B. L. YADAV, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 16-5-87 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mathura, under section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974, (for short the Code), disposing of bail applications Nos. 386/87 and 429/87 on behalf of the applicants, who were sought to be prosecuted for the offence under section 302/307/435 I. P. C. The bail application were allowed and the applicants were directed to be released on bail on their executing personal bonds for a sum of Rs. 5000/- and furnishing two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned, and further there was a condition imposed 114th amount by each of the sureties or each of the applicants was to be deposited in cash so that the applicants may be bound down at the police station not to commit breach of peace. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant urged that under the Code, except under section 445, which was in the alternative, there was no other provision that any amount either of the personal bond or of the surety may be deposited in cash, hence the order passed by the Sessions Judge was arbitrary and against the provisions of the Code. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, urged that the impugned order was correct. The learned counsel for the parties requested that Revision may be decided on merits, it is accordingly being disposed of on merits. ( 3 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point for determination is as to whether the cash amount could be directed to be deposited by the Sessions Judge, when in fact, there was no apprehension of misusing the bail bonds or that the applicants would tamper with the prosecution witnesses. For this purpose, Sections 437/440/441, 441,443, 444 and 445 of the Code have to be read together. Under section 437 conditions have been provided under which bail can be granted in a non-bailable offence. But nothing has been stated about the sureties or execution of personal bonds. Section 440 enacts that the court shall fix the amount of bond having due regard to the circumstances of each case and such amount shall not be excessive. Section 441 provides that the personal bond shall be executed and one or more sufficient sureties shall be furnished. But nothing has been stated about the sureties or execution of personal bonds. Section 440 enacts that the court shall fix the amount of bond having due regard to the circumstances of each case and such amount shall not be excessive. Section 441 provides that the personal bond shall be executed and one or more sufficient sureties shall be furnished. The duty of sureties has been pointed out, that the person accused shall attend the court at any time and place mentioned either in the bond or as directed from time to time either by the police officer or by the court. Every condition so imposed shall be contained in the bail bond. Section 442 provides that a person, in whose favour the said bond has been executed or sureties have been furnished, shall be released from jail with the direction of the Court. Section 443 cm. powers the court to enhance the amount of sureties in case by some mistake or fraud insufficient sureties have been accepted or subsequently, the sureties appeared to be insufficient. Section 444 of the Code provides that at any time the sureties may make an application that they may be discharged and on that application the Magistrate shall direct the warrant of arrest and the person released on bail may be brought before him and he would direct him to furnish sufficient fresh sureties and in case he fails to do so, he shall be committed to jail. Under the aforesaid provisions there was no indication that any cash amount could be directed to be deposited. ( 4 ) SO far as section 445 of the Code is concerned, it is better to set out the statutory provisions as follows: Deposit instead of recognizance: -When any person is required by any court or officer to execute a bond with or without sureties, such court or officer may, except in the case of a bond for good behaviour, permit him to deposit a sum of money or Government promissory notes to such amount as the Court or officer may fix int lieu of executing such bond. ( 5 ) A bare reading of the aforesaid section along with other sections would indicate that the provisions of Section 445, is in the alternative, meaning thereby that if after executing personal bond and furnishing sufficient sureties, in case there appears to be some difficulties, except in the cases of bond for good behaviour, the accused may be permitted to deposit the sum of money as the court may direct. This section appears to be with a view to enable the accused to deposit cash under the circumstances where the sureties may not be available as he might have been arrested in a place or in a district where he has got no acquaintance. Hence it is not in respect of those cases where the bond has been executed or sureties have been furnished, rather it is an exceptional case to be taken in alternative system of granting bail. In Gokul Das v. State of Assam,1 it as observed as follows Cash deposit in lieu of execution of a bond by the accused is an alternative system of granting bail and is not less efficacious than granting bail of certain amount with or without surety or sureties of the like amount. ( 6 ) IN Akhtar v. State,2 it was held that in the Code of Criminal Procedure there was no provision directing that any cash amount may be deposited by any surety or any cash amount may be directed to be deposited by the accused in lieu of personal bond, except section 445 which provides deposit of some of money by the accused in lieu of executing such bond, there is no other provision requiring deposit of money either in lieu of execution of bond or in lieu of furnishing sureties. Section 445 is, in fact, in the alternative system of granting bail dealing with those exceptional cases where the accused might be having no acquaintances in the area or in the district where he has been taken into custody. Section 445 is, in fact, in the alternative system of granting bail dealing with those exceptional cases where the accused might be having no acquaintances in the area or in the district where he has been taken into custody. ( 7 ) IN view of the discussions made hereinbefore, the present revision succeeds and is allowed, the portion of order dealing with the deposit of 114th amount by each of the sureties in cash or the said amount to be deposited by the applicants, the accused, in cash deserves to be quashed and as a consequence the said portion dealing with direction for deposit of cash amount either by the sureties or by the applicants accused is hereby quashed. It is, who ever, made clear that the applicant would be enlarged on bail on each of them executing personal bond of Rs. 5000/- and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Math u ra. ( 8 ) A copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the applicant today on payment of usual charges. Revision allowed. By G. D. Panda, Advocate and Secretary, Lawyers Association, Parlakhemundi, (Orissa) The provisions contained in section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act 2 of 1947) affording protection to persons making statements in any proceeding against a public servant for an offence under section 161 or section 165 of the Indian Penal Code or under Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3a) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 were inserted into the Act 2 of 1947 by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 and the Anti-Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act, 1964 respectively. Prior to insertion of the aforesaid amendment into the statute book the Indian Penal Code stood already amended by insertion of section 165-A by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. This amendment was made with the avowed object of eradication of the social evil of corruption by treating both the offer and acceptance of bribe as offences inasmuch as acceptance of illegal gratification primarily stems from the offer so illegally made. The introduction of section 8 into the Prevention of Corruption Act has brought about a stark discrimination by the State to exclude the bribe-giver from Penal Code and sub-section (2) as also sub-section 3 (A) of section 5 of Act 2 of 1947. The introduction of section 8 into the Prevention of Corruption Act has brought about a stark discrimination by the State to exclude the bribe-giver from Penal Code and sub-section (2) as also sub-section 3 (A) of section 5 of Act 2 of 1947. While the bribe-giver gets complete immunity and goes scot-free for his illegal act, the receiver of the illegal gratification remains unequally castigated although his act is nothing but the source and cause of the act of the bribe giver. Such hostile discrimination clearly militates against the principles of equality before the law or equal protection of the laws as enjoined under Article 14 of the Constitution. The obvious inequality has arisen in the same legislation of the Act 2 of 1947 by the insertion of section 6 as per the amending Acts 2 of 1958 and 40 of 1964 alluded to supra, and calls for the removal of the inequality so caused. And in the broader perspective of ensuring equality before law the sooner section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is repealed or struck down better it is to vouch-safe social justice. .