall be reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 161 IPC. 14. CRIMINAL Appeal No. 11 of 1981 is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentences imposed against Surendra Pal Singh appellant are hereby set aside. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1981 filed by Dharambir is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under sections Id I IPC and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are hereby maintained, but his sentences under both the sections are reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under each count. The sentence of fine imposed against the appellant under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is hereby set aside. The appellant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody to serve out his sentences. The sentences shall run concurrently. Ordered accordingly.