JUDGMENT Kamleshwar Nath, J. - Appellant Surendra Tripathi has been convicted u/s 161 IPC and Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment respectively for 5 years and 4 years both the sentences to run concurrently. There is also the order to return Rs. 500/- to the complainant Sumiran Singh. 2. Appellant Surendra Tripathi was Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department (PWD), Hardoi in the year 1979. Complainant Sumiran Singh, the contractor had obtained two contracts: 1--For repairs of a Steam Roller No. 1006 for Rs. 8,334/- and 2--for repairs of a Diesel Roller No. 5989 for Rs. 7460 = 35. The works having been completed under the supervision of Appellant Surendra Tripathi, certain bills were to be paid by the Department. The total outstanding amount, according to complainant Sumiran Singh, was Rs. 5910/- in respect of both the bills. 3. The complainant's case is that he approached Surendra Tripathi for the payment of the outstanding amounts. He alleged that Surendra Tripathi had already obtained Rs. 1500/- from him as illegal gratification for passing the bills and was again asking for a further sum of Rs. 850/- as bribe. Sumiran Singh, however, agreed to pay Rs. 500/-. On 2-11-1979 he made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption, at Lucknow, stating that although he had agreed to pay Rs. 500/-, he did not want to pay the amount and that Appellant Surendra Tripathi may be trapped for asking for the bribe. The Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption, Sri Vir Vishal Singh, deputed Deputy Supreintendent of Police Sri Sheo Dutt Dubey, on the complaint of Sumiran Singh, to lay the trap. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Sri Sheo Dutt Dubey, ordered Sri Bhagwan Din Verma Inspector CID Anti Corruption, to lay the trap. The Currency Notes of Rs. 500/-, which were proposed to be given as bribe, were examined by Inspector Bhagwan Din Verma and then returned to Sumiran Singn with the advice to hand over the Curreney notes to the Appellant on demand. Consequently, trap was arranged for 6-11-1979 at the house of Sumiran Singh to be organised by Inspector Bhagwan Din Verma where the Appellant had agreed to arrive between 4 and 6 P.M. 4. Consequently, trap was arranged for 6-11-1979 at the house of Sumiran Singh to be organised by Inspector Bhagwan Din Verma where the Appellant had agreed to arrive between 4 and 6 P.M. 4. Accordingly on 6-11-1979, at about 10.30 A.M., the raiding party, which included Inspector Bhagwan Din Verma, Sardar Pritam Singh, Sri Jagdamba Prasad, Sri Ram Deo Sharma, Constables Liaqat Ali and Mohd. Zakaria and others, arrived at Hardoi Octroi outpost on Lucknow Road by Jeep where complainant Sumiran Singh and witnesses of the public were present. Inspector Bhagwan Din Verma tallied the identity numbers of the Currency Notes (25 in number of Rs 20/- each) with those recorded at the time of making of the complaint on 2-11-79 made his initials on the back of the Currency Notes and dusted the Currency Notes with Phenpathaline Powder. The Currency Notes, thus treated, were then handed over to Sumiran Singh for being passed on to the Appellant, when demanded. A memo of this proceeding was also prepared. 5. The party then arrived at the house of Sumiran Singh where Inspectors Bhagwan Din Verma and Sardar Pritam Singh stayed in the front room, while the rest of the members of the party, including the witnesses, went inside the adjoining back room. 6. The prosecution case is that at about 4.30 P.M. Surendra Tripathi, Appellant, arrived in the front room and (old Sumiran Singh that if he wanted his bills to be paid, then he should give Rs. 850/- to him as bribe, otherwise the bills would not be passed. Sumiran Singh, however, expressed his difficulty in arranging for Rs. 850/- but agreed to pay Rs. 500/- which the Appellant also agreed to receive then and there, and that Sumiran Singh might pay the rest later on. Thereupon, Sumiran Singh paid Rs. 500/- to the Appellant who took the Currency Notes and placed them into the pocket of his pant Thereafter, the two Inspectors disclosed their identity to the Appellant and took the latter's search in the presence of the witnesses, in consequence of which the aforesaid Currency Notes were recovered from the pocket of the Appellant's pant. The identity of the Currency Notes was verified and found correct. Inspector Bhagwan Din Verma had the Appellant's hands washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonate; the solution became pink. 7. Bhagwan Din Verma sealed the Currency Notes of Rs. The identity of the Currency Notes was verified and found correct. Inspector Bhagwan Din Verma had the Appellant's hands washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonate; the solution became pink. 7. Bhagwan Din Verma sealed the Currency Notes of Rs. 500/- in a bag and the pink solution in a bottle and completed the necessary formalities for the protection of the identity of these articles. The pant worn by Surendra Tripathi was taken into custody and was put into Sodium Carbonate which also became pink and a sample of the solution was separately taken and sealed in another bottle, the pant was also separately sealed. The recovery memo etc. was prepared and the Appellant was put under arrest. The Appellant alongwith recovered articles, was made over to Police Station Kotwali of Hardoi and a Chik report was prepared on the basis of the papers submitted to the police station at 8.05 P.M. the same day. 8. Investigation was conducted by Inspector Bhawani Pal Singh. The two bottles of Phenapthaline solution were sent in sealed condition to the Chemical Examiner. The Chemical Examiner's report indicated that the solution in both the bottles contained mixture of Sodium Carbonate and Phenapthaline. A local insepction was made and a site-plan Ext. Ka. 16 was prepared by the investigating Officer. 9. Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Sri Vir Vishal Singh, applied to the State Government to sanction the prosecution of the Appellant; Chief Engineer Sri S.C. Dixit of the PWD examined the relevant papers and accorded the sanction by Ext. Ka. 5. Ultimately, the Appellant was prosecuted. 10. Among the witnesses examined by the prosecution are Inspector Bhagwan Din Verma PW 7, complainant Sumiran Singh PW 8, Inspector Pritam Singh PW 12, Raj Pal Singh PW 3 and Rishi Nath PW 4. The rest of the witnesses provide the necessary formal and link evidence. 11. Appellant Surendra Tripathi denied the prosecution case and said that Sumiran Singh was annoyed with him and hence with the aid of Inspectors Bhagwan Din Verma and Sardar Pritam Singh, had got him falsely implicated by arresting him from his (Appellant's) house. He added that the matter relating to the payment of the bill, regarding Steam Roller No. 1006, was the affair of his colleauge Sri A.N. Gupta and that he had absolutely nothing to do with it. He added that the matter relating to the payment of the bill, regarding Steam Roller No. 1006, was the affair of his colleauge Sri A.N. Gupta and that he had absolutely nothing to do with it. In respect of Diesel Roller No. 5989, he stated that the work had been done by Sumiran Singh under his supervision and that the final bill, after having been signed by Sumiran Singh, and after its being accepted had been deposited in the office of Assistant Engineer (Yantrik) of the Electrical Division at Lucknow on 15-10-1979 and that thereafter he had absolutely nothing to do with any payment which might have been concerned with Sumiran Singh. He added that on 15-10-1979 Sumiran Singh had recorded his acceptance for final payment in the office of Assistant Engineer (E) Lucknow. He accepted that he had made a deduction of 10% in the bill because of late performance of the work and Sumiran Singh's failure to return the old parts and that the payment of the security and other amounts was to be made six months later. He stated that on account of those deductions Sumiran Singh was annoyed with him. The Appellant examined DW 1 Devendra Saxena Junior Engineer PWD, DW 2 Ramesh Chandra Gupta, DW 3 Ram Bharosey Upper Division Clerk and DW 4 Awadesh Narain Gupta Junior Engineer, in his defence. 12. Learned Special Judge Hardoi noticed the admission of Sumiran Singh that the entire payment, concerning Steam Roller No. 1006, had been made to him except the refund of security and proceeded on the basis that the Appellant was liable to arrange for the payment of the bill concerning Diesel Roller No. 5989. He observed that according to the statement of DW 1, Devendra Saxena a payment of Rs. 1167/- was due to Sumiran Singh. The learned Special Judge went on to observe that in respect of the repayment of this sum of Rs. 1167/-, the Appellant was demanding Rs. 1100/- as bribe which, on his pressing request, the Appellant agreed to reduce to Rs. 850/-, out of which he ultimately agreed to receive Rs. 500/- at the time of recovery and the rest later on. He then considering the evidence regarding payment of the sum Rs. 1167/-, the Appellant was demanding Rs. 1100/- as bribe which, on his pressing request, the Appellant agreed to reduce to Rs. 850/-, out of which he ultimately agreed to receive Rs. 500/- at the time of recovery and the rest later on. He then considering the evidence regarding payment of the sum Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification to and its receipt by the Appellant, the recovery of the money from the Appellant, the washing of the hands and the pant pocket of the Appellant in Sodium Carbonate solution, observed that there was no material contradiction in the evidence on the subject. He observed that no enmity was made out between the two Inspectors and the Appellant. Referring to the decision in the case of Hazari Lal Vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1980 SC 873 it was held that where the testimony of police witnesses, who have laid the trap, appears to be reliable it does not need any corroboration, because such evidence cannot be classed as that of an accomplice. He described the three witnesses-Inspectors Bhagwan Din Verma PW 7 and Sardar Pritam Singh PW 12 and PW 8 Sumiran Singh--to be independent witnesses and held that their testimony proved the receipt of Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification from Sumiran Singh in order to arrange for the payment of outstanding bill of Sumiran Singh. He held that the testimony of these witnesses stood corroborated by the solution of Sodium Carbonate, in which the Appellant's hand and pant pocket, in which the Currency Notes were held or kept, were washed. The FIR was lodged at 8.05 P.M. when the incident took place at 4.50 P.M., hence there was no delay in the lodging of the FIR. 13. Referring to the defence evidence, the learned Special Judge observed that it contained nothing to show that the Appellant had been arrested from his own house and not from the house of Sumiran Singh--a fact which was established by the testimony of the three witnesses referred to above. The defence evidence, it was observed, was calculated only to indicate that no amount remained to be paid to the complainant and, therefore, there was no question of demanding any illegal gratification, but it was established from the testimony of DW 1 Devendra Saxena himself that at least a sum of Rs. 1160/-was due to be paid. 14. The defence evidence, it was observed, was calculated only to indicate that no amount remained to be paid to the complainant and, therefore, there was no question of demanding any illegal gratification, but it was established from the testimony of DW 1 Devendra Saxena himself that at least a sum of Rs. 1160/-was due to be paid. 14. Learned Counsel for the Appellant urged that according to the evidence on record, the Appellant was not concerned with Steam Roller No. 1006 which was the concern of another Junior Engineer A.N. Gupta and that the bill for payment of the outstanding Bill No. 5989, having been submitted to the concerned Assistant Engineer at Kanpur on 15-10-1969, there was nothing else for the Appellant to do about it and, therefore, there was no occasion for the Appellant to extarct any money by way of illegal gratification from Sumiran Singh. 15. According to learned Counsel for the Appellant out of the contracted amount of Rs. 8334/- for Steam Roller No. 1006, a sum of Rs. 1167/- had been deducted on account of security, Boiler Inspection charges and Income Tax at source, and the remaining Rs. 7167/- had already been paid off on 29-3-1979. At best the complainant could have claimed a refund of the security (Rs. 167/-) and also Inspection charges (Rs. 833/-) totalling Rs. 1000/- but that also was payable after six months under the terms of the contract, i.e. on or after 5-9-1979. It will be seen that the complaint was made by Sumiran Singh on 2-11-1979. So, at any rate, a sum of Rs. 1000/- had become refundable before the date of the complaint. 16. Learned Counsel for the Appellant says that in respect of Diesel Roller No. 5989, out of the contracted amount of Rs. 7460 = 35, the first running payment was made on 29-3-1979 for Rs. 3690/- after deducting security (Rs. 419/-) and Income Tax at source (Rs. 83/-). Of the second bill for the remaining amount of Rs. 3268/-, a deduction of security (Rs. 327/-), Income Tax at source (Rs. 65/-), penalty due to delay in executing the work (Rs. 327/-), and penalty for not returning some old parts (Rs. 565/-) totalling Rs. 1284/- had been made and, therefore, the bill had been passed for payment of Rs. 1984/-which was pending sanction at Lucknow. 3268/-, a deduction of security (Rs. 327/-), Income Tax at source (Rs. 65/-), penalty due to delay in executing the work (Rs. 327/-), and penalty for not returning some old parts (Rs. 565/-) totalling Rs. 1284/- had been made and, therefore, the bill had been passed for payment of Rs. 1984/-which was pending sanction at Lucknow. He says that, at best the security amounts of the two bills (totalling Rs. 746/-) could also be refundable, but after expiry of a period of six months, i.e. on or after 22-3-1980. 17. The allegation of the prosecution was that in order to secure payment, the Appellant was asking for bribe. It is not at all unlikely that even though a sum of Rs. 1,000/-, in respect of Steam Roller No. 1006 and a sum of Rs. 1984/- in respect of Diesel Roller No. 5989 was ultimately to be disposed of finally by authorities, other than the Appellant, the latter could have voluntered his good-offices to secure the payment. It also appears to me that in respect of bill for Diesel Roller No. 5989 Sumiran Singh was also expecting relief regarding penalty due to dealy in execution of the work or for allegedly not returning the old parts and, therefore, the ultimate payment which he might have expected could not have been below than Rs. 1984/-. Since in any case the final payment for Diesel Roller No. 5989 had to be made through the Appellant, it is not at all unlikely that a deal was sought to be struck between the Appellant and Sumiran Singh for early payment and discharge of both the bills. 18. Learned Counsel for the Appellant then says that according to the complaint, the complainant was laying a claim far payment of Rs. 5910/-, which is not correct. The mathematical accuracy of that amount does not seem to be necessary so long as it is borne out from the record that there was a substantial amount for payment, which, in any case, was at-least round about Rs. 3,000/- bearing in mind the fact that the refund of security etc. in respect of Diesel Roller No. 5989 was to follow on or after 22-3-1980 There is no inherent improbability in a demand of Rs. 850/-, reduced to Rs. 500/-, for enabling payment of that amount. 19. 3,000/- bearing in mind the fact that the refund of security etc. in respect of Diesel Roller No. 5989 was to follow on or after 22-3-1980 There is no inherent improbability in a demand of Rs. 850/-, reduced to Rs. 500/-, for enabling payment of that amount. 19. Learned Counsel for the Appellant then urged that the testimony of PW 7 Inspector Bhagwan Din Verma, PW 12 Sardar Pritam Singh and complainant PW 8 Sumiran Singh should not have been treated to be adequate in the absence of independent corroboration because they are trap witnesses. Reliance has been placed on the case of Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration 1976 SCC 160 where the observation made in para 16 was that all the three witnesses, examined by the prosecution, were concerned with the success of the trap and, as such, were interested witnesses. In para 56 of the judgment it was observed that the evidence of these interested witnesses of trap having rem ained unconfirmed and un-corroborated by any independent evidence, it would be highly unsafe to convict the Appellant on the basis of their testimony. However, in the case of Malta Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) 1976 SCC 135 it has been held in para 33 that there is no rule of law that even if a witness is otherwise reliable and independent his association in a pre-arranged raid about which he had become acquainted, makes him an accomplice or a partisan witness. In absence of anything to warrant a contrary conclusion, conviction is not untenable merely because it is based on the testimony of such a witness. In para 34 the Court held that it was not prepared to dub every witness of a raiding party to be an accomplice per se, or even as an interested witness, in total absence of materials justifying such an inference. In particular, it was mentioned that the Inspector who had conducted the raid could not be considered to be an absolutely partisan witness because he was a Police Officer who took immediate action on the complaint. The Inspector was held to have corroborated the complainant. 20. In particular, it was mentioned that the Inspector who had conducted the raid could not be considered to be an absolutely partisan witness because he was a Police Officer who took immediate action on the complaint. The Inspector was held to have corroborated the complainant. 20. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also referred to the case of Raghubir Singh v. State of Punjab 1975 SCC 776 where it was held that the prosecution care suffered from a serious infirmity inasmuch as it rested only on the evidence of the witnesses who were either interested witnesses or police witnesses. Jagdish Raj PW had arranged to lay the trap; Arjan Das was related to Jagdish Raj. Inspector Hardas Singh and S.I. Baldev Singh were police witnesses. It was noticed that Gurdev Singh, Excise and Taxation Officer, had arrived on the spot of the trap before the search of and recovery of the bribe money was got examined but he had declined to attest the search memo, it was observed that he should have been examined as the only independent person who could have deposed about the search. It was in these circumstances that the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution was not accepted by the Supreme Court. The distinguishing feature, in the present case, seems to be that two independent witnesses PW 3 Raj Pal Singh and PW 4 Rishi Nath had actually been called by the prosecution although they turned out to be hositle. The feature of their hostility has a remarkable aspect. 21. PW 3 Raj Pal Singh stated that he and Rishi Nath were going on their work and when they arrived at the Octroi post on the Lucknow Road, a jeep arriving from Lucknow side halted from which Sumiran Singh and some personnel of CID got down. The witnesses said that Sumiran Singh informed him that an Engineer of PWD was to be apprehended. He then went on to say that in their presence Sumiran Singh did not give any Currency Notes to the CID people and that they did not go with the CID people any where, but proceeded to their own work. He added that when they returned after their work, then he found Sumiran Singh and the CID people at the house of Sumiran Singh. Certain papers were written in his presence and they were asked to sign as witnesses which they did. He added that when they returned after their work, then he found Sumiran Singh and the CID people at the house of Sumiran Singh. Certain papers were written in his presence and they were asked to sign as witnesses which they did. He admitted his signatures on the recovery memo although he said that he was not given an opportunity to read it, only his signatures were obtained. He admitted his signatures on these papers in this connection. He admitted having given his statement u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure to the Investigating Officer (supporting the entire prosecution case of handing over the bribe and recovery of the money etc.), but said that he had given that statement simply because he had been asked to do so. He said that some of the things recorded in the statement were correct, while other portions had been added to by the Police Officer concerned. It is remarkable that this witness has spoken in plural thereby associating himself as PW 4 Rishi Nath in respect of all the facts accetping his making signatures on the various recovery memos. The statement would signify that he and Rishi Nath both had met the raiding party at the Octroi Post at Lucknow Road, both had proceeded onwards to their own business, both had returned after finishing the businsess to the house of Sumiran Singh where the CID personnel were found and in presence of them the various documents had been written. Rishi Nath PW 4, on the contrary, said that the CID people did not arrest any person in his presence at the house of Sumiran Singh for accepting bribe. He admitted making signatures, on all those papers on which Raj Pal Singh PW 3 had admitted his own signatures, but added that he had made those signatures at the Kotwali of Hardoi. He went on to say that he never made any statement to any Sub-Inspector of Police and added that he had not made the statement purported to have been recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. 22. The remarkable feature in the testimony of these two independent witnesses is that while PW 3 Raj Pal Singh had spoken of the presence of Rishi Nath PW 4 at the stages, already referred to above, Rishi Nath PW 4 made a total denial thereof. 22. The remarkable feature in the testimony of these two independent witnesses is that while PW 3 Raj Pal Singh had spoken of the presence of Rishi Nath PW 4 at the stages, already referred to above, Rishi Nath PW 4 made a total denial thereof. It is plain that none of these two witnesses were speaking the truth. It is not one of these cases where independent witnesses were available and had not been produced by the prosecution. It is a case where available independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution, but they told bletant lies. The upshot is that the denial of the prosecution case by the two independent witnesses can neither give any strength to the defence nor discredit the testimony of the other witnesses even though they were involved in laying the trap. The true test seems to be to scrutinise and find whether the testimony of the trap witnesses has stood the test of scrutiny and appears to be reliable and free from bias. In the case of Hazari Lal Vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1980 SC 873 it has been held that the testimony of Police Officers who laid the trap, if reliable, needs no corroboration as it is not the evidence of an accomplice. 23. An important feature is that both PW 7 Bhagwan Din Verma and PW 12 Sardar Pritam Singh Inspectors were officers working at Lucknow. The trap was laid at Hardoi where the Appellant was posted. I think that in the absence of any circumstances in their testimony to show that they had any reason to be interested in Sumiran Singh PW 8 or to be prejudicial to the Appellant, the circumstances of their coming all the way from Lucknow to lay the trap, adds to their credibility. 24. An important point for test of the veracity is the place of the arrest of the Appellant. According to the prosecution, the Appellant was arrested at the house of Sumiran Singh PW 8, while according to the Appellant he was arrested from his house. The testimony of all the three prosecution witnesses PW 7 Bhagwan Din Verma, PW 12 Sardar Pritam Singh and PW 8 Sumiran Singh is consistent upon this point and there is no reason to hold that the Appellant was not arrested at the house of PW 8 Sumiran Singh. The testimony of all the three prosecution witnesses PW 7 Bhagwan Din Verma, PW 12 Sardar Pritam Singh and PW 8 Sumiran Singh is consistent upon this point and there is no reason to hold that the Appellant was not arrested at the house of PW 8 Sumiran Singh. Although the Appellant examined as many as 4 witnesses in his defence, he examined none to prove that he had been arrested from his house. 25. Learned Counsel for the Appellant points out that there is inconsistency in the statement of PW 7 Bhagwan Din Verma about the time of the recovery and preparation of the recovery memo The statement of the witness is that at about 4.30 P.M. the Appellant arrived in the room of Sumiran Singh's house where he, Inspector Sardar Pritam Singh and Sumiran Singh were sitting and asked Sumiran Singh to give him Rs. 850/- as bribe for payment of the bills which otherwise would not be done, that Sumiran Singh said that he was able to arrange only Rs. 500/- which he could readily pay, whereupon the Appellant agreed to receive Rs. 500/- at once with a promise for payment of the rest in future. The witness went on to say that Sumiran Singh gave the sum of Rs, 500/- to the Appellant which the latter kept in the pocket of his Bell-bottom Pant and thereafter he and Sardar Pritam Singh disclosed their identity, took the Appellant's search and recovered the sum of Rs. 500/- from the possession of the Appellant. He then described the process of washing the hands as well as the pant pocket of the Appellant in the solution of Sodium Carbonate, kept and sealed them in separate bottles, put the recovered currency Notes in a sealed envelope, prepared the recovery memo, Ext. Ka. 11, and took the Appellant to the Police Station Kotwali of Hardoi. 26. PW 7 Bhagwan Din Verma further added that prior to the passing of the money, the Appellant and Sumiran Singh had a talk for about 10 minutes and at 4.30 P.M. the Appellant kept the money in his pocket and that it took about three hours to complete the rest of the formalities of search and recovery of money from the person of the Appellant. He said that he wrote the recovery memo after completing the whole process and took about half an hour in writing the recovery memo and by about 7.45 P.M. he completed the writing of the recovery memo in electric light. He denied that he had started writing the recovery memo at 4.45 P.M. The recovery memo contains a sentence after about 2/3rd of its text: "Is Samai Din ke 16.50 baje hain " The recovery memo runs in 7 pages. When confronted with this statement the witness said that the time of 4.50 P.M. referred to the time of recovery of the currency Notes and not to the time of completion of the recovery memo This explanation seems to be correct In the immediately preceding sentence there is the clear statement that in the presence of the witnesses currency Notes of Rs 500/-were recovered from the pocket of the Appellant's Pant. It must, therefore, be held that there is no real inconsistency in the testimony of PW 7 Bhagwan Din Varma regarding the time of the recovery of money and the preparation of the recovery memo. 27. Learned Counsel for the Appellant then says that it is very improbable that while Sardar Pritam Singh and Bhagwandin Verma were sitting in the room, where Sumiran Singh was present, the Appellant should have demanded money from Sumiran Singh in their presence, as he had not known them since before. Bhagwan Din Verma PW 7 stated that the Appellant had asked Sumiran Singh as to who he and Sardar Pritam Singh were, but did not ask him about it. Sumiran Singh PW 8 stated that the Appellant had not asked him as to who these were, but had asked Bhagwan Din Verma who said that Sardar Pritam Singh PW 12 was his (Sumiran Singh's) brother. The contradiction is undoubtedly there, but it seems to be rather minor for in any case the Appellant had taken care to find out who the witnesses were and had been told that Sardar Pritam Singh was the brother of Sumiran Singh. Both are Sardars, although not related to each other. Both Bhagwan Din Verma and Sardar Pritam Singh were in plain clothes. Both are Sardars, although not related to each other. Both Bhagwan Din Verma and Sardar Pritam Singh were in plain clothes. If the Appellant could go out of his way to receive the bribe at the place of Sumiran Singh, rather than take it at some safer place, including his own house he could as well have felt tempted to collect the money despite the presence of strangers. The circumstance could be interpreted either way, but in the face of the clear evidence of the complainant and taking of the money in the presence of these two strangers, an inference that the Appellant could not have asked for the money in their presence would be arbitrary. After all, the courts decide on evidence and if evidence remains unshaken, the courts must act thereon unless the evidence is of such a nature that it is absolutely unacceptable on the face of it. 28. Learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to a contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses regarding the person who got the hands of the Appellant washed in sodium carbonate solution. PW 7 Bhagwan Din Verma said that he got the hands of the Appellant washed. PW 12 Sardar Pritam Singh said that Inspector Jagdamba Prasad got the hands washed. Inspector Jagdamba Prasad was not examined. PW 8 Sumiran Singh said that PW 12 Sardar Pritam Singh got the hands washed. This also, in my opinion, is a minor contradiction and could be caused by lapse of memory on a minor point. All the three persons named in this connection are Inspectors. They had been entrusted jointly to make the raid, arrest and seizure. The process of getting the hands washed could well have required the actual participation of more than one person. Perhaps, the attention of these witnesses could not have been very much on the question as to who actually got the hands washed. The inconsistency will not be enough to prove that the hands were not washed at all. 29. The process of getting the hands washed could well have required the actual participation of more than one person. Perhaps, the attention of these witnesses could not have been very much on the question as to who actually got the hands washed. The inconsistency will not be enough to prove that the hands were not washed at all. 29. The last inconsistency referred to by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that while Bhagwan Din Verma PW 7 stated that the date and place for laying the trap, i.e. 6-11-1979, at the house of Sumiran Singh, had been agreed with Sumiran Singh at Lucknow because Sumiran Singh had already fixed the payment of the money with the accused the statement of PW 8 Sumiran Singh is that he had not fixed the date in the first instance with the Appellant before he left for Lucknow. He said that he had not told the Inspector that he had already fixed the date for bribe with the Appellant, but after having fixed the date and place at Lucknow, he told the Appellant on the following day to collect the money from him on 6-11-1979 at his place at 4 P.M. I think that Sumiran Singh's memory in this regard had failed at the time of his deposition in the court, for earlier on 2-11-1979 he had told Inspector Bhagwan Din Verma, in connection with his application for laying the trap, vide Ext. Ka-7, that he had already promised to the Appellant to give Rs. 500/- as bribe on 6-11-1979. Bhagwan Din Verma PW 7 has proved this statement; Sumiran Singh simply said that he could not tell how Inspector Bhagwan Din Verma had so recorded in his statement Ext Ka 7 which he admitted to bear his signatures. The statement was taken down by Inspector Bhagwan Din Verma in consequence of the directions of the Superintendent of Police, CID on Sumiran Singh's application, Ext. Ka-12, dated 2-11-1979, on which directions were passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ext. Ka-9, PW 7 Bhagwan Din Verma to comply with the prayer for laying the trap. The statement was taken down by Inspector Bhagwan Din Verma in consequence of the directions of the Superintendent of Police, CID on Sumiran Singh's application, Ext. Ka-12, dated 2-11-1979, on which directions were passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ext. Ka-9, PW 7 Bhagwan Din Verma to comply with the prayer for laying the trap. It is quite natural for PW 7 Bhagwan Din Verma to question Sumiran Singh about the Modus operandi for laying the trap and it would have been equally natural and probable that Sumiran Singh would have told Inspector Bhagwan Din Verma of such date for laying the trap as he would have already settled with the Appellants. The statement of PW 7 Bhagwan Din Verma that Sumiran Singh had told him that he had already fixed a date with the Appellant seems to be correct. 30. Inspectors Bhagwan Din Verma PW 7 and Sardar Pritam Singh PW 12 are independent witnesses. As already stated, they came all the way from Lucknow to Hardoi to lay the trap. Learned Special Judge, Anti-corruption, held that there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony. I have stated the legal position that they are not liable to be disbelieved simply because they had laid the trap. After all they were performing public functions and acting in discharge of their official duties, it could well be expected, if not also presumed, that they would have acted fairly and in a regular manner. There is no reason to disbelieve their testimony. On a consideration of all the evidence and circumstances, in the light of contentions made by learned Counsel for the Appellant, I an of opinion that the prosecution case was fully proved against the Appellant. 31. Learned Counsel for the Appellant lastly urged that the sanction for the prosecution, contained in Annexure Ka-5, is invalid because the Chief Engineer did not apply his mind to the question. The only reason for this contention is that the Chief Engineer did not put a date under his signatures. A perusal of the document would show that the clerk concerned had mentioned 24th September: 1980 under his own initials at the bottom and below the signatures of the Chief Engineer and then at the top the Reference number of his order (making the sanction) was marked with the date of 25th September 1980. A perusal of the document would show that the clerk concerned had mentioned 24th September: 1980 under his own initials at the bottom and below the signatures of the Chief Engineer and then at the top the Reference number of his order (making the sanction) was marked with the date of 25th September 1980. PW 13 Bhawani Pal Singh, investigating officer, stated that he had got the orders signed in his presence on 24th September 1980, but in the cross-examination he said that he had got it signed on 25th September 1980. The contradiction, in my opinion is not material. Even if the order of sanction did not bear any date, it would not have been illegal. The deposition of PW 13 Bhawani Pal Singh in the cross-examination is that he had taken the case diary and connected documents to the office of Chief Engineer for obtaining the sanction to prosecute. He said that he presented all the papers before Sri Satish Chandra, Chief Engineer, on 24-9-1980 that the Chief Engineer looked into all the papers, and affixed his signatures on the sanction order, Ext. Ka-5, in his presence. In the cross-examination he said that on 24-9-1980 he had come away after presenting all the papers before the Chief Engineer and that the Chief Engineer affixed his signatures on the sanction order in his presence on 25-9-1980 where he had gone again. Perhaps, there is no real inconsistency between the two statements. The version in the examination-in-chief is capable of being split up between two portions: 1--that on 24-9-1980 he had placed all the papers before Sri Satish Chandra Dixit, Chief Engineer, and 2- the Chief Engineer signed the sanction order in his presence after looking into all the papers. The details of these two stages seems to have been brought out in cross-examination where he stated that on 24-9-1980 he had placed all the papers before the Chief Engineer and had gone away and ultimately had got the order of sanction on 25-9-1980. 32. Learned Counsel for the Appellant says that a typed order had been placed before the Chief Engineer and, therefore, also the Chief Engineer might have signed it without applying his mind to it. The positive evidence of PW 13 Bhawani Pal Singh, investigating officer, is that the Chief Engineer signed the order after going through all the connected papers. 32. Learned Counsel for the Appellant says that a typed order had been placed before the Chief Engineer and, therefore, also the Chief Engineer might have signed it without applying his mind to it. The positive evidence of PW 13 Bhawani Pal Singh, investigating officer, is that the Chief Engineer signed the order after going through all the connected papers. It can not be fairly presumed that simply because the order was a typed instrument, the Chief Engineer would not have read it. In my opinion, no illegality or infirmity is shown in the sanction order. 33. The sentence awarded by the court below seems to be excessive. The maximum sentence provided u/s 161 IPC is three years' rigorous imprisonment; the sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment could not be passed. The Special Judge, Anti-corruption, was inclined to award a punishment u/s 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for a lesser period than that u/s 161 IPC. That is contrary to the intention of the Legislature because the maximum sentence contemplated u/s 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 is seven years. The appropriate sentence seems to be two years' rigorous imprisonment u/s 161 IPC and three years' rigorous imprisonment u/s 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. 34. The appeal is partly allowed and while the conviction of the Appellant for offences u/s 161 IPC and u/s 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 are confirmed, the sentences are reduced respectively to two years' and three years' rigorous imprisonment. 35. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 36. The Appellant, who is on bail, shall surrender and will be taken into custody to serve out the modified sentence. 37. C.J.M. Hardoi will report compliance within six weeks. Appeal partly allowed.