J. K. MOHANTY, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant, Narayan Chandra Sahu, was an Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Assistant Civil Supplies Officer, Bhadrak, and was in charge of issuing cement permits. Complainant Pitambar Nayak (P. W. 1) applied to the S. D. O. , Bhadrak, for allotment of thirty bags of cement for repair of the temple of Mantrabasini Thakurani at Dhamnagar, but was allotted seven bags of cement. On 11. 7. 1979 he again applied for allotment of twenty-three bags of cement. On 26. 7. 1979 the S. D. O. , Bhadrak, passed orders for issue of fifteen bags of cement in favour of P. W. 1. P. W. 1 then approached the appellant for issue of permit for fifteen bags of cement allotted to him. The appellant, instead of giving him the permit, made him run a number of times on one plea or the other and at last said that permit would not be issued unless Rs. 30/- was paid (@ Rs. 2/- per bag ). The appellant asked P. W. 1 to come on 5. 9. 79 with the money for taking the permit for fifteen bags of cement. P. W. 1 could not arrange the money on 5. 9. 79. On 6. 9. 79, which was a Government holiday, he came to Bhadrak with the money. Accidentally he met the appellant who asked him to come on 7. 9. 79 with the money. The complainant came to know that the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Balasore (P. W. 2), was camping at Bhadrak. So he approached P. W. 2 and submitted a complaint petition (Ext. 1 ). A trap was laid on 7. 9. 79. P. W. 1 produced Rs. 30/- in currency notes (one twenty-rupee note and one ten-rupee note) (M. Os. I and II) before the trap party which he proposed to give to the appellant as bribe. M. Os. I and II were treated with phenolphthalein powder. The processed notes were kept in a cover and handed over to P. W. 1 which he kept in his pocket for payment to the appellant as illegal gratification on demand. P. W. 6, a Sub-Assistant Engineer, was instructed to accompany the complainant to see the transaction and give signal by rubbing his head with his hand after the appellant received the illegal gratification. A report (Ext. P. W. 6, a Sub-Assistant Engineer, was instructed to accompany the complainant to see the transaction and give signal by rubbing his head with his hand after the appellant received the illegal gratification. A report (Ext. 4) was prepared and the numbers of the currency notes were recorded. A copy of Ext. 4 was supplied to the Magistrate (P. W. 3) who was to accompany the trap party. Thereafter the trap party went towards the office of the Assistant Civil Supplies Officer. P. W. 1 went to the appellant who inquired as to whether he had brought the money and the complainant answered in the affirmative by nodding his head. On demand made by the appellant, P. W. 1 handed over M. Os. I and II to him and the appellant kept the same in the lower left side pocket of his shirt. This was at about 2. 15 p. m. On receiving signal from P. W. 6, the investigating officer (P. W. 7) and the other members of the trap party rushed to the spot. P. W. 7 after disclosing his identity and the identity of the other members of the party challenged the appellant that he had received Rs. 30/- as illegal gratification from P. W. 1 for issuing the permit for fifteen bags of cement. The appellant was found shivering at that time. The investigating officer caught hold of the hands of the appellant. His hands were washed with Sodium Carbonate solution which turned pink. The coloured solution was preserved in a sealed bottle (M. O. V ). The appellant was asked to produce the money which he had received from the complainant and the appellant produced Rs. 30/- from his left side lower pocket. He also produced Rs. 438/- from his chest pocket. The numbers of the notes produced by the appellant from his left side lower pocket were noted. The numbers were compared with those mentioned in the preparation report (Ext. 4) and the numbers exactly tallied. The left side lower shirt pocket of the appellant was washed in Sodium Carbonate solution which turned faintly pink and the same was preserved in a sealed bottle (M. O. VIII ). Seizure lists (Exts. 7, 8 and 13) were prepared. Copies of the seizure lists were supplied to the appellant and his personal cash of Rs. 438/- was returned to him. Seizure lists (Exts. 7, 8 and 13) were prepared. Copies of the seizure lists were supplied to the appellant and his personal cash of Rs. 438/- was returned to him. On completion of investigation and after complying with all formalities, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant for having committed offences under section 161 I. P. C. and under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. ( 2 ) THE plea of the appellant was that he had received Rs. 30/- from P. W. 1 which was meant for payment to Krushna Chandra Bank (D. W. 1), a Peon of the A. C. S. D. s office, to whom P. W. lowed the money. The further plea of the appellant was that about a month before the date of occurrence he had a quarrel with P. W. 1 and in course of the quarrel, P. W. 1 had threatened to teach him a lesson. ( 3 ) PROSECUTION examined seven witnesses in support of the case. P. W. 1 is the complainant. He has stated that he applied for a permit for thirty bags of cement for repair of a temple of Mantrabasini Thakurani. He received a permit for seven bags of cement. As that was insufficient, he again applied for permit for twenty-three bags of cement. On his application the S. D. O. , Bhadrak, passed orders for allotment of fifteen bags of cement. He came to the A. C. 5. o T office. The appellant was the clerk in-charge to issue the cement permit. He met the A. C. S. O. who directed him to receive the permit from the appellant. So he met the appellant but the latter avoided to issue the permit on some plea or the other and made him run several times. At last the appellant told that permit would be issued if he was paid Rs. 2/- per bag for himself and for the A. C. S. O. and demanded Rs. 30/- from P. W. 1. The appellant asked P. W. 1 to come with the money on 5. 9. 79. On that day P. W. 1 could not come from his village. When he came on 6. 9. 2/- per bag for himself and for the A. C. S. O. and demanded Rs. 30/- from P. W. 1. The appellant asked P. W. 1 to come with the money on 5. 9. 79. On that day P. W. 1 could not come from his village. When he came on 6. 9. 79, the office was closed; so he was returning to his village when he met the appellant near the bus-stand who asked him to come with the money on the next day. On that day (6. 9. 79) P. W. 1 came to know that the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Balasore (P. W. 2), was camping at Bhadrak. So he went to the vigilance office and filed his complaint for taking action. He was directed by P. W. 2 to come on 7. 9. 79 with the money. Accordingly he came to the vigilance office on 7. 9. 79 where the Magistrate (P. W. 3), the Junior Engineer (P. W. 6) and two Vigilance Inspectors (P. Ws. 4 and 7) were there. He was asked to narrate his grievance and he narrated as to how the accused had demanded Rs. 30/- to issue the cement permit. He produced one twenty-rupee currency note (M. O. I) and one ten rupee currency note (M. O. II ). The notes were processed with chemical powder and returned to him and he kept the same in his chest pocket for payment to the appellant on the latter's demand. A report was prepared and all of them proceeded towards the A. C. S. O. s office at about 2. 00 p. m. In the A. C. S. O. s office, when P. W. 1 went to the appellant, the appellant asked him whether he had brought the money and he answered in the affirmative. The appellant then stretched his left hand and he gave him the two currency notes. The appellant took the currency notes and kept those in his lower left side shirt pocket. The raiding party on receiving the signal from P. W. 6 came there. The left hand of the appellant was washed with a solution which turned pink and the same was preserved in one sealed bottle. The appellant was then asked to produce the currency notes which he had received from P. W. 1. He brought out the notes from his pocket. The left hand of the appellant was washed with a solution which turned pink and the same was preserved in one sealed bottle. The appellant was then asked to produce the currency notes which he had received from P. W. 1. He brought out the notes from his pocket. The numbers of the currency notes exactly tallied with those mentioned in the report. The left side pocket of the appellant was also washed with the solution which turned pink. The shirt of the appellant and the currency notes were seized by the Vigilance Inspector. P. W. 1 identified the currency notes (M. Os. I and II) and the shirt of the appellant (M. O. III) in court. P. W. 2 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Balasore, who received the written complaint (Ext. 1) on 6. 9. 79 from P. W. 1. He submitted the same to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Cuttack, for registration of a case. The S. P. directed the Officer-in-Charge of Cuttack Vigilance Police-Station to register a case. He also directed the Inspector of Vigilance (P. W. 7) to investigate into the case. On the instruction of P. W. 2, the services of a Magistrate and two disinterested Government officials were requisitioned. The complainant narrated as to how the appellant had demanded Rs. 30/- as illegal gratification for issuing a permit for fifteen bags of cement and produced Rs. 30/- consisting of one twenty-rupee note and one ten rupee note. This witness has fully corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1 regarding the seizure of the notes from the appellant. He has further stated that when the appellant was asked to produce the money, he first trembled and then produced the money from the pocket of his shirt. Before he produced the currency notes, his hands were washed in Sodium Carbonate solution which turned pink. The numbers of the notes tallied with those mentioned in the report. Detection report and seizure lists were prepared. On the suggestion made by the defence, he stated that the appellant had never stated before him that P. W. 1 had paid him Rs. 30/- for paying the same to D. W. 1. P. W. 3 is the Additional Tahasildar and Executive Magistrate. He accompanied the trap party. He has fully corroborated the statement of P. Ws. 1 and 2. He has stated about the seizure of the currency notes. 30/- for paying the same to D. W. 1. P. W. 3 is the Additional Tahasildar and Executive Magistrate. He accompanied the trap party. He has fully corroborated the statement of P. Ws. 1 and 2. He has stated about the seizure of the currency notes. However, he has stated that the appellant kept mum when asked about acceptance of bribe of Rs. 30/ -. He has further stated that the hand of the appellant was washed in Sodium Carbonate solution which turned pink. In cross- examination he has stated that when the appellant was challenged by the investigating officer that he had accepted bribe from P. W. 1, the appellant first trembled and then said that he had received money from P. W. 1. P. W. 4 is the Inspector of Vigilance. He has corroborated P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3. P. W. 5 is a Clerk in the Civil Supplies Office. He has stated about the recovery of the currency notes from the appellant. He has also stated that the numbers of the notes tallied with those mentioned in Ext. 4. He has also stated about the seizure of the permit books (Exts. 15 and 16) maintained in the A. C. S. O. s office. In cross-examination he has stated that P. W. 1 asked the appellant about Krushna Bank and gave him Rs. 30/- with a request to hand over the money to Krushna Bank. This witness was cross-examined by the prosecution. He was confronted with his previous statement made to the police and he stated that he might not have stated before the 1. 0. that when the appellant said that Krushna Bank had not returned, Pitambar Nayak (P. W. 1) gave him Rs. 30/- with a request to hand over the money to Krushna Bank towards the payment of his dues. P. W. 6 is the Sub-Assistant Engineer who accompanied the complainant to the office of the A. C. S. O. He has stated that he has seen the appellant receiving the processed notes from the complainant and putting those in the lower left side pocket of his shirt. At that time he gave signal to the other members of the trap party by rubbing his head with the right hand. The trap party rushed into the room. He has fully corroborated the statement of P. Ws. At that time he gave signal to the other members of the trap party by rubbing his head with the right hand. The trap party rushed into the room. He has fully corroborated the statement of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 regarding the seizure of the currency notes from the appellant and other details. He has, however, stated that Pitambar Nayak (P. W. 1) told something to the appellant which he could not hear due to the rush at the entrance door. In cross-examination he has stated that about one month before 7. 9. 79 the appellant had some altercations with P. W. 1 near the teashop just close to the A. C. S. O. s office premises. P. W. 7 is the investigating officer. ( 4 ) THE defence has examined Krushna Chandra Bacik, a Peon of the A. C. S. O. s office, as D. W. 1 to prove the defence version that he had asked the complainant to pay back the money (Rs. 30/-) to any of the clerks of the supply office in case he was absent. ( 5 ) THE learned Judge, after considering the evidence on record, held the appellant guilty under section 161 I. P. C. and under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months more, on each count; the substantive sentences to run concurrently. ( 6 ) MR. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, argued that P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are interested witnesses as they were the members of the trap party. So their evidence should not be accepted without independent corroboration. There is no evidence at all except that of P. W. 1 that the appellant demanded money from the complainant. P. W. 6 has not supported the prosecution case regarding the demand made by the appellant. P. W. 5 has supported the defence version that the money was handed over to the appellant by P W. 1 for payment to D. W. 1 which has been fully corroborated by D. W. 1. Even though he was permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution, his evidence can be utilised by the defence. P. W. 5 has supported the defence version that the money was handed over to the appellant by P W. 1 for payment to D. W. 1 which has been fully corroborated by D. W. 1. Even though he was permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution, his evidence can be utilised by the defence. On the aforesaid grounds, the learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charges to the appellant. In support of his contentions he relied on decisions reported in Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab,1 Pandurang Laxman Parab v. State of Bombay,2 Ram Prakash Arora v. The State of Punjab3 and Darshan Lal v. The Delhi Administration. 4 In A. I. R. 1976 S. C. 91 (supra) it has been held: - The Officers functioning in the anticorruption department must seriously endeavour to secure really independent and respectable witnesses so that the evidence in regard to 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 this safeguard for the protection of public servants against whom a trap may have been laid. In A. I. R. 1959 Bombay 30 (supra) it has been held: In a bribery case under Section 161, Penal Code, started against the accused as a result of trap set up against him at the instance of the complainant, the complainant himself is a partisan witness and it is not safe to rely upon his uncorroborated evidence. In A. I. R. 1973 S. C. 498 (supra) it has been held: - Evidence of interested and partisan witnesses who are concerned in the success of the trap must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the Court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused persons. In A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 218 (supra) it has been held: - There should be independent and trustworthy corroboration of evidence of trap witnesses. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P. W. 1 as well as that of the other members of the trap party. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P. W. 1 as well as that of the other members of the trap party. The Court can act on the uncorroborated testimony of the trap witnesses if the Court is satisfied from the facts and circumstances of the case that they are witnesses of trust. Reliance can be placed on a statement made to the police officer in course of investigation relating to the conduct of an accused person. In support of his contentions he cited a decision reported in Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admn.)5 wherein it has been held: - Where the circumstances justify it, a court may refuse to act upon the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness. On the other hand, a Court may well be justified in acting upon the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness if the Court is satisfied from the facts and circumstances of the case that the witness is a witness of trust. What is excluded by Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code is the statement made to a Police Officer in the course of investigation and not the evidence relating to the conduct of an accused person (not amounting to a statement) when confronted or questioned by a Police Officer during the course of an investigation. He also cited a decision reported in Hazari Lal v. The State (Delhi Admn.)6 wherein it has been held: - Where the evidence of the Police Officer who laid the trap is found entirely trustworthy, there is no need to seek any corroboration. There is no rule of prudence, which has crystallized into a rule of law, nor indeed any rule of prudence, which requires that the evidence of such officers should be treated on the same footing as evidence of accomplices and there should be insistence on corroboration. In the facts and circumstances of a particular case a Court may be disinclined to act upon the evidence of such an officer without corroboration, but, equally, in the facts and circumstances of another case the Court may unhesitatingly accept the evidence of such an Officer. It is all a matter of appreciation of evidence and on such matters there can be no hard and fast rule, nor can there be any presidential guidance. It is all a matter of appreciation of evidence and on such matters there can be no hard and fast rule, nor can there be any presidential guidance. Learned Additional Government Advocate also relied on the decision reported in State of Gujarat v. Raghunath Vamanrao Baxi,7 wherein it has been held: - In appreciating oral evidence in criminal cases (the instant case being one under Section 5 (l) (a) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Section 161, Penal Code), the question in each case is whether the witness is a truthful witness and whether there is anything to doubt his veracity in any particular matter about which he deposes. Where the witness is found to be un-trustful on material facts that is an end of the matter. Where the witness is found to be partly truthful or to spring from tainted sources, the court may take the precaution of seeking some corroboration, adequate and reasonable to meet the demands of the situation, but a court is not entitled to reject the evidence of a witness merely because they are government servants, who, in the course of their duties or even otherwise, might have come into contact with investigating officers and who might have been requested to assist the investigating agencies. For that matter it would be wrong to reject the evidence of police officers either on the mere ground that they are interested in the success of the prosecution. It is extremely unfair to a witness to reject his evidence by merely giving him a label. ( 8 ) NO doubt, in this case P. W. 1 is the only witness to speak about the demand of money made by the accused. P. W. 6, who accompanied the complainant has not stated about the demand made by the accused, but has stated that the accused stretched his hand, received the money and kept the same in his pocket. The Magistrate (P. W. 3) has stated that the accused trembled when he was challenged by the investigating officer that he had taken bribe from P. W. 1. The accused has also not disputed the receipt of the currency notes (M. Os. The Magistrate (P. W. 3) has stated that the accused trembled when he was challenged by the investigating officer that he had taken bribe from P. W. 1. The accused has also not disputed the receipt of the currency notes (M. Os. I and II) from the complainant and the recovery of the same from him nor has he disputed that he was in charge of issuing cement permits, but has given an explanation that the money was handed over to him for payment to D. W. 1 who was not present at the time of receiving the money. When the accused has admitted to have received the money, the onus is on him to prove the plea taken by him. Undoubtedly, the prosecution must prove that the accused has made the demand and received the money as illegal gratification. In this case, P. W. 1 is the only witness to speak about the demand for payment of Rs. 30/- made by the accused as bribe to issue the permit. He has been substantially corroborated by other witnesses who are the members of the trap party. On a conspectus of the decisions cited by both sides it is clear that in the facts and circumstances of a particular case a court may be disinclined to act upon the evidence of trap police witnesses without corroboration. It is a matter of appreciation of evidence and on such matter there can be no hard and fast rule nor can there be any presidential guidance. A court may act upon the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness if the court is satisfied from the facts and circumstances of the case that the witness is a witness of trust. The evidence of interested and partisan witnesses who are concerned in the success of the trap must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused. ( 9 ) THE present case was started against the accused-appellant as a result of the trap set up against him at the instance of the complainant (P. W. 1 ). P. W. 1, therefore, can be said to be a partisan witness. But his evidence cannot be thrown out on that ground alone. ( 9 ) THE present case was started against the accused-appellant as a result of the trap set up against him at the instance of the complainant (P. W. 1 ). P. W. 1, therefore, can be said to be a partisan witness. But his evidence cannot be thrown out on that ground alone. On a consideration of the evidence of P. W. 1 it cannot be said that his testimony is not trustworthy. However, it is proper to take the precaution of seeking some corroboration from the other witnesses. Such corroboration is found from the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 and also from the conduct of the accused as already mentioned above. The plea taken by the accused that the money was received on behalf of D. W. 1 cannot be accepted. D. W. 1 has stated that he had told P. W. 1 to hand over the money to any of the Clerks in his absence. He has not specifically stated that he had asked P. W. 1 to give the money to the accused. In this background, the evidence of P. W. 5, though it supports the case of the defence, cannot be relied upon, specially on the face of the overwhelming evidence of the Magistrate (P. W. 3) and other officers of the trap party. ( 10 ) ON a consideration of the evidence on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to hold that the prosecution has established the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. So the order of conviction passed against the appellant cannot be set aside. However, the occurrence took place in the year 1978 and in the mean time more than seven years have elapsed. The amount received by the appellant is very small. In such circumstances, it is not desirable to send the appellant to jail once again. I am of the opinion that the period of imprisonment already undergone along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, will meet the ends of justice. ( 11 ) IN the result, therefore, the conviction of the appellant is maintained, but the sentence is modified as indicated above. Subject to the aforesaid modification in sentence this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .