JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment, dated 5.5.1981 of Special Judge for A.C.D. Cases, Jaipur challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge. The learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence under Section 161 IPC and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo on each of the count one year and six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. However, he directed the substantive sentences to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case started with filing of written report by Ram Sahai son of Chander, resident of village Kunjela before Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-corruption Department, Sawaimadhopur in the latters office at Sawaimadhopur. He was accompanied with the scribe of the report, Srinarain Meena. In this report Ex.P. I it was alleged that the applicant Ram Sahai is an agriculturist who has five bighas of agricultural land in his cultivatory possession bearing khasra No. 501 in village Kunjela. This land was alleged to have been regularised by the then Tehsildar in the year 1972. Alongwith him land had also been allotted to his brother Ram Swaroop Meena. It was alleged that opposite party filed a case about applicants land in the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. The applicant is cultivating the land and at the relevant time also there was standing crop of gram. He also mentioned that he has been continuously paying the land revenue for this land but he learnt that Patwari Ram Swaroop has done the girdawari of this land in the name of opposite party. When he learnt about it he went to Shri Ram Swaroop Patwari and asked him that it should have been in his name, why it has been done in the name of other party. Patvari thereupon told him that if he would pay him Rs. 200/- as bribe he will change in his name. Thereupon the applicant told the Patvari that he will give him Rs. 200/- but he will have to put his brother Ram Swaroop also in possession of the land allotted to him. The Patvari had agreed to this preposition but it was alleged by the complainant that he does not want to give bribe to the Patvari, hence he has come to make this complaint. 200/- but he will have to put his brother Ram Swaroop also in possession of the land allotted to him. The Patvari had agreed to this preposition but it was alleged by the complainant that he does not want to give bribe to the Patvari, hence he has come to make this complaint. This report was received by the Dy. S.P. of which he asked the complainant to tell him the date and place for acceptance of the bribe to which Ram Sahai stated that it has not been settled, hence the Dy. S.P. thought it proper to go to Gangapur, since the Patvari Ram Swaroop was resident of Gangapur and was likely to be available at that place according to Ram Sahai. They left Sawaimadhopur at 2.30 p.m. along with other police constables in a Jeep, but this Jeep went out of order near Lalsot and they could not reach Gangapur till 8.00 p.m , hence it was decided to postpone the trap for next day. Next morning, i.e., 5.4.1977. the prosecution case is that applicant Ram Sahai had gone and contracted the Patvari at his residence who stated that he will go by Bus to village Nadoti at 11.00 A.M. and will accept the sum of Rs. 200/-in Nadoti. Ram Sahai handed over three currency notes of Rs. 50/- each, two currency notes of Rs. 20/- each and one currency note of Rs. 10/- which he had brought for handing over to the Patvari. Hari Kishan resident of Kuhariya and Shiv Dayal resident of Harsola were called as motbirs in whose presence the Dy. S.P. put his initials on these currency notes. They were thereafter smeared with phinoptheline powder. Demoscration for the use of which was also given to the motbirs Ram Sahai and Hari Kishan were directed to go to Nadoti by Bus and another motbir and the police party started by Jeep at 10.30 a.m. At 12.10 p.m. the Dy S.P. with the police party reached Nadoti, stopping bis vehicle at a little distance from the village and went on foot towards the Tehsil. Nadoti near Bus-stand and contacted his staff to trace out the complainant Ram Sahai. He was informed by literate constable Banbarilal that Ram Sahai and motbir Hari Kishan had not reached Nadoti till 12.30. Nadoti near Bus-stand and contacted his staff to trace out the complainant Ram Sahai. He was informed by literate constable Banbarilal that Ram Sahai and motbir Hari Kishan had not reached Nadoti till 12.30. They waited there till 1.-5 p.m. when bus came from Gangapur to Nadoti from which Ram Sahai and motbir Hari Kishan got down and having seen the Dy. S.P. both of them went to Tehsil. After about an hour, i.e , at 2.20 p.m. he saw Ram Sahai, Hari Kishan and one more person who had been putting on white shirt and the Dhoti coming towards the Bus-stand. They were talking among themselves when they were about 15-20 paces away from Dy. S.P., Ram Sahai handed over something to that man which he took in his hand and put in his shirt pocket and continued talking to Ram Sahai. That man was nodding his head while talking to Ram Sahai. At that time Ram Sahai gave the appointed signal to the Dy. S.P. who rushed to the spot along with other police personnels who were also hidden nearby, showed the identity card to that man. He gave out his name as Ram Swaroop Patvari Halka Kunjela of Patvar circle No. 19/1, Tehsil Nadoti. Ram Swaroop was told to produce Rs. 200/- which he had taken as bribe from Ram Sahai. He replied that Ram Sahai has forcibly placed the money in his pocket. But Ram Sahai stated that he had voluntarily taken the money and kept himself in his pocket. The currency notes were visible in his pocket which were got recovered and necessary documents prepared. Since the notes were the same which were initialled and were found having phinoplheline powder they were seized and sealed. Necessary documents were prepared. Some more money was recovered from the person of the accused. Relevant record concerning to khasra No. 501 was also seized from the Tehsil and the Dy. S.P. Surendra Pal Singh after returning to Sawaimadhopur on 8 4.1977 at 12.30 p m. registered the case. After completing the investigation sanction was obtained from the Collector, Sawaimadhopur and thereafter filed the charge-sheet in the court of Special Judge for A.C.D. Cases, Jaipur. 3. S.P. Surendra Pal Singh after returning to Sawaimadhopur on 8 4.1977 at 12.30 p m. registered the case. After completing the investigation sanction was obtained from the Collector, Sawaimadhopur and thereafter filed the charge-sheet in the court of Special Judge for A.C.D. Cases, Jaipur. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined five witnesses which include the decoy Ram Sahai P.W.l, the then Collector, Sawaimadhopur Shri Jagdish Narain P.W.2 to prove the sanction, one of the motbir Shiv Dayal P.W.3, Head Constable Ashudan P.W.4 who accompanied the Dy. S.P. from Sawaimadhopur to Gangapur and then to Nadoti and lastly P.W.5 Surendra Pal Singh Dy. S P. The accused filed the written explanation wherein he stated that 35 bighas of land was allotted to 7 or 8 persons regarding which cases were going on between various persons. State had already dispossessed Ram Sahai. but after that also Ram Sahai took the possession and Tehsildar imposed penalty for various years and Rs. 32/- had become due on Ram Sahai. Six days prior to the occurrence he had demanded Rs. 322/- from the complainant in presence of Jai Narain, Gajja and Joharilal. But he wanted girdawari to be done in his name hence he got annoyed. On the day of occurrence his case is that when he was coming out accused came to him and told him that he has brought Rs. 200/- which are due of which he was told that it was not the total amount. He gave these Rs. 200/- and promised to bring the balance and he told the something to the Dy. S P. on the spot but he did not listen his case. He examined two witnesses in support of this case. The learned trial court held the recovery proved and disbelieved the explanation of the accused and convicted and sentenced him as indicated above. 4. Mr. Khandelwal, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant challenging the conviction and sentence vehemently argued that even the demand in the case has not been proved in accordance with law which is genesis in a trap case and on this count alone the accused-appellant deserves to be acquitted. 4. Mr. Khandelwal, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant challenging the conviction and sentence vehemently argued that even the demand in the case has not been proved in accordance with law which is genesis in a trap case and on this count alone the accused-appellant deserves to be acquitted. His submission is that the testimony of the decoy is not corroborated by any independent witness in as much as even the scribe of the document has not been produced who had, according to the prosecution, accompanied the decoy to the police station. It was contended that there is overwhelming evidence to substantiate that Government dues were outstanding against the decoy and he had not been depositing the same. Reminders were given to him and he wanted illegal entries which could not have been done, therefore, in the garb of making part of the outstanding dues he got the appellant falsely trapped. It was further contended that no reasons have been assigned for not examining the other motbirs and the story of the decoy is not corroborated by any material particulars by Shivlal produced. It is then contended that the story of the defence is more probable than the prosecution story. The submission of the learned counsel is that the defence version even finds corroboration from the prosecution witnesses and as such the conviction and sentence deserves to be set aside. It is further submitted that DW 2 Netram Sharma who was Girdaver in circle No. 3 has produced the official record to show that there was outstanding amount against Ram Sahai decoy and that even the attachment proceedings had to be taken against him It is further submitted that even the motive of acceptance of bribe has not been established in as much as according to the decoy Rs. 200/- were demanded for making entries in khasra girdavari in favour of the decoy as well as for handing over the possession of the land to his cousin Ram Swaroop. 200/- were demanded for making entries in khasra girdavari in favour of the decoy as well as for handing over the possession of the land to his cousin Ram Swaroop. It is also submitted that this is a strange case where neither the date of demand nor the date of accepting the money has been shown in the F.I.R. and that it is difficult to conceive of that the accused would not accept the money from the decoy when he meets at his residence but insisted on accepting it in different village and then too does not accept it in the office but goes on the road to create evidence for himself. This all leads to an inference that the decoy was only finding out an opportunity of handing over the tainted money on one pretext or the other for removing him from his way. It is further submitted that the statement of DW. 1 Kanji has wrongly been disbelieved and that too on flimsy ground that since he is colleague of the accused he cannot be believed. It is submitted that such an approach is un-known to criminal jurisprudence. 5. Mr. Mathur appearing on behalf of the State supports the judgment of the trial court and submits that the statement of the decoy, PW. 1 Ram Sahai, is fully corroborated by the statement of the motbir PW. 2 Shiv Dayal and Dy. S. P. PW. 5, Surendra Pal Singh. It is submitted that same finds corroboration from Ex. P. 11 report of the chemical analyst who found hand-wash positive for sodium carbonate and phenoptheline. 1 have carefully gone through the entire record and judgment of the trial court. 6. PW 1 Ram Sahai in his statement has stated that he is doing cultivation in village Kunjela where his field khasra No. e01 is situated. According to him the total area of this field is 120 bighas. According to him 35 bighas of land out of the aforesaid had been allotted regarding which there was a litigation also. The Tehsildar Amar Singh had opened mutation but the Collector, Sawaimadhopur had cancelled the same and an appeal was filed in Kota. He states that after the judgment of the Collector out of his land plots were carved out and given to landless persons. The case was decided in his favour in Kota and so the other party had gone to Ajmer. He states that after the judgment of the Collector out of his land plots were carved out and given to landless persons. The case was decided in his favour in Kota and so the other party had gone to Ajmer. He stated that during the course of litigation possession remained with them. His brother and his cousin together 8 persons were cultivating the land. The lawyer at Ajmer had told him that if he is in possession of the land he should go to Patvari and get girdavari in his name done. Hence he went to Ram Swaroop Patvari and told him that girdavari of khasra No. 501 should be done in his name. If he wants he can give him Rs. 200/-. Then he corrected himself and stated that the Patvari told him that if he will pay Rs. 200/-, then girdavari of one number will be done in his name. He then stated that he had no money for the present but will bring the man y later on. Patvari then told him to bring the money on or before 5.4.77. He went to his village and narrated the same to one Srinarain. Srinarain told him that he should not pay the money and get the Patvari trapped. Srinarain thereafter wrote a report at his instance which was read over to him and he affixed his thumb impression on it. The witness proved the report Ex. P. 1 and then stated that they went with the application to the Dy. S. P. on the evening of 3rd but the Peon said that he should meet on the next day, therefore, he again went to the Dy. S P. at 8 or 9 A M. on 4.4.1977. The Dy S. P. after enquiring the details started with him and reached Gangapur at 8.00 P. M. There were 4-5 person is with the Dy. S P. who stayed in the Dak Bungalow and sent the decoy to the residence of the accused. He went to his place in Gangapur and the son of the accused told him that the accused is at residence. Thereafter the decoy went to the residence of the Patvari on next morning at 8.00 a. m. and asked him to give him girdavari. The accused told him that there is meeting in Nadoti and he is going to attend the same. Thereafter the decoy went to the residence of the Patvari on next morning at 8.00 a. m. and asked him to give him girdavari. The accused told him that there is meeting in Nadoti and he is going to attend the same. He should come with money at Nadoti where he will give him girdavari also. He then returned to Dak Bungalow and told the same to (he Dy. S. P. in presence of Srikishan and Srinarain. The Dy. S. P. then asked him as to whether accused had agreed to accept the money on which he said, yes. The Dy. S. P. thereafter asked him to produce the currency notes and in presence of witnesses gave demonstration of phenoptheline powder and initialled the currency notes. He gave instructions that after handing over the money he should remove the turban and give the signal. Thereafter he and witness Hari Kishan who is also known as Srikishan, went to Nadoti in a bus where they reached at 1 30 in the noon. He saw Dy. S. P sitting on a shop but without talking to him he alone went to Tehsil. The trap party also followed him He went inside the Tehsil and called the accused outside. Patvari told him that he was busy in the meeting and he should wait outside. Patvari came after 10-Id minutes and he asked the Patvari to accompany him towards the motor-stand. Patvari told him that there are many persons on the shop, hence if he wants to give the money he should give him there only. Hence he gave the currency notes worth Rs. 200/-to the patvari who kept the same in the right pocket of his shirt. He then corrected himself and stated that it was placed in the left-hand pocket. Accused then told him that he will give girdavari subsequently after doing in his name. Thereafter the decoy gave the appointed signal to the Dy. S. P. who arrived there and told the accused to produce the bribe money. The accused told the Dy. S. P. that he had given the money forcibly to which he denied and stated that he had paid the money on demand. Necessary formalities were than completed and papers were also seized from Tehsil. S. P. who arrived there and told the accused to produce the bribe money. The accused told the Dy. S. P. that he had given the money forcibly to which he denied and stated that he had paid the money on demand. Necessary formalities were than completed and papers were also seized from Tehsil. In cross-examination this witness stated that 3 bighas of land was not allotted in his name alone but in the names of Karodi, Ramswaror p, Ram Sahai, Kishanlal, Bhagvatia, Baboo and Ramesh. This land was savai-chuck and was regularised 6 or 7 years before. Chhotu, Bakhtu. Sriram Nenji Kanchan, Ramji, Kalla etc. were fighting cases against them. The Government had disposed the party of the decoy from the land. After they were disposed but the land remained in their possession. For that period penalty was imposed on them. He showed ignorance that 322.01, details of which were mentioned to the witness, were outstanding against him or not. He stated that he can produce the receipt about cultivating the land which is with him. He stated that he does not know as to whether the case has been remanded to the Collector. He denied the suggestion that Kalla and Nenji were cultivating the land but stated that they themselves were grazing the cattle. He admitted that his lawyer at Ajmer informed him that opposite party has filed documents to show that girdavari is in their name. He therefore, came to the village and told this to other co-cultivators. He stated that he had met the accused 8 or 10 days before laying of the trap but he does not know the day and date. He states that he was all alone when he met the accused. He further states that he did not tell any of his relations that the accused was demanding bribe.He also admits that he did not make any complaint to the Tehsildar in this respect. He stated that Rs. 200/- were demanded only for the purpose of issuing girdavari in his name. There was no other motive or purpose for demanding the money. The witness then stated that the accused had told him that Girdavari has been issued in the name of other party but he would make some such indication which will help him in the case. Accused hid told him that he will issue girdavari for anyone number. There was no other motive or purpose for demanding the money. The witness then stated that the accused had told him that Girdavari has been issued in the name of other party but he would make some such indication which will help him in the case. Accused hid told him that he will issue girdavari for anyone number. He stated that he does not remember that his lawyer had told him if he would not bring the girdavari he will loose the land. He showed ignorance as to whether he had talked about giving possession to Ram Swaroop or not. The witness then stated that accused had demanded Rs. 200/-from him about 20 times but always when he was alone. He admits that he has not stated about repeated demand in the report nor he has stated in his police statement. He admits that he was annoyed with the patvari because he had made a wrong report and got the land allotted to some other person. He stated that when he first met the accused on return from Ajmer on that day only 5th was settled for accepting the money. He however, states that he does not know whether he mentioned this in report Ex. P. 1 or in his statement in the police, Ex D. 1. He was read over the statements and he stated that he had told the Dy. S. P. that money will be received in Nadoti on 5th. He denied the suggestion that time and place was to he decided only after meeting the accused subsequently lodging the report. He then admitted that t me and place had rot been fixed prior to meeting. He stated that in the very first meeting the accused told him that the money be given in meeting of 5th at Nadoti. He stated that the report was dictated to Srinarain at the residence of Dy. S. P. on 4th morning at 8.00 am. Paper and holder had been brought by Srinarain who is his caste fellow. The witness stated that there were several persons with the accused in the meeting but the passing over of the current y notes took place on the motor-stand which is about 10 or 1' paces away from the Tehsil. He admits that there were several persons near the accused. The witness stated that there were several persons with the accused in the meeting but the passing over of the current y notes took place on the motor-stand which is about 10 or 1' paces away from the Tehsil. He admits that there were several persons near the accused. He again reiterated that he had full suspicion that the accused had joined hands with the other side. He denied the suggestion that the accused had asked him to pay Rs. 322/- of penalty. He also denied the suggestion that there was an altercation when Narain, Galla and Joharilal were also persons with the decoy. He further denied the suggestion that accused asked him to bring total money due to him. He further denied the suggestion that he forcibly gave him Rs. 200/- as part of the outstanding amount. He admitted that when the allotment was made in favour of the others in Tehsil he objected but his objections were over-ruled. He denied the suggestion that the accused had told the Dy. S. P. that Rs. 200/- were given as outstanding dues. 7. Thus, from the perusal of the statement of this witness it is borne out that he is trying to suppress real story and is changing stand from place to place. When he lodged the F.I.R. Ex. P. 1 he came with a case it was in respect of khasra No. 50 measuring 5 bighas that was allotted in his brother Ramswaroops name but later on Patwari dishonestly made entries in favour of the other side which he learnt at Ajmer where his lawyer told him. Lawyer advised to bring documents in his favour and so he contacted Ram Swaroop accused who told him that if he would pay him Rs 200/- as bribe he will make entry in his favour and the decoy made a condition that Rs. 200/- can be paid only if the land is also allotted and possession handed over to his cousin Ram Swaroop. Thus the motive of payment of bribe was correction in the entry and handing over the possession of another 5 bighas of land to Ram Swaroop. While in the statement in the court he changed this version and stated that the Patwari demanded Rs. Thus the motive of payment of bribe was correction in the entry and handing over the possession of another 5 bighas of land to Ram Swaroop. While in the statement in the court he changed this version and stated that the Patwari demanded Rs. 200/- for doing girdawari of one of the fields in his name and in cross examination he gave a third version that accused had told him that girdawari had already been done in favour of the other party, but he would do something which would help him in future. He had also told him that he would get him in possession of the land. Similarly in Ex. P. 1 the decoy did not come out with either day, time and place of proposed acceptance of the bribe by the accused, but he did not know the day, time and place of proposed acceptance which is corroborated by the endorsement below the F.I.R. which had been proved by the Deputy Superintendent of Police where it is clearly written that on further interrogation the decoy stated that Ram Swaroop had not fixed up any day, time and place for acceptance of the bribe. Contrary to this the witness has stated in his statement in the court that no sooner he returned from Ajmer and met the accused. The accused had already told him that he would be accepting the bribe on 5th at village Nadoti. Had this been true there could not have been any occasion for the trap party to have first gone to the village of the accused. Hence a careful reading of the statement of the decoy does not inspire confidence and he is not a wholly truthful witness. In these circumstances his statement require; independent corroboration. The prosecution has examined Shiv Dayal P.W. 3, Ashudan PW. 4 and Dy. S.P., Surendra Pal Singh PW 5 to corroborate his version. According to the statement of Shiv Dayal whatever he had narrated about the incident prior to acceptance of the bribe is not very relevant because that is all at the instance of the Dy. S.P. or preparation of laying down a trap. What is relevant is that this witness did not accompany the decoy either to his village or to Nadoti but he accompanied the Dy. S.P. and his staff in the Jeep. S.P. or preparation of laying down a trap. What is relevant is that this witness did not accompany the decoy either to his village or to Nadoti but he accompanied the Dy. S.P. and his staff in the Jeep. As against this according to his statement it was Hari Kishan motbir who accompanied Ramswaroop to Nadoti. Hari Kishan had gone along with Ram Sahai decoy to Nadoti tehsil and then they had gone together in the meeting and on return they were again together when they went to bus stand. After one hour Ram Sahai decoy. Hari Kishan and the accused came together and it is at that stage that he saw the decoy giving something to the accused. Thus, this witness is neither a witness of demand nor heard what transpired between the decoy and the accused nor parsing over of the currency notes. This witness at best can be said to be a witness or recovery of the money from the pocket of the accused which fact is not denied even by the accused. It is not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case because primary evidence required for establishing a prima facie case for demand and acceptance, has not been brought forth squarely by the prosecution. Similar are the statements of PW. 4 Ashudan and PW. 5 Surendra Pal Singh. Dy. S P. All these witnesses have admitted that it was Hari Kishan who was accompanied with the decoy when he went to the accused for paying the bribe money. They came together from the tehsil and Hari Kishan was all through with the decoy till the so called tainted amount was handed over to the accused. Hari Kishan was not examined by the prosecution in the trial court. It is relevant to mention here that Hari Kishan was not examined by the prosecution in the trial court for the reasons best known He was present in the court at least on two dates when his statement was not recorded once because the Public Prosecutor was on leave and for the next date reason not known. The witness had to go back twice and his presence is noted in the order-sheet. The witness had to go back twice and his presence is noted in the order-sheet. He was bound down to appear on 2.1.80 on which date also the witness was present in the court but his statement was not got recorded because learned A.P P. was said to be deployed in Election duty. The witness again appeared on 3.4 80 but on that day the lawyers were on strike and the witness had to go back. He was not produced thereafter by the prosecution and the evidence was closed. 8. I had heard arguments in this case on 2 .7 89 and then on 26.7.89. While dictating the judgment I was of the opinion that in interest of justice it was essential to call Hari Kishan witness as court witness and directed the Public Prosecutor to produce him as a witness before the court. Ever since 20th September, 89 till 3rd of September, 1990 efforts were made to procure the attendance of the witness but service of summons was not effected on the witness. In fact I had even to issue notice of disobedience to the senior officers of the police department but no useful purpose could be served. Explanation after explanation were submitted by the police officers which could not be a substitute for the statement of the witness. However, till date Hari Kishan is not before the court and I have no alternate but to draw adverse inference against the prosecution for not examining the witness in support of its case. This is not all about the latches in prosecuting the case but even Srinarain who advised the decoy Ram Sahai PW. 1 not to pay the bribe and instead advised to lodge a report to Anti-corruption Department, has not been examined. According to the statement of Ram Sahai PW. 1 who narrated the story of demand to Shri Narain and Shri Narain accompanied him to the police station when the former went to lodge the report. Dy. S.P., had recorded the presence of Shri Narain in the endorsement below Ex. P. 1, F.I.R., lodged by the decoy. Yet for the reasons best known he too has not produced and withheld. Dy. S.P., had recorded the presence of Shri Narain in the endorsement below Ex. P. 1, F.I.R., lodged by the decoy. Yet for the reasons best known he too has not produced and withheld. Thus, the important witnesses who could corroborate the statement of the decoy on the point of payment and demand, have not been examined in the case, and I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to lead evidence which could corroborate the statement of the decoy and the decoy, as I have already observed above, is not a witness of sterling worth and his statement requires corroboration. Thus the initial burden itself has not been discharged by the prosecution in the case in as much as the demand and the motive have been established by the prosecution. 9. There is yet another angle of looking the case and that is that the decoy had a grudge against the accused and he had given the statement falsely to 4 implicate the accused as also it is admitted twice in cross-examination by the decoy Ram Sahai that he was annoyed with the accused since he had already entered fact of the possession of the rival party in revenue records, and then Ram Sahai had been taking a chance for getting him trapped as is evidence from the fact that he did not disclose as to where the money will be passed to him. He took the raid party to the house of the accused where the money was not paid. He then took the raid party to Tehsil where also money w^s not paid. It was also not paid when they went to a restaurant because there was a crowd and it was only in presence of Hari Kishan that the money was handed over and Hari Kishan has not been examined in the case. Thus the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all manner of reasonable doubt and I extend the benefit of doubt to the accused-appellant. 10. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that this appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence passed against the accused-appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges. He is on bail and need not surrender to his bail bonds. 11. 10. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that this appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence passed against the accused-appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges. He is on bail and need not surrender to his bail bonds. 11. Before parting with this case I would like to observe that the reason for prosecutions failing to establish the case is either slackness or irresponsible attitude of the investigating agency as well as the prosecuting agency. Order-sheets from 14th May onwards would bear testimony to the fact that a witness who was kept as a motbir could not be traced out and produced before the court as a witness. The very fact, a person who has been selected as a motbir is not traceable and is not available to the prosecution, negatives the concept of selecting a motbirs. Firstly the investigating officer had not chosen the motbirs from the village where the trap was to be laid and secondly he has not been examined in the trial court and when this court wanted to examine him as a court witness to arrive at a just conclusion, the anti-corruption department has miserable failed in tracing out the person and producing him before this court. It is surprising that the investigating officer did not keep both the motbirs at such a distance from the decoy who could hear the conversation and see the passing of the currency notes and secondly did not keep the track of the motbiis till the prosecution of the case is not completed. In fact the selection of the motbirs and their examinations in this case has frustrated the purpose and meaning of the word motbir. As the accused has been acquitted necessary consequences flowing from acquittal are likely to follow, it is likely to check the ex-chequer heavily and in such cases I am of the opinion that liability must be fastened against the person/persons whose irresponsible functioning is responsible for acquittal. Copy of the order shall be sent to Home Commissioner for information. *******