KUNDAN SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant Kamta Prasad Yadav against the judgment and order dated 14. 2. 1986, passed by Sri R. B. L. Dohare, Special and Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar, whereby he convicted the appellant under Section 1611. P. C. read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment in special Case No. 1 of 1983. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22. 5. 1982 Har Charan complainant, resident of village Ahmadpur Choroli, police station Jewar, District Bulandshahar brought two Buggis of wheat for sale at Jewar Purchasing Centre. At that time the appellant was posted as Incharge of the Purchasing Centre. He saw the wheat and refused to purchase it, being of inferior quality. The complainant then persuaded the appellant but he demanded Rs. 200/- as bribe for purchasing the wheat and ultimately the deal was settled at Rs. 165/ -. After weighment of the wheat, the appellant demanded the bribe money before issuing the cheque but the complainant refused to pay the same. The appellant then told him that the cheque and receipt would not be issued unless he paid the amount settled. Thereupon the complainant assured him to pay the money next day i. e. on 23. 5. 1982 and left the Centre. In the evening he contacted his fellow villagers. Narendra Singh Pradhan and Jagdish. They after deliberations decided to report the matter to the District Magistrate next day. On 23. 5. 1982 the complainant took Rs. 165/- and then in the company of Narendra Singh and Jagdish went to meet the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar. The District Magistrate heard their complaint and asked them to contact Sri Bheem Singh Som, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sikandrabad. The complainant then went alone to meet the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Shri Som, who recorded his statement (Ext. Ka 8) got it thumb marked and took over the currency notes of Rs. 165/from the complainant. On these notes the Magistrate put his initials and placed the notes and the statement in an envelope and handed over the same to the complainant with the instruction to meet the District Magistrate. At that time Sri Javed Usmandi was the in-charge District Magistrate. 165/from the complainant. On these notes the Magistrate put his initials and placed the notes and the statement in an envelope and handed over the same to the complainant with the instruction to meet the District Magistrate. At that time Sri Javed Usmandi was the in-charge District Magistrate. He saw the papers and directed the complainant to contact the Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar who in his turn sent the complainant to the Trap Inspector with a letter containing a direction to him for laying the trap. The complainant then contacted Sri P. C. Rohtela, Deputy Superintendent of Police and handed over the envelopes to him. From Bulandshahar, the party consisting of the complainant, Narendra Singh, Jagdish and Deputy S. P. Sri P. C. Rohtela proceeded on a Jeep to Khurja. On reaching Khurja Sri Rohtela picked up three constables and then the entire party left for Jewar. Reaching at Janta Inter College, Jewar, the Jeep alongwith the Driver was left at the College and from there the members of the party proceeded to the Wheat Purchasing Centre on foot. They all reached the Centre at 5. 20 P. M. There the complainant and one constable, who was in plain clothes, were instructed by the Trap Inspector to contact the accused- appellant, who at that time was sitting in a room of the Purchasing Center and other members hid behind a stack of wheat bags at the Centre out-side the office room of the appellant from where the witnesses could see everything inside the room and also hear the talks of the complainant and the accused both. On entering the room, the complainant first wished the accused and then demanded the cheque whereupon the accused asked him to pay the settled money first and the complainant said that he had brought the amount. The appellant then inquired about the identity of the person accompanying the complainant and the latter introduced him as his younger brother working in a Factory at Faridabad. As per demand, the complainant offered the currency notes bearing the initials of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sri Som. The accused took the notes, counted the money and put it beneath his Gaddi. The trap Inspector who was supervising the activities while in hiding, came out from behind the heap of bags with the witnesses and arrested the appellant. As per demand, the complainant offered the currency notes bearing the initials of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sri Som. The accused took the notes, counted the money and put it beneath his Gaddi. The trap Inspector who was supervising the activities while in hiding, came out from behind the heap of bags with the witnesses and arrested the appellant. The Trap Inspector recovered the currency notes from under the Gaddi, prepared recovery memos of the notes and other articles, including the money and the cheque found in the pocket of the accused. He also took into possession the Tak patti, containing the entry of the wheat bags of the complainant at serial No. 226597. The Trap Inspector got the recovery memos signed by the witnesses on the spot and thereafter brought the accused and the recovered articles to Police station Jewar where an F. I. R. of the incident was lodged at 6. 30 P. M. the same day and the accused alongwith recovered articles was handed over to the police. ( 3 ) THE investigation of the case was entrusted to Sri Balbir Singh Chauhan (P. W. 6), who was then posted as Circle Officer, Khurja, Sri Chauhan recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared a site plan of place of incident, took down the statements of the accused and Sri Bheem Singh Som, S. D. M. and sent a letter to the Managing Director Agro at Lucknow for according necessary sanction for prosecution of the accused-appellant. After receipt of the sanction Ex. Ka. 15, a charge sheet was then submitted in court against the accused. ( 4 ) THE accused-appellant pleaded not guilty in court and claimed to be tried. ( 5 ) THE prosecution examined in all seven witnesses and they can be classed into two categories. The first category is of those who had witnessed the incident and another is of those who have given the evidence of formal nature. Jagdish Singh (P. W. I) Narendra Singh (P. W. 2), Har Charan (P. W. 5) and P. C. Rohtela (P. W. 3) were examined by the prosecution to give eye witness account of the incident, of them, Jagdish Singh and Narendra Singh are said to be public witnesses, but they did not support the prosecution case in toto and were declared hostile. Har Charan (P. W. 5) is the complainant himself, while P. C. Rohtela is the Trap Inspector, As regards the formal witnesses Sri Bheem Singh Som (P. W. 4) Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khurja, had recorded the statement of the complainant on being referred to him by the District Magistrate, and put his initials on the notes, to be offered to the accused as bribe, Balbir Singh Chauhan (P. W. 6) is the Investigating Officer, who proved the various stages of the investigations made by him. Sri Kashi Prasad (PW. 7) was General Manager, Fertilizer, at the relevant time and he accorded the sanction for prosecution of the appellant. One Sri Ramesh Kumar, Regional Accountant, U. P. Agro, then posted at Jewar Centre, was examined as C. W. 1 and he tendered in evidence the cheque prepared in the name of Harcharan complainant, bearing No. 249232. ( 6 ) THE defence also examined three witnesses, namely Shyam Lal Sangal (D. W. 1), Hukum Singh (D. W. 2) and Chandu (D. W. 3 ). Shyam Lal Sengal has tendered in evidence a letter issued by the Divisional Office of the U. P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. Where under joint operation of the account under the signatures of the accused-appellant and one Prem Chand Mishra, another employee of the Corporation, posted at the Centre, was authorised, Hukam Singh (D. W. 2) was Cashier posted in Mandi Samiti, Jewar at the relevant time, and was examined to prove the prevailing rate of wheat at Rs. 142/- per quintal at the time of incident, and Chandu (D. W. 3) was examined to prove that a day before the incident he had also sold his wheat at the Centre but cheque could not be issued to him that very day because another man who was authorised to sign the cheque jointly with the appellant, returned late in the evening and that a quarrel took place between the complainant and the accused regarding the quality and rate of wheat brought for sale by the former. He further deposed that next day when he went to collect his cheque, he learnt that police had arrested the Centre Incharge and took away his cheque and the appellant to the police station. ( 7 ) THE accused denied the prosecution version and stated in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. He further deposed that next day when he went to collect his cheque, he learnt that police had arrested the Centre Incharge and took away his cheque and the appellant to the police station. ( 7 ) THE accused denied the prosecution version and stated in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. that in the year 1979 when he was posted at the Centre. one Jai Karan Singh, resident of village Ahmadpur Choroli brought his wheat for sale at his centre. He purchased his good quality wheat but returned the rest, being inferior in quality. Complainant Harcharan and Jai Karan Singh are both caste fellow and belong to one party. Due to that enmity he has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of Jai Karan Singh. On 22. 5. 1982 Har Charan also brought inferior quality of wheat and he wanted to sell it for the price of grade AT wheat but it was purchased at a lower price meant for grade B and entered in the Tak Patti, which has annoyed the complainant and on account of that enmity he got him falsely implicated in this case. ( 8 ) ON trial, the learned Special Judge held the appellant guilty of the charge under Section 161 I. P. C. read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and accordingly he convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Being aggrieved, he has preferred this appeal which has come up for hearing before me. ( 9 ) AT the very out -set the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the entire prosecution case is nothing but a fable invented by the complainant Har Charan and the learned Special Judge fell into error in returning the verdict of guilt against the appellant on the evidence as it exists on record. He also urged that two public witnesses have not supported the prosecution version and have turned hostile. If the evidence of these public witnesses is excluded from consideration, practically there remains no independent and trustworthy evidence to sustain the conviction of the appellant in as much as Har Charan (P. W. 5) and P. C. Rohtela (P. W. 3) were partisan and interested witnesses, being complainant and the trap inspector respectively and no implicit reliance can be placed on such witnesses. 9. 9. From the trend of prosecution evidence it is apparent that something unhappy and un savoury incident had happened a day before 23. 5. 1982 between the complainant and the accused, which led the former to approach the District Magistrate with his two fellow villagers and in that connection he met the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sikandrabad, Superintendent of Police and then the Deputy Superintendent of Police Sri P. C. Rohtela, who laid trap. Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that the complainant had a grouse and serious complaint against the appellant and he wanted to settle the score with him of the previous days incident and to achieve that mission he could go to any extent. In that connection reference of Jagdish Singh and Narendra Singh, who have been examined as prosecution witnesses in this case is necessary. Besides being fellow villagers, they appeared to be chum friends of the complainant because it were only these two persons with whom the complainant had consulted in the village and they had accompanied him to the office of the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar, for getting the appellant trapped and the entire conspiracy was hatched in consultation and with deliberations of those two persons. In the court those very two persons did not support the prosecution version and denied the passing of bribe from the complainant to the accused in their presences. If we exclude from consideration their testimony, there remains the evidence of only two ocular witnesses viz the complainant himself and the Trap Inspector Sri Rohtela. The complainant, as mentioned above, had an animus against the appellant and a strong motive to falsely implicate the appellant while Sri Rohtela was interested, being Trap Inspector, to make the trap successful any how. No doubt, their testimony cannot be thrown and brushed aside on this ground alone but certainly it requires a close and cautious scrutiny. ( 10 ) IT has come in the evidence that at the time of incident the process of weighment of wheat was going on at the weight-bridge (Kanta) and in order to oversee those operations the accused used to come out of his room intermittently. ( 10 ) IT has come in the evidence that at the time of incident the process of weighment of wheat was going on at the weight-bridge (Kanta) and in order to oversee those operations the accused used to come out of his room intermittently. Naturally, being incharge and responsible for the affairs at the Centre, he might be coming out of the room off and on to supervise the work of weighment at the Kanta and during the casual absence of the appellant from the room, the complainant had enough time and opportunity to place the currency notes, bearing the initials of the Magistrate, beneath the Gaddi of the accused of which the latter had no knowledge at all. Though I entertain grave doubt about the recovery of the money from under the Gaddi of the appellant, however, if we assume for a moment that the money was recovered from there, the above was a circumstance in which the money was planted there of which the appellant had no knowledge at all. While in the witness-box, a question was pointedly put to the Trap Inspector Sri Rohtela by the defence counsel to know the direction of the complainant from the accused when sitting in the room of the Purchasing Centre but he avoided reply by pleading ignorance due to loss of memory after such a long time whereas it was not such an unimportant happening and incidence that he forgot the sitting positions of the complainant and the accused in the room. According to him, he was hiding himself with other witnesses behind the stacked bags of wheat and from there was watching the activities of the accused and the complainant in the room. If it was so, it was not expected of him that he forgot the positions of the complainant and the accused while sitting in the room. The reason is not far to seek for his pleading ignorance about giving a positive direction of the accused from the complainant or vice versa. While in the witness box, he was fully aware that complainant may contradict him on that point casting a doubt on the mind of the court about his presence behind the heap of the bags and to stave off that situation he has pleaded ignorance purposely avoiding any contradiction in the two statements. While in the witness box, he was fully aware that complainant may contradict him on that point casting a doubt on the mind of the court about his presence behind the heap of the bags and to stave off that situation he has pleaded ignorance purposely avoiding any contradiction in the two statements. ( 11 ) FOR watching the actions of the accused and the complainant in the room, the witnesses are said to be lying in ambush behind the heap of bags and allegedly they were at such a short distance from the room that they could hark the dialogues in room. For seeing the activities in the room the witnesses must be peeping or raising their heads off and on and if they could see the accused inside the room, the accused also could see them while raising their heads but he never accosted them or suspected the purpose of their hiding, which appears to be unnatural on the part of the appellant, being a decoy. Moreover, the Trap Inspector would not have enquired from the complainant about the identity of Centre Incharge as stated by Har Charan, if he had witnessed the appellant accepting bribe from the complainant. ( 12 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution version, Constable Mohd. Mehandi, who was also one of the members of the Trap party, was with the complainant in the room when the initialled notes changed hands. If Mehandi Constable was present in the room when the money was offered and accepted, I do not see any difficulty in the way of that Constable in not arresting the appellant then and there red-handed. Mohd. Mehandi was a very important witness of the incident if really he was present in the room with the complainant when the bribe changed hands but his evidence has been withheld by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. ( 13 ) THE prosecution has admitted that at the time of trap, the process of weighment of wheat was in progress and palledars and other farmers were present at the Centre but none of them has been examined by the prosecution and only partisan and interested witnesses have been ushered to support its case whose evidence is tainted with mala fides and does not inspire confidence at all. The Supreme Court in the case of Raghubir Singh v. State of Punjab, has held that the Officers of Anti Corruption Department should seriously endeavour to secure real, independent and respectable witnesses so that the court may place implicit reliance upon their evidence and they should insist on observing safe-guard for protection of the public servants against whom they lay a trap. In this case that principle has been given a go-by by the Department. Irrespective of the fact that independent and impartial persons were available to the prosecution at the time of the alleged Trap none of them has been examined and the prosecution has failed on all fronts to prove its case beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. Two public witnesses had not supported the prosecution case and the other two have shown over enthusiasm to decoy the appellant. ( 14 ) THERE is one more important fact which needs mention. In the trap cases Phenol phtholeion powder is normally used to prove and establish that the currency notes smeared with the aforesaid powder had actually changed hands of the complainant and the accused in bribery transaction. That method of detecting the crime has not been followed in this case and why it was departed from and not adopted in this case is a big question mark on the veracity and uprightness of the prosecution case. This conduct of the prosecution has further roused my suspicion and I am free to draw the conclusion that the story that there was pre-settlement of bribery between the complainant and the accused has been invented. Had there been a settlement between both the counter parts of the bribery the Trap Inspector must have arranged the Phenolphtheleion powder and applied it on notes to be offered to the appellant. Non-application of the phenolphtholeion powder on the currency notes is a pointer of the fact that there was no demand or settlement of money from the side of the appellant and the complainant and the Trap Inspector were not even cock sure that the accused-appellant would be available at the Centre or he would accept the money, especially when a day before the incident the complainant had left the Purchasing Centre in a huff of anger and not in a congenial atmosphere. These circumstances speak for themselves that the story of demand and settlement of bribe was far from truth. These circumstances speak for themselves that the story of demand and settlement of bribe was far from truth. ( 15 ) IN the last the learned counsel for the appellant also questioned the legality of the sanction order for prosecuting the appellant, which is Ext. Ka 15 on record. In that context, the learned counsel drew my attention to Ext. Ka. 15 in which after the reference of the letter of the Superintendent of Police dated 6. 10. 1982 the words Ka Avlokan Kare (may peruse) are typed out and immediately thereafter the order of sanction is in the words Sanction for prosecution of accused Kamta Prasad Yadav is accordedtt. The order also does not contain any date of sanction. Shri Kashi Prasad (P. W. 7) was the authority who accorded sanction for prosecution of the appellant and he has appeared in the witness-box in the court below. In his statement on oath he has stated that he had perused the letter sent by the Superintendent of Police and thereafter had accorded the sanction. In my opinion, because the sanction order is not happily worded or does not contain date would not render the sanction invalid or illegal. The sanctioning authority has cured that defect and clarified the position and I see no infirmity or illegality in that order warranting acquittal of the appellant on that ground. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons disclosed above, I am unable to agree with the learned Special Judge that the charge under Section 161 Cr. P. C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was made out against the appellant and regret to ratify and affirm the verdict of guilt returned by him against the appellant. ( 17 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant as passed by the learned Special Judge are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The appellant is on bail and he need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal allowed. .