JUDGMENT B.P. Singh 1. Ram Ratan Nag has appealed against his conviction under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 161 IPC which was recorded by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge) Gorakhpur in Special Case No. 1 of 1982 State v. RAM Ratan Nag. 2. In brief the case of the prosecution was as follows :- On 26-7-1980 Raj Basant Misra, who is a resident of village Inayat Chak situate within the Police Station Belghat district Gorakhpur, was proceeding towards his fields in village Bham Ghat. In the way, he was met by Constables Ram Surat Ram and Surya Nath and was informed that he was wanted by Station Officer, Police Station, Belghat. Ram Kawal Yadav was with him at that time. Raj Basant Misra had sent Ram Kawal Yadav to his village to call his Pattidars. Raj Basant Misra, PW-1 proceeded with the aforesaid to constables towards P. S. Belghat. In the way they stopped for tea at the tea-stall. They were joined by Ram Anuj Misra, Rajman Misra, Rakesh Misra, Muktinath Misra, Rajendra Misra and others. All these persons then went to P. S. Belghat where Station Officer Ram Ratan Nag enquired from Raj Basant Misra PW-1 regarding the dacoitv which had taken place in village Gai Ghat. When Raj Basant Misra expressed his ignorance about the fact, he was threatened by Ram Ratan Nag. Thereafter, Raj Basant Misra was handed over to the constables by Station Officer Ram Ratan Nag for further interrogation. At that very time Jagannath Misra and Ram Kawal Yadav came there. Jagannath Misra was the tout of the Police and upon his intervention Ram Ratan Nag promised to free Raj Basant Misra if a sum of Rs. 2500/- was paid to him by way of bribe. Jagannath Misra had given put that if Raj Basant Misra was not willing to oblige Ram Ratan Nag, he was sore to be implicated in some case of dacoity or murder whereupon Raj Basant Misra asked his Pattidar to arrange for money. The Pattidar of Rai Basant Misra could collect Rs. 1700/- and this sum was paid to Ram Ratan Nag Raj Basant Misra was released on the promise that he would pay the balance of Rs. 800/- very shortly. 3. On returning to his house, Raj Basant Misra arranged Rs. The Pattidar of Rai Basant Misra could collect Rs. 1700/- and this sum was paid to Ram Ratan Nag Raj Basant Misra was released on the promise that he would pay the balance of Rs. 800/- very shortly. 3. On returning to his house, Raj Basant Misra arranged Rs. 800/- and on the next day i.e. 29th July, 1980 he went to S. P. (Vigilance) Gorakhpur and handed over the complaint Ext. Ka-1 about the aforesaid conduct of Ram Ratan Nag. The Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) Gorakhpur deputed Ram Deo Gaur Dy. S P. (Vigilance) to lay the trap for the arrest of Rain Ratan Nag in the act of taking bribe 4. Ram Deo Gaur. Dy. S. P. (Vigilance) recorded the statement of Raj Basant Misra and asked him to come Sopaighat on 30-7-1980 at about 3.50 a.m. On 30-7-1980 Raj Basant Misra reached Sopaighat at 8.30 a.m. At about 10.10 a.m. RAM Deo Gaur also reached P. S. Belghat. Preparations for laving the trap were made by RAM Deo Gaur. Raj Basant Misra PW-1 had given eight notes of Rs. 100/-each to RAM Deo Gaur, PW-6. These notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and were handed over back to Raj Basant Misra, PW-1 with the direction that these very notes were to be handed over to RAM Ratan Nag Hand wash of Raj Basant Misra was taken and was sealed. A memo Ext. Ka-2 was also prepared by RAM Deo Gaur PW-6. The numbers of the notes were mentioned in this memo. After giving necessary direction, RAM Deo Gaur accompanied bv Raj Basant Misra proceeded towards P. S. Bel ghat. RAM Anuj and Palakdhari had accompained RAM Deo Gaur. The witnesses had taken the prearranged position. Raj Basant Misra PW-1 went to the quarter of RAM Ratan Nag. The S. O. enquired whether Raj Basant Misra had brought the balance of the bribe. Raj Basant Misra replied in the affirmative and had paid the above mentioned eight notes of 100 rupees each in the hope that he would not be implicated in any criminal case. RAM Ratan Nag had taken the notes in his hand and bad placed the same upon the Dasa of his door. At that very moment RAM Deo Gaur PW-6 accompanied by witnesses reached there and caught hold of RAM Ratan Nag. RAM Ratan Nag had taken the notes in his hand and bad placed the same upon the Dasa of his door. At that very moment RAM Deo Gaur PW-6 accompanied by witnesses reached there and caught hold of RAM Ratan Nag. The notes were taken by RAM Deo Gaur from the Dasa and the hand-wash of RAM Ratan Nag was taken and when this water was mixed with sodium carbonate the water became pink. A recovery memo Ext. Ka-3 was duly prepared and the recovered notes and the hand wash were sealed. The case was investigated by Dy. S. P. Bhanu Pd. Tiwari, PW-7. After routine investigation and after obtaining the sanction of the authority concerned, the charge-sheet Ext. Ka-17 was submitted in the case against Ram Ratan Nag. 5. At the trial, Ram Ratan Nag pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In all the prosecution examined seven witnesses i.e. Raj Basant Misra, PW-1, Ram Fati Yadav PW-2, Survesh Chandra Varum PW-3, Vashisth Narain Dubey PW-4, Shama Pati PW-5; Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 and Bhanu Pd. Tiwari PW-7 in the case. One DIG H. Rao was examined as CW 1. Constable Sant Lal was examined as DW 1 by the accused. The learned Special Judge accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and held that the accused was guilty of the offence punishable under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 161 IPC. Consequently, the accused was sentenced to undergo one year's R. I. for the offence under section 5 (2) of the Corruption Act and six months R. I. for the offence under section 161 IPC. Both these sentences were to run concurrently. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the trial court, Ram Ratan Nag has preferred this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have gone through the record of the case 8. Raj Basant Misra PW-1 and Ram Rati Yadav PW-2 were examined by the prosecution on the question that the two constables had taken away Raj Basant Misra to P. S. Belghat, as his presence was required by S. O. Ram Ratan Nag. The Learned Special Judge disbelieved the evidence of these two witnesses and it is not necessary to comment upon the same. The Learned Special Judge disbelieved the evidence of these two witnesses and it is not necessary to comment upon the same. The evidence of Survesh Chandra Verma PW-3, Vasbisth Narain Dubey PW-4, Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 and DIG H. Rao CW 1 is of formal nature and has not been challenged before me. 9. The evidence of Constable Sant Lal, DW-1 is to the effect that on 26-7-1980 Crime No. 56 of 1980 under section 60 of the Excise Act was registered at P. S. Belghat against Raj Basant Misra son of Girja Misra r/o Ghai Ghat. He has also stated that on the same day Crime No- 55 of 1980 was registered at P. S. Belghat under section 60 of the Excise Act against Ram Rati Yadav son of Nohar Yadav resident of Dhuriya Deeh. He has also stated that initially both these Crimes nos. 55 of 1980 and 56 of 1980 were investigated by S. I. Suresh Singh and subsequently under the orders of the S. S. P. Gorakhpur dated 5-5-1981 the investigation of these two Crimes was handed over to Inspector Barhalganj district Gorakhpur. He has also stated that charge-sheets in both these cases were submitted by Inspector Barhalganj. He has proved the charge-sheets of these two cases. Exhibit Ka-6 is the copy of the FIR dated 26-7-1980 which was recorded in P. S. Belghat in respect of Crimes Nos. 55 and 56 of 1989 under section 60 of the Excise Act. This FIR shows that Constables Ram Surat and Ram Das Dubey had arrested Ram Rati Yadav and Rai Basant Misra, as illicit liquor was found in their possession. Both these persons i.e. Raj Basant Misra and Ram Rati Yadav were brought to the P. S. Belghat and were released on bail. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State that this Ram Rati Yadav is PW-2 in the case while Raj Basant Misra PW-1 is the complainant in the case. Thus, there is enough evidence on the record to show that the complainant Raj Basant Misra PW-1 was taken to P. S. Belghat on 26-7-1980 in connection with Crime No. 56 of 1980, as he was found in possession of illict liquor by the Constables Ram Surat and Ram Dass. Thus, there is enough evidence on the record to show that the complainant Raj Basant Misra PW-1 was taken to P. S. Belghat on 26-7-1980 in connection with Crime No. 56 of 1980, as he was found in possession of illict liquor by the Constables Ram Surat and Ram Dass. It is in this background that the evidence of two witnesses of fact i.e. Raj Basant Misra PW-1 and Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 is to be examined. Both these witnesses have in their examination in chief supported the prosecution story of the trap and the acceptance of the bribe by the appellant. They have stated that a sum of Rs. 800'- was in fact received by the appellant on 30-7-1980 at his quarter and when Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 had taken the hand wash of the appellant and treated the same with sodium carbonate it had turned red. Raj Basant Misra PW-1 being the complainant in this trap case is in the position of an accomplice and prudence requires that the evidence of accomplice must be corroborated in material particulars by other independent, cogent and reliable evidence before the conviction can be based upon the strength of such evidence. A Police officer, who lays and supervises the trap stands on a somewhat different footing. Of course, he is an interested witness in the sense that he is naturally keen to see that the trap laid and supervised by him ends successful in the conviction of the culprit. But there is no rule of law or prudence which requires that the evidence of a Police Officer who lays and supervises a trap cannot be relied upon unless it finds corroboration by evidence of independent and impartial evidence. There can be cases where the evidence of a trap laying officer has a ring of truth because it has successfully withstood the test of cross- examination and does not suffer from any obvious infirmity. In such cases such a witness can be safely termed as wholly reliable and his evidence does not require any further corroboration from independent or impartial witnesses. In such a case a conviction can safely be based upon such evidence. But there can also be cases where the evidence of a trap laying officer has left something to be desired and he can not be termed as a wholly reliable witness. In such a case a conviction can safely be based upon such evidence. But there can also be cases where the evidence of a trap laying officer has left something to be desired and he can not be termed as a wholly reliable witness. In such cases it is only just and legal to look for corroboration from independent sources. Such corroboration may come from the evidence of independent witnesses or the attending circumstances of the case. No hard and fast rule can be made where the appreciation of evidence is concerned and each case will be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein and in the light of the attending circumstances of the case. 10. In the present case, it is significant to note that Raj Basant Misra PW-1 had himself paid Rs. 1700/- by way of bribe, if he is believed, to the appellant without raising any objection. There is not an iota of evidence on the record to suggest that any objection was raised by Raj Basant Misra PW-1 when the alleged payment of Rs. 1700/- was made by him to the appellant. Furthermore, if Raj Basant Misra is to be believed, it was the first occasion that he was called by the appellant at the Police Station. Yet it is surprising that Raj Basant Misra took the trouble to send Ram Kawal to his house to collect his Pattidars. No explanation is forthcoming as to what prompted Raj Basant Misra PW-1 to send for his Pattidars. There was no mention of any dacoity case when the two Constables had asked, Raj Basant Misra PW-1 to accompany them to Police Station, Belghat. Raj Basant Misra PW-1 is a Chaukidar and is in Government service. He is not an ordinary rustic illiterate villager, who was afraid of entering Police Station. In this background, the fact that a case under section 60 of the Excise Act had already been registered against Raj Basant Misra PW-1 on 26-7-1980 before he initiated steps for the laying of the trap against the appellant gains importance. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Raj Basant Misra PW-1 had moved the vigilance machinery out of revenge and had cooked up a false case was not without force. The conduct of Raj Basant Misra PW-1 leads to inference that he cannot be termed as reliable witness. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Raj Basant Misra PW-1 had moved the vigilance machinery out of revenge and had cooked up a false case was not without force. The conduct of Raj Basant Misra PW-1 leads to inference that he cannot be termed as reliable witness. Coming to the evidence of Ram Deo Gaur PW-6. it may be mentioned that his whole approach to the trap appears to be a somewhat unusual. No time for laying the trap was fixed by Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 when the complainant Raj Basant Misra PW-1 was examined by him on 29th July, 1980. He had asked Raj Basant Misra to come by 8.30 am. upon Sopaighat. If Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 and Raj Basant Misra PW-1 are to be believed, Ram Deo Gaur reached Sopaighat and made preparations for the laying of the trap in a nearby hut. It is significant to note that no effort was made by Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 to assertain before making preparation for the laying of the trap whether Ram Ratan Nag was available at the Police Station. Even a memo was prepared, the notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder; hand wash of the complainant was sealed and the members of the trap laying party had proceeded towards the Police Station, Belghat even without ascertaining the fact whether Ram Ratan Nag was or was not available at Police Station. Generally, the practice is that before the preparations for the laying of the trap are made, the officer concerned makes certain of the time when the accused would be available at the appointed place. In order to meet the above eventuality, Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 had stated that before asking the members of the raiding party to take their position, he himself had gone upon the quarter of the accused to ascertain if he was present. He has claimed that he had gone in plain dress and had a talk with the accused Ram Ratan Nag and had given the pretext of his visit that a dacoity had been committed in his house. He was posing as an ordinary villager. When the accused had asked him to wait for some time, he said that he sat nearby and started eating Bhooja. Admittedly, Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 was a senior Police Officer in the district and was working in the Vigilance Cell. He was posing as an ordinary villager. When the accused had asked him to wait for some time, he said that he sat nearby and started eating Bhooja. Admittedly, Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 was a senior Police Officer in the district and was working in the Vigilance Cell. Accused Ram Ratan Nag was the Station Officer at Belghat Police Station in the same district. Ram Ratan Nag must have known as to who were the senior officers posted at the district headquarters. There was always the possibily. if not certainty, that Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 was recognisable by the accused Ram Ratan Nag. In this connection, reference may also be made to the case of the accused, who has stated that he along with Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 was posted in district Hamirpur 7-8 years prior to the occurrence and he was known to Ram Deo Gaur PW-6. When cross-examined on this aspect of the case, Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 initially claimed that the accused was not posted in P. S. Maudaha district Hamirpur when he himself was posted there, but when pressed by the learned counsel for the accused, he had to state that he was not certain whether the accused was or was not posted in district Hamirpur when he was working there. Even if it be considered for the sake of argument that accused was not posted in Hamirpur at the same time Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 was said to be working there, there was every possibility and likelihood that Ram Ratan Nag was in a position to recognise Ram Deo Gaur PW-6, as both were in the same department and were working in the same district at the same time. Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 must have ascertained the presence of Ram Ratan Nag by deputing some person who was not connected with the Police Department in any manner. Who has ever heard of a Dy. S. P. who is laying the trap in a bribe case going personally to ascertain whether the S. O. concerned was or was not present upon his quarter. Further more, the fact that he had stayed outside the house of the accused and had started eating Bhooja was not slated to by Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 in his statement under section 161 CrPC. Further more, the fact that he had stayed outside the house of the accused and had started eating Bhooja was not slated to by Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 in his statement under section 161 CrPC. This clearly indicates that Ram Deo Caur PW-6 had not gone to enquire about the presence of the accused before the trap was sprung. Furthermore, Ram Deo Gaur has not been consistent in his evidence. He has insisted that it was not a fact that Raj Basant Misra PW-1 and witnesses Ram Anuj and Palakdhari had reached the quarter with him, but this statement stands contradicted which was recorded by the Investigating Officer wherein he specifically gave out that at about 10.30 a m. he along with the complainant and witnesses had reached the quarter of the accused as was already decided. He has again stated that he had not stated before the Investigating Officer that when he had sat outside the house of the accused on being asked by him, the accused had gone inside the door and had again come out upon the arrival of Raj Basant Misra. Again, this statement stands contradicted which was recorded by the Investigating Officer. 11. Admittedly, Ram Deo Gaur, PW-6 had seen that the accused had taken the notes from the complainant in the right hand and had placed upon the Dasa of the door. Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 has claimed and as soon as he entered the Verandah of the house of the accused, he caught the right hand of the accused and gave his introduction. He has claimed to have lifted the notes from the Dasa and thereafter the proceedings regarding the sealing of the notes and taking hand wash of the accused were conducted. When Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 knew that the notes were placed upon the Dasa and they were not in the hands of the accused, there was no occasion for him to catch hold of the right hand of the accused. It is not the case of Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 that the accused was likely to abscond when so many persons were there outside the Verandah. The normal action of Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 would have been to take the notes in his possession and then he should have asked the accused to give his hand wash. It is not the case of Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 that the accused was likely to abscond when so many persons were there outside the Verandah. The normal action of Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 would have been to take the notes in his possession and then he should have asked the accused to give his hand wash. For reasons best known to him, Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 did not act in this manner. Instead he caught the right hand of the accused and this has demolished the case of the prosecution to a great extent. It was not the case of Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 in his examination in chief that after treating the notes with phenolphthalein powder, he had washed his own hand. It appears that a portion of the phenolphthalein powder was transferred to the hand of Ram Ratan Nag when Ram Deo Gaur had caught his right hand. This explains the presence of the traces of phenolphthalein powder in the right hand of the accused. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that Ram Deo Gaur PW-6 can be termed as wholly reliable witness. 12. Considering the entire evidence on the record and in the light of the above discussions. I conclude that the prosecution has not proved its case against the appellant. The appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant under section 5 (2) of the Corruption Act and section 161 IPC is hereby set aside. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed.