VIRENDRA SARAN, J. Zamil Ahmad has filed appeal against the order dated 13-12-1982 of Sri Rajendra Nath IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Basti passed in Special Case No. 1 of 1980. The learned Judge has convicted the appeal under Section 161, I P. C. and under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to one years R. I. under each of the counts. 2. The prosecution case against the appellant is that on 5-7-1978 the appellant was posted as Ahelmad in the Court of S. D. M, Dumeriaganj, District Basti. According to the prosecution case No. 85 of 1977 Smt. Sarojni Devi v. Bajrangi under Section 145 Cr. P. C. was pending in the Court of S. D. M. , Dumeriaganj, District Basti. Smt. Sarojani Devi is wife of Bhagirathi Misra PW 7 who was doing pairvi in the said case. Bhagirathi Misra is practising in medicine in Itwa Bazar where a weekly market is held on each Wednesday. In case Bhagirathi Misra had to attend the Court in connection with the case on Wednesdays he had to suffer professional loss hence he wanted that dates may not be fixed on Wednesdays. On 20-6 -. 978 the learned S. D. M. had not come to the Court and 5-7-78 was fixed as the next date. The same was a Wednesday. On 4-7-1978 Bhagirathi Misra gave an application Ext-ka-2 to Sri Hari Murti Singh. The then District Magistrate who by his order Ext-ka-1 directed that Vigilance Inspector to lay a trap On 5-7-1978 P. W. 1 Harbans Misra, Vigilance Inspector went to Itwa Bazar and recorded the statement of PW 7 Bhagirathi Misra who gave a five rupee Note JE 798768 (Ext. Ka-4) to the Vigilance Inspector who treated the note with phanolapthalien powder and handed over the note to PW 7 for being given in bribe to the appellant. The trap party consisting of PW 2 Harbans Misra, Vigilance Inspector, Bhagirathi Misra PW 7, Avdhesh Prasad PW 3 and Thakur Prasad PW 6 and some police constables proceeded to the Court of learned S. D. M. and reached there at about 2 Oclock in the noon. While PW 7 Bhagirathi Misra was sent to give Rs. 5 as illegal gratification to the appellant PW 3 Avdhesh Prasad was directed to inform the Trap Inspector when the amount had been paid to the appellant. 3. While PW 7 Bhagirathi Misra was sent to give Rs. 5 as illegal gratification to the appellant PW 3 Avdhesh Prasad was directed to inform the Trap Inspector when the amount had been paid to the appellant. 3. At about 1 Oclock the case under Section 145, Cr. P. C. Smt. Sarojni Devi wife of Bhagirathi Misra was called out and the appellant placed the file before the learned S. D. M. who gave a date due to rush Bhagirathi Misra could not know the date at that time. When the S. D. M. left the Court the accused alongwith the file came back to his seat. Bhagirathi Misra requested the accused to let him know the date in the case and the appellant replied the Wednesday has not been fixed and demanded Rs. 5. Bhagirathi Misra gave the five rupee note (Ext-Ka-4) to the appellant who kept the same in the packet of his Bushshirt. At about 1. 45 p. m. PW 3 Avdesh Prasad informed the Vigilance Inspector that the illegal gratification had been paid. The Vigi lance Inspector went inside the Court room and disclosing his identity recover ed the said five rupee note from the pocket of the applicants Bushshirt. There were three other currency notes of Re. 1 each in the pocket of the appellant. The finger of the appellant and the pocket of his Bushshirt were dipped in a solution of Sodium Corbonate and its colour turned pink. The samples were prepared Exts. Ka-6 & 7 and they were sealed and a memo was prepared. The Bushshirt was also sealed. The recovery memo Ext. ka-9 was also prepared and the samples were sealed. These articles were taken vide Ext. Ka-9. The file of case No. 85 of 1977 was also sealed vide memo Ext. Ka-10. The appel lant taken into custody and a First Information Report was lodged at P. S. Dumeriaganj at 4. 15 p. m. vide Ext. Ka-11. 4. The Investigation of the case was conducted by Sri Onkar Nath Singh, Vigilance Inspector. After completing the investigation and obtaining the sanction for prosecution he laid of charge-sheet. 5. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 6. In support of its case the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. PW 1 Murli Shyam Manohar was the then District Magistrate. He has proved the sanction to prosecute Ext. Ka-1. After completing the investigation and obtaining the sanction for prosecution he laid of charge-sheet. 5. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 6. In support of its case the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. PW 1 Murli Shyam Manohar was the then District Magistrate. He has proved the sanction to prosecute Ext. Ka-1. PW 2 Hari Bansh Misra, Vigilance Inspector, who laid the trap, PW 3 Awadesh Prasad, PW 6 Thakur Prasad Singh and PW 7 Bhagirathi Misra are witnesses of fact, PW 4 H C. Paras Nath Yadav, PW 5 Munna Singh Constable Vigilance are formal wit nesses PW 8 Dr. G. D. Misra Junior Scientific Officer who has analysed the solu tion in his laboratory. PW 10 Damodar Prasad Misra took down the F. I. R. at P. S. Dumariganj. PW 9 Onkar Nath, Vigilance Inspector who was investi gated the case. After the evidence was recorded, appellant was examined. He denied the prosecution allegations and added that the earlier to the present incident there was another incident regarding which an F. I. R. was lodged against certain lawyers namely Shyam Ji, Ram Chandra and Bhagwati Prasad for snataching Rs. 24 from Sri Ram Kumar Peshkar. The appellant was doing pairvi on behalf of Ram Kumar because he was a leader of the employees besides being a neighbour of Ram Kumar. The appellant pleaded that PW 7. Bhagirathi Misra had been set up by the said lawyers and the preference case has been concocted against him. The appellant examined DW 1 Vishwanath Prasad and DW 2 Shiv Kumar. Vishwanath Prasad was Chief Revenue Assistant in the Collectorate, Basti while Shiv Kumar has proved the chik F. I. R. lodged by Ram Kumar Peshkar. 7. The learned Sessions Judge has covicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. The appellant has now come up in appeal. 8. I have heard Sri V. C. Misra learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellant and the learned State Counsel and gone through the evidence on the record. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the entire story of the prosecution is a tissue of life. The appellant has now come up in appeal. 8. I have heard Sri V. C. Misra learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellant and the learned State Counsel and gone through the evidence on the record. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the entire story of the prosecution is a tissue of life. He pointed out that no doubt en 20-6-78 a date on Wednesday i. e. 5-7-78 was fixed but at the same time on 5-7-78 the next date was not given by the appellant but it was fixed by the learned S. D. M. himself on an application for adjournment moved on behalf of Bajrangi Lai. PW 2 Harbans Misra Trap Inspector was cross-examined on the point. His attention was drawn to the record of the case under Section 145, Cr. P. C. There was no application of Bajrangi Lal dated 5-7-78 in which an order of Sri Madhukar Dwivedi S. D. M. Dumariagang adjourning the case to 18-7-78 was written by Sri Dwivedi his own pen and ink. The appellant nowhere came in picture in fixing the date. Under the circumstances PW 7 Bhagirathi Misra was under no obligation to pay Rs. 5 as bribe for fixing such a date. It may also be mentioned here that PW 7 Bhagirathi Misra had engaged his own counsel and he could directly request the learned S. D. M. to give the date avoiding Wednesdays. I find that there is much force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It may further be noted that there is nothing to show that there was any meeting between the appellant and PW 7 Bhagirathi Misra in between 20-6- 78 and 5-7-78. 10. According to PW 2 Harbans Misra, Trap Inspector on 5-7-78 he first went to P. S. Itwa and summoned PW 7 Bhagirathi Misra who produced a five rupee currency note which was treated with phanolaphlien powder and returned to PW 7 Bhagirathi Misra for being given in bribe to the appellant. The fingers of Bhagirathi Misra wers dipped in the solution of Sodium Carbo nate which turned pink. The said solution was thereafter sealed and a sample seal was also prepared. According to PW 2 (Harbans Misra), Trap Inspector after the appellant was searched and the currency note of Rs. The fingers of Bhagirathi Misra wers dipped in the solution of Sodium Carbo nate which turned pink. The said solution was thereafter sealed and a sample seal was also prepared. According to PW 2 (Harbans Misra), Trap Inspector after the appellant was searched and the currency note of Rs. 5 was recovered from him, the fingers of the appellant as also his bushshirt were dipped in the solution of Sodium Corbonate which turned pink. The said solution, the shirt and the currency note were also sealed and a sample weal was also prepared. The connection of the defence is that PW 7 Bhagirathi Misra had himself put the currency note in the pocket of the appellant who threw it down on the ground and PW 2 Inspector Harbans Misra had picked up the five rupee note from the ground and thereafter took the appellant to P. S. Dumariaganj. According to the defence the prosecution has held out a barrage of lies in asserting that the solution, the bushshirt, the five rupee currency note and the bottles of Sodium Corbonate were sealed at P. S. Itwa and thereafter in the Court room of S. D. M. , as mentioned above. There appears to be force in the defence contention. It is surprising to note that all the seals found on the sealed articles were not of PW 2, Harbans Misra Vigilance Inspector, but the seals were of Sub- Inspector, Shri Sabhapati Tripathi who had nothing to do with the vigilance establishment. P. W. 2, Har Bans Misra tried to give an explanation for using the seal of S. I. Sabhapati Tripathi on the various articles sealed by him allegedly at P. S. Itwa and the articles sealed in the Court of S. D. M. Dumariganj. He tried to wriggle out by stating that he was posted in 1974 at P. S. Kotwali Basti and at some stage his seal was changed with the seal of S. I. Tripathi of the local police but he has got his seal now. The explanation offered by PW 2 Inspector Harbans Misra is hardly convincing. He tried to wriggle out by stating that he was posted in 1974 at P. S. Kotwali Basti and at some stage his seal was changed with the seal of S. I. Tripathi of the local police but he has got his seal now. The explanation offered by PW 2 Inspector Harbans Misra is hardly convincing. It is not understandable that Sri Harbans Misra continued to use the seal of another police officer posted in the local police for a long period of four years and even when he was posted in an entirely different establishment i. e. the Vigilance establishment, PW 2 Harbans Misra Inspector on being cross-examined stated that even at P. S. Itwa he prepared the sample seal but the same is not forthcoming and does not know what happened to the sample seal prepared at the P. S. Itwa. It appears that in fact all these things were neither sealed at Police Station Itwa nor in the Court of S. D. M. , Dumariaganj but were sealed subsequently elsewhere at one and the same time and PW 2 Harbans Misra unconsciously prepared only one sample seal over looking the fact that on papers he had shown the sealing at two different places. Disappearance of the sample seal for which the pro secution is unable to give any explanation casts a serious doubt on the pro secution case. 11. Even otherwise it does not appear that PW 2 Inspector Harbans Mishra was acting in an uninterested manner in the discharge of his duties as a public servant. He has denied the defence suggestion that he was related to PW 7 Bhagirathi Mishra. He admitted that Ayodhya Prasad Chaturvedi is resident of Paitolia and was real brother of Raja Ram Chaturvedi and that Ayodhya Prasad Chaturvedi was his relation. He, however, denied that PW 7 Bhagirathi Mishra was sarhu of Raja Ram Chaturvedi. The District Magis trate had not marked the application of PW 7 Bhagirathi Misra by name to PW 2 Harbans Mishra. PW 2 Harbans Mishra admitted in cross-examination that he himself went to the residence of the District Magistrate and had not been called by the District Magistrate for the purpose of the present case. The witnesses, however, maintained that the District Magistrate had himself handed over the application of PW 7 Bhagirathi Mishra to him. PW 2 Harbans Mishra admitted in cross-examination that he himself went to the residence of the District Magistrate and had not been called by the District Magistrate for the purpose of the present case. The witnesses, however, maintained that the District Magistrate had himself handed over the application of PW 7 Bhagirathi Mishra to him. Sri Murli Shyam Manohar, District Magistrate was examined in the case as PW 1 and there is not even a whisper in his evidence that he handed over the application of PW 7 Bhagirathi Misra to PW 2 Harbans Mishra or directed him to arrange for a trap. Ext. ka-2 is the endorsement of the District Magistrate on the application of Bhagirathi Mishra in which it is noted that the Trap Inspector of the Vigilance Department may arrange for a trap, ft is not directed to PW 2 Harbans Mishra did not obtain any orders of the Superintendent of Police concerned as to which of Vigilance Inspectors would arrange the trap. It appears that PW 2 Harbans Mishra was taking special interest and he himself went to the residence of the District Magistrate and took the application Dasti in his hand and without taking a superior officer in confidence and set out to arrange trap of the present case. At this very place a referencee may be made to the defence suggestion that the present case has been concocted as the appellant had earned the wrath of Ram Chandra Lai, Shyam Ji and Bhagwat Lal who are the lawyers and against whom an FIR was loged by Ram Kumar Peshkar for having snatched Rs. 24. According to the defense the appellant was leader of the employees and he was neighbour of Ram Kumar Peshkar and was taking interest against said lawyers. PW 2 Inspector Harbans Mishra was cross- examined on the point. He admitted that he was posted Station Officer, Dumariaganj in 1972-73 but he gave an evasive reply and stated that he does not know any of the above mentioned lawyers and he further stated that he does not remember that he had enquired the F. I. R. against said lawyers. The F. I. R. lodged by Ram Kumar Peshkar has been proved by the defence and has been marked as Ext. kha-3. The F. I. R. lodged by Ram Kumar Peshkar has been proved by the defence and has been marked as Ext. kha-3. It is not believable that the Station Officer would forget everything about a case lodged by the Reader of the Court against three lawyers. Such episodes spark of lot of controversy but it appears that PW 2 Harbans Mishra is deliberately trying to project himself as forgetful in order to avoid in covenient answers. The demeanour of PW 2 goes to show that he was not giving straight forward answer or trying to conceal things. The evidence of PW 2 Harbans Mishra is not worthy of credence. 12. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appel lant that the conduct of the Trap Inspector in not taking even a single indepen dent witness in the case renders the prosecution case highly doubtful. Even if the Trap Inspector Inspector did not think it proper to disclose his plan to trap the appellant prior to the taking of the search of the appellant it was a crowded court room and there was no derth of independent witnesses yet not a single independent witness is forthcoming. The presence of large number of persons in the Court room is an admitted fact. 13. PW 6 Thakur Prasad Singh is one of the trap witnesses and who was interested in PW 7 Bhagirathi Mishra is one of the witnesses produced by the prosecution- Thakur Prasad Singh has admitted that he was the marginal witness of the sale-deed in favour of PW 7 Bhagirathi Mishra. He further admitted that in the case under Section 145, Cr. P. C. Smt. Sarojani Devi v. Bajrangi Lal PW 7 Bhagirath Mishra had made him a witness. However, PW 6 Thakur Prasad Singh in his examination-in-chief denied the correctness of the prosecution case and stated that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate came shortly after the trap party had reached the premises of the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dumariaganj and that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate sat in the Court for two hours and did several cases. He, however, denied having seen the appellant taking any money and he specifically stated that the appellant did not rsk for any money nor the same was paid to him while he was present. He further stated that the accused did not keep the money in his pocket. He, however, denied having seen the appellant taking any money and he specifically stated that the appellant did not rsk for any money nor the same was paid to him while he was present. He further stated that the accused did not keep the money in his pocket. He further stated that so long he was present there was no recovery of any money from the appellant. The prosecution declared this witness hostile and cros-examined him. In cross- examination the witness denied his statement allegedly recorded by the Investigating Officer. Thus the evidence of PW 6 Thakur Prasad Singh tells against the prosecution case. The mere fact that the prosecution chose to declare the witness hostile will not go to show that his denial of acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant is untrue. The witness was interested in PW 7 Bhagirathi Mishra and was going to be examined as his witness in the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. However, it appears that he was not willing to support PW 7 Bhagi rathi Mishra to the extent of giving false evidence, incriminating the appellant on a false criminal charge. 14. There remains the evidence of PW 3 Avadesh Prasad Mishra and PW 7 Bhagirathi Mishra. According to the prosecution case 5-7-78 was the date fixed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The usual Court hours are 10,30 a. m. on wards. It does not stand to reason that PW 7 Bhagirathi Mishra would not go to attend the Court at about 10-30 a. m. but would go to Dumariaganj after modelties of the trap had been settled by the Trap Inspector and thus reaching Dumariaganj not earlier than 12 p. m, The case could have been called out even at 10. 30 a. m. and orders unfavourable to P. W. 7 Bhagiathi Mishra could have been passed much before 12 p. m. . It appears that the entire trap party had gone to the court of Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Dumariaganj much earlier than 12pm. and after the arrest of the appellant the prosecution story was given a shape later on. PWs Avadhesh Prasad Mishra and Bhagirathi Mishra are closely related inter se. Avadhesh Prasad Mishra has admitted in cross-examination that Bhagirathi Mishra was his brother-in-law (sisters husband ). and after the arrest of the appellant the prosecution story was given a shape later on. PWs Avadhesh Prasad Mishra and Bhagirathi Mishra are closely related inter se. Avadhesh Prasad Mishra has admitted in cross-examination that Bhagirathi Mishra was his brother-in-law (sisters husband ). The close scrutiny of the evidence of Avadesh Prasad Misra leaves a question mark in my mind regarding his presence in the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dumariaganj at the time of the incident. The witness resides in village Dau Jot, P. S. Dumaria ganj whereas Bhagirathi Misra is a resident of Qasba It was Itwa at a distance of 18 k. m. Avadhesh Prasad Mishra tried to explain his presence and stated that he had casually gone to the place of Bhagirathi Misra and was siting at his shop when at 9. 30 a. m. a police contable called Bhagirathi Mishra to P. S. Itwa later on the constable also called him to P. S. Itwa. Bhagirathi Mishra has contradicted the witness and stated that Avdhesh Prasad Mishra was staying at his house since two days prior to 5-7-1978. He stated that he had his first ever meeting with the Trap Inspector at P. S. Itwa. He had, however, given a different statement to the Investigating Officer that he met the Vigiliance Inspector in Qasba Itwa. The witness was confronted with his state ment given to the Investigating Officer and he replied that the statement written by Investigation Officer was totally incorrect. When further cross-examined the witness could not tell any reason as to why he had gone to the shop of PW 7 Bhagirathi Mishra on the day of incident. When further cross-examined the witness was unable to tell whether Bajrangi Lal opposite party also came when the case under Section 145, Cr. P. C. was called out. He could not tell whether the counsel of PW 7 Bhagirathi Mishra also came to the Court to attend the Court or not. He could not tell whether any application was given to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on behalf of the opposite party Bajrangi Lai. He could not tell whether the counsel for PW 7 Bhagi rathi Mishra returned after taking date. He tried to explain his inability to tell the above facts by stating that he had already gone away to inform the Trap Inspector. He could not tell whether the counsel for PW 7 Bhagi rathi Mishra returned after taking date. He tried to explain his inability to tell the above facts by stating that he had already gone away to inform the Trap Inspector. If that be true then this witness had no occasion to see giving of bribe to the appellant as he had already left the Court from earlier as soon as the case was called out. The lack of knowledge of the witness on all the above material points goes to show that in all probabity he was not present at the time of the incident and his presence was procured later on as he was brother-in-law of PW 7 Bhagirathi Mishra. 15. PW 7 Bhagirathi Mishra has described himself as a doctor. The defence on the other hand tried to show that he was a man of questionable character and he does not possess any qualifications in Medical Science. In cross-examination PW 7 Bhagirathi Mishra stated that he was registered in 1965 by the Bihar Aurvedic Medical Board. On being questioned regarding his registration certificate the witness stated that there was a theft at his house in 1974 in which his certificate was stolen and he lodged a report regarding the theft. On being further questioned the witness could not give his registration No. The witness has admitted that he has not obtained a duplicate certificate though he claimed that he has applied for the same. The above statement made by the witness creates doubt whether the witness really possess any such qualification. The evidence of this witness was recorded in the year 1982 and it does not stand to reason that neither he made any serious effort to obtain a duplicate of his certificate nor did he remember his registration number. The witness has tried to point the appellant as a habitual bribe taker but his claim is falsified from the fact that the appellant possessed merely Rs. 3 in his pocket. Had the appellant been in the habit of accepting illegal gratification he must have possssed a handsome amount or a number of currency notes. It is admitted to PW 7 Bhagirathi Mishra that very large number of cases were fixed on that day and if the appellant was extracting money even in cases where dates were fixed much more than merely Rs. It is admitted to PW 7 Bhagirathi Mishra that very large number of cases were fixed on that day and if the appellant was extracting money even in cases where dates were fixed much more than merely Rs. 3 would have found on his person. The claim of PW 7 Bhagirathi Misra that the appellant used to give dates also does not appear to be correct. In cross-examination PW 7 Bhagirathi Mishra admitted that most of the cates were fixed by the learned S. D. M. himself. The witness could not specify as to which dates were given by the appellant on Wednesday. In cross- examination the witness admitted that besides the appellant, Iqbal Ahmad was also posted as a in the court of S. D. M, Dumariaganj and on some occations the appellant gave dates and on some other occasions Iqbal Ahmad. PW 7 Bhagirathi Mishra claimed that in order to cause harm to him the appellant wrongly noted on some dates that Bhagirathi Mishra was absent. The above assertions of PW 7 Bhagirathi Mishra has been demonstrated to be false. During the course of cross-examination PW 7 Bhagirathi Misra was shown the record of the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. and was asked to show any such nothing by the appellant. After going through the record the witness conceded that no where the appellant has marked the absence of the witness. Then the witness stated that he had made a complaint of the above fact by giving an application. No such application was found in the record and then the witness took a some result by stating that he had given the said application to one Shahid and he cannot tell what Shahid did of the said application. One more fact appears from the cross- examination of PW 7 Bhagirathi Mishra. The witness admitted that he had engaged Sri Agrishwar Lal, Advocate of Basti besides Sri Chandi Lal, while his opposite party Bajrangi had engaged Shamshul Haq Advocate of Basti besides Sri Beni Madhav Mishra of Damariaganj. These two advocates of Basti used to wrote in Dumariaganj on Mondays and they had agreed that dates on Mondays may be fixed in the present case. The witness further stated that the dates were fixed in the presence of the learned S. D. M. Dumariaganj. These two advocates of Basti used to wrote in Dumariaganj on Mondays and they had agreed that dates on Mondays may be fixed in the present case. The witness further stated that the dates were fixed in the presence of the learned S. D. M. Dumariaganj. That being so, the Advocates on either side could give an agreed date to the learned S. D. M. and the appellant had hardly any significant role to play. Yet another important facts has come out from the evidence of PW 7 Bhagirathi Mishra that on 5-7-78 (date of incident) the learned S. D. M. , Dumariaganj get the cost paid to the counsel of PW 7 Bhagirathi Misra as the same had been awarded on the previous date i. e. 20-6-78 and he further stated that at the same time the next date was himself fixed by the learned S. D. M. in his own pen and ink. In such a situation the date would have been told by the lawyer to PW 7 Bhagirathi Misra. In cross- examination PW 7 Bhagirathi Misra has stated that on 5-7- 78 the learned S. D. M. himself gave the date and his lawyer not only accepted the cost but also signed in token of noting the date. He further stated that immediately PW 3 Avdhesh Prasad Misra called the trap Inspector inside the Court room and when he asked Sri Chandi Lal Vakil to tell him the date but Sri Chandi Lal asked the witness to go and enquire about the date and further told the appellant to fulfill the demand of payment and not the date. The witness stated that there were about 50 persons present at that time in the Court The above statement goes to show that even the payment of Rs, 5 was made in the presence of the Trap Inspector, Bar Bans Misra. The evidence of PW 7 Bhagirathi Misra as has been discussed earlier contradicts the evidence of Har Bans Misra PW 2 who claims that he came into Court room only after the payment of bribe had been made. Thus the evidence of PW 7 Bhagirathi Misra is also of highly doubtful character. 16. The evidence of PW 7 Bhagirathi Misra as has been discussed earlier contradicts the evidence of Har Bans Misra PW 2 who claims that he came into Court room only after the payment of bribe had been made. Thus the evidence of PW 7 Bhagirathi Misra is also of highly doubtful character. 16. At the risk of repetition, I would like to point out that PW 3 Avdhesh Prasad Misra is the brother-in- law of PW 7 Bhagirathi Misra who has admitted that Avdhesh Prasad Misra resides 18 k. m. away but for previous two days he came and stayed with PW 7 Bhagirathi Misra. The denial of this fact by PW 3 Avdesh Prasad Misra also casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case and it appears that the entire proceedings of the Trap are of a shady character upon which no reliance can be placed. 17. I would also like to mention that for the reasons best known to the prosecution the articles sealed on the spot on 5-7-78 containing sodium which had turned pink and other sealed articles were not promptly sent for chemical examination. PW 5 Constable Munna Singh has stated that he collected the sealed articles from PW 6, Dumariaganj as late as on 24-1-1979. He further disclosed that these articles were in his possession till 1-2-1979. The prosecution has not offered any explanation for this delay and the chances of tampering with the sealed bundles cannot be ruled out. 18. Before parting with the case, it would be necessary to comment upon the highly objectionable conduct of the Vigilance Inspector Har Bans Misra who took away the judicial record of proceedings under Section 145, Cr, P. C. without even informing the presiding officer i. e. learned S. D. M. Dumariaganj The record of the case was the property of the court and it should not have been taken away without prior permission of the court. It appears that since the Vigilance Inspector had not sealed the articles on the spot and not completed the formalities at the spot, he did not want the matters to come to the notice of the learned S. D. M. Dumariaganj. 19. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion, that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant and hence the appellant is held not guilty. 20. 19. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion, that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant and hence the appellant is held not guilty. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences passed against the appellant are set aside. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed. .