JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the judgment of Special Judge, A.C.D. Cases, Jaipur, dated 7.6.1982 convicting and sentencing this accused-appellant as under:- Under S. 161 IPC One year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof 3 month's R.I. Under S. 5(1)(d)(2) of the P.C. Act. One year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof 3 months' R.I. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this case are that PW. 1 Heeralal (hereinafter referred to as "the decoy"), met Dy. S.P. Anti-corruption Department, Sawaimadhopur on 8-11-78 at 3.00 p.m in his office and orally told him that Laxmi Caind Patwari was demanding bribe of Rs. 80/- from him. Dy. S.P. therefore, asked Heeralal to dictate a detailed report which was taken down it is Ex. P. 1. In this report Heeralal alleged that he had purchased 11/2 bighas of land known as Counia Kuwa Vali in village Naroti for a sum of Rs. 780/- from Phailu and Gheesa sons of Sonia in samvat 2015. He did not get sale deed registered but entered the same in his Bahi. He had taken the possession and since then he was cultivating this land. His name was not entered anywhere in revenue record so he was paying the land revenue first to Phailu and Gheesa who died 6-7 years before and for some time to Gheesa's widow Mst. Chhoti. He said he had never obtained the receipt of the amount. He alleged that while he was cultivating the land last month Mst. Chhoti and her sens Ramjilal and Surgyan objected to his cultivating the land and it is lying half ploughed. He therefore, filed a suit in the court of a Magistrate. He was asked to bring the khasra khatoni of this land khasra No. 421. Therefore, for obtaining the copy of khasra girdawari he approached Laxmi Chand Patwari of Halka Naroti three times in last 5-6 days but he has refused to give the same. When it was demanded on the previous day again, the Patwari told him that he is harassing the widow and he will get him locked. Thereupon he went to the Tehsildar Tehsil Sapotara and reported the matter to him on which Tehsildar wrote an order in writing which he had handed over to the Patwari. The Patwari thereupon told him that he will charge Rs 25/-for each year. Thereupon he went to the Tehsildar Tehsil Sapotara and reported the matter to him on which Tehsildar wrote an order in writing which he had handed over to the Patwari. The Patwari thereupon told him that he will charge Rs 25/-for each year. Thus for four years he will have to pay Rs. 100/-. On a bargaining he agreed to charge only Rs. 80/-. The Patwari demanded the money on the spot on which he stated that he will bring the amount next day and since he did not want to pay the bribe he has come to lodge the report. This report was read over to the decoy and was got signed. The Dy. S.P. Pw. 5, Mohan Singh, thereupon called motbirs, Suganlal, an lower division clerk in the office of A.C.T.O. Sawaimadhopur and Avinash another L.D.C. in the office of Special Auditor, Cooperative Societies, Sawaimadhopur. In their presence formality of taking down the number of currency notes and demonstration about use of pheanothaline powder was completed and memo prepared. Thereafter at 4.00 p.m. the entire trap party consisting of Dy. S.P., the decoy, two motbirs, three constables and a driver started in a Jeep for laying down the trap at the residence of Laxmi Chand Patwari Sapotara. They reached Sapotara at 8.00 p.m. hence it was not thought proper to lay the trap in the night, hence they all stayed in a primary school and deferred the laying of the trap till next morning. At 6.00 a.m. on 9-11-78 the Dy. S.P. and the trap party went towards the house of accused Laxmichand. The witnesses and the Dy. S.P. remained at a distance and the decoy entered the house of the accused. After sometime he came out followed by one more person who looked all the sides and then he went inside. Decoy told the Dy. S.P. that the accused had asked him to come after some time, the decoy against when to the house of the accused at 8.15 a.m. and thereafter he came out and gave the appoint signal on which the Dy S.P. entered the house of Laxmichand and asked h m to produce the bribe money. He denied having taken any bribe on which tee decoy Heeralal told that the money is lying in the leather bag. Handwash of the accused was taken which was found to contain sodium carbonate and phenoptheline. He denied having taken any bribe on which tee decoy Heeralal told that the money is lying in the leather bag. Handwash of the accused was taken which was found to contain sodium carbonate and phenoptheline. After completing the necessary investigation and seizing the application and other documents from the Patwari the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused who was tried by Special Judge for A.C.D. Case, Jaipur. 3. The learned Special Judge A.C.D. case, Jaipur framed the charges against the accused for offence under S. 161 Cr.P.C. and S. 5 (1)(d) read with S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined five witnesses in support of its case. The accused-appellant filed his explanation in writing under S. 313 Cr.P.C. and stated that the decoy was not entitled to get the copies of the revenue record, since there was no document in his name and he was not a party to any proceedings; hence the copies could not have been given to him without the permission of the Tehsildar and hence he directed him to go to the Tehsildar and bring the permission. He at the same time also told the decoy that he is not doing a right thing by harassing the widow of Gheesa else he will get him detained. The decoy thereupon got annoyed, abused him and threatened him with dire consequences. He again came to him after some time but he still refused to give him the copy without the sanction of the Tehsildar. It was on 9-11-78 that the decoy came to his residence, he shock hand with the accused, but before the decoy could any anything his wife called him from inside and asked him as to whether he will take bath by hot water or cold water. Hence he went inside the house and found the accused standing. He told him that he will come back after the accused takes his bath. He returned after some time with Dy. S.P. and got the money recovered from the bag. His case is that it is a case of plantation of money in his bag by Heeralal while he was not inside the room. He has mentioned the names of the certain persons who were present on the spot whom he has examined as defence witnesses also. 5. S.P. and got the money recovered from the bag. His case is that it is a case of plantation of money in his bag by Heeralal while he was not inside the room. He has mentioned the names of the certain persons who were present on the spot whom he has examined as defence witnesses also. 5. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments found the accused-appellant guilty of both the charges, namely, S. 161 IPC and S. 5 (1) (d) read with S. 5 (2) of the P.C. Act and convicted and sentenced him as indicated above. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the accused has preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is one of the rarest of the rate case where from beginning to end the prosecution story is unworthy of reliance and manifestly shows how the decoy was fiverishly trying to avoid the appellant from his way in devouring the property of a widow, namely Chhoti wife of Gheesa deceased. It is submitted that from the prosecution's own story the (illegible) which the decoy had against the accused is borne out. Submission of the learned counsel is that the application which has been filed before the Tehsildar for grant of permission to issue the copies itself corroborates the defence of the accused that he had refused to issue the copies of khasra girdawari to the decoy. Learned counsel submits that the accused maintained it firmly that the decoy was not entitled to obtain the copies and that he was harassing the widow for the purpose of devouring her land. It is submitted that it is not understandable that a person would purchase land after paying full price and would not get the sale deed registered or get any other document prepared for several years. It is than submitted that neither the demand is proved and corroborated nor the acceptance of the bribe is proved. It is submitted that neither the motbirs nor the Dy. S.P. nor any other member of the trap party had seen the decoy passing over the currency notes to the accused. Regarding recovery of currency notes it is submitted that there is neither recovery of tainted money from the possession of the accused nor at his instance. It is submitted that neither the motbirs nor the Dy. S.P. nor any other member of the trap party had seen the decoy passing over the currency notes to the accused. Regarding recovery of currency notes it is submitted that there is neither recovery of tainted money from the possession of the accused nor at his instance. On the contrary it is submitted that it was only the decoy who had the information when he had kept the money and hence it was he who disclosed to the Dy. S.P. that the money had been kept in the leather bag. In all these circumstances, it is submitted that the prosecution case is not worthy of reliance and the accused is entitled to an acquittal. It is submitted that there is no independent witness in the case in as much as both the motbirs are stock witnesses of the prosecution. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the prosecution story and has submitted that the decoy has consistently that the accused was putting the hurdles in his way in obtaining the copies of the revenue documents and this was being done only in order to extract the money. He submitted that half prepared documents had been made available which prove the case of the prosecution that the accused intended to prepare the documents only after acceptance of the bribe. It is also submitted that offence of acceding bribe is serious offence and hence no interference should be done in the order of conviction. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to all the circumstances of the case and have perused the entire record. 9. Before I proceed to discuss the evidence in details suffice it to say that some of the facts are admitted by both the parties which require a mention at this out-set of this judgment. 1. that there was no revenue record available with the Patwari which shows the khatedari of the appellant about khasra No. 421, 2. that Patwari had denied to give him the copies on the ground that he could not issue them unless the Tehsildar would permit the issuance of copies, 3. 1. that there was no revenue record available with the Patwari which shows the khatedari of the appellant about khasra No. 421, 2. that Patwari had denied to give him the copies on the ground that he could not issue them unless the Tehsildar would permit the issuance of copies, 3. that an application E.P.7 was moved before the Tehsildar on 7-11-1978 by the decoy wherein it was mentioned that the Patwari has told him that he can only issue the copies in case there is an order from the Tehsildar and on this application there is an order of the Tehsildar of the same day that the copies may be made available as per rules by entering the same in Ex.P.35, 4. that there is no mention of accused, demanding any money for issuance of copies in this respect, 5. that there was a threat given by the accused to the decoy that in case he would harass the widow he will get him locked up, 6. that there is no corroborating evidence of the demand of bribe, 7. that neither of the two motbirs had either heard what talks took place between the accused and the decoy or accepting the money by the accused from the decoy, 8. that there is no recovery of the currency notes from the possession of the accused, 9. that the accused had stated to the decoy that he was going to take the bath and he had gone inside the house, 10. that the money has been recovered from a leather bag which was lying at a distance of about 4 feet from the place where the accused was sitting, 11. that the money was not accepted by the accused where the decoy visited him at 6 00 a m. and he had to go for the second time, 12. that the information that money is lying inside the bag was given to the Dy. S. P. by the decoy. 10. The aforesaid circumstances collectively read with the evidencial part of the witnesses referred to hereinafter indicate how recklessly the investigation has been conducted in the case. P. W. 1 Heeralal is the decoy himself. In his examination in chief he has stated that he had instituted a case in the court of S.D.M., Naroti against Chhoti, Ramjilal etc. 10. The aforesaid circumstances collectively read with the evidencial part of the witnesses referred to hereinafter indicate how recklessly the investigation has been conducted in the case. P. W. 1 Heeralal is the decoy himself. In his examination in chief he has stated that he had instituted a case in the court of S.D.M., Naroti against Chhoti, Ramjilal etc. for which he wanted the copy of khasra girdawari from samvat year 2034 to 2037 who refused to supply the same. Thereafter he brought an order from the Tehsildar and the accused thereafter demanded from him a bribe of Rs. 100/- which was settled at Rs. 80/-. Since he did not want to give the bribe he contacted the Dy. S.P. Anti-corruption. He thereafter gives the details about calling of the motbirs and demonstration of the phenoptheline powder and issuing instructions. They went to village Sapotara in the night but decided to go to the place of accused in the morning. He found the accused-appellant sitting inside the house and asked him to supply the copies. He stated that he had promised to give on the previous day and then asked as to whether he had brought the money. On the witness's saying yes, he stated that he will first take bath and thereafter will accept the money. Thereupon he went to the market and the accused went to take bath After about 45 minutes or an hour he again went to the residence of the accused, found him sitting on a Takht. He demanded money and the witness paid him Rs. 80/- which consisted of one currency note of Rs. 50/- and three currency notes of Rs. 10/- each. The accused counted the money and mept it in a leather bag. Thereafter he gave the signal to Dy. S.P. who came inside and asked the accused to produce the currency notes. The accused denied to have accepted any bribe on which the witness said to the Dy S.P. that the money is lying in the bag. Thereafter the bag was got searched and signed notes were recovered therefrom. Necessary formalities thereafter were done by the Dy. S.P. 11. In cross examination this witness had admitted that registration of the land had not been done in his favour and that he does not possess any revenue receipt showing the payment of land revenue. Thereafter the bag was got searched and signed notes were recovered therefrom. Necessary formalities thereafter were done by the Dy. S.P. 11. In cross examination this witness had admitted that registration of the land had not been done in his favour and that he does not possess any revenue receipt showing the payment of land revenue. He states that the only evidence with him about the sale of land is contained in entry in his Bahi which is Ex. P. 10. He stated that he has no evidence to show that he has cultivated the land except as aforesaid. He does not remember as to when he met the accused for the first time when he had demanded money He however, states that he had moved an application to the Tehsildar earlier of the demand of bribe by the accused. He has then stated that he had not contacted the accused prior to his moving the application to Tehsildar. The witness has been confronted about his meeting with the Tehsildar and he has given evassive answers to the questions. He however, admits that accused had told him that he is harassing a widow for which he would get him held-up and this has annoyed him. He has been confronted with Ex. P. 1, the F.I.R., regarding his meeting with the Tehsildar to which he stated that he could not remember, hence that aspect was not got rid. He admitted having given statement Ex. D. 1 to the police under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. but states that he does not remember that he has stated the facts mentioned before and after a portion A to B which is to the same effect. He has denied the suggestion of shaking hands with the accused. He however, admits that he had rot paid the money till the accused had gone for a bath. He had however told him that he is going fora cup of tea. He states that the accused had gone for taking bath on a well. Then he resiles from the statement. He could not explain the statement Ex. D. 1 in his receipt. He has admitted that accused was sitting on the Takht while the leather bag was lying on a bench in which the accused placed the money. He states that the accused had gone for taking bath on a well. Then he resiles from the statement. He could not explain the statement Ex. D. 1 in his receipt. He has admitted that accused was sitting on the Takht while the leather bag was lying on a bench in which the accused placed the money. He has however denied the suggestion that he had planted the money in the bag when the accused went for a bath. He states that both the motbirs were near the gate when he had gone for giving signal He admits that the accused had stated that he has not accepted any bribe on which he had stated that the money has been kept in the bag. He however, admits that certain persons which included Chiranjilal and Govind were there from before. He however, denies the presence of Jagdish son of Ramjilal. 12. On the perusal of the statement of the witness it is clearly borne out that he has tried to improve the entire story and is inconsistent in his stand It is also clearly borne out that he was greatly annoyed with the accused who had threatened him of arrest because of the fact that he was harassing the widow meaning thereby his rival party. It is further borne out chat he had no record to show his possession except the Bahi Ex. P. 10 the contents of which had not been proved at all in this court. Neither the scribe nor the witnesses have been examined to verify the contents of this Bahi to show the prima facie case that the petitioner had a genuine case for which he wanted copies of the revenue record to be filed before the S. D. M It is also borne out from the statement that the accused had told him that he should first obtain the permission of the Tehsildar and then alone the copies would be given and that there was no demand of bribe initially for supply of the copies. It was only post-threat posed to the witnesses that the demand was made. It was only post-threat posed to the witnesses that the demand was made. It is further borne out from the statement that he had gone only for half an hour or 45 minutes after his earlier leaving the house of the accused, when he had gone to take bath, which fact is contradicted by the documentary evidence which suggests that for the second time accused had gone after 21/4 hours. In fact the statement of this witness gives counter to the material part of Ex. P. 1, P. 7 and D. 1. Yet another important aspect is that front his statement it is borne out that the accused was sitting on a Takht while the bag was lying on a bench and there was a distance of 4 feet between the two and despite the fact that money was placed in that bag it remained lying at the same distance. The statement of this witness otherwise also requires independent corroboration except on the fact that money was recovered from the leather bag lying at a distance of 4 feet. There is no corroboration on any other point coming from the statements PW. 2 Suganlal and PW. 3 Avinash Vyas. These two motbirs have neither heard what talks took place between the decoy and the accused nor had seen the currency notes passing. According to them it was not only decoy who came out of the house of Laxmichand accused at 6.00 a.m. but the accused had also come out of the house and saw on all the sides. This part is not stated by the decoy. Both these motbirs have stated that second time when they had gone it was between 8.00 and 8.30 am which is again contradictory from the statement of the decoy. Both these witnesses have admitted that the accused had denied the acceptance of the bribe and information leading to the discovery of the currency notes was given by the decoy himself. There is yet another important feature that both these motbirs who had been called to hear the conversation and witness the passing of the notes had been the witnesses of the prosecution in earlier trap cases also. Thus, these witnesses are proved from their own statements, to be the stock witnesses of the prosecution and, therefore, ex facie their statements cannot be accepted. Thus, these witnesses are proved from their own statements, to be the stock witnesses of the prosecution and, therefore, ex facie their statements cannot be accepted. In fact it reflects upon the conduct of the investigating officer that he had not called for independent witnesses. Assuming for a moment that whatever they had slated is a truth yet prosecution's case is not advanced by their statements because except the fact that sodium carbonate water learned pink on a hand wash of the accused there is no other statement which implicates the accused in the crime. In trap cases it is essential that prosecution must keep the witnesses of the sterling worth and place them at such position wherefrom they can hear the conversation between the decoy and the accused and see the passing over of the notes. But in the instant case, as already stated above, both the witnesses have neither heard nor seen the transaction. Thus their statements are of no avail to the prosecution. 13. Coming to the statement of the investigating officer lesser said the better. In a small village like Sapotara. This witness takes the trap party with the decoy to the village on the previous night of the trap but does not attempt to lay the trap on that day for the reasons best known and on the contrary stayed in a primary school overnight. In the morning though appointed place was Dak Bungalow but he sent the decoy to the residence of the accused where money is not accepted initially and the decoy was called for the second time became accused would not accept the bribe without taking bath. This ground for deference of the acceptance of the bribe is a curious one. If the accused want to accept the money only what prevented him to accept at 6.00 a.m. and the explanation that he will accept after taking bath, does not inspire confidence. It was not a sacred money which was being given as an offering to the accused which was to be accepted only after bath. But it appears that since the decoy did not get an opportunity of planting the money he silently walked out and looked after an opportunity when the accused goes out of the room so that his plan may succeed. But it appears that since the decoy did not get an opportunity of planting the money he silently walked out and looked after an opportunity when the accused goes out of the room so that his plan may succeed. The investigating officer has admitted that he has not written the fact of the accused preparing documents in Ex P. 4 the memo which he had preparing. He also could not give a valid explanation for not calling independent witnesses. He has on the contrary admitted that both the witnesses had been the witnesses in earlier trap cases on more than one or two occasions. This conduct of the investigating officer of keeping the witnesses who were already witnesses in the earlier trap cases, is not appreciable. On the contrary this has also to be condemned. This is the total evidence on record. If this whole evidence is accepted even then, in my opinion, it is not possible to connect the accused with the crime, particularly because there was already a threat given to the decoy by the accused for harassing the rival party. In fact the decoy had a legitimate gruz against the accused and wanted to remove him from his way as he could be an obstacle in proving his case against Chhoti and others. He had sufficient opportunity of planting the money which had been recovered at his instance from a bag which was at a distance of 4 feet from the accused at the relevant time and continued to be there till recovered, are all circumstances against the prosecution. 14. For the reasons mentioned above, coupled with admitted position of the case between the prosecution and the accused summarised above, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all manners of reasonable doubt. 15. The result is that this appeal is allowed. The judgment of the trial court dated 7.6.82 is set aside. The conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges. He is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds which shall stand discharged.Appeal allowed. *******