KUNDAN SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal has been preferred by Ram Kishore Sharma against the judgment and order dated 27. 1 0. 1984, passed by Sri. L. K. Upadhyaya, the then VIIIth Additional District and Special Judge, Ghaziabad, in Special Trial No. 2 of 1984, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100. 00. In case of default in payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of two months. No further punishment has been awarded under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161, I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that one Sri Harish Chandra Gautam, an Assistant Teacher in Junior High School, Khanjarpur, District Ghaziabad, applied for a loan of Rs. 4,000. 00 out of his Provident Fund. A loan of Rs. 2. 000. 00 was sanctioned to him and a cheque for that amount was issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools. Ghaziabad: The cheque was to be handed over by the appellant, who was working as a Clerk in the office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad to Sri Gautam. The complainant Sri Gautam went to the appellant for collecting his cheque but he demanded Rs. 10. 00 as illegal gratification for handing over the cheque to him. When Sri Gautam showed reluctance to pay the amount as demanded by the appellant, the latter did not issue the cheque on one pretext or the other though it was lying ready with him. The appellant asked the complainant to come again on 6. 6. 1983 and when he again went to the appellant to collect the cheque, he said that he would not be able to get it unless he paid Rs. 10. 00 to him. The complainant continued to persuade the appellant to hand over the cheque till 3. 00 P. M. but all in vain. Then the complainant moved an application to the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad on 6/6/1983, stating therein that the appellant was not ready to hand over the cheque to him without payment of Rs. 10. 10. 00 to him. The complainant continued to persuade the appellant to hand over the cheque till 3. 00 P. M. but all in vain. Then the complainant moved an application to the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad on 6/6/1983, stating therein that the appellant was not ready to hand over the cheque to him without payment of Rs. 10. 00 as illegal gratification and in similar manner he used to harass other teachers also and hence he wanted to get arrested red handed such a corrupt person. The District Magistrate, Ghaziabad directed Sri Moti Ram Sharma (P. W. 1), Inspector, Vigilance Trap, Collectorate, Ghaziabad to organise a trap. The complainant Harish Chandra again met the inspector Sri Moti Ram on 7/6/1983. The Inspector arranged the trap with the help of Sri Reoti Prasad, Vigilance Inspector, Meerut. Constable Ram Charan Sharma, Vigilance Cell Collectorate, Ghaziabad Head Constables Ramvir Sharma and Constable Beni Prasad of police outpost Shastri Nagar. Ghaziabad and Harish Chandra Gautam, the complainant, in one of the rooms of the police out-post Shastri Nagar Ghaziabad. The Constable Ramvir Sharma was asked to bring public witnesses who brought Deep Chand Sharma P. W. 3, Head Master Primary School, Gadan, and Rajpal Singh, Assistant Teacher, Primary School Sikrod, Ghaziabad to witness the trap and all of them were instructed about the trap to be followed. Inspector Mati Ram Sharma in the presence of the witnesses took a currency note of the denomination of rupee ten (bearing No. F/85 179528) from the complainant Sri Gautam, initialled the same, sprinkled phenophthlene powder thereon and handed over the note to the complainant with the direction to hand it over to the appellant when demanded. The Inspector Moti Ram prepared a memo of taking over of the currency note and handing it over to the complainant Harish Chand Gautam. This memo was also got signed by the witnesses. The plan of the raiding party was to take position at the tea stall of Raj Singh near the office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools and the complainant Sri Harish Chand Gautam was instructed to bring the appellant from his office to sit on the said tea stall and then to offer the currency note to him on demand. At about 2. At about 2. 10 P. M. the complainant Sri Gautam returned with the appellant and sat on a bench near the benches of The members of the raiding party at the aforesaid tea stall of Raj Singh where Harish Chand Gautam placed order for two cups of tea and biscuits. While enjoying tea and biscuits, the appellant said to Sri Gautam that it was not sufficient for the work. Sri Gautam then replied that Dakshana would be paid later on and asked the appellant to hand over the cheque to him that very day. After taking the tea etc. , they went to a betal shop, belonging to Harendra Singh, near the said tea stall where the appellant took a betel. The complainant took out the said currency note of the denomination of Rs. 10 from his pocket and offered it to the appellant but as Kattha had fallen on the hand of appellant, he advanced a step forward towards the complainant and pointed out him to insert the note in his pocket. Thereupon the complainant Harish Chand Gautam inserted that note in the front pocket of the appellants bush shirt. The appellant asked the complainant to collect the cheque from his office and then both started towards the office. The raiding party which heard all the conversations between the complainant Harish Chand Gautam and the appellant, appended the latter, disclosed to him identity and in the presence of the witnesses recovered the said currency note of Rs. 10 from the pocket of the bush shirt of the appellant. The note so recovered from the appellant was of the denomination of Rs. 10, bearing No. F/86 179528, and contained the initial of the trap Inspector. The bush shirt of the appellant was got put off and taken into custody. The currency note alleged to have been recovered from the appellant was put in an envelope and the bush shirt was put in another piece of cloth, stitched and both were scaled on the spot. The sealed articles were also signed by the witnesses. Apart from the aforesaid articles, a key ring, a dot pen and a change of Rs. 1. 05 paise were also recovered from the appellant. The right hand of the complainant Harish Chand Gautam was got washed with the solution of sodium carbonate and the hand wash was of pink colour. The sealed articles were also signed by the witnesses. Apart from the aforesaid articles, a key ring, a dot pen and a change of Rs. 1. 05 paise were also recovered from the appellant. The right hand of the complainant Harish Chand Gautam was got washed with the solution of sodium carbonate and the hand wash was of pink colour. The used chemical was put in a bottle and wrapped with a piece of cloth stitched and scaled on the spot. A slip was also pasted which was also got signed by the witnesses. The recovery memos were also prepared and those were also got signed by the witnesses at 2. 40 P. M. on 7/6/1983. One copy of the recovery memo was given to the appellant. The appellant was escorted to the police station Kavinagar, Ghaziabad, where the Inspector Sri Mati Ram Sharma lodged a First Information Report at 6. 15 p. m. on 7/6/1983. The distance of the place of occurrence from the police station Kavinagar was one kilometer. ( 3 ) ON the basis of the First Information Report a case was registered against the appellant under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sec. 161, I. P. C. On 14. 6. 1983 one cheque No. BN5o 06670057, dated 4/6/1983, for Rs. 2,000. 00, in the name of Harish Chand Gautam, alleged to have been issued by Sri A. P. Sharma, Deputy Inspector of Schools, and other connected papers were taken into custody by Sri Moti Ram Sharma and recovery memo was prepared, which was got signed by the witnesses. The case was investigated by Sri Lalit Mohan Bharti, the Trap Inspector. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him and claimed to be tried. ( 4 ) IN the trial court the prosecution in order to prove its case examined Sri Moti Ram Sharma as P. W. 1, Sri Harish Chandra Gautam as P. W. 2 and Sri Deep Chandra Sharma as P. W. 3, who are eye witnesses of the incident. Sri Lalit Mohan Bharti was examined as P. W. 5. He had investigated the case recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and prepared the site plan. He also proved the sanction for the prosecution of the appellant obtained from the authority concerned. Sri Lalit Mohan Bharti was examined as P. W. 5. He had investigated the case recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and prepared the site plan. He also proved the sanction for the prosecution of the appellant obtained from the authority concerned. Constable Clerk Om Prakash was examined as P. W. 4, who prepared the chick report to prove the relevant G. D. entries. ( 5 ) THE appellant while denying the prosecution version in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. stated that few years back 10 or 11 months salary of Horam. Head Master. Primary School Noida, and of his wife Smt. Angoori Devi, Assistant Teacher in Kanya Pathshala, Baraula, was with-held. After several demands the salary of Smt. Angoori Devi was released but that of Sri Horam was not paid to him. Horam Sharma made complaints against Sri A. P. Sharma, Deputy Inspector of Schools, and Sri Beghraj Sharma, President of the Primary Teachers Association, in which it was clearly mentioned that the proof would be available with the appellant. Horam Sharma also requested the appellant to give him record relating to the aforesaid complaints but he had refused to give the same. The salary of Harish Chand Gautam and Deep Chand Sharma was also not paid due to the comments of the appellants. He also stated that he was not dealing with the distribution of cheques of Provident Fund relating to the area of Hansh Chand Gautam and Deep Chand Sharma at the time of alleged incident, he, after depositing a cheque in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajatpur Branch, was returning and at the crossing near Shastri Nagar he met Sri Harish Chand Gautam, Sri Deep Chand Sharma and Sri Babu Ram Sharma. Sri Gautam pointed out that it was he who was Raj Kishore. All of them stopped the appellant and forcibly got his bush shirt put off. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the defence three witnesses, namely Ramesh Chandra (D. W. I), Vijai Singh (D. W. 2) and Netrapal Singh (D. W. 3) were examined in order to prove the defence version. Ranlesh Chand (D. W. 1) stated that he was working as Steno in the office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ghaziabad, Horam Sharma, Head Master, Primary School. Noida, sent a complaint on 15. 4. 1983 to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ghaziabad. Ranlesh Chand (D. W. 1) stated that he was working as Steno in the office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ghaziabad, Horam Sharma, Head Master, Primary School. Noida, sent a complaint on 15. 4. 1983 to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ghaziabad. He brought the original to court and filed its true copy as Ext. Kha 1. One letter, dated 5/5/1983, was sent to Horam Sharma requiring him to produce proof in support of his complaint dated 15/4/1983. Its photostat copy, signed by him, was filed as Ext. Kha-2. In reply, Horam Sharma sent a letter dated 16/5/1983 to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ghaziabad. Its photostat copy was filed by him and marked as Ext. Kha 3. D. W. 2 Vijai Singh stated that he was pay Clerk in the office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools at the relevant time. Some comments made by Sri Madan Mohan Bahuguna, Deputy Inspector of Schools, on 18/2/1983 were before the witness which he tendered in evidence and marked as Ext. Khao. 4. Sri A. P. Sharma, Deputy Inspector of Schools passed the suspension order of Sri Deep Chand Sharma on the charge of embezzlement. The original suspension order was filed as Ext. Kha 5. In compliance of the suspension order, a letter was sent to Deep Chand Sharma on 22/2/1983, a copy of which was prepared and signed by the appellant. The copy of that letter was filed by him and marked as Ext. Kha 6. A case of embezzlement was registered against Deep Chand Sharma at the police station Modinagar. In the year 1979 Sri B. N. Singh. Basic Shiksha Adhikari, passed an order on 10/5/1979 for deduction of one days salary of Deep Chand Sharma because of his absence from duty and also a warning was given to him for future. The letter dated 10/5/1979 was filed as Ext. Kha 7. A duty chart signed by Sri A. P. Sharma was also tendered by him in evidence and was marked as Ext. Kha 8. That duty chart was effective from 1/7/1982. Another duty chart relating to Junior High School Examination, signed by Sri A. P. Sharma, was also filed and marked as Ext. kha 9. Another letter dated 22/12/1983 written by Sri A. P. Sharma in connection with the residence of the appellant was also tendered in evidence and was marked as Ext. kha 10. Another duty chart relating to Junior High School Examination, signed by Sri A. P. Sharma, was also filed and marked as Ext. kha 9. Another letter dated 22/12/1983 written by Sri A. P. Sharma in connection with the residence of the appellant was also tendered in evidence and was marked as Ext. kha 10. The reply letter of Sri Dharampal Sharma dated 23/12/1983 was filed and marked as Ext. kha 11. Netrapal Singh D. W. 3 was working as a Bill Clerk in the office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools. He deposed that he has brought the personal file of Harish Chand Gautam. Assistant Teacher. Junior High School, Khanjarpur. Sri Gautam gave an application to the Deputy Inspector of Schools for his salary for the period August to October, 1977. At that time the appellant was Bill Clerk and he made the endorsements of his comments on 18/2/1982 on that application in compliance with the order dated 4/2/1982 passed by the Deputy Inspector of Schools. Photostat copy of that application bearing the comments of the appellant was filed by him and marked as Ext. Kha 12. On the basis of the comments of the appellant, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad, passed an order referring the matter of Sri Harish Chand Gautam to tile Deputy Inspector of Schools, Meerut. This witness also produced the pay Bill relating to Bishrakh region. By this pay bill he showed that Deep Chand Sharma, who at the relevant time was Head Master, Primary School Gadana, had received the salary of 1981 when he was working in Primary School Salarpur, Bisrakh Region. Moti Ram Sharma, the Trap Inspector, stated about the trap on the orders of the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and also about arresting the appellant red handed while accepting the bribe of Rs. 10. 00 from Sri Harish Chand Gautam. He also deposed about the other formalities relating to reparation of recovery memo, statement of the complainant and oilier witnesses before laying the trap. He also stated that on 14/6/1983 he recovered a cheque and other connected papers from the custody of appellant when he was on duty. In the application Ext. Kha 6 moved by the complaint before the District Magistrate in which there is no recital at all that the appellant made any demand of Rs. 10. 00 as illegal gratification from the complainant. In the application Ext. Kha 6 moved by the complaint before the District Magistrate in which there is no recital at all that the appellant made any demand of Rs. 10. 00 as illegal gratification from the complainant. It also says that the appellant was accustomed of harassing the teachers and realising Rs. 10. 00 per cheque. In that application it was mentioned that the appellant would not give him his cheque relating to the loan unless he was paid Rs. 10. 00 by the complainant and hence legal action may be taken against such a person and he wanted to get him arrested red handed while accepting the bribe. Thus from the recitals in the application itself, which was moved at the earliest opportunity before the District Magistrate it cannot be said that the appellant had demanded any bribe from the complainant, though in his statement in court the witness testified that the appellant had demanded Rs. 10 from him as illegal gratification for giving the cheque. This subsequent statement in court regarding demand of bribe is nothing but an improvement in the prosecution case. Moreover, regarding demand of bribe by the appellant from the complainant, no independent and corroborative evidence has been led by the prosecution. In my opinion the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant made any demand of Rs. la/from the complainant for handing over the cheque to him. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant hammered at and seriously criticised the prosecution evidence and vehemently argued that the trap in the present case was nothing but a concoction as the appellant had never expressed any desire or made demand for illegal gratification nor he received the same from the complainant. Now in that connection I proceed to examine meticulously the occular testimonies of Sri Moti Ram Sharma (P. W. 1) the Trap Inspector, and Sri Harish Chand Gautam the complainant, (P. W. 2 ). Sri Moti Ram Sharma (P. W. 1) has stated that when he was arranging the trap, he asked Head constable Ramvir Singh to bring some public witnesses. After sometime Ramvir Singh brought Deep Chand Sharma and Rajpal Singh public witnesses. Both these persons were employed as Teachers and were colleagues of the complainant. Sri Moti Ram Sharma (P. W. 1) has stated that when he was arranging the trap, he asked Head constable Ramvir Singh to bring some public witnesses. After sometime Ramvir Singh brought Deep Chand Sharma and Rajpal Singh public witnesses. Both these persons were employed as Teachers and were colleagues of the complainant. Out of those public witnesses, only Deep Chand Sharma has been examined in court, who admitted in his statement on oath that Harish Chand Gautam was working as Assistant Teacher in the school of Khanjarpur where his brother Ravi Dutta was Head Master, while Harish Chand Gautam P. W. 2 admitted in his statement that Deep Chand Sharma was a teacher in Gadana School and he was known to him from before. The other witness Rajpal Singh was also familiar to him for the last about 20 years. Thus P. W. 1 Moti Ram Sharma while preparing the memo regarding entrustment of the currency note of rupees ten to Sri Gautam recorded their statements. This memo was prepared in the presence of the witness Deep Chand son of Natthu Singh Pandey, resident of village Latifpur Tewada, Police Station Modinagar. At that time he was posted as teacher in Primary School, Gadana and Sri Rajpal Singh son of Padam Singh, resident of village Sadarpur, Police Station Kavinagar was posted as Assistant Teacher in Primary School Sikroad, District Bulandshahr. P. W. 1 Moti Ram Sharma must have come to know that both the witnesses were companion of the complainant Harish Chand Gautam. Moti Ram Sharma did not care to summon independent witnesses at the time of trap. When the complainant Harish Chand Gautam was enjoying tea in the company of the appellant at the tea stall, the members of the raiding party are alleged to be sitting by their side on other benches. The appellant is said to have expressed a desire for illegal gratification by saying that tea and biscuits alone were not sufficient remuneration for is work. Thereupon the complainant is said to have replied that the Dakshana would be paid to him later on provided the cheque was, given to him the same day. It is not understandable why the complainant did not offer the currency note of Rs. Ten to the appellant at the tea stall itself. Thereupon the complainant is said to have replied that the Dakshana would be paid to him later on provided the cheque was, given to him the same day. It is not understandable why the complainant did not offer the currency note of Rs. Ten to the appellant at the tea stall itself. This circumstance speaks for itself that either the members of the raiding party were not present at the tea stall or the appellant did not ask for any illegal gratification or the appellant had not visited the tea stall at the time and in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Even at the time when the appellant was taking the betel in his hand he did not make any demand for illegal gratification. It is said that the complainant him self offered the currency note of Rs. Ten and the appellant is-said to have pointed out towards his pocket for inserting the note therein and it was then that the complainant put the note in the pocket of the bush shirt of the appellant. Moti Ram Sharma (P. W. 1) the Trap Inspector, is said to have recovered the currency note from the pocket of the appellant at the betel shop and got the hands of the complainant washed with the solution of sodium carbonate and the bush shirt of the appellant is said to have been taken into custody at the spot but the pocket of that bush shirt in which the currency note is said to have been inserted by the complainant was not got washed with sodium carbonate on the spot. It is said that the bush shirt of the appellant was scaled on the spot and sent to the Chemical Examiner, who after getting it washed with the sodium carbonate found the chemical of pink colour as would be apparent from the report of the Chemical Examiner. In case the incident had taken place in the manner alleged by the prosecution, in natural course, the pocket of that bush shirt also would have been got washed with the solution of sodium carbonate then and there on the spot. If the hands of the complainant were got washed, I think there was no difficulty in getting the pocket of the bush shirt also washed out on the spot. If the hands of the complainant were got washed, I think there was no difficulty in getting the pocket of the bush shirt also washed out on the spot. Moti Ram Sharma (P. W. 1) has not mentioned the names of Harendra Singh and Raj Singh, owners of the betal shop and Tea Stall, respectively, in the list of witnesses of the recovery of currency note in their presence from the person of the appellant nor he got signed the recovery memo, the phials containing the solution and the envelope of bush shirt and the currency note. Mention of the names of these two independent witnesses must have been made in the list of witnesses, had the occurrence taken place at the time and in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Thus it appears that the appellant was not arrested at the betel shop of Harendra Singh with the currency note as alleged by the prosecution. P. W. 1 Moti Ram Sharma seems to be so much interested in getting the trap made successful that he recorded statements of complainant Harish Chand Gautam, Deep Chandra and Rajpal and got the same signed by them at the spot as admitted by complainant P. W. 2. It appears to have been done so that the witnesses may not resile in court, and secondly that he want to the office of the appellant on 14/6/1983 and recovered the cheque dated 4/6/1983, prepared in the name of the complainant by Sri A. P. Sharma, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, and other connected papers from the possession of the appellant, who after opening his Almirah with the help of key handed over those documents to Sri Moti Ram Sharma (P. W. 1), and prepared the recovery memo Ext. Kha 5 but this memo shows that these documents were handed over by Sri. A. P. Sharma and not by the appellant. This Moti Ram Sharma was not competent to collect evidence of crime after completion of the trap and to prepare the record of signed statements of witnesses at the spot. The duty for collection of other evidence was that of the Investigating Officer. ( 8 ) THE appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. This Moti Ram Sharma was not competent to collect evidence of crime after completion of the trap and to prepare the record of signed statements of witnesses at the spot. The duty for collection of other evidence was that of the Investigating Officer. ( 8 ) THE appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. has stated that when he was returning after depositing a cheque in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajatpur Branch, he came across Harish Chand Gautam, Deep Chand Sharma, Beghraj Sharma and Babu Ram Sharma at the crossing of Shastri Nagar when Sri Gautam told his colleagues that it was he who was Raj Kishore and thereupon they grappled with him and got his bush shirt put off forcibly. The incident might not have taken place in the manner suggested by the defence but the facts and circumstances stated by the prosecution witnesses, namely P. W. 1, P. W. 2 and P. W. 3, clearly indicate that the appellant was not arrested in the manner alleged be the prosecution. Hence, I am constrained to hold that the appellant was not arrested at the time and place and in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant then strenuously argued that the prosecution evidence is tainted with partisan and mala fides, which does not find corroboration from any independent evidence. The witnesses in the present case, namely P. W. 2 Harish Chand Gautam and P. W. 3 Deep Chandra Sharma had an axe to grind against the appellant due to enmity. They purposely hatched a conspiracy to falsely implicate the appellant in this case and the Trap Inspector became interested in getting the trap made successful any how. Hence the evidence of P. W. 1, P. W. 2 and P. W. 3, inspire no confidence. ( 9 ) I examined the above argument of the learned counsel for the appellant scrupulously. The complainant P. W. 2 admitted in his cross-examination that his salary for the months of August, September and October 1977 was not paid and in that connection he made an application in the year 1981. ( 9 ) I examined the above argument of the learned counsel for the appellant scrupulously. The complainant P. W. 2 admitted in his cross-examination that his salary for the months of August, September and October 1977 was not paid and in that connection he made an application in the year 1981. It was suggested by the defence that the appellant opposed that move and the matter was referred to Meerut office and this suggestion has been denied by P. W. 2 Sri Harish Chand Gautam but it has been proved by the defence by examining Sri Netrapal Singh D. W. 3, who produced the personal file of the complainant containing that application of the complainant sent to the Deputy Inspector of Schools regarding payment of salary for the months of August, September and October, 1977. At that time the appellant was posted as Bill Clerk and he made the endorsement of his comments dated 18. 2. 1982, in compliance with the order dated 4. 2. 1982 passed by the Deputy Inspector of Schools. The photostat copy of that application of the complainant has been tendered in defence evidence and marked as Ext. Kha 12. That matter was referred to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Meerut. This defence evidence has not been challenged, by the prosecution in cross-examination. As such there is no reason to disbelieve this unrebutted, defence evidence. Apart from the complainant, the prosecution has also examined Deep Chand Sharma P. W. 3 as a public witness in order to prove the factum of trap. P. W. 3 Deep Chand Sharma has admitted in his cross-examination that his salary for the months of September, October and November, 1981 was stopped and he made a complaint to the Deputy Inspector of Schools in that regard against the appellant. On behalf of defence, D. W. 2 Vijay Singh has been examined, who stated that Sri A. P. Sharma, Deputy Inspector of Schools passed the suspension order on the charge of embezzlement. Copy of that suspension order has been tendered in evidence on behalf of the appellant and marked as Ext. Kha 5. On 22/2/1983 a letter was sent in compliance with the suspension order of Sri Deep Chand Sharma and that letter was drafted and signed by the appellant which has been filed as Ext. Kha 6 by the defence. Copy of that suspension order has been tendered in evidence on behalf of the appellant and marked as Ext. Kha 5. On 22/2/1983 a letter was sent in compliance with the suspension order of Sri Deep Chand Sharma and that letter was drafted and signed by the appellant which has been filed as Ext. Kha 6 by the defence. Sri Deep Chand Sharma P. W. 3 has admitted in his statement that he moved a complaint against the appellant regarding his salary for the months of September, October and November, 1981. He has admitted that at the time of his suspension order the appellant was the dealing Clerk, though Basic Shiksha Adhikari was vested with the power of passing such an order. Thus both Sri Harish Chand Gautam (P. W. 2) and Sri Deep Chand Sharma (P. W. 3) were highly partisan witnesses and they had a motive to falsely implicate the appellant in a the Case. The facts and circumstances which I v have mentioned earlier show that the Trap Inspector Sri Moti Ram Sharma too was an interested person. In my opinion, there is no independent h evidence to support and corroborate the prosecution version. The statements of Sri Moti Ram 11 Sharma (P. W. 1), Sri Harish Chand Gautam d (P. W. 2) and Sri Deep Chand Sharma (P. W. 3) are t in the nature of partisan evidence which smack mala fides. I find the evidence of these witnesses unworthy of credence and unacceptable. ( 10 ) THE learned Addi. Govt. Counsel argued that normally public man does not come forward voluntarily to become police witness in such a cases of trap. Only those persons who have been victims will depose against accused of trap cases. \ As such the evidence of Trap Inspector finds i corroboration from the evidence of P. W. 2 and a P. W. 3 in the present case which warrants the conviction of the appellant. This argument of learned Addi. Govt. Only those persons who have been victims will depose against accused of trap cases. \ As such the evidence of Trap Inspector finds i corroboration from the evidence of P. W. 2 and a P. W. 3 in the present case which warrants the conviction of the appellant. This argument of learned Addi. Govt. counsel is not sustainable in view of the case Sabhapati Tiwari V. State of U. P. which is relied on, Supreme Court case Raghubir Singh v. State of Punjab2 in which it has I been held that the officers functioning in Anti Corruption Department must seriously endeavour to secure really independent and respectable witness 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 the safe guards for the protection of public servant against whom a trap may have been laid. In the present case the Trap Inspector not only failed to secure independent and respectable witnesses from the place of occurrence nor from the Shastri Nagar Chauraha which is admittedly surrounded by office of D. I. O. S. , Employment Exchange, Oriental Bank of Commerce within sphere of one furlong but also he committed such acts during the trap and later on, for which he was not competent. ( 11 ) IN the facts and circumstances stated above, I have no hesitation in holding that it would be difficult and unsafe to unsustain the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded by the Trial Court basing upon the evidence of highly interested witnesses of the prosecution which smacks taint and malafide and which does not find corroboration from independent evidence, even the scientific test does not inculpate the appellants hands in the crime. Thus the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt to the appellant beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution in the instant case. ( 12 ) THOUGH the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out certain other infirmities and discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding their presence on the tea stall, instructions to the complainant for bringing the appellant to the tea stall, calling of witnesses at the time of arranging the trap etc. ( 12 ) THOUGH the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out certain other infirmities and discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding their presence on the tea stall, instructions to the complainant for bringing the appellant to the tea stall, calling of witnesses at the time of arranging the trap etc. but I need not dilate upon those infirmities and discrepancies in extensor because I have already disbelieved the prosecution story regarding demand of bribe by the appellant, recovery of currency note from the possession of Ram Kishore appellant and presence of the witnesses at the tea stall which are sufficient to warrant acquittal of the appellant ( 13 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant, passed by the learned VIlith Additional District and Special Judge, Ghaziabad, on 27/10/1984 are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. The appellant is on bail and he need not surrender. The bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal allowed. .