JUDGMENT : P.C. Misra, J. - The Appellant has been convicted by the Special Judge, Sambalpur, for an offence u/s 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as the 'Act') and u/s 161 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to R.I. for one year on each count. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is that the Appellant, being a public servant employed as a Sub-Inspector of Police in the Police Department of the Government of Orissa and posted as Officer-in-Charge, Athgarh Police Station, obtained for himself pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs. 200/- from one Biswanath Sahu (P.W. 2) by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as such public servant and thereby committed an offence u/s 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act. It is further alleged that the Appellant, being a public servant and employed as a Sub-Inspector of Police in the Police Department of the Government of Orissa and posted as Officer-in-charge, Athgarh Police Station, accepted from P.W. 2 an amount of Rs. 200/- as illegal gratification for himself other than the legal remuneration with a motive for showing favour to P.W. 2 in illegal exercise of his official function in Athgarh P.S. Case No. 18 of 1967 u/s 9(a) of the Opium Act and thereby committed an offence u/s 161 of the Indian Penal Code, The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 24-3-1967 at the Athgarh Police Station. 3. The Appellant took a plea of denial. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove the charges against the Appellant, examined nine witnesses and produced a number of documents. The Appellant examined himself as a defence witness and also produced some documents. 5. That the Appellant was a public servant at the time of the alleged occurrence is not disputed. 6. In order to bring home the charge u/s 5(1)(d) of the Act against the accused, the prosecution has to prove that the accused used corrupt or illegal means or that he otherwise abused his position as a public servant and obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. The offence committed u/s 5(1) of the Act is punishable under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 thereof. The offence committed u/s 5(1) of the Act is punishable under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 thereof. Section 5(1)(d) of the Act reads thus: 5.(1) A public servant is said commit the offence of criminal misconduct (a) xx xx xx (b) xx xx xx (c) xx xx xx (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. Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, the ingredients of which are to some extent in common with that of Section 5(1)(d), of the Act, is quoted below: 161. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act However, 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 regard for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person at 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 local authority corporation or Government company referred to in Section 21 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. In order to establish the charge u/s 5(1)(d) of the Act, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that there was an element of motive or reward on the part of the accused for doing or forbearing to do something or for showing favour or disfavour to any person. For constituting an offence under the said section, it is enough if by abusing his position as a public servant the accused obtains for himself any pecuniary advantage entirely irrespective of motive or reward or for showing favour or disfavour. The charge u/s 5(1)(d) of the Act necessarily implies that the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 161 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. The charge u/s 5(1)(d) of the Act necessarily implies that the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 161 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Out of the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution, P.W. 1 is a senior Advocate of Athgarh Bar and P.W. 7 is his son. P.W. 2 is the informant from whom the Appellant is alleged to have accepted the illegal gratification. P.W. 4 is a servant of P.W. 2. P.Ws. 5, 6 and 9 are officers of the Vigilance Department. P.W. R is the Magistrate who accompanied the trap party. P.W. 3 is a Sectional Officer who prepared the spot map, Ext. 5. P.W. 1 has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 24-3-1967 at about 8 p. m., his son Chittaranjan (not examined) asked him to go to the police station to be a witness saying that his (P.W. 1) other son Gnanaranjan (P.W. 7) had already gone to the police station. When P.W. 1 reached the police station, he found one Uchhab Lenka (P.W. 4) standing at the door and his son Gnanaranjan (P.W. 7) standing inside the office room of the Appellant. He also saw the Appellant and the informant (P.W. 2) present inside that room and heard P.W. 2 requesting the Appellant to accept Rs. 200/- and let P.W. 4 off and return to him the Registration Book relating to his car. He then saw P.W. 2 giving Rs. 200/-, all in G.C. notes of ten-rupee denomination, to the Appellant who counted the same and put them inside his pant pocket. According to P.W. 1, at that time one Deputy Superintendent, two Inspectors, one Sub-Inspector and one Magistrate arrived there and gave their identity to the Appellant, P.W. 2 then disclosed before them that he had paid Rs. 200/- to the Appellant and the latter had kept the money with him. All those who arrived there gave their personal search during which time the Appellant got up brought out the G.C. notes from his pocket and dropped them down on the floor after crumpling them. The Sub-Inspector picked up the notes from the floor at the instance of the Deputy Superintendent who compared the numbers of those G.C. notes with the numbers previously noted on a piece of paper. The Sub-Inspector picked up the notes from the floor at the instance of the Deputy Superintendent who compared the numbers of those G.C. notes with the numbers previously noted on a piece of paper. The numbers appearing in the G.C. notes and those appearing on the said piece of paper tallied and thereafter the Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance seized those notes and also the piece of paper on which the numbers of the G.C. notes were noted. In cross-examination P.W. 1 has stated that he knew nothing about the occurrence when his son Chittaranjan asked him to go to the police station. He admits to have stated before the Investigating Officer (P.W. 9) that he went to the police station in connection with his personal work and that personal work to lodge a complaint against his brother who was constantly disturbing his possession over his lands. He has further admitted that the Appellant had initiated a proceeding u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure against him and a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure in which be was a party was also pending at that time. From the above evidence of P.W. 1 and other evidence on record, it is clear that P.W. 1 and his two sons being Chittaranjan (not examined) and Gnanaranjan (P.W. 7) have played different roles from the beginning till the end of the alleged occurrence. I would make a more detailed discussion about the effect of the evidence of P.W. 1 at a later stage after making an analysis of the evidence of P.W. 2 (Informant). 8. In this case, the trap was arranged at the instance of P.W. 2. P.W. 2 gives a long story about the circumstances which led him to proceed that way He has deposed that on 18-3-1967 at about 2.30 p.m. he was taking his son to one Dr. Pitambar Jagati of Athgarh for treatment in his private car bearing registration No. O.R.C. 8431 as his son suddenly fell down from reeling of head. P.W. 2's servant Uchhab Lenka (P.W. 4) accompanied him. One Jogi Lenka (not examined) was driving the car at that time. Near the Athgarh Girls High School they met one Banchhanidhi Mohanty, M.V. S.I., and one Bhakta Babu of D.I.B. corning in a jeep driven by a driver. They stopped the car of P.W. 2 and wanted to see the papers relating to the car. One Jogi Lenka (not examined) was driving the car at that time. Near the Athgarh Girls High School they met one Banchhanidhi Mohanty, M.V. S.I., and one Bhakta Babu of D.I.B. corning in a jeep driven by a driver. They stopped the car of P.W. 2 and wanted to see the papers relating to the car. After seeing the papers of the car, Banchhanidhi Babu wanted a lift in P.W. 2 scar upto the doctor's place. P.W. 2 complied with such request and on the way Banchhanidhi Babu opened the bag of P.W. 2 and removed Rs. 50/- out of it' which contained an amount of Rs. 80/-. P.W. 2 was taking that amount with him to meet the medical expenses of his son. P.W. 2 protested against Banchhanidhi Babu's taking away the money in the aforesaid manner, but Banchhanidhi Babu took away the money in spite of the protests of P.W. 2. P.W. 2 has further stated that the jeep in which Banchhanidhi Babu was coming was following his fear upto the doctor s place. On reaching the doctor's place, they found the doctor to be absent and Banchhanidhi Babu advised him to leave P.W. 4 at the doctor's place to take rnedicines for P.W. 2's son and asked P.W. 2 to accompany him to take return of the money which Banchhanidhi Babu had taken from him. Banchhanidhi Babu thereafter moved into the jeep and asked P.W. 2 to follow the jeep in his car. Near the shop of one Arjun Sahu, Banchhanidhi Babu got down from the jeep and brought out a packet horn his bag and declared before the public present there that he had recovered the said packet form P.W. 2's bag which contained opium. He also disclosed that he was taking P.W. 2 to the police station. From there P.W. 2 was taken to the jeep which proceeded to the police station followed by the car of P.W. 2. At the police station, Banchhanidhi Babu and the Appellant wrote out something on a piece of paper which P.W. 2 refuse to sign when asked by them. Thereafter Banchhanidhi Babu left the police station in his jeep. Some time thereafter the Appellant searched the person of P.W. 2 but did not find anything incriminating with him. The Appellant, however, picked up another packet from under his table and declared that the said packet contained some opium. Thereafter Banchhanidhi Babu left the police station in his jeep. Some time thereafter the Appellant searched the person of P.W. 2 but did not find anything incriminating with him. The Appellant, however, picked up another packet from under his table and declared that the said packet contained some opium. P.W. 2 pleaded before the Appellant that he knew nothing about the opium whereupon the Appellant gave him a slap and put him in the Hazat. The Appellant prepared a seizure list in respect of the packet he picked up from under his table and took the signature of P.W. 2 thereon. After harassing P.W. 2 in the aforesaid manner, the Appellant asked P.W. 2 to pay him a sum Rs. 200/- if he intended to go on bail. On the request of P.W. 2 he was allowed to go out to get the money demanded. P.W. 2 went to Athgarh town and borrowed Rs. 200/- from one Nagen Babu and paid the same to the Appellant at his quarters. The Appellant kept Rs. 50/- out of the said amount and made over the balance to the A.S.I. whereafter he was let off on bail. P.W. 2 has further deposed that the Appellant, however, did not release his car or the papers relating to it. On 19-3-1967 he went to the police station again and requested the Appellant to release his car. The Appellant enquired of him as to if P.W. 2 had brought any money for him in order that the car may be released. When P.W. 2 replied in the negative, the Appellant asked P.W. 2 to get orders of the S.D.O. for release of the car. On 20-3-1967, one Constable came and took P.W. 4 (P.W. 2 s servant) to the police station and since P.W. 4 did not return home for a long time, P.W. 2 went to the police station to enquire about him. The Appellant then told P.W. 2 that P.W. 4 had been put in the Hazat and that unless Rs. 50/- was paid to the Appellant, he would not release P.W. 4 on bail. Thereupon P.W. 2 went again to Athgarh town and borrowed Rs50/- from Nagen Babu and paid the same to the Appellant and then only P.W. 4 was released on bail. 50/- was paid to the Appellant, he would not release P.W. 4 on bail. Thereupon P.W. 2 went again to Athgarh town and borrowed Rs50/- from Nagen Babu and paid the same to the Appellant and then only P.W. 4 was released on bail. On 21-3-1967 P.W. 2 obtained orders at the S.D.O. for release of the car and produced the release order before the Appellant and requested him to release the car. The Appellant again demanded further money which P.W. 2 did not agree to pay. Thereupon the Appellant made over the car to P.W. 2 but did not return the papers relating to the car and told him that unless Rs. 600/- more was paid to him, the papers relating to the car would not be returned. He also said that if the aforesaid amount was paid to him, he would not implicate P.W. 4 in the case. On the request of P.W. 2, the demand was reduced to Rs. 400/- and it was settled that the amount would be paid to the Appellant on 24-3-1967. On 24-3-1967, P.W. 2 came to the Vigilance Police Station at Cuttack along with Chittaranjan, son of P.W. 1, and there he narrated all the above facts to the Deputy Superintendent. P.W. 2's narration of the incident was reduced to writing which is Ext. 4 in this case. The Vigilance Officers asked Chittaranjan to go in advance to Athgarh to arrange witnesses for the trap. The Deputy Superintendent (P.W. 9), a Magistrate (P.W. 8), two Inspectors and one Sub Inspector proceeded to Athgarh in a jeep along with P.W. 2 and stopped near village Doroda. P.W. 2 went to his "Village from there to collect the money to be paid to the Appellant He was advised by P.W. 9 to bring witnesses with him from the village. It was arranged that the trap party would be waiting for P.W. 2 under a banyan tree near the Athgarh Jagannath Temple. P.W. 2 came back to the appointed place along with his servant P.W. 4 and a sum of Rs. 200/- in the shape of ten-rupee G.C. notes numbering twenty. He made over those G.C. notes to the Magistrate, P.W. 8, who noted down the numbers appearing in the said G.C. notes on a piece of paper. P.W. 8 made over the said piece of paper to P.W. 7. 200/- in the shape of ten-rupee G.C. notes numbering twenty. He made over those G.C. notes to the Magistrate, P.W. 8, who noted down the numbers appearing in the said G.C. notes on a piece of paper. P.W. 8 made over the said piece of paper to P.W. 7. P.W. 8 signed on the G.C. notes and made over the same to P.W. 2 who was instructed to go to the Appellant and made over the money to him. P.W. 2 disclosed before P.W. 8 that none from his village was willing to come as a witness out of fear for the Appellant who was the officer-in-charge of the police station. Out of the persons present, P.W. 4 and P.W. 7, were instructed to accompany P.W. 2 and witness payment of the money to the Appellant. P.Ws. 2, 4 and 7 accordingly proceeded to the police station and met the Appellant. P.W. 2 requested him to take the money. On query by the Appellant, P.W. 2 said that he had brought only Rs. 200/- as he could not arrange the entire agreed sum of Rs. 400/-. The Appellant insisted upon payment of the entire agreed sum of Rs. 400/- but subsequently he agreed to accept Rs. 200/- when P.W. 2 promised to arrange and pay the balance Rs. 200/- in a few days. The Appellant thereafter took the money, counted it and put the same in his right side pant pocket. P.W. 1 who had gone there before the arrival of P.W. 2 at the police station had witnessed the taking of the money by the Appellant from P.W. 2. Thereafter P.W. 2 raised a loud voice saying that the Appellant had taken Rs. 200/- from him as bribe and had kept the same in his pant pocket. Immediately thereafter the Appellant stood up from his seat and in a bending position brought out the G.C. notes from his pocket and threw them down. According to P.W. 2, the trap party reached the place of occurrence immediately thereafter and the formalities relating to seizure of the G.C. notes were done by them. 9. Thus according to the prosecution story there was a previous demand by the Appellant from P.W. 2 for illegal gratification and, therefore, it would be a "legitimate trap" as distinguished from an "illegitimate trap". 9. Thus according to the prosecution story there was a previous demand by the Appellant from P.W. 2 for illegal gratification and, therefore, it would be a "legitimate trap" as distinguished from an "illegitimate trap". In the case of a trap all well as the witnesses to the trap would in no sense be accomplices and their evidence would not require under the law to be corroborated as a condition precedent for conversion though the usual rule of prudence would require the evidence to be scrutinised carefully before being accepted and before an order of conviction is passed. The Supreme Court in the case of Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration 1976 S.C.C. 160 has held that the trap witnesses are interested witnesses concerned with the success of the trap. Qualitatively, their testimony is inferior to that of an ordinary interested witness. Therefore, the evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such but the courts require as a rule of prudence not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinised with a little care in order to find out whether the story disclosed by their evidence is true and genuine. In the aforesaid background, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and that of the other prosecution witnesses have to be scrutinised. The story advanced by P.W. 2 with regard to the incidents allegedly taking place on 18-3-1967, 19-3-1967, 20-3-1967 and 21-3-1967 does not appear to be creditable in as much as there was no reason for Banchhanidhi Mohanty. M.V.S.I., and Bhakta Bahu. D.I.B. to stop the car of P.W. 2 on the way and request for a lift in his car especially when they had a jeep in which they were coming. There was also no reason for P.W. 2 to take Banchhanidhi Mohanty 10 his car upto the doctor's place who in spite of the protest of P.W. 2 took away Rs. 50/- from P.W. 2's bag during the journey. Equally improbable is the story that at the doctor's place Banchhanidhi Mohanty asked P.W. 2 to follow him in his car to take back his money which P.W. 2 is said to have done unhesitatingly. 50/- from P.W. 2's bag during the journey. Equally improbable is the story that at the doctor's place Banchhanidhi Mohanty asked P.W. 2 to follow him in his car to take back his money which P.W. 2 is said to have done unhesitatingly. The further story that Banchhanidhi Mohanty brought out of a packet from his bag and declared the same to be containing opium and recovered from the possession of P.W. 2 does not appear to be true. There is no reason as to why P.W. 2 and thereafter the Appellant successively accused P.W. 2 of carrying opium. Therefore, the story which is advanced to show that a false case under the Opium Act was started by P.W. 2 does not appear to be true on the materials on record. None of the persons connected with the occurrences allegedly taken place on 18-3-1967 and 19-3-1967 has been examined. The sale testimony of P.W. 2 in the circumstances cannot be accepted to be true. At first a sum of Rs. 200/- and later a further sum of Rs. 50/- are said to have been borrowed by P.W. 2 from one Nagen Babu on 18-3-1967 and 20-3-1967 respectively. The said Nagen Babu has not been examined in this case. On 21-3-1967 P.W. 2 obtained orders of the S.D.O. in pursuance of which the Appellant is said to have released the car to him. In cross-examination. P.W. 2 has admitted that he does know of the release order included a direction for release of the documents relating to the car. Therefore, without verifying as to whether the release order also contained such a direction there was no reason for P.W. 2 to agree to pay a sum of Rs. 400/- to the Appellant for release of the documents. As already stated the S.D.O. had passed orders for release of the car which implied also release of the papers relating to it. In the event the Appellant did not release the papers, appropriate orders could have been obtained from the S.D.O. in view of the release of the car instead of agreeing to pay the agreed sum of Rs. 400/-. Thus, up to the stage when P.W. 2 arranged the trap on 24-3-1967, the prosecution story as stated by P.W. 2 is not convincing. 10. P.W. 1 is a senior Advocate of the Athgarh Bar. 400/-. Thus, up to the stage when P.W. 2 arranged the trap on 24-3-1967, the prosecution story as stated by P.W. 2 is not convincing. 10. P.W. 1 is a senior Advocate of the Athgarh Bar. His son Chittaranjan (not examined) is said to have accompanied P.W. 2 to the Vigilance Police Station at Cuttack on 24-3-1967. It is Chittaranjan who was sent to the Vigilance Officers to Athgarh in advance to arrange witnesses for the trap, According to P.W. 9. the Investigating Officer, it is Chittaranjan who arranged two witnesses i.e. his brother. P.W. 7 and his father P.W. 1. It appears to me that P.W. 1 and his two sons were fully active in building up the prosecution story and no reason has been assigned in the evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses as to what made them so interested for P.W. 2. It is not expected of a senior Advocate like P.W. 1, who was aged about 70 years on the date of occurrence to agree to be a witness to a trap party by moving to the police station at 8 p.m. on 24-3-1967 on the mere asking of his son Chittaranjan. P.W. 1 has deposed that on his son's asking him to go to the police station, he moved there without any hesitation though in cross-examination he has admitted that he knew nothing about the arrangement before his son asked him to go to the police station. His previous statement before the Investigating Officer, P.W. 9, which has been confronted to him during cross-examination is to the effect that he went to the police station in connection with his personal work to complain against his brother who was constantly disturbing his possession of his own lands. According to P.W. 9, P.W. 1 proceeded to the police station according to a previous arrangement in connection with the trap and according to P.W. 1 the money was offered by P.W. 2 and accepted by the Appellant immediately after he entered the office room of the Appellant. P.W. 2 narrates that P.W. 1 was previously sitting in that room and he along with P.W. 4 and P.W. 7 reached the place some time after whereafter there was some discussion about the acceptability of Rs. 200/- instead of Rs. 400/- by the Appellant. P.W. 2 narrates that P.W. 1 was previously sitting in that room and he along with P.W. 4 and P.W. 7 reached the place some time after whereafter there was some discussion about the acceptability of Rs. 200/- instead of Rs. 400/- by the Appellant. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 1 is not consistent with the sequence of events as deposed to by the other prosecution witnesses. Admittedly P.W. 1 was inimically disposed towards the Appellant as a proceeding u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure was Initiated by the Appellant against him. It is not probable that the Appellant would be barraging with P.W. 2 for acceptance of illegal gratification and finally accept the same 10 his presence. The very fact that one of the sons of P.W. 1 accompanied P.W. 2 to the Vigilance Police Station at Cuttack and was sent by the Vigilance Officers to the village to arrange witnesses for the trap and the witnesses arranged were P.W. 1 himself and his other Eon. Gnanaranjan (P.W. 7) make me to feel chat it is P.W. 1 and his family who were interested in wreaking vengeance on the Appellant. 11. Coming to the evidence of P.W. 2, I have already discussed about the story he wanted to develop upto the dace of occurrence, i.e. 24-3-1967. His evidence read with that of the other prosecution witnesses would unmistakably suggest that the trap party reached the spot after the money was handed over by P.W. 2 to the Appellant and after the Appellant had put the same inside his pocket. I have already found that the evidence of P.W. 1 that he was present at the time when the money was offered to and accepted by the Appellant is not believable. His evidence is not trustworthy also for other reasons discussed earlier. Therefore, the statements of P.W. 2 who is vitally interested in the success of the trap cannot be accepted as true so far as they relate to demand and acceptance of the money by the Appellant. His evidence is not trustworthy also for other reasons discussed earlier. Therefore, the statements of P.W. 2 who is vitally interested in the success of the trap cannot be accepted as true so far as they relate to demand and acceptance of the money by the Appellant. As stated earlier, the demand by the accused of illegal gratification is an essential ingredient to constitute and offence u/s 5(1)(d) of the Act The circumstances under which the Appellant is alleged to have demanded the illegal gratification as stated by P.W. 2 are not acceptable to a court of law and the statement of P.W. 2 so far as the actual demand by the Appellant is concerned cannot be accepted as free from suspicion. There are decisions where it has been held that if at one stage the witness was willing to pay the bribe to the accused, his evidence would be in the nature of an accomplice and his testimony would have to be corroborated before it can be relied upon Thus, in any view of the matter, the evidence of P.W. 2 so far as the elements of demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification by the Appellant are concerned is not trustworthy. 12. The next phase of occurrence is the arrival of the trap party and throwing away of the G.C. notes by the Appellant as alleged by the prosecution. In this connection. I will refer to the evidence of P.Ws. 4 to 8 along with that of P.Ws. 1 & 2 and the connected documents which throw light on the issue. Ext. 1 is the Detection Report prepared immediately after the occurrence and is, therefore, a contemporaneous document. There is no mention in Ext, 1 that the trap party saw the Appellant taking out the G.C. notes from his pocket and throwing away the same Ext. 1 was prepared by P.W. 9 admits that the words "throwing or" have been Written subsequently and word 'falling' has been written over some other word which is not legible There is no initial of P.W. (sic) at the place where the words 'throwing of have been subsequently written. 1 was prepared by P.W. 9 admits that the words "throwing or" have been Written subsequently and word 'falling' has been written over some other word which is not legible There is no initial of P.W. (sic) at the place where the words 'throwing of have been subsequently written. The sentence without the said words would read as "We saw one bundle of ten-rupees G.C. notes containing the following numbers on the floor to the right side of the Officer-in-Charge (Appellant)" This becomes consistent with the defence case that P.W. 2 was standing to the left of the accused and he (P.W. 2) threw a way the notes in a crumpled condition which fell down on the floor to the right side of the Appellant. It is also doubtful if the trap party had seen the throwing of the G.C. notes. The relevant portion of the evidence of P.W. 2 on the point is quoted below: Just after the accused had kept the money in his pocket, the party in the jeep reached the Police Station. On seeing them I gave out in a loud voice that accused had taken Rs. 200/- as bribe from me and had kept it in his pocket. Immediately thereupon accused half-rose from his seat, brought the notes out of his pocket and threw those down, immediately on their arrival, the members of the party in the jeep gave their personal search before the accused. Then, at the instance of the Deputy Superintendent of Police one Khan Balm a Police Officer, picked up the notes. But P.W. 1, has stated that the Appellant counted the money and put the same inside his right side pant pocket and at that time the trap party arrived there. They identified themselves to the Appellant when the informant P.W. 2 disclosed to them that he had paid Rs. 200/- to the Appellant and the latter had kept it with him. The trap party gave their identity and personal search. At that time the accused got up and took out the G.C. notes from his pant pocket, crumpled them and dropped them down. Thus, the time of arrival of the trap party at the place of occurrence with reference to the incident of throwing away of the G.C. notes by the Appellant is discrepant. P.W. 8 is the Magistrate who had accompanied the trap party. Thus, the time of arrival of the trap party at the place of occurrence with reference to the incident of throwing away of the G.C. notes by the Appellant is discrepant. P.W. 8 is the Magistrate who had accompanied the trap party. After his return from the mission on which he was deputed, he had submitted a report to the A.D.M.A. reference to the said report would have revealed as to whether the G.C. notes were thrown a way after the trap party reached the spot. Curiously enough, the said report has not been brought on record though the learned Special Judge by his order dated 3-7-1977 had directed production of the same. Accordingly, non-production of the said report would justify an adverse inference to be drawn against the prosecution, specially in view of the interpolations made in Ext. 1 about throwing of the G.C. notes. In the aforesaid circumstances and on the evidence on record, I am not prepared to accept the story that the throwing of the G.C. notes took place in the presence of the trap party. P.W. 4 being the servant of P.W. 2 is naturally an interested witness. According to P.W. 4 one Nagen Babu, from whom P.W. 2 had borrowed Rs. 50/- on 20-3-1967 to be given to the Appellant, had accompanied P.W. 2 to the police station. The said amount of Rs. 50/- was given by P.W. 2 to the Appellant in the presence of Nagen Babu for release of P.W. 4 on bail. But the said Nagen Babu had not been examined in this case. According to the prosecution story, it is Chittaranjan, a son of P.W. 1, who had been sent to the village in advance for arranging witnesses for the trap According to P.W. 9, Chittaranjan had arranged two witnesses, namely, his father, P.W. 1 and his brother Gnanaranjan, P.W. 7. P.W. 2 on his arrival near his village along with the trap party was also requested by the Vigilance Officers to bring witnesses with him. He came and reported to them that none in the village was agreeable to be a witness out at fear for the officer-in-charge (Appellant) It was evidently to his knowledge that Chittaranjan had gone to arrange witnesses. In these circumstances, his coming with P.W. 4 to the trap party does not appear to be probable. According to P.Ws. He came and reported to them that none in the village was agreeable to be a witness out at fear for the officer-in-charge (Appellant) It was evidently to his knowledge that Chittaranjan had gone to arrange witnesses. In these circumstances, his coming with P.W. 4 to the trap party does not appear to be probable. According to P.Ws. 5, 7, and 8 and 9, it was arranged that P.W. 7 would flash a torch light as soon as the illegal gratification was accepted by the Appellant. Curiously enough, the preparation report (Ext. 7) does not mention that P.W. 7 was equipped with a torch light. It appears that the story that the torch light was flashed for the arrival of the trap party at the Spot is a subsequent development. It is for that reason P.W. 2 does not speak of the arrangement a bout the flashing of the torch light and as a matter of fact his evidence is to the effect that he raised a loud voice soon after the money was accepted by the Appellant saying that the Appellant had taken bribe of Rs. 200/- from him. None of the witnesses speaks of P.W. 1's joining the trap party or being intimated about the details to be worked out before and during the trap. It is not known how P.W. 1 was informed about the role he was to play. P.W. 6 is a Vigilance Inspector who had accompanied the trap party. His evidence cannot be accepted as true as there are material contradictions between his evidence and the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses. The evidence of P.W. 6 is not material 50 far as the occurrence is concerned as already stated, P.W. 7 is the son of P.W. 1 and appears to be highly interested for the success of the trap. The prosecution case, therefore, suffers from serious infirmity in as much as the evidence adduced in the case does not prove any of the essential ingredients of Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 or Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. On a careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence on record, I am satisfied that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The Appellant is, therefore, entitled to be acquitted. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. 13. On a careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence on record, I am satisfied that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The Appellant is, therefore, entitled to be acquitted. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction of the Appellant u/s 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and u/s 161 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentences passed against him thereunder are set aside. The Appellant is acquitted. The bond be cancelled. Final Result : Allowed