Judgment S.N.JHA, J. 1. The appellant was posted at Monghyr as the District Employment Officer on the relevant date of occurrence. He was convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called (he Code) and also under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Corruption Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 5 (2) of the Corruption Act. No separate sentence was passed under Section 161 of the Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that on 17-9-1969, Samarendra Gupta (P.W. 1) and Narain Das (PW 2) approached Satyendra Pd. Deo (PW 9), Inspector, Anti-Corruption Department, Monghyr, and each of them gave him a petition alleging that the appellant was demanding Rs. 10/-from each of them for forwarding their respective applications for appointment to their respective posts. In the said petition, PW 1 stated that on the same day he had gone to the District Employment Office with Narain Das (PW 2) for the registration of the name of Narain Das for the post of a peon at Gaya which was advertised in the newspaper. After getting his name registered in the office, both of them met the appellant. PW 1 requested the appellant to get his friend Narain Das employed at Gaya on the post of peon upon which the appellant stated that the last date for sending the application was 20-9-1969 and that an application for the post had to be presented prior to that date and his application would be sent on payment of Rs. 10/-to him. It is also stated that the appellant told them that the application would not be sent if the money was not paid. The appellant also told Samarendra Gupta (PW 1) that vacancy for the post of a Mechanical Supervisor in the Animal Husbandry Department had been advertised and he should also give an application and Rs. 10/- and then his application would also be sent. Both of them (PWs 1 and 2) expressed their inability to pay the money. Thereupon, the appellant is said to have stated that the work would not be done without money. 3. 10/- and then his application would also be sent. Both of them (PWs 1 and 2) expressed their inability to pay the money. Thereupon, the appellant is said to have stated that the work would not be done without money. 3. Further case of the prosecution, according to PW 1, is that his name already stood registered in the Employment Exchange Office for the last four months and he even used to meet the appellant in connection with service and the appellant used to say that he should continue meeting him. According to PW 1, as he did not want to give money, he approached the Inspector, Anti- Corruption Department and prayed tor proper action. Similar allegation was also stated in the petition presented by Narain Das (PW 2) before the Inspector. According to the petition filed by Narain Das, the appellant told him that for getting service, he would have to spend at least Rs. 10/- and then alone, the application would be sent. The appellant also said that 20-9-1969 was the last date for sending the application for appointment to the post of peon at Gaya, Therefore, the money should be given as soon as possible. 4. On the same day, Inspector Deo (PW 9) met Sukumar Bhadri (PW 6). Dy. S. P., Anti-Corruption Department, Bhagalpur, with the two petitions (Exts. 3 and 3/a) filed by PWs 1 and 2, respectively, along with his own forwarding note. The Dy. S. P. (PW 6), after perusing the aforesaid petitions and the forwarding note (Ext. 12), asked the Inspector, S. P. Deo (PW 9) to produce PWs 1 and 2 before him at Bhagalpur on 19-9-1969. In the meantime, on the same day, the Dy. S. P. (PW 6) rang up his headquarters at Patna for deputing a Magistrate. The Special Magistrate (PW 7) reached Bhagalpur on 18-9-1969 and stayed therein the local Dak Bungalow, S. P.. Deo (PW 9) came to Bhagalpur on 19-9-1969 with PWs 1 and 2, The Dy. S. P. (PW 6) tested these two persons, who fully supported the contents of their petitions (Exts. 3 and 3/a). Thereafter, PWs 1 and 2 were sent to the Special Magistrate (PW 7) for recording their statements. After recording their statements, the Special Magistrate sent the statement to the Dy. S. P. (PW 6) tested these two persons, who fully supported the contents of their petitions (Exts. 3 and 3/a). Thereafter, PWs 1 and 2 were sent to the Special Magistrate (PW 7) for recording their statements. After recording their statements, the Special Magistrate sent the statement to the Dy. S. P. (PW 6), who, after perusing the statements and comparing the number of Government currency notes recorded in the aforesaid statements with the two Government currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10/- each, returned those currency notes to PWs 1 and 2. 5. Further, according to the prosecution, thereafter the Dy. S. P. organised a raiding party consisting of himself, Special Magistrate (P.W.7), Inspector of the Anti-Corruption Department, S. S. Banerjee (P.W. 10), Inspector S. P. Deo (P. W. 9) Sub-Inspector H. D. Mishra (P. W. 11), Anti-Corruption and Asstt. Sub-Inspector Ram Nath Prasad (P. W. 8). Thereafter, the raiding party along with P. Ws. 1 and 2 left Bhagalpur and reached Monghyr at 2-30 P. M. At the Monghyr Dak Bungalow the complainant (P. W. 6) introduced P. Ws. 1 and 2 to the raiding party and informed them that the appellant was demanding bribe of Rs. 10/- each from P. Ws. 1 and 2 for forwarding their applications. The complainant P. W. 6 in presence of the members of the raiding party took the currency notes from P. Ws. 1 and 2 and compared the numbers again noted in their statements recorded by the Special Magistrate and told them that they should go to the Employment Exchange Office and pay the money only on demand. As soon as P. Ws. 1 and 2 left the Dak Bangalow for the Employment Exchange Office, the Dy.S.P. (PW 6) asked Sub-Inspector H.D. Mishra (PW 11) to follow them and and watch the transaction and signal him after it was over. Therefore, PW 6 along with other members of the raiding party followed Hardeo Mishra (PW 11) keeping some distance and reached near a betel shop about 250 yards north-west from the Employment Exchange office. In the betel shop, two persons were there, who disclosed their names as Suryadeo Jha (PW 3) who were requested by the Dy. S. P. (PW 6) to accompany them and he search witnesses in case the money was accepted on demand. Thereafter the Dy. In the betel shop, two persons were there, who disclosed their names as Suryadeo Jha (PW 3) who were requested by the Dy. S. P. (PW 6) to accompany them and he search witnesses in case the money was accepted on demand. Thereafter the Dy. S. P. along with other members of the raiding party and these two search witnesses rushed towards the Employment Exchange Office and on the verandah of the office PW 11 told the Dy. S. P, that the money had been paid on demand and kept in the upper pocket of the Bush shirt. The Dy. S. P. then directed S. P. Deo (PW 9) to call some officers of the Minor Irrigation in the office of the District Employment Exchange. The Dy. S. P., after giving direction, entered the room of the appellant along with the raiding party and two search witnesses and found the appellant sitting on a chair and working on his table. Opposite to him there was another person sitting on a chair and writing something. They Dy. S. P. as well as other members of the raiding party disclosed their identity to the appellant and the Dy. S. P. told him that there was allegation against him to the effect that he had demanded and accepted Rs. 10/- each from PWs 1 and 2 for forwarding their petitions for employment. The appellant kept mum and thereafter Dy. S. P. (PW 6) after observing the formality of search, searched the person of the appellant in presence of two public witnesses PWs 3 and 5 and other members of the raiding party. While the search was going on PW 4 Ram Jaten Mahto also arrived there and search list and seizure list were prepared in his presence. It is said that the appellant in presence of search witnesses took out a petition of Narain Das from the third drawer of his office cabinet and produced it before them. On the personal search of the appellant, the Dy. S. P. (PW 6) recovered one G. C. Note bearing no. A/52011970 of Rs. 10/- (Material Ext. I), another G. C. Note bearing no. E/26330793 of Rs. 10/- (Material Ex. 1/1), one currency note of Rs. 2/-, another currency note of Rs. 2/-, four currency notes of Re. On the personal search of the appellant, the Dy. S. P. (PW 6) recovered one G. C. Note bearing no. A/52011970 of Rs. 10/- (Material Ext. I), another G. C. Note bearing no. E/26330793 of Rs. 10/- (Material Ex. 1/1), one currency note of Rs. 2/-, another currency note of Rs. 2/-, four currency notes of Re. 1/- each, one plastic bag, one coin of 25 NP, one coin 10 NP, one coin of 5 NP, and one coin of 3 NP, and seven mis-cellaneous papers. The Dy. S. P. prepared the seizure list in presence of all the search witnesses, who signed the same. A copy of the search list was also handed over to the appellant who in token of the receipt of the same signed the same. 6. Future according to the prosecution, in the meantime, PW 1 appeared before the Dy. S. P. and said in presence of all the search witnesses and the appellant that when he along with Narain Das came with their petitions, the appellant demanded Rs.. 10/- each from them. They made over Rs. 10/- on demand to the appellant and also handed over their petitions. The appellant kept with him the petition of Narain Das (PW2) and returned his petition saying that it was in English ; it should be in Hindi PW 1 further stated that while he was copying the petition in Hindi, the raiding party entered the room of the appellant through the office. Thereafter PW 1 produced before the Dy. S. P. (PW 6) two petitions one in English and the other in Hindi in presence of the search witnesses. The Dy. S. P. also seized those papers and prepared a seizure list. A copy of the said seizure list was made over to PW 1 who also signed the same in token of the receipt of the said applications. According to the prosecution, the man who was found sitting opposite to the appellant at the time when the members of the raiding party entered the room of the appellant disclosed his name as Bhagwat Das, a clerk in the office of the District Employment Exchange. Thereafter, the Dy. S. P. arrested the appellant and produced him in Monghyr town police station and also gave his written statement (Ext.10) allong with all the seized articles and the search list. 7. Thereafter, the Dy. S. P. arrested the appellant and produced him in Monghyr town police station and also gave his written statement (Ext.10) allong with all the seized articles and the search list. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid written statement, a formal first information report (Ext. 14) was drawn up on 19-9-1969. The case was investigated by Md. Saseem, Dy. S. P. (PW 13) who recorded the statements of the witnesses, visited the place of occurrence and before submitting the charge-sheet, wrote to the Inspector-General of Police for obtaining sanction and after the sanction was received, he submitted the chargesheet against the appellant. On 11-12-1971, the sub-divisional Magistrate transferred the case to the then Special Judge, Monghyr, for disposal, who framed charges under Section 161 of the Penal Code and under Section 5 (2) of the Corruption Act. 8. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him. He examined himself as a defence witness and filed a written statement also. According to him, he had been falsely implicated after getting the two currency notes of Rs. 10/- each (Material Exts. 1 and 1/1) planted in the pocket of his Bush shirt, which was kept on the back of his office chair during the period while he had gone to take his luncheon in his residence, which was attached to his office in the same building. Further, according to the defence, the false implication is on account of the fact that the appellant was not on good term with PWs 6 and 9. Further case of the defence is that there was a conspiracy between PWs 1 and 2 and one Jhulan Choudhary, a clerk in the office of the appellant in implicate the appellate in a false case of bribe and with that end in view, these two persons were set up by said Jhulan Choudhary. The fact that PWs. 1 and 2 did meet Jhulan Choudhary is also established from the writings of Jhulan Choudhary on Ext. 1(a). According to the appellant, although there was a registration clerk whose duty was to do the registration work, but instead of going to him, these two persons PWs 1 and 2 went to Jhulan Choudhary who had nothing to do with the registration matter. 1(a). According to the appellant, although there was a registration clerk whose duty was to do the registration work, but instead of going to him, these two persons PWs 1 and 2 went to Jhulan Choudhary who had nothing to do with the registration matter. Even Bhagwat Das, a clerk who was present at the time of raid in the office room of the appellant and whose name is also mentioned in the charge-sheet as a prosecution witness has not been examined by the prosecution. According to the appellant, the prosecution hopelessly failed to prove the charge against him and a false case was started against him. 9. The learned Special Judge, Monghyr, after considering the evidence on record, held the appellant guilty of the charges framed against him and convicted him under section 161 of the Penal Code and under section 5 (2) of the Corruption Act for obtaining illegal gratification from Narain Das (P. W. 2) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under section 5 (2) of the Corruption Act, but no separate sentence was passed under section 161 of the Penal Code. The learned Special judge further convicted the appellant under section 161 of the Penal Code and also under section 5 (2) of the Corruption Act for obtaining illegal gratification from Samarendra Gupta (P. W. 1) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under section 5 (2) of the Corruption Act, but no separate sentence was passed under section 161 of the Penal Code. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, dated 26-11-1973, the appellant has come up before this Court in the present appeal. 11. The prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses to substantiate the charges framed against the appellant. Out of them, P. Ws. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are the members of the raiding party, P. W, 12 is the Investigating Officer, P. W. 13 is the Dy. S. P. who supervised the investigation. P. Ws. 3, 4 and 5 are search witnesses and P. Ws. 1 and 2 are the accomplices and P. W.14 is a formal witness who has proved the sanction. 12. Mr. S. P. who supervised the investigation. P. Ws. 3, 4 and 5 are search witnesses and P. Ws. 1 and 2 are the accomplices and P. W.14 is a formal witness who has proved the sanction. 12. Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the giving of money itself becomes doubtful so far as the prosecution case is concerned. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance which are essential ingredients of the offence under Section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Corruption Act. Mere recovery on the facts and circumstances of this case does not prove the charge against the appellant. Lastly, it was contended that on demand made on 17-9-1969 by the appellant there is not even a single witness examined by the prosecution to support the version of P. Ws. 1 and 2. 13. The most question that arises in this case for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the charges levelled against this appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. In this connection, I have to test the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. I have already stated that 13 witnesses have been examined out of whom six are the members of the raiding party and three are the seizure list witnesses and the remaining witnesses namely, P. Ws. 1 and 2 are the accomplices. I do not find that the prosecution has either examined any independent witness or any person of the locality to prove the charge against the appellant. It is not disputed that the residence and the office of the appellant were located in the same building. The prosecution case, in short, is that P. W. 1 whose name had already been registered in the Employment Exchange Office had gone to the office with his friend Narain Das (P. W. 2) to get his name registered for a post of peon at Gaya which was advertised earlier in a newspaper, on 17-9-69 and the last date for filing an applicatsion for the said post was 20-9-69. The name of P. W. 2 was registered, a it appears from the evidence on record and then he met the appellant to forward his name and the case is that the appellant demanded Rs. 10/- from Narain Das to forward his application. The name of P. W. 2 was registered, a it appears from the evidence on record and then he met the appellant to forward his name and the case is that the appellant demanded Rs. 10/- from Narain Das to forward his application. All these conversations took place on 17-9-69 and P. W. 2 was asked to file the application and to pay Rs. 10/- for forwarding his application. In the same talk, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant also told P. W. 1 that there was a vacancy for the post of Mechanical Supervisor in the Animal Husbandry Department and he should also file an application for the same and pay to him Rs. 10/- for forwarding his application. 14. Mr. Prasad seriously argued that on the face of it, the prosecution case seems to be improbable because the last date for filing the application for the post of peon at Gaya was 20-9-69, and this talk was going on 17-9-69 at Monghyr. Therefore, even if the money could have been paid on 18-9-69 or on some other date, the application of P. W. 2 Narain Das could not have reached Gaya within time. Therefore, it is not believable that the appellant being a responsible person could have made such a suggestion to him. 15. Now coming to the evidence adduced in this case, first of all, I will consider the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 who are instrumental in this case. P. W.1 has said in his examination that he and Narain Das were unemployed. Therefore, they were always seeing the newspapers, Three or four days prior to the date of occurrence, he saw in the newspaper that a post of peon was vacant in the office of the Deputy Collector, Revenue, Gaya, and he asked Narain Das to file an application for the same and on this Narain Das requested him to get his name registered in the Employment Exchange. On 17-9-69, he took Narain Das (P.W. 2) to the office of the Employment Exchange, Monghyr, and got his name registered. Thereafter he met the appellant in his office and requested him that Narain Das had got his name registered and there was a vacancy for the post of peon at Gaya and it would be better if Narain Das could be appointed to. that post. Thereafter he met the appellant in his office and requested him that Narain Das had got his name registered and there was a vacancy for the post of peon at Gaya and it would be better if Narain Das could be appointed to. that post. At this, the appellant told him to come after one or two days and pay to him Rs. 10/- while filing his application. P. W. 1 further said that the appellant told him that if Rs. 10/- wouid not be paid, the application of Narain Das would not be forwarded to the proper place. P. W. 1 has also state that thereafter the appellant also informed him about the vacancy for the post of a Mechanical Supervisor in the Animal Husbandry Department at Patna and for which the appellant suggested to him to file an application and to pay Rs. 10/-to him. It is further stated in his evidence that both P. Ws. 1 and 2 showed their inability to pay the money to him on which the appellant is said to have stated that in absence of payment of money, he would not forward their applications. His evidence further shows that he informed the Anti- corruption Department and a trap was laid by the raiding party. It will be a mere repetition to give a detailed version of the same. P. W. 1 has stated in paragraph 2 of his deposition that he and Narain reached the Employment Exchange Office from Monghyr Dak Bungalow. At that time the appellant was sitting in his office alone and so far as he remembered, the appellant was wearing white terri-cotton shirt. On their arrival, appellant asked them as to whether they had brought money and then Narain Das gave a ten rupee note to the appellant and the appellant kept that note in his upper pocket of the shirt and kept his application in the Drawer of his Godrej. Thereafter, the appellant also asked this witness as to whether he had brought the money and the application on which he also gave him a note of Rs. 10/- and the appellant kept that note in the left upper pocket of his shirt. This witness has further stated that the appellant told him that his application was written in English. Thereafter, the appellant also asked this witness as to whether he had brought the money and the application on which he also gave him a note of Rs. 10/- and the appellant kept that note in the left upper pocket of his shirt. This witness has further stated that the appellant told him that his application was written in English. so he should bring another application in Hindi and then he went in the hall of the Employment Exchange Office with Narain Das and sat on the Bench kept there and Narain Das went away from that place and this witness began to write an application in Hindi. At the time of writing his application in the hall, there were ten to twelve persons present in the said hall. This witness claimed to have recognized one or two of them who were working in the Employment Exchange office itself. However, he did not claim to have recognised any of the. other persons present there. At the same time, this witness saw the Dy. S.P., Anti-Corruption, and the Megistrate, who had recorded his statements and some other officers eniering into the office of the appellant. This witness has also stated that it took about 45 minutes in writing his application in Hindi. He has further said that he had already paid the money before writing this Hindi application. In paragraph 34 of his deposition, this witness has clearly stated that neither he nor Narain Das had to spend any money for obtaining the registration card. No money was demanded by any staff. This witness and Narain Das went to see the appellant on 19-9-1969. It has come in his evidence that these two persons, namely, P. Ws. 1 and 2 never met the appellant prior to 17-9-69. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that S. P. office is near the Vakalatkhana. This witness has also stated that he along with P. W. 2 personally went to the office room of the S. P., but they did not meet him. They did not enter the office room of the Dy. S. P. Some of the officers were on the verandah. This witness did not recognise any of them. However, he enquired from them as to where was the office of the Anti- Corruption. They did not enter the office room of the Dy. S. P. Some of the officers were on the verandah. This witness did not recognise any of them. However, he enquired from them as to where was the office of the Anti- Corruption. This witness has admitted that he was not knowing that the office of Anti-Corruption Department was also located in the S. P. Office. Some of the persons present there pointed to him to the Anti-Corruption office. There this witness was told to see P. W. 9 Shri Satyendra Pd. Deo, Inspector of . Anti corruption, in the Bari Bazar. No constable accompanied him. This witness stated that he had not spoken about the incident to anyone else before he met P. W. 9. He has also stated in paragraph 44 of his deposition that he had told the clerk that he had to get the name of Narain Das (P. W. 2) registered and the clerk gave him the prescribed form No. 1. He filled up the form and got the card after registration was done and thereafter he met the appellant. According to this witness, the face of the appellant was visible, because the door of his office room was not fully covered by the curtain which was hanging at the door. This witness has stated that he made statement before the Magistrate. He has stated that so far as he remembered he stated before the Magistrate as well as before the police that the appellant told him to file application and than stated "Sukha Sukha Darkhast dene se kya hoga." He has further admitted that he had also stated this fact orally before the police. But I may point out here that this part of the statement "Sukha Sukha darkhast dene se kya hoga." does not find place in his statement recorded by the Special Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has come in his evidence that this witness had taken Rs. 10/- from his mother to pay it to the appellant. He has denied the suggestion given by the defence that he had not taken money from his mother. This witness has also denied the suggestion that he did not meet the appellant on 19-9-69. It has come in his evidence that this witness had taken Rs. 10/- from his mother to pay it to the appellant. He has denied the suggestion given by the defence that he had not taken money from his mother. This witness has also denied the suggestion that he did not meet the appellant on 19-9-69. It is not correct that on that date, he always remained in the compound of the Employment Exchange Office along with the members of the raiding party and Jhulan Choudhary. 16. Now coming to PW 2, he has parrot like repeated the version of PW 1. From his statement made before the special Magistrate, it appears that this witness had taken money from his elder brother for paying it to the appellant. It appears that his brother gave him one ten rupee note and one two rupee note. The same ten rupee note was given to the appellant. This witness noted the number of the said ten rupee note. He has denied the fact that he did not take any money from his elder brother. It has come in his evidence that neither the Dy. S. P. nor Deo Babu had asked him to take ten rupee note with him. For the first time he showed one ten rupee currency note to the Special Magistrate who noted the number of the said note and whether he signed the note or not, this witness did not remember. This witness has denied that he knew the Head Clerk Jhulan Chondhary.. According to him, he did not know either Jhulan Choudhary or Bhagwat Das. I have examined his deposition. Besides this, there is nothing relevant for the purpose of this case. 17. Before considering the depositions of the seizure witnesses, namely, PWs. 3, 4, and 5, I will take up to consider the evidence of the members of the raiding party. Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in a bribery case, there should be independent and trustworthy corroboration of evidence of Trap witnesses. In such type of cases, the payers testimony carries little conviction in the absence of re-assuring support, He further contended that in the instant case, not a single independent and reliable witness has been examined except the examination of the members of the raiding party and the search witnesses and these two accomplices. In such type of cases, the payers testimony carries little conviction in the absence of re-assuring support, He further contended that in the instant case, not a single independent and reliable witness has been examined except the examination of the members of the raiding party and the search witnesses and these two accomplices. He seriously argued that the conviction of the appellant should not be sustained by this Court on such type of evidence, because the appellant is a responsible officer and he knows his duty well. He took me to the evidence of the members of the raiding party. He analysed the prosecution case and submitted that the so-called drama was staged on the date of occurrence by PW 1. He further pointed out that it has come in the evidence that Pws 1 and2 visited the S. P. office before meeting Shri Deo, Inspector of Anti-Corruption, but none of them ever disclosed the incident to any of the police officer present in the office, PW 1 has specifically stated that he did not enter in the office room of the Dy. S. P. According to him, there is grave doubt on the prosecution story. If really PW 1 had any grievance against the appellant, he should have reported the matter in the SP office instead of going to Bars Bazar to meet the Inspector, Anti- Corruption and have filed a petition there but instead of doing that from Monghyr he travelled over to Bhagalpur to meet the Dy. SP (Anti-Corruption). There is nothing in his evidence to show what prevented him from filing any application before the SP at Monghyr when he visited that office. 18. PW 8, who is one of the members of the raiding party, has stated that while he was at Bhagalpur, he did not see ten rupees currency notes with Samarendra Gupta (PW 1) and Narain Das (PW 2). The Dy. SP (PW 6) has stated in his deposition that when he met PWs 1 and 2, for the first time, PW 1 never showed him ten rupees notes nor did he ask PW 1 about notes. The Dy. SP (PW 6) has stated in his deposition that when he met PWs 1 and 2, for the first time, PW 1 never showed him ten rupees notes nor did he ask PW 1 about notes. This witness also did not enquire from PWs 1 and 2 whether they had brought ten rupees notes, PW 7, the Special Magistrate has stated in his evidence that Samarendra Gupta (PW 1) did not state before him at the time of recording his statement that the appellant had asked him to come after one or two days and on 20-9-69. In my view, the most important evidence is of the Watcher i. e. PW 11, who had been deputed by the Dy, SP (PW 6) to watch the whole transaction and to give signal to the members of the raiding party after transaction was completed. He has stated that he cautiously reached the Employment Exchange Officer and he found PWs 1 and 2 entering in the office of the appellant. He saw both PWs 1 and 2 from behind the curtain. According to him, in the Employment Exchange office about 14 to 15 persons were present ; some sitting on the chair and some standing. This witness has stated that he was standing cautiously and was watching the office room of the appellant. He heard saying the appellant"Rupaya laye hai, Kaise forward hoga. On this PWs 1 and 2 saidJi Han Sir, Rupaya laye hai" and then these two persons paid the money to the appellant. According to this witness, the appellant kept the money in the upper pocket of his shirt. This witness gave signal to the Dy. SP and the Dy. SP along with the Magistrate and other members of the raiding party came near this witness and he narrated every, thing to them and these persons entered the office of the appellant and disclosed their identity and thereafter, the Dy. SP made search on the person of the appellant in presence of other members and the seizure witnesses and recovered two ten rupees currency notes along with other materials, as stated above. It is relevant to mention here that there is no signature of PW 11 on the seizure list, as such, there is no material to show that this man was present at the time of raid as stated by the prosecution. It is relevant to mention here that there is no signature of PW 11 on the seizure list, as such, there is no material to show that this man was present at the time of raid as stated by the prosecution. From the examination of his evidence, it appears that the search was not made immediately when the money was paid to the appellant. It has come in the evidence that when actual payment was made to the appellant by PW 1, PW 1 was asked by the appellant to give another application in Hindi and PW 1 came in the hall of the Employment Exchange Office and started writing his application in Hindi, which took about fortyfive minutes and when half of the application was completed, the raiding party rushed to the office of the appellant and began to search his person. I fail to understand as to what prevented the Watcher and the other members of the raiding party, who were present on the verandah, to rush to the office of the appellant immediately after the money was paid to the appellant. There was no sense in completing the writing of the application in Hindi by PW 1 when the stage and already been arranged for the search. It has already come in the evidence of PW 1 that the money was actually paid by PWs 1 and 2 before presentation of an application in Hindi. It is also relevant to point out her that Narain Das (PW 2) had already left the place before the search was made by the raiding party when he had knowledge of the search. 19. PW 9, who was the Inspector Anti-Corruption, posted at Manghyr, has stated that on 17-9-1969, PWs 1 and 2 came to his residence at Bari Bazar and reported that the appellant was demanding Rs. 10/- each for forwarding the applications and then he has repeated the same facts which have come earlier. He has also stated that Shri Bhadri asked him to call for some officers from the Minor Irrigation Office. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that no currency note was recovered. This witness has stated that whiie the members of the raiding party were entering in the office of the appellant, this witness was not there, but he was on the verandah of the office of the Minor Irrigation Office. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that no currency note was recovered. This witness has stated that whiie the members of the raiding party were entering in the office of the appellant, this witness was not there, but he was on the verandah of the office of the Minor Irrigation Office. This witness has denied the suggestion that at the instance of Jhulan Choudhary two ten rupees currency notes were planted in the Bush Shirt of the appellant, PW 13 is the Investigating Officer, who has investigated the case. He has inspected the place of occurrence i. e. the Employment Exchange office, which is located in the Fort Area. The whole building is divided into two parts. In one part on the south, there is the office of the Minor Irrigation Engineer and in the other part of the building, there is office and residence of the appellant. There are three rooms in the office of the appellant and his residence is attached to his office. The Investigating Officer has stated in paragraph 58 of his deposition that H. D. Mishra (PW 1) did not state before him that he heard saying PWs 1 and 2 to the appellant "Yes Sir, we have brought money." So this is all the evidence so far as the members of the trap party is concerned. 20. Now, coming to the deposition of the search witnesses i. e. PWs 3, 4 and 5. From the perusal of the evidence of these witnesses. I do not find that they are consistent on the point. PW 3 who is a shop keeper and also takes part in polities, has stated in paragraph 21 of his deposition that he saw a man coming out of his office and one person in full pant and ganji entering in the office, who put on a flying shirt which was hanging on the chair. He was the appellant. PW 4 has stated that he did not see the search and the recovery. He has stated in paragraph 2 that the money was kept on the table and the Anti-Corruption Dy. S. P. told him that the money had been recovered from the pocket of the appellant. PW 5 is not a man of the locality; rather he is a resident of another district and he was in police service as a literate constable. 21. S. P. told him that the money had been recovered from the pocket of the appellant. PW 5 is not a man of the locality; rather he is a resident of another district and he was in police service as a literate constable. 21. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that in this case, presumption can be raised under Section 4(1) of the Corruption Act on the case of the defence itself that the currency notes were planted in the pocket of the shirt of the appellant while it was hanging on the back of his chair in the office-room and, therefore, the onus is on him to rebut this presumption. On the other hand, Mr. Prasad, counsel for the appellant contended that presumption under Section 4 of the Corruption Act cannot be invoked in the instant case. I have considered this aspect of the submission. Section 4(1) of the Corruption Act reads as under : "(1) Where in any trial of an offience punishable under Section 161 or Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code or of an offender referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of this Act punishable under sub-section (2) there of, it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained, or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain, for himself or for any other person, any gratification other than legal remuneration or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that he accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in the said Section 161, or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate." On the plain reading of this section, it appears to me that before presumption can be raised, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the appellant has accepted or has agreed to accept the money. In the instant case, from the analysis of the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 11, it seems to me that three witnesses have given three different stores on the point of demand and acceptance. In the instant case, from the analysis of the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 11, it seems to me that three witnesses have given three different stores on the point of demand and acceptance. In this connecti on, it is relevant to state here that PW 1 has said that Narain Das (PW 2) valuntarily handed over the application. While PW 2 says that the appellant asked for the application whereas PW 11 does not speak about application at all which is the genesis for the payment according to the prosecution case. PWs 1 and 2 say that application and money were given one after the other whereas PW 11, the Watcher says that money was given together with the application. On the question of demand made on 17-9-1969, there is no witness to support the statements of PWs 1 and 2. Neither the mother of PW 1 or the brother of PW 2 was examined to prove that the money in question was taken from them. In view of these evidence. I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The prosecution has aot proved that the appellant accected or agreed to accept the money. 22 Thus, after analysing all the evidences in my view, none of the witnesses, namely, members of the trap party has proved either demand or acceptance of money by the appellant beyond reasonable suspicion. I have already stated that when the last date for filing the application for the post of peon at Gaya was 20-9-1969 why PW 2 would pay a single farthing to the appellant when his work would not be done by the appellant. One of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 5(2) of the Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Penal Code is that the gratification must be received by the accused as a motive or reward for committing an act or omission in connection with his official function. It must be shown that there was an understanding that the bribe was given in consideration of some official act or conduct. If that part is lacking then, in my opinion, no charge can be framed against the accused under those sections in the instant case, in my view, the giving of money itself becomes doubtful and it cannot be accepted. If that part is lacking then, in my opinion, no charge can be framed against the accused under those sections in the instant case, in my view, the giving of money itself becomes doubtful and it cannot be accepted. Mere recovery in the circumstances of the case, in my view, does not prove the charge. 23. Having considered the question very closely and having considered the matters in all its remifications, I unhesitatingly hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of money by the appellant. 24. I must express my view that the officers functioning in the Anti- Corruption Department must seriously endeavour to secure real independent and respectable witnesses, so that the evidence in regard to the 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. They should insist on observing safeguard for the protection of public servant against whom a trap is laid. In the present case, even the search witness PW 4 has not stated in clear words that recovery was made in his presence; rather he was toid by the Dy. S. P., Anti-Corruption (PW 6) that the money had been taken out from the pocket of the appellant. Moreover, PW 11 claimed to have heard the talks betweer the appellant and PWs 1 and 2 about the giving of the money, which has been . .illy contradicted by PWs 1 and 2 themselves. The Supreme Court in Raghbir Singh V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 91 has observed that when a trap is laid for a public servant, it is desirable that the marked currency notes which are used for the purpose of trap are treated with phenolphthalein powder. so that the handling of such marked currency notes by the public servant can be detected by chemical process and the Court does not have to depend on oral evidence, which is some times of a dubious character for the purpose of deciding the fate of the public servant. 25. so that the handling of such marked currency notes by the public servant can be detected by chemical process and the Court does not have to depend on oral evidence, which is some times of a dubious character for the purpose of deciding the fate of the public servant. 25. Taking all these facts into consideration, it is clear from the above discussion that the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution is not such as to inspire confidence in me and I must, therefore, hold that I am not at all satisfied that the appellant either demanded the bribe of Rs. 10/- each from PWs 1 and 2 or PWs 1 and 2 paid the bribe of Rs. 10/- each to the appellant by handing over one ten rupees currency notes each which are said to have been recovered from the pocket of the appellant when his person was searched by the raiding party. 26. For the reasons stated above, I am, therefore, of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant and I accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant and acquit him of the offences charged against him. The bail-bonds executed by the appellant stand discharged.