JUDGMENT R.P. Shukla, J. - This Criminal Appeal No. 2239 of 1982 has been preferred by Appellant D.K. Agarwal, against the judgment and order of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor (Special Judge), Sri P.C. Joshi, convicting and sentencing the Appellant u/s 161, IPC to undergo R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine, he has been ordered to undergo three months' further R.I. and u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment, three months' R.I. on 7-9-1982 in special case No. 11 of 1980. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that one Gopal used to sit at the Patry of the road in Chandpur town for selling foodgrains in small quantity on every Tuesday and Friday, which were the market days in Chandpur. D.K. Agarwal, the Appellant, was posted as Marketing Inspector in those days at Chandpur and Sri Brijendra Singh was posted there as Senior Marketing Inspector. They used to make frequent demands of money from Gopal in order to allow him to keep his shop at the Patty of the road; otherwise he should be challaned or he will have to take licence for dealing in foodgrains. They wanted him to pay Rs. 50/- per month. On 9-4-1980, Gopal came to Bijnor and moved an application to the District Magistrate, Bijnor, complaining against the conduct of these officers and praying to the District Magistrate to sign the notes which he would give in bribe and also prayed to depute some officer for laying down the trap against the corrupt officers. This application is Ext. Ka. 2A. The District Magistrate sent that application to the Superintendent of Police, Bijnor, asking him to take necessary action immediately. The Superintendent of Police, Bijnor, in his turn, summoned Sri Narayan Dutt Sharma, then posted as Dy. Superintendent of Police and directed Gopal to accompany Sri Sharma. Sri Sharma took Gopal to his office and directed him to bring two witnesses, in whose presence he would sign the notes. Gopal could bring only one witness namely, Ashok Kumar. In presence of this witness, Ashok Kumar, Sri Sharma signed the currency notes worth Rs. 50/-that is five notes each of ten rupee denomination, given to him by Gopal and a memo of these currency notes was prepared by Sri Sharma. Gopal could bring only one witness namely, Ashok Kumar. In presence of this witness, Ashok Kumar, Sri Sharma signed the currency notes worth Rs. 50/-that is five notes each of ten rupee denomination, given to him by Gopal and a memo of these currency notes was prepared by Sri Sharma. Thereafter, Sri Sharma accompanied by Gopal, Ashok Kumar and two police constables, whom Sri Sharma has taken from police Lines in plain clothes, went by jeep to Chandpur. At Chandpur, Sri Sharma sent Gopal and Ashok Kumar to find out D.K. Agarwal, the Marketing Inspector. D.K. Agarwal, the Appellant, was sitting in his office. Mr. Sharma, Dy. Superintendent of Police waited for him to come out in the market as he wanted to lay the trap in the market. However, the Marketing Inspector did not come to market and the Dy. Superintendent of Police laid the trap in his office at 6.00 p.m. Ashok Kumar, Gopal, police constables and S.I. Yogender Singh of Police Station, Chandpur, accompanied Dy. Superintendent of Police to the office of Marketing Inspector, There, Gopal was sent to D.K. Agarwal to offer the bribe. Sri Sharma and others remained on stairs leading to the office in order to hear and see the incident. Gopal offered the currency notes worth Rs. 50/- to D.K. Agarwal baying that he was paying the said money so that he may be allowed to keep his shop on the Patry of the road on the market days. D.K. Agarwal, accepted the amount and kept it in his pocket and assured Gopal that he would not be challaned, but he will have to pay more money. It is then, that Sri Sharma accompanied by the witnesses, the constables and Sub Inspector reached the seat of the Appellant and introduced himself to the Appellant and searched him and recovered the currency notes worth Rs. 50/- and prepared the recovery memo for the same and sealed the currency notes in an envelope, arrested the Appellant and left to the police station Chandpur, where he lodged the F.I.R (Ext. Ka. 6) and handed over the Appellant to the police and also deposited the recovered currency notes there. 3. The investigation of the case was taken up by P.S. Rautela, the then Circle Officer Nagina. Sri Rautela after necessary investigation obtained the sanction from the Regional Food Controller, Meerut, to prosecute the Appellant. Ka. 6) and handed over the Appellant to the police and also deposited the recovered currency notes there. 3. The investigation of the case was taken up by P.S. Rautela, the then Circle Officer Nagina. Sri Rautela after necessary investigation obtained the sanction from the Regional Food Controller, Meerut, to prosecute the Appellant. Sri P.S. Rautela, the then Circle Officer, Nagina, submitted a charge-sheet u/s 161, IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the apellact. The prosecution examined Raja Ram (PW 1). He was the then Regional Food Controller, Meerut, and gave the sanction for prosecution of the Appellant. Sri N.D. Sharma, Dy. Superintendent of Police (PW 2), who laid the trap, Gopal (PW 3), Ashok Kumar (PW 4) and S.I.K.P. Singh (PW 5) and Sri P.S. Rautela, (PW 6) were examined in support of the prosecution case. 4. The trial judge believed the prosecution story and convicted and sentenced the Appellant as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the order of the trial judge, the Appellant has come in appeal. 5. The judgment of the trial Court is assailed on the ground, firstly that there is no independent witness to support the prosecution case, secondly no phenolpthaline powder was applied to the currency notes so that acceptance of bribe could be detected by chemical process. Thirdly, that the investigation of the case is tainted and fourthly the sanction accorded for the prosecution of the Appellant is defective. As far as the first ground of attack is concerned, the F.I.R. reveals that the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Sri N.D. Sharma asked Gopal to bring some witnesses in whose presence he would sign the currency notes and would give them in the Supurdagi of Gopal. Gopal brought with him one Ashok Kumar. Sri N.D. Sharma, Dy. Superintendent of Police has been examined in the case as PW 2. He has deposed that he instructed Gopal, who came to his office at Bijnor to bring two witnesses to give evidence to the effect that currency notes were given in bribe and also that they were recovered from the Appellant. Gopal could bring only one witness, namely Ashok Kumar PW 3. Gopal has admitted in his cross-examination that Ashok Kumar resided just in front of his house. He has stated: 6. Gopal, PW 3 has not specifically denied that Krishan Kumar, brother of Ashok Kumar PW 4 is not his Mausa. Gopal could bring only one witness, namely Ashok Kumar PW 3. Gopal has admitted in his cross-examination that Ashok Kumar resided just in front of his house. He has stated: 6. Gopal, PW 3 has not specifically denied that Krishan Kumar, brother of Ashok Kumar PW 4 is not his Mausa. He has given evasive reply to his relationship, that Ashok Kumar and that Gopal's brother deposed in a bribery case on behalf of Ashok Kumar and that Ashok Kumar is deposing in this case in return. However, it is apparent that Ashok Kumar came to the office of Dy. Superintendent of Police on the request of Gopal at about 2 p.m. and remained with the trap party for the whole day. 7. The trial Court has observed during the statement of PW 4 Ashok Kumar that the witness admitted with great hesitation that Gopal's real brother is Pramod. He got Shiv Ratan Rana trapped and Pramod Kumar appeared as a witness in that case. 8. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to believe that Ashok Kumar is an independent witness. Thus there remain only the police constables, Sub-Inspector of Police, and the Dy. Superintendent of Police, who laid the trap and Gopal who prayed the authorities to entrap the Appellant. Gopal is clearly an interested witness as he was concerned in the laying of the trap for the Appellant. Ashok Kumar is also an interested witness as discussed aforesaid. Ashok Kumar was not secured as a witness to the trap by the Dy. Superintendent of Police. He was picked up by Gopal. Curiously enough Ashok Kumar allowed himself to be persuaded by Gopal to remain with him and be a witness in the case and thus he devoted practically the whole day after 12'O Clock in the noon and turned back to Chandpur with police party and Gopal without doing his own work for which he had come to Bijnor. Ashok Kumar PW 4 has admitted this in his cross-examination that he had come to Bijnor to enquire from the District Supply Officer about the cement but he did not meet the supply officer and left the work undone for which he had come to Bijnor all the way from Chandpur, It is surprising that the Dy. Superintendent of Police Sri N.D. Sharma did not care to secure independent witnesses to act as witnesses of the raid. Superintendent of Police Sri N.D. Sharma did not care to secure independent witnesses to act as witnesses of the raid. It has often been observed that the officers laying such traps should very carefully choose independent witnesses for the raid because that is the only safe ground for the protection of public servant against whom the trap is to be laid. They must seriously endeavour to secure really independent and respectable witnesses so that the evidence in regard to trap 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. 9. In the present case I cannot rely upon the evidence of Gopal PW 3 and Ashok Kumar PW 4. The rest of the witnesses are police constables and Sub-Inspector. They are working under the thumb of the Dy. Superintendent of Police Sri N.D. Sharma who laid the trap without caring to secure the independent, reliable and respectable witnesses. Another feature of this case is that the currency notes were not treated with phenolphthalein powder so that the handling of such currency notes by the public servant could be detected by chemical process. Although, it is not a legal necessity but when the currency notes are treated with phenolphthalein chemical powder, Court does not have to depend on oral evidence which is some time of a dubious character for the purpose of deciding the fate of public servants. The Courts have been insisting upon the liberal use of scientific research to prove the case. 10. The numbers of some of the currency notes that were signed by the Dy. Superintendent of Police do not tally with the numbers of some of the currency notes that were recovered from the possession of the Appellant. This is obvious from the comparision of supurdaginama (Ext. Ka. 3) and recovery memo of currency notes (Ext. Ka. 5). One of the currency note is Ext. Ka. 3 is 50/UO23845 while Ext. Ka. 5 it is 50/5023895. This further creates doubt in the prosecution case. PW 1 Raja Ram, Regional Food Controller, Meerut has sanctioned the prosecution of the Appellant. He has admitted that the Superintendent of Police has sent along with the letter the proforma of the sanction to be accorded. Ka. 3 is 50/UO23845 while Ext. Ka. 5 it is 50/5023895. This further creates doubt in the prosecution case. PW 1 Raja Ram, Regional Food Controller, Meerut has sanctioned the prosecution of the Appellant. He has admitted that the Superintendent of Police has sent along with the letter the proforma of the sanction to be accorded. He has also deposed that he looked into the case diary and found that the Dy. Superintendent of Police arrested the Appellant when the Appellant accepted bribe at his house and on this it has been argued that the sanctioning authority did not apply his mind to the facts of the case but he granted the sanction in a mechanical manner. However, I feel to point out that the sactioning authorities should deeply apply their mind, to the facts of the case and only then they should accord the sanction for prosecution. Taking into consideration all that has been discussed above, there is considerable force in the contention that the prosecution has not been able to prove the recovery of Rs. 50/- from the possession of the Appellant by reliable, independent and respectable witnesses. 11. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the Appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt and consequently acquittal. 12. The appeal is allowed. The Appellant is given benefit of doubt and acquitted, lie is on bail. He need not surrender, his bail bonds are hereby cancelled. Appeal allowed.