Honble SAXENA, J. – This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.4.82 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, whereby he convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner enumerated ad-infra : S.No. Name of the appellant Offence U/Sec. Sentence 1. Ami Lal, H.C. 396 read with 198 I.P.C. 353/109 I.P.C. 2224 I.P.C. R.I. for 4 1/2 years and a fine of Rs. 50/- in default R.I. for 3 months R.I. for 6 months R.I. for 6 months 2. Dayanand, Constable 395 I.P.C. R.I. for 4 1/2 years 3. Bhikha Ram and a fine of Rs. 50/-. 4. Doongar in default 3 months . 5. Nand Karan R.I. 6. Laxman 353/149 I.P.C. R.I. for 6 months 7. Tokha Ram 225 I.P.C. R.I. for 6 months 8. Prithvi Singh 147 I.P.C. R.I. for 6 months (2). Briefly the substratum of the prosecution case is like this. It appears that on the report dated 16.4.77 of P.W. 3 Om Prakash a criminal case was registered at Police Station, Rajgarh against one Ram Singh and others under Sections 323 and 392 I.P.C. and the investigation thereof was conducted by appellant Ami Lal, who at that time was posted as Head Constable, Incharge, Out Post, Sidhmukh. It is alleged that he demanded an amount of Rs. 1000/- from P.W.3 Om Prakash for arre- sting the accused of the said case, which the latter gave him, but the former did not arrest the accused and asked the latter to produce two more witnesses. P.W.3 Om Prakash produced two witnesses. Appellant Ami Lal, Head Constable went to village Dhanoti, but again he did not arrest the accused persons of the said case and told P.W.3 Om Prakash that the latter had filed a false case, that he was under pressure to file a complaint against him under section 182 I.P.C. and asked him to pay Rs. 1000/- more failing which such a criminal complaint would be filed against him and for that he granted him time till 5th May, 1977. It is the case of the prosecution that on 4.5.77 P.W. 3 Om Prakash went to P.W. 13 Shri Teg Bahadur, Dy. S.P.,A.C.D. Out Post, Bikaner and submitted a written report, whereupon the said Dy.S.P. organised a trap. On the same day P.W. 13 Teg Bahadur along with P.W. 2 Udai Raj, Inspector, A.C.D, P.W.14 Hardeep Singh, Head Constable, Momadraj, F.C., Kalu Ram. S.P.,A.C.D. Out Post, Bikaner and submitted a written report, whereupon the said Dy.S.P. organised a trap. On the same day P.W. 13 Teg Bahadur along with P.W. 2 Udai Raj, Inspector, A.C.D, P.W.14 Hardeep Singh, Head Constable, Momadraj, F.C., Kalu Ram. L.D.C. and the complainant Om Prakash proceeded from Bikaner and reached Rajgarh, where they had a night halt. On 5.5.77 two motbirs P.W. 5 Laxman Ram and P.W.7 Sohan Lal, who were posted as Assistant Teachers in the Government Secondary School, Rajgarh, were called and to whom the report lodged by Om Prakash was read over, and they consented to become motbirs. It is alleged that demonstration with phenolphthalein powder and Sodium Carbonate was given by the A.C.D. party to Om Prakash and the Motbirs. Om Prakash produced ten currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each, whose numbers were noted down by Teg Bahadur and those currency notes were dipped into phenolphthalein powder and memo thereof was prepared. Those currency notes were handed over to Om Prakash and he was instructed to give those currency notes to appellant Ami Lal, Head Constable on his demand and that if he accepted those notes then to give a signal to the A.C.D. party by putting off the towel from his head. (3). It is alleged that on 5.5.77 at about 10 a.m. the said A.C.D. party along with motbirs and the complainant boarded the train and reached Sidhmukh Railway Station at about 11.30 a.m. The police Out post, Sidhmukh is about 50-60 paces away from the Railway Station and there is one tea shop (hotel) of appellant Laxman. It is the case of the prosecution that Teg Bahadur, Dy. S.P. and Udai Raj, Inspector and motbir Sohan Lal stayed at appellant Laxmans hotel, while complainant Om Prakash and motbir Laxman Ram went inside the police Out post. The other members of the A.C.D. party waited around the Out Post campus. After a few minutes complainant Om Prakash came out side the Out post and gave the pre-arranged signal on which Teg Bahadur, Dy. S.P., Hardeep Singh, Head Consta- ble, Kalu Ram L.D.C., Momatraj., F.C. and Sohan Lal motbir went inside the Out Post. P.W.2 Udai Raj also followed them. Teg Bahadur enquired Om Prakash about Ami Lal. After a few minutes complainant Om Prakash came out side the Out post and gave the pre-arranged signal on which Teg Bahadur, Dy. S.P., Hardeep Singh, Head Consta- ble, Kalu Ram L.D.C., Momatraj., F.C. and Sohan Lal motbir went inside the Out Post. P.W.2 Udai Raj also followed them. Teg Bahadur enquired Om Prakash about Ami Lal. Thereupon, Om Prakash pointed out towards appellant Ami Lal, Head Constable and informed that on demand made by latter, he had handed over those currency notes worth Rs.1000/- to him, who in turn had given those currency notes to co-accused Radhey Shyam, Constable, who was working outside the Kitchen of the Out post in the court-yard. It is alleged that when Teg Bahadur, Dy. S.P. was disclosing his identity, appellant Ami Lal started crying ``May Rahe Hain, ``Mar Rahe Haih and at his instance appellants Dayanand, Constable and co-accused Radhey Shyam Constable also started raising alarm and they tried to run away. It is alleged that meanwhile co-accused Radhey Shyam, Constable took out those currency notes from the pocket of his shirt and threw them out side the Out Post from the southern eastern side of the boundary wall of the Out Post and fled away, Appellant Dayanand, Constable also managed to escape. However, appellant Ami Lal, Head Constable was over powered by the A.C.D.staff. He was apprehended and handed over in the custody of P.W.2 Udai Raj, Inspector. It is alleged that in the scuffle the bushirts of Ami Lal and Radhey Shyam were also torn. It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter Teg Bahadur, Dy. S.P. came out side the Out Post, collected those currency notes thrown by Radhey Shyam and handed over those to Hardeep Singh, Head Constable. It is further the case of the prosecution that when Teg Bahadur, started preparing the memo, appellant Ami Lal raised alarm that he was being falsely implicated. By that time about 15-20 villagers including appellants, Bhikha Ram, Doongar, Nand Karan, Laxman, Tokha Ram and Prithvi Singh as also Dayanand, Constable armed with lathies and Kassies assembled there. Appellant Ami Lal asked them to snatch away those currency notes and to attack on the A.C.D. party. Thereupon those persons attacked on the A.C.D. party, forcibly looted the currency notes of Rs. 1000/- from the pant pocket of Hardeep Singh H.C along with his identity card and handkerchief. When Teg Bahadur, Dy. Appellant Ami Lal asked them to snatch away those currency notes and to attack on the A.C.D. party. Thereupon those persons attacked on the A.C.D. party, forcibly looted the currency notes of Rs. 1000/- from the pant pocket of Hardeep Singh H.C along with his identity card and handkerchief. When Teg Bahadur, Dy. S.P. and other members of the A.C.D. party tried to rescue Hardeep Singh, H.C., they were also assaulted. In that scuffle, the wrist watch of Teg Bahadur was also snatched away by the miscreants and baniyan of Momatraj, F.C. was also torn. It is further the case of the prosecution that those culprits rescued appellant Ami Lal and also intentionally assaulted and used criminal force to the members of the A.C.D. party, who were public servants and prevented and deterred them from discharging their lawful duty as public servants. It is alleged that those culprits sta- yed out side the Out Post. Teg Bahadur and the members of the raid party left the Police Out Post, Sidhmukh and came to the Railway Station. It is alleged that after some time when the appellants and their companions went away, Teg Bahadur again went to the Police Out Post in search of the relevant record, but no record was available there. Thereafter Teg Bahadur prepared memo Ex.P.11 at the Railway Station, Sidhmukh. (4). The Raid party reached Rajgarh by train and on the same day at 6 p.m. Teg Bahadur lodged a written report Ex.P.17 at Police Station, Rajgarh, whereupon P.W.8 Gaje Singh, Incharge, S.H.O. drew formal F.I.R. Ex. P.18 and registered a case against the appellants. On 6.5.77 Tulchi Ram S.H.O. inspected the place of occurrence, prepared site-plan Ex.P.12 and memo thereof Ex.P.12A and recorded the statements of various witnesses. He also seized the torn pant of Hardeep Singh, H.C. and the torn baniyan of Momatraj, F.C. vide seizure memos Ex.p.23 and Ex.P.24 respectively. On 7.5.77 appellants Tokha Ram and Bhikha Ram were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.20, appellant Doongar was arrested on 10.5.77 vide arrest memo Ex.P.21 while appellants Ami Lal, Dayanand, Nand Karan, Laxman and co-accused Radhey Shyam were arrested on 17.5.77 vide arrest memos Ex.P.25 to Ex.P.29 respect ively. They were kept `Baparda and sent to Jail. On 7.5.77 appellants Tokha Ram and Bhikha Ram were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.20, appellant Doongar was arrested on 10.5.77 vide arrest memo Ex.P.21 while appellants Ami Lal, Dayanand, Nand Karan, Laxman and co-accused Radhey Shyam were arrested on 17.5.77 vide arrest memos Ex.P.25 to Ex.P.29 respect ively. They were kept `Baparda and sent to Jail. On 19.5.77, P.W.1 O.P. Sharma, M.J.M., Churu conducted the identification parade of appellants Doo- ngar, Tokha Ram, Bhikha Ram vide identification parade memo Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, wherein P.W.13 Teg Bahadur Dy.S.P. correctly identified them, while PW.14 Hardeep Singh correctly identified Tokha Ram and Bhikha Ram, but did not identify appellant Doongar. Kalu Ram and Momat Raj correctly identified Dungar and Tokha, but did not identify Bhikha Ram. The said Magistrate also conducted the test parade on 27.5.77 at District Jail, Churu and prepared identification parade memos Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.10, wherein P.W.2 Udai Raj correctly identified appellant Amilal, Laxman and co-accused Radhey Shyam, but did not identify appellants Nand Karan and Dayanand, P.W.14 Hardeep Singh, H.C. correctly identified the aforementioned five appellants. P.W.13 Teg Bahadur correctly identified appellants Amilal and Nand Karan. Appellant Prithvi Singh was arrested in July, 1977 and on 15.7.77, P.W. 4 G.C. Sharma, M.J.M., Rajgarh held his test identification parade is Sub Jail, Rajgarh, wherein P.Ws Teg Bahadur and Hardeep Singh correctly identified him. However, P.W.2 Udai Raj did not identify him. Crime No.28/77 against Ami Lal, Head Constable and Radhey Shyam. Constable was separately registered under section 161 I.P.C. and under section 5(1)(d)(2) Prevention of Corruption Act at A.C.D. Out Post, Bikaner. After completion of the investigation, the S.H.O. Police Station, Rajgarh submitted a challan against the appellants and co-accused Radhey Shyam in the court of learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu, who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge. (5). Appellant Ami Lal was charged for the offences under sections 395, 353/109, 332, 224 and 201 I.P.C. Dayanand was charged for the offences under sections 147, 395, 353, 332 read with 149, 201 and 225 I.P.C., while rest of the appellants and co-accused Radhey Shyam were charged for the offences under sections 147, 332/149, 353/149, 395 and 225 I.P.C. The appellants denied the indict- ment and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Appellant Ami Lal in his plea recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that on the report dt. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Appellant Ami Lal in his plea recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that on the report dt. 16.4.77 lodged by P.W.3 Om Prakash a criminal case was registered under sections 323 and 392 I.P.C. at Police Station, Rajgarh. However, he denied to have demanded or accepted any illegal gratification from him. He denied the circu- mstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. He further denied that he had demanded any illegal gratification from P.W.3 Om Prakash in the Police Out post, Sidhmukh on the day of alleged incident or accepted currency notes worth Rs.1000/- from him. He refuted to have handed over the currency notes to Radhey Shyam, Constable. He also denied that he had raised alarm at the Out Post to the effect that ``Mar Rahe Hain or instigated/abetted other appellants to attack on the A.C.D. party or to snatch away the currency notes from them. He further denied that he was put under arrest by Teg Bahadur, Dy.S.P. and given under the custody of P.W. 2 Udai Raj. He admitted that his test identification parade was conducted, but asserted that the prosecution witnesses knew him previously. He claimed that the report dated 16.4.77 lodged by P.W. 3 Om Prakash was found to be false, but the latter pressed him to arrest the accused persons of that case. He asserted that prosecution witnesses, who were officials of Anti Corruption Department have deposed against him under the influence of P.W.3 Om Prakash. He claimed that the windows of the police Out Post, Sidhmukh open towards the house of P.W.9 Ram Chander, who thus bore enmity with him. He stated that in the A.C.D. case registered against, him, after investigation a final report was given and that to escape the departmental enquiry a false case has been launched against him. Other appellants denied the circumstances appearing against them in the pro- secution evidence and claimed that they were either previously known to the witnesses or were shown to them prior to the identification parade and that prosecution witnesses have deposed against them at the instance of P.W.9 Ram Chandra, due to party faction. D.W.1 Vishambhar Dayal, D.W.2 Ram Chandra and D.W.3 Mamchand were examined in defence. (6). D.W.1 Vishambhar Dayal, D.W.2 Ram Chandra and D.W.3 Mamchand were examined in defence. (6). After trial the learned Sessions Judge held that co-accused Radhey Shyam, Constable had simply thrown those currency notes outside the police Out Post, which were found lying in open, that he made good his escape and did not use any force or assault on the A.C.D. party and that he also did not come back to the police Out post alongwith other appellants, thus, he was not a member of unlawful assem- bly and that he was also not liable for the offence under section 3951 I.P.C. He accordingly acquitted Radhey Shyam, Constable. The learned trial Judge, however, found the appellants guilty for the various offences and sentenced them as indicated above. Hence this appeal. (7). The sentences of the appellants were suspended under section 389 Cr. P.C. during the pendency of this appeal. Appellant Nand Karan died and as such the appeal filed on his behalf has abated. (8). I have heard Sarva Shri Pradeep Shah and Vijay Bishnoi for the appellants and Shri D.S. Rathore, the learned Public Prosecutor, at length and carefully perused the record of the lower court in extenso. (9). It has been strenuously contended on behalf of appellant Ami Lal that Teg Bahadur Singh, Dy.S.P. did not communicate to him the full particulars of the offences for which we was allegedly arrested and contravened provisions of section 50 Cr.P.C., hence his alleged detention/arrest was illegal and, therefore, no offence under section 224 I.P.C. was made out against him and for that reason no offence under section 225 I.P.C. was also made out against other appellants. It has been next contended that as per statement of P.W.10 Tulchhi Ram. S.H.O., Police Station, Rajgarh, from 26.4.77 onwards the investigation in the case, registered on the report of P.W.3 Om Prakash, was conducted by him and as such there was no occasion for appellant Ami Lal to have demanded any bribe from P.W.3 Om Pra- kash and to have accepted the same on 5.5.77. It has been urged that complainant P.W. 3 Om Prakash was an accomplice, who is alleged to have given illegal gratification to appellant Ami Lal, and as such it can not be acted upon without due corroboration from independent witnesses, that his statement is most unnatural and studded with material contradictions and as such unreliable. It has been urged that complainant P.W. 3 Om Prakash was an accomplice, who is alleged to have given illegal gratification to appellant Ami Lal, and as such it can not be acted upon without due corroboration from independent witnesses, that his statement is most unnatural and studded with material contradictions and as such unreliable. His statement is also quite vague, omnibus and shorn off necessary details of the specific overt act of individual appellants. But the learned Sessions Judge deviating from the crystalised principles for appreciating and evaluating the evidence of an accomplice witness, has committed an illegality in placing reliance on his testimony. The learned trial Judge has held that P.W.9 Ram Chandra was an interested and unrelia- ble witness. The other alleged independent eye witnesses of the incident namely motbirs Laxman Ram and Sohan Lal as also P.W.6 Moti Ram and P.W.10 Jagan Ram Soni have also not supported the prosecution story and they have been declared hostile. The statements of P.W. 2 Udai Raj, Inspector, P.W.13 Teg Bahadur, Dy. S.P. and P.W.14 Hardeep Singh, Head Constable have material contradictions and inco- nsistencies and, therefore, the prosecution evidence is not sufficient to successfully bring home any offence against the appellants without reasonable doubt. Another limb of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants is that admittedly there was neither any recovery of the currency notes alleged to have been given by P.W.3 Om Prakash as illegal gratification to Ami Lal, nor the torn bushirt and the shirt of appellants Ami Lal and Radhey Shyam respectively were seized nor those garments were dipped in Sodium Carbonate solution to show the presence of Phenolph thalein powder on them to establish that those currency notes were put therein. The memo Ex.P.11 of the alleged A.C.D. trap was not prepared on 5.5.77 at the Rail- way Station, Rajgarh, but was prepared afterwards and the same was also not submitted by Teg Bahadur alongwith his written report Ex.P.17, which creates serious doubt in the prosecution story. It has, therefore, been urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned trial Judge has committed an illegality of fact as well as of law in convicting the appellants for the said offences. (10). It has, therefore, been urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned trial Judge has committed an illegality of fact as well as of law in convicting the appellants for the said offences. (10). Shri D.S. Rathore, the learned Public Prosecutor has asserted that in the case on hand no charge either under section 161 I.P.C. or under section 5(1) (d) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was framed against appellant Ami Lal and co- accused Radhey Shyam, on the other hand they alongwith other appellants were tried for the offences under sections 353/109, 395/109, 224 and 225 I.P.C, whi- ch are distinct and separate offences and, therefore, P.W.3 Om Prakash can not be treated as an accomplice. Even motbirs have admitted that the A.C.D. party had gone to Out Post, Sidhmukh and, that villagers had collected out side the said Out Post and there was scuffle between them and the A.C.D. party. Thus, the factum of the incident has been admitted by them, though they have not completely suppor- ted the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. According to him, there is ample evidence to show that Ami Lal, Head Constable was arrested and was putin custody of P.W.2 Udai Raj, Inspector and that Teg Bahadur, Dy S.P. had intimated Ami Lal the grounds for his arrest. Thus his arrest was not at all illegal. The appellant instigated/abetted other appellants to snatch away the currency notes from the possession of P.W. 14 Hardeep Singh and that he also escaped from the lawful custody of Udai Raj. Shri Rathore has submitted that since Ami Lal made good his escape and co-accused Radhey Shyam had also fled away and since they could not be apprehended on that day, their bushirt/shirt could not be seized and there was no occasion of dipping them in Sodium Carbonate. He has urged that for want of recovery of looted currency notes, it can not be said that the offence of dacoity had not been committed by the appellants. He has also reiterated the reasoning given by the learned trial Judge and supported the impugned judgment. (11). I have bestowed my thoughtful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions. Before I proceed to decide the rival contentions, it will be fruitful to scan, scrutinise, analyse and assess the evidence adduced in this case. (12). He has also reiterated the reasoning given by the learned trial Judge and supported the impugned judgment. (11). I have bestowed my thoughtful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions. Before I proceed to decide the rival contentions, it will be fruitful to scan, scrutinise, analyse and assess the evidence adduced in this case. (12). It is not in dispute that on the report dated 16.4.77 lodged by P.W.3 Om Prakash a case under sections 323 and 392 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station, Rajgarh against Ran Singh and Smt. Sarji. In that report it was alleged that on 16.4.77, Om Prakash was going to village Bartu for purchasing a camel, that he had an amount of Rs. 2700/- with him, that near the Bus Stand the said Ran Singh and Smt. Sarji slapped and inflicted fist blows to him and forcibly looted Rs. 2700/- from him. The investigation of the said case was initially entrusted to appellant Ami Lal H.C. who has also admitted this fact in his plea under section 313 Cr. P.C. P.W.3 Om Prakash stated that on 17.4.77, he went to police Out Post, Sidhmukh and met appe- llant Ami Lal H.C., who was the Incharge of the said Out Post, that the latter told him that there was no means of transport available with him and, therefore, he hired a jeep and that thereafter he alongwith Ami Lal and a police constable went to the village, where he produced two witnesses. He stated that appellant Ami Lal told him that the villagers were against him, that the latter took him behind the door of his house and demanded Rs.1000/- for making the case against the accused persons, other wise the case against them would be for the offence under section 323 I.P.C. only, that thereupon he gave Rs. 1000/- to Ami Lal. This witness further stated that thereafter Ami Lal inspected the site, recorded the statement of his witness Richhpal, asked him to produce two more witnesses and told that only thereafter he would arrest the accused persons. 1000/- to Ami Lal. This witness further stated that thereafter Ami Lal inspected the site, recorded the statement of his witness Richhpal, asked him to produce two more witnesses and told that only thereafter he would arrest the accused persons. Om Prakash further stated that after three days, he produced two more witnesses before appellant Ami Lal at the police Out Post, Sidhmukh, whose statements were recorded, that on the next day appellant Ami Lal again went to village Dhanoti Minor in a Jeep, called accused Ran Singh from the School and also interrogated other teachers, but did not arrest Ran Singh and returned back. P.W.3 Om Prakash deposed that on 29.4.77, appellant Ami Lal again came to his house and told him that his case has been found to be false and demanded an amount of Rs. 1000/- failing which a case under section 182 I.P.C. will be launched against him, that he declined to give further amount, but keeping in view the threat given by appellant Ami Lal, he promised to give him the said amount on 5th July, 1977. Om Prakash further deposed that after selling his gram crops, he arranged for Rs. 1000/- and went to A.C.D., Bikaner, because he did not want to give the said amount to Ami Lal. On 4.5.77 he met Teg Bahadur, Dy. S.P., A.C.D., Bikaner and apprised him of these facts and submitted a report. (12A). Thereupon the said Dy. S.P. called Inspector Udairaj, Clerk Kalu Ram, Momat Raj F.C. and H.C. Hardeep Singh and proceeded in his jeep to Rajgarh, where they reached on the same day at 10.00 p.m. and stayed in the Rest House. On 5.5.77 Sohan Lal and Laxman Ram, who were teachers in Rajgarh School, were called that they agreed to become motbirs, that in presence of the motbirs and raid party he produced ten currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- each to Teg Bahadur, who noted down their numbers in the memo and also put his initials thereon and that power was sprinkled on those currency notes, which were given back to him. He stated that he was directed to given those currency notes to appellant Ami Lal on his demand and that he was also instructed to give the signal to the raid party by removing the towel from his head. He stated that he was directed to given those currency notes to appellant Ami Lal on his demand and that he was also instructed to give the signal to the raid party by removing the towel from his head. This witness further stated that thereafter the A.C.D. party alongwith him and motbirs boarded in the train at 10.30 a.m. and reached Sidhmukh Railway Station around 11.30 a.m., that the Dy S.P. and the Inspector stayed in a hotel situated just outside police Out Post, Sidhmukh while other members of the raid party went towards the left and right sides of the Out Post, that he went inside the Out Post, where appellant Ami Lal asked him, as to whether he had done the job ``Kya Kaam Pura Kar liya to which he replied in affirmative and that Ami Lal took him inside the quarter situated in the Out Post, where he handed over those currency notes worth Rs. 1000/- to Ami Lal, who after counting those put in the pocket of his bushirt. He deposed that at that time Constable Radhey Shyam was cutting onions, that appellant Dayanand, Constable was also there and that Ami Lal gave those currency notes to Radhey Shyam, who kept those in his shirts pocket. P.W.3 Om Prakash further deposed that thereafter he went near the gate of the Out Post and gave the pre-arranged signal to the Dy.S.P. and came back near Radhey Shyam, Constable, that in the meanwhile Dy.S.P. A.C.D. entered in the Out Post and asked him as to who was Ami Lal, Head Constable and that thereupon he pointed towards appellant Ami Lal. This witness further deposed that when the Dy S.P., A.C.D., disclosed his identity, appellant Ami Lal raised alarm and Radhey Shyam, Constable tried to run away by scaling the sougth eastern wall of the Out Post, and threw those currency notes from his shirts pocket outside the building of the Out Post, that Ami Lal continued raising alarm, and that thereafter the Dy S.P. recovered those currency notes of Rs. 1000/- which were lying out side the Out Post and apprehended Ami Lal. Om Prakash stated that Radhey Shyam Constable ran away from the Out Post and after a few minutes came back alongwith 10-12 villagers, who were armed with lathies and Jellies. (12B). 1000/- which were lying out side the Out Post and apprehended Ami Lal. Om Prakash stated that Radhey Shyam Constable ran away from the Out Post and after a few minutes came back alongwith 10-12 villagers, who were armed with lathies and Jellies. (12B). This witness further stated that appellant Ami Lal while raising alarm asked the co-appellants to snatch away those currency notes from Hardeep Singh, H.C. and told that otherwise he would not be saved, that thereupon those villagers including appellants Nand Karan, Laxman, Doongar, Tokha Ram, Bhikha Ram, Prithvi Singh and Constable Dayanand looted those currency notes by tearing the pocket of the pant of Hardeep Singh and that when the Dy.S.P. and Momatraj went to rescue Hardeep Singh those appellants also assaulted them by inflicting fist blows and that the baniyan of Momatraj was also torn. He deposed that those appe- llants also snatched the identity card and handkerchief of Hardeep Singh and that during the scuffle one of the appellants snatched away the wrist watch of the Dy S.P. He told that thereafter appellant Nand Karan and Doongar Ram pushed Udai Raj, Inspector, who had caught hold of Ami Lal and that Ami Lal managed to escape. He further told that the appellants also threatened the Dy S.P. and did not permit him to see the record of the Out Post. He further stated that P.W.4 Moti Ram, Jagna Ram and Ram Chandra and the motbirs had also came inside the police Out Post, that the Dy. S.P. searched for the Rojnamcha and the file of his case, but those were not found. In his cross examination, he refuted the suggestion that he had given Rs. 2000/- to the Dy. S.P. for laying that trap. He admitted that before going to the A.C.D. he did not file any complaint against appellant Ami Lal, H.C. either to the S.H.O., Police Station, Rajgarh or Dy. S.P. (Circle Officer), Rajgarh or the S.P., Churu. He stated that he is neither related to motbirs Laxman Ram and Sohan Lal nor knew then previously. S.P. for laying that trap. He admitted that before going to the A.C.D. he did not file any complaint against appellant Ami Lal, H.C. either to the S.H.O., Police Station, Rajgarh or Dy. S.P. (Circle Officer), Rajgarh or the S.P., Churu. He stated that he is neither related to motbirs Laxman Ram and Sohan Lal nor knew then previously. He told that in the first instance he alongwith motbir Laxman Ram had gone inside the police Out Post, while some members of the raid party were sitting in the tea shop of appellant Laxman, that when he reached inside the Out Post appellant Ami Lal was sitting in the office situated near the main gate, that thereafter appellant took him inside room, which opens towards the mess of the Out Post, that at that time motbir Laxman was standing in the court-yard, whereon the main gate of the Out Post opens and that appellant Dayanand, Constable was standing in the lawn infront of the mess. He deposed that after receiving the said amount, appellant Ami Lal had told him that now the case under section 182 I.P.C. will not be filed against him, that thereafter he came near the main gate of the Out Post and gave the pre-arranged signal to the raid party and that by that time appellant Ami Lal had handed over those currency notes to Radhey Shyam, Cons- table. He admitted that the wall in between the two court-yards situated in the campus of the Out Post was about 6-7 foot high and that a person standing inside the Out Post Court-yard can not see anything out side of the Out Post. He told that Momatraj, F.C., who was standing outside the wall of the Out Post, had informed that those currency notes were lying outside and thereupon the Dy. S.P. asked him, to take care of those and that thereafter the Dy. S.P. went out side, recovered those currency notes and arrested Ami Lal. He stated that during the said incident the A.C.D. staff sustained simple injuries. (12C). This witness has been confronted to the various portions of his police statement dated 6.5.77 Ex. D.1, but I do not find any substantial improvement or material contradiction in his statement during trial. S.P. went out side, recovered those currency notes and arrested Ami Lal. He stated that during the said incident the A.C.D. staff sustained simple injuries. (12C). This witness has been confronted to the various portions of his police statement dated 6.5.77 Ex. D.1, but I do not find any substantial improvement or material contradiction in his statement during trial. Om Prakash, to my mind, has valiantly with stood the test of the cross examination and the learned trial Judge has not committed any error in placing due reliance on his testimony. The statement of Om Prakash has been substantially corroborated by the sworn testimony of P.W. 2 Udai Raj, Hardeep Singh and Teg Bahadur. (13). P.W.2 Udairaj, was the Inspector posted at A.C.D. Out Post, Bikaner. He deposed that on 4.5.77. Om Prakash had lodged a report on which it was decided to organise a trap, that a raid party consisting of Dy. S.P. Teg Bahadur, Hardeep Singh, H.C. Momatraj, F.C. and Kalu Ram. L.D.C. alongwith him was formed, that the members of the raid party accompanied by complainant Om Prakash reached Rajgarh the same day in the night and stayed in Dak Bungalow, that on 5.5.77 motbirs Sohan Lal and Laxman Ram were called and their consent for participation in the trap was procured, that the report filed by Om Prakash was read over to them, that the complainant produced ten notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each, which were initialled by Teg Bahadur, Dy.S.P. and a memo there of was prepared, that he sprinkled phenolphthalein powder on those currency notes and gave demonstration of the function of the said power and returned those currency notes to Om Prakash and that he was directed to give the pre-arranged signal after appellant Ami Lal demanded the bribe and accepted those currency notes. He fur- ther deposed that the raid party boarded the train and reached Sidhmukh Railway Station, that thereafter Om Prakash and motbir Laxman Ram went inside the police Out Post, Sidhmukh, while he along with Teg Bahadur, Dy. He fur- ther deposed that the raid party boarded the train and reached Sidhmukh Railway Station, that thereafter Om Prakash and motbir Laxman Ram went inside the police Out Post, Sidhmukh, while he along with Teg Bahadur, Dy. S.P. on the pretext of taking tea, stayed at the hotel of appellant Laxman, that other members of the raid party took their positions near the Out Post, that after some time Om Prakash came out side and gave the pre-arranged signal by removing the towel from his head, that thereupon he alongwith Teg Bahadur, Hardeep Singh, Kalu Ram, Momatraj and another motbir went inside the Police Out Post, that he closed the main doors of the Out Post and went towards the Rest House situated in the campus of the Out Post, that appellant Ami Lal, H.C., Radhey Shyam,. F.C. and Dayanand, F.C., who were present in the Out Post started running, that Radhey Shyam, F.C. scaled over the wall near the mess of the Out Post, threw those currency notes out side and ran away, and that Dayanand also managed to make good his escape and while running shouted that they were being beaten. He further deposed that appellant Dayanand, F.C. came back out side the Out Post after collecting the villagers, who were armed with lathies. He stated that Radhey Shyam, F.C. while running away from the Out Post also told appellant Laxman, who was present in his hotel, that Ami Lal, H.C. was being beaten and that he should go there with his lathi and that thereupon appellant laxman came to the back side of the Out post with some persons, who were also armed with lathies. Udai Raj deposed that Teg Bahadur, Dy. S.P. told Ami Lal, H.C. that he had received bribe from Om Prakash, that thereupon Ami Lal made noise, came out side the Out Post and told co- appellants that he was being falsely implicated, that thereupon Teg Bahadur, asked him, to keep patience and assured him that he would conduct all proceedings as per law and further asked him not to interrupt or interfere in due discharge of his duties, that Hardeep Singh. H.C. and Momatraj were asked to keep watch over those currency notes, and that the Dy. S.P. got those currency notes collected and entrusted them to Hardeep Singh, H.C. who kept those notes in his pocket. (13A). H.C. and Momatraj were asked to keep watch over those currency notes, and that the Dy. S.P. got those currency notes collected and entrusted them to Hardeep Singh, H.C. who kept those notes in his pocket. (13A). This witness further deposed that when the A.C.D. staff began to prepare the memo of that incident, Ami Lal came out side the Out Post and started shouting that they (A.C.D. party) wanted to falsely implicate him, that the currency notes were in the pocke of the Head Constable, which should be snatched away. This witness also deposed that appellant Ami Lal exhorted appellants Dayanand, Constable, Bhikha Ram, Tokha Ram, Laxman, Doongar and Prithvi Singh etc. by calling their names and instigated/abetted them to snatch away those currency notes from Hardeep Singh H.C. This witness has specifically deposed that at that time appellant Ami Lal was under his custody, that co-appellants including Dayanand, F.C. forcibly snatched away those currency notes worth Rs. 1000/- from the pocket of Hardeep Singh, that when Teg Bahadur, Dy. S.P., Kalu Ram, Clerk and Momatraj, F.C. tried to rescue Hardeep Singh, appellant Doongar gave a lathi blow to the Dy. S.P., who warded off the same. This witness also deposed that he asked appellant Ami Lal not to do so and warned him that his action will make him liable for the offence of dacoity, but the latter turned a deaf ear to his advice and those appellants forcibly looted away those currency notes of Rs. 1000/- from the pocket of Hardeep Singh, H.C. and went away towards the hotel of appellant Laxman, after rescuing appellant Ami Lal from his custody. He stated that after some time appellant Ami Lal also sent some appellants, who were armed with lathies to keep a watch on the Police Out Post, that they asked the A.C.D. staff to go away from the Out Post and that thereupon the raid party went to the Railway Station, where the Dy. S.P. prepared memo Ex.P.11. In his cross examination, he categorically denied the suggestion that he along with Teg Bahadur, Dy. S.P. had laid the said trap against Ami Lal after taking an illegal gratification of Rs. 2000/- from complainant Om Prakash. (13B). S.P. prepared memo Ex.P.11. In his cross examination, he categorically denied the suggestion that he along with Teg Bahadur, Dy. S.P. had laid the said trap against Ami Lal after taking an illegal gratification of Rs. 2000/- from complainant Om Prakash. (13B). He stated that he had stayed at the hotel of appellant Laxman for about ten minutes, that there were two gates of the Out Post and that its third gate was that of the Rest House, situated in side the Out Post. However he told that the height of compound wall of the Out Post was not 7 ft. but was about 5/1/2 ft. and that a person standing outside the compound wall of the Out Post could see the activities of a person standing inside the Out Post. He stated that Radhey Shyam, Constable had already thrown away those currency notes before he was over powered by Kalu Ram inside the Out Post, but lateron he managed to escape. He also proved the site plan Ex.P.12 and memo there of Ex.P.13 and states that the appellants had pushed and inflicted fist blows to the A.C.D. party, but they did not sustain visible injuries. He admitted that he did not make a search for case diary of Om Prakashs case and did not know whether investigation of that case was with appellant Ami Lal on that day or not? P.W.2 Udai Raj has been cross-examined at great length but his testimony has remained unshattered. He is, therefore, a credible witness. (14). The statements of P.W.13 Teg Bahadur Dy. S.P. and P.W.14 Hardeep Singh, Head Constable are consistent and do not suffer from any material infirmity. They stated that on the report dated 4.5.77 of Om Prakash, it was decided to organise a raid and necessary memos were prepared, that on the same day, they reached at Rajgarh along with the raid party at about 10 a.m., that besides them the raid party consisted of Udai Raj, Inspector, Kalu Ram, F.C. and Momat Raj, that at about 8 a.m. on 5.5.77, Kalu Ram brought motbirs P.W.5 Laxman Ram and P.W.7 Sohan lal, that those motbirs gave their consent to participate in the trap, that in their presence Om Prakash produced ten currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each, which were treated with phenolphthalein powder, that the demonstration regarding the function and effect of the phenolphthalein powder was given to the complainant and motbirs and memo thereof was prepared, that those curre- ncy notes were initialled by Teg Bahadur and returned to Om Prakash with the direction that on the demand by Ami Lal, H.C. to give those currency notes to the latter and if he accepted those, then to give the pre-arranged signal to the raid party and that thereafter the hands of Inspector Udairaj were got washed by water who has given the said demonstration. These witnesses further depose that on 5.5.77 at about 11.30 a.m. they reached Sidhmukh Railway Station by train, that the police Out Post was situated about 50-60 paces away from the Railway Station, that Om Prakash along with motbir Laxman Ram went inside the Out Post, that the Dy. S.P. and Udairaj stayed at the hotel of appellant Laxman, while other members of the trap party took their respective position around the Out Post campus. P.W. 13 Teg Bahadur deposed that after few minutes, Om Prakash came out side the gate of Out Post and by removing the towel from his head gave the pre- set signal, that thereupon he along with the members of the raid party and motbir Sohan Lal went inside the Out Post, where besides Om Prakash and motbir Laxman Ram, he found three more persons there, that after inquiring from the complainant about Ami Lal, H.C. he gave his introduction to Ami Lal, who started making noise to the effect mar Rahe Hain-mar Rahe Hain) and that at his instance the other two persons namely Radhey Shyam and Dayanand Constables also started raising alarm and tried to run away, that the members of the A.C.D. party tried to apprehend them and that in the meanwhile Constable Radhey Shyam threw away those currency notes out side the Out Post from the south-eastern corner of the boundary wall and made good his escape. He further deposed that during the scuffle, the bushirt of appellant Ami Lal, H.C. and shirt of Radhey Shyam were torn, that complainant Om Prakash told him that he on the demand made by Ami Lal, H.C. had given those currency notes worth Rs. He further deposed that during the scuffle, the bushirt of appellant Ami Lal, H.C. and shirt of Radhey Shyam were torn, that complainant Om Prakash told him that he on the demand made by Ami Lal, H.C. had given those currency notes worth Rs. 1000/- to the latter, who had put the same in his pocket, but after some time had handed over those currency notes to Constable Radhey Shyam and that thereafter he arrested Ami Lal, H.C., and entrusted him in the custody of Inspector Udairaj. He stated that he went outside the Out Post and recovered those currency notes, which were ten in number of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each and whereon his initials were there, that after the recovery of the currency notes, he entrusted them to Hardeep Singh, H.C., that when he was just to commence the process of washing hands of appellant Ami Lal, the latter started shouting that he was being falsely implicated, that by that time 15-20 persons, who were armed with lathies and Kassies, had assembled out side the Out Post and that on seeking them Ami Lal asked them to snatch away those currency notes and abetted those persons to attack on the raid party and to rescue Aim. He further deposed that thereupon appellants Nand Karan, Tokha Ram, Dungar Singh, Prithvi Singh etc. surrounded Hardeep Singh, H.C. and forcibly took away those currency notes from the left side pocket of his pant as also his identification card, Rs.98/- and one hadnkerchief. He further deposed that when he along with Momatraj and Kalu Ram tried to rescue Hardeep Singh, those appellants also assaulted them and in the santched away his wrist watch from his left hand and that they also torn away the pant and baniyan of Hardeep Singh and Momatraj respectively. (14A). Teg Bahadur also deposed that he had directed Ami Lal, H.C. to ask those culprits not to do so, but on the other hand he instigated them and that co-appellants rescued Ami Lal, H.C., who escaped from the custody of Udairaj, Inspector. He stated that appellants went to the hotel of appellant Laxman, where they stayed till the members of the A.C.D. party left the police Out Post. He stated that appellants went to the hotel of appellant Laxman, where they stayed till the members of the A.C.D. party left the police Out Post. Teg Bahadur further stated that the crowd formed by the appellants displayed offencive activities and as such he also could not recover the Rojnamcha Aam of the Out Post and the case diary pertaining to complainants case and thus he was deterred/prevented by the appellants from discharging his lawful duties by the appellant. He told that thereafter he along with the raid party came to the Railway Station, Sidhmukh, where he prepared the memo of the proceedings Ex.P.11 and written report Ex.P. 17, that from the next available train he returned to Rajgarh at about 6 p.m. and lodged the report Ex.P.17 at police Station Rajgarh. He also proved the site plan Ex.P.12 and memo of the site plan Ex.P.13 as also the appointment/posting orders Ex.P.30, 31 and 32 of the A.C.D. Officials. He deposed that he had identified the appellants during the test parade and proved his signatures on the memo of identi- fication test parades Ex.P.4, Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.13. He also identified those appellants in the trial court. In his cross examination, he admitted that on his report a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act was separately registered at A.C.D, Out Post, Bikaner against Ami Lal and Radhey Shyam and that since the amount of illegal gratification could not be recovered, a final report for want of evidence was submi- tted which was accepted by the learned Special Judge, A.C.D. Cases, Bikaner and appellant Ami Lal, H.C. and Radhey Shyam, Constable were discharged for the offences under section 161 I.P.C. and under section 5(1) (d) (2) Prevention of Corruption Act. He stoutly refuted the suggestion that he had laid the said trap against Ami Lal after taking an illegal gratification of Rs. 2000/- from complainant Om Prakash. (14B). He admitted that during the incident he did not receive any visible injury, that his wrist watch also could not be recovered and that while majority of the appellants were armed with lathies, only 2-3 persons had Kassies, however he did not know, which of the appellants was armed with Kassi. He stated that one of the appellants tried to inflict a lathi blow on him, but he saved himself and the said lathi blow did not hit him. He stated that one of the appellants tried to inflict a lathi blow on him, but he saved himself and the said lathi blow did not hit him. He further stated that the incident pertaining this case, wherein the appellants had looted the currency notes from Hardeep Singh, H.C. assaulted A.C.D. Party and rescued Ami Lal had took place within 2-3 minutes. He deposed that appellant Dayanand Constable after running away from the Out Post, had come back to the Out Post alongwith the other appellants and that at that time appellant Ami Lal, H.C. was inside the door of Room No.1, shown in site plan Ex.P.12 i.e. the office of the Out Post and was in the custody of Udairaj, Inspector. He pleaded his ignorance as to whether the case diary pertaining to the case of complainant Om Prakash was with the S.H.O., Rajgarh since 26.4.77 and was not with appellant Ami Lal. He has been confronted with various portions of his police statement Ex.D.3, but a careful perusal of his statement given before the trial court, reveals that he has not made any substantial improvement. I also do not find any material or major contradiction in his testimony. He did not know Ami Lal, H.C. pre- viously and have any enmity with him. Therefore there was no reason for him to falsely implicate Ami Lal. Hence I do not find valid and sufficient ground to disbelieve or discard his sworn testimony. In my considered opinion, the learned trial Judge has rightly placed reliance on his statement. (15). P.W.14 Hardeep Singh, H.C., A.C.D. has fully corroborated the statements of P.W. 13 Teg Bahadur Singh Dy. S.P. and P.W.2 Udairaj, Inspector and proved the substratum of the prosecution story. He deposed that when Om Prakash had gone inside the police Out Post, he alongwith Momatraj was staying outside the Out Post concealing their presence, that after some time Om Prakash came out and gave the signal, whereupon Teg Bahadur, Dy.S.P., Udairaj, Inspector, Kalu Ram, Moma- traj went inside the Out Post, that he also went there, that the Dy.S.P. asked the complainant about Ami Lal, H.C., who pointed out towards him, that thereupon Teg Bahadur, Dy.S.P. disclosed his identity and at that moment of time, Ami Lal, H.C. started making noise (Mar Diya- Mar Diya). He deposed that Om Prakash had informed that on demand made by Ami Lal, H.C. had given those currency notes to him, who had kept those in his pocket and that latter handed over those to Radhey Shyam, Constable. He further deposed that Constables Radhey Shyam and Dayanand, who were inside the Out Post, also started raising hue and cry and tried to run away, that in the meanwhile Constable Radhey Shyam threw those currency notes from the compound wall out side the Out Post and that Ami Lal, H.C. was arrested while Constables Dayanand and Radhey Shyam made good their escape. He further deposed that the Dy.S.P. recovered those currency notes, which were lying out side the Out Post and after counting, handed over those notes to him, which he kept in the left side pocket of his pant, that after the recovery of the currency notes, Ami Lal, H.C. started shouting ``These persons are falsely implica- ting me and that they should be beaten,, that thereupon appellants Dayanand, Laxman, Dungar, Nand Karan and other persons, who by that time had assembled outside the Out Post and were armed with lathies and Kassies attacked on the A.C.D. party. This witness has also identified the appellants in the Court and proved the respective test parade memos. He also stated that the Dy.S.P. had told the appe- llants not to interfere in due discharge of the duties of A.C.D. staff as public servants, but they did not stop, looted away those currency notes, his detective pass, handkerchief and mony amounting to Rs.98/- from the pocket of his pant, which was torn, that during the scuffle the wrist watch of the Dy. S.P. was also snatched away by those culprits and that those appellants also forcibly rescued Ami Lal H.C. from the custody of Udairaj, Inspector. who made good his escape. He further deposed that the appellants thereafter stayed out side the Out Post till the members of the A.C.D. party did not leave that place and that he alongwith the members of the trap party came to the Railway Station, Sidhmukh from where they came to Rajgarh by train. He has also proved the site plan Ex.P.12 and the seizure memo of his torn pant Ex.P.23. He has also proved the site plan Ex.P.12 and the seizure memo of his torn pant Ex.P.23. He has also proved memo of identification test parade of the appellants Ex.P.3, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.13 and deposed that he had correctly identified the appellants during the test parade. This witness has also successfully fared the searching cross examination. He is a truthful and reliable witness. In my considered opinion the testimony of P.W.2 Udairaj, P.W.14 Hardeep Singh and P.W. 13 Teg Bahadur is unbiased, consistent and worthy of credence. Hence from their statements the testimony of P.W.3 Om Prakash stands substantially corroborated. (16). P.W.5 Laxman Ram is the motbir. He states that on 5.5.77 at about 8/9 a.m. he was called by the Dy. S.P. through Kalu Ram. L.D.C., who was known to him previously, that after seeking permission from the Head Master, he alongwith Sohan Lal came to Rest House, Rajgarh, that the Dy. S.P., A.C.D. told him that they should accompany the raid party, that the demonsration of the phenolphthalein powder was shown to them in the Rest House, that the said powder was sprinkled on the currency notes of Rs. 1000/- , which were handed over to Om Prakash by the Dy. S.P. after putting his initials and that a memo of that proceedings was also drawn. The Dy. S.P. also told them complainant Om Prakash after giving that amount to Ami Lal, H.C. will lift the towel from his head and give the signal. He stated that they reached Sidhmukh at about 11-12 noon, that he was made to sit at the hotel of Laxman alongwith motbir Sohan Lal and that he did not know as to where the Dy. S.P. had gone. He stated that he did not know whether Om Prakash had given those currency notes to Ami Lal or not, because he remained at the hotel. He however deposed that from the hotel he had seen that some persons had assembled outside the Out Post and they were quarreling and that thereafter he alongwith Sohan Lal returned to Rajgarh by train. He further stated that in the eve- ning Dy. S.P. called him and procured his signatures on a paper. At this stage this witness was declared hostile. In his cross examination he resiled from portions A to B to portions O to P of his police statement Ex.P.14. He further stated that in the eve- ning Dy. S.P. called him and procured his signatures on a paper. At this stage this witness was declared hostile. In his cross examination he resiled from portions A to B to portions O to P of his police statement Ex.P.14. He admitted his signatures on memo Ex.P.11, but stated that on 5.5.77 Kalu Ram had procured his signatures thereon. This witness is a teacher. He admitted that he is not in a habit of putting his signatures on any paper without reading the contents thereof. Apparently this witness has been won over and he has deliberately concealed the truth and for some ulterior reasons has not supported the prosecution version. But from the totality of his statement, it stands fairly established that a raid was organised by A.C.D. staff, that at the time of incident P.W.3 Om Prakash had gone inside the Out Post, Sidhmukh, that number of persons had assembled out side the Out Post and that there was a quarrel. However he has failed to give the details of the incident. (17). P.W.7 Sohan Lal is the another motbir. He has also supported the initial prosecution story prior to the alleged trap, but thereafter he has resiled from his police statement and not given any detail of the trap. He has, however, admitted that while he was sitting at the hotel of appellant Laxman, crowd had assembled outside the Out Post and that he had heard noise. This witness is a Science graduate and a teacher. He has also resiled from his police statement Ex.P.16. He has admitted his signatures on memo of the trap Ex.P.11. Therefore, from his statement also, it stands fairly established that a trap was laid on 5.5.77 at police Out Post, Sidhmukh. (18). It has also come in evidence that the alleged eye-witnesses P.W.6 Moti Ram and P.W.10 Jagna Ram had reached the Out Post after the incident. Therefore, these witnesses did not support the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. (19). The learned trial Judge has disbelieved the testimony of P.W.9 Ram Chandra on the ground that he is an interested witness. (20). P.W.1 Shri Om Prakash Sharma, M.J.M., Churu and P.W.4 Shri G.C. Sharma, M.J.M., Rajgarh have proved respective identification test parade memos and contents thereof. (21). (19). The learned trial Judge has disbelieved the testimony of P.W.9 Ram Chandra on the ground that he is an interested witness. (20). P.W.1 Shri Om Prakash Sharma, M.J.M., Churu and P.W.4 Shri G.C. Sharma, M.J.M., Rajgarh have proved respective identification test parade memos and contents thereof. (21). P.W.8 Gaje Singh, who was the then Incharge S.H.O., Rajgarh, has proved F.I.R. Ex.P.18 and various portions of the police statements Ex.P.14 to Ex.P.16 of Laxman Ram, Moti Ram and Sohan Lal. In his cross examination he stated that the case diary of the Om Prakashs case had been received in the Police Station, Rajgarh about 8-10 days prior to 5.5.77 and that Tulchhi Ram, S.H.O. was investigating that case. (22). P.W. 11 Tulachhi Ram was the S.H.O., Police Station, Rajgarh at that time. He stated that the instant case was registered in his absence and that on 6.5.77 he inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan Ex.P.12 and memo thereof Ex.P.12A. He also proved the seizure memo of the torn pant of Hardeep Singh Ex.P.23 and torn Baniyan of Momatraj Ex.P.24 as also the arrest memo of various appellants. In his cross examination he admitted that the investigation of Om Prakashs case was with him since 26.4.77 and that he did not know whether in that case F.R. was submitted or not? P.W. 12 Himmat Singh, Dy. S.P. has proved the police statement of Laxman Ram Ex.P.14. (23). Now, I deal with the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants. From the evidence recorded in this case, it stands firmly established that P.W.13 Teg Bahadur had disclosed his identity to appellant Ami Lal, H.C. and when Radhey Shyam, Constable threw away the currency notes out side the Out Post, those were recovered, that he apprehended appellant Ami Lal and handed him over to the custody of Udairaj, Inspector, and that prior to that he also told appellant Ami lal that the latter had received illegal gratification of Rs. 1000/- from Om Prakash. Section 46 Cr.P.C. requires that in making an arrest the police officer or other per- son making the same shall actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested, unless there by a submission to the custody by word or action. 1000/- from Om Prakash. Section 46 Cr.P.C. requires that in making an arrest the police officer or other per- son making the same shall actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested, unless there by a submission to the custody by word or action. Section 50 of the Code lays down that every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. It is true that the provisions of section 50 are mandatory and non-compliance thereof makes the arrest and detention of the person concerned illegal, but in the instant case from the statements of P.W.13 Teg Bahadur, Dy. S.P., P.W.2 Udairaj, Inspector, P.W.14 Hardeep Singh, Head Constable and P.W.3 Om Prakash it has been well proved that grounds of the arrest of the appellant Ami Lal were fully made known to Ami Lal H.C., Thus, I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that Ami Lal was not arrested or that grounds for his arrest were not communicated to him or that his arrest was illegal and as such the offence under section 224 I.P.C. against appellant Ami Lal and under section 225 I.P.C. against other appellants was not made out. (24). The appellants have relied on the case of Laxman Dass vs. State of Punjab (1), In that case the accused, who was an Accountant in the Municipality was charged for receiving Rs.10/- as bribe from a Municipal contractor. The accused accepted the receipt of Rs. 10/- but claimed that he had deducted that amount against the over payment of Rs. 8/- and 12 Annas, which were made to the contra- ctor. The trial court convicted the accused under section 5(1) (d) (2) Prevention of Corruption Act relying on the sole testimony of the complainant. His conviction was maintained by the High Court. The Supreme Court acquitted the accused by giving him benefit of doubt, holding that the defence version was probable and the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant was not accepted. Apparently these facts are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case on hand. Here the appellants have not been tried for the offence under section 5(1) (d) (2) Prevention of Corruption Act. Apparently these facts are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case on hand. Here the appellants have not been tried for the offence under section 5(1) (d) (2) Prevention of Corruption Act. Moreover, the statement of P.W.3 Om Prakash has been substantially corroborated by consistent testimony of P.Ws. 2, 13 and 14 and the documentary evidence. Hence the appellants can not derive any benefit from this case. (25). The next case cited on behalf of the appellants is that of State (Delhi Adm.) vs. V.C. Shukla and Anr. (2), popularly known as ``Kissa Kursi Ka Case. Interpreting the provisions of Section 133 of the Evidence Act, the Apex Court has held that the testimony of an accomplice can not be accepted in any material particular in the absence of corroboration from reliable sources. I respectfully agree with this dictum of law, but as mentioned earlier the statement of P.W. 3 Om Prakash has been materially and substantially corroborated by the testimony of P.Ws. 2, 13 and 14 regarding the incident and the conviction of the appellants is not based on the sole testimony of P.W.3 Om Prakash. Therefore, this case does not come to the rescue of the appellants. (26). The next case cited is that of Gulam Mahmood A Malek vs. The State of Gujrat (3). In that case the Bench Clerk of the court took bribe of Rs.2/- The decoy admitted that he used to give bribe to the accused in many cases. The money was not recovered immediately after the bribe was given, but was recovered after 20 minutes in another room. The complainant was also an accused in four criminal cases. The trial court acquitted the accused for the offence under section 5(1)(d)(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, but the High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted him. The Apex Court held that in appreciating the evidence in such a case, the back ground should not be forgotten and acquitted the accused. Appare- ntly such are not the facts of the case on hand. Besides this appellants have not been tried in this case for any offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Apex Court held that in appreciating the evidence in such a case, the back ground should not be forgotten and acquitted the accused. Appare- ntly such are not the facts of the case on hand. Besides this appellants have not been tried in this case for any offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. On the other hand, they have been tried and found guilty for the offence under sections 353, 395, 395/109, 224, 225 and 147 I.P.C. Simply on the ground that on 5.5.77 the case diary of the criminal case registered on the report of P.W.3 Om Prakash was not pending with appellant Ami Lal, it can not be held that he had no occasion to demand illegal gratification from Om Prakash. On the other hand it stands proved that Ami Lal had threatened Om Prakash that a case under section 182 I.P.C. would be filed against him and demanded an amount of Rs. 1000/- Besides this on 4th and 5th May, 1977, Teg Bahadur, Dy.S.P., A.C.D. had nor reason to believe that a false trap was being laid against Ami Lal, H.C. Assuming arguendo, the A.C.D. trap organised at the instance of Om Prakash was meritiess and without foundation, still then appellant Ami Lal, Head Constable and other appellants had no legal authority for assaluting or using criminal force against P.W. 13 Teg Bahadur, the Dy.S.P., P.W.2 Udairaj, Inspector and P.W.14 Hardeep Singh, Head Cons- table, A.C.D. and other members of the raid party with an intent to prevent or deter them from discharing their duties as public servants. Appellants also did not have authority to from an unlawful assembly to forcibly loot away the currency notes from the possession of Hardeep Singh, H.C. or to rescue Ami Lal, H.C. from the lawful custody of P.W.2 Udairaj, Inspector of A.C.D. party. Appellant Ami Lal also did not have any authority to instigate other appellants to attack on the A.C.D. party, to assault and snatch away the currency notes and to escape from the custody of P.W.2 Udairaj. Hence Gulam Mahmoods case (supra) does not render any assistance to the appellants. (27). The appellants have next relied on the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi vs. State of Maharashtra (4). Hence Gulam Mahmoods case (supra) does not render any assistance to the appellants. (27). The appellants have next relied on the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi vs. State of Maharashtra (4). In that case a Public Prosecutor demanded illegal gratification from the complainant for not bringing his previous conviction to the notice of court in order to save him from enhanced punishment. The marked notes were recovered from the possession of second accused and not from the appellant and there was nor corroboration of testimony of complainant regarding demand for money by the appellant, it was held that in view of the provisions of section 165A I.P.C. the evidence of the complainant was in no better position than that of an accomplice and that corroboration of material particular was necessary and the accused was acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt by the Apex Court. As pointed out earlier, the statement of Om Prakash stands substantially and materially corro- borated in respect of all material particulars of this incident, which does not relate to the offences under sections 5(1)(d)(2) Prevention of Corruption Act. On the other hand this incident relates to the offence under section 395, 353, 224, 225 I.P.C. etc. which are distinct and separate offences. Hence the facts of Panalal Damodar Rathis case (supra) are at poles apart with those of case on hand. (28). The learned trial Judge has not based the conviction of the appellants solely on the testimony of P.W.3 Om Prakash. On the other hand, he has correctly discussed, analysed and evaluated the evidence recorded in this case and given clear, cogent and valid reasons for the conviction of the appellants. (29). The contention of Shri Pradeep Shah that there was no recovery of the alleged to have been looted currency notes and wrist watch and other looted property, the offence under section 395 I.P.C. is not made out as is also meritless. In my considered opinion, the recovery of the looted property is not at all sine qua non or a pre-condition or basic ingredient for bringing home the offence of dacoity under section 395 I.P.C. In the instant case, the prosecution am adducing voluminous, consistent and credible evidence has successfully established without reasonable doubt that appellants, other than appellant Ami Lal, who were more than five persons in number had conjointly surrounded Hardeep Singh, H.C. and looted currency notes worth Rs. 1000/- besides his handkerchief and Rs. 98/- and also snatched away the wrist watch from the hand of Teg Bahadur, Dy. S.P., that they were present and aiding in the commission of the said offence. Thus, the basic ingredients for the offence of dacoity have been well proved against those appellants. From the evidence, it has also been well proved that appellant Ami Lal, H.C. had instigated and abetted the other appellants to assault and attack on the A.C.D. party and to snatch away those currency notes from the possession of Hardeep Singh, H.C. Appellant Ami Lal was also present at the time of the commission of the said offence. Therefore, he has been rightly convicted under section 395 read with 109 I.P.C. (30). On behalf of the appellant, the case of Musakhan and others vs. State of Maharashtra (5), has also been cited, wherein it has been held that offence under section 395 comes into existence only when act of dacoity is committed by five or more persons jointly, that the question of applying section 149 is therefore a mere surplusage and that an innocent presence, in an assembly of persons, as for exam- ple a bystander, does not make the accused a member of an unlawful assembly, unless it is shown by direct or circumstantial evidence that the accused shared the common object of the assembly. It was further held that a court is not entitled to presume that each and every person, who is proved to have been present near a riotous mob at any time or to have joined or left it at any stage during its activities is in law guilty of every act committed by it from the beginning to the end, or that each member of such a crowd must from the beginning have anticipated and contemplated the nature of the illegal activities in which the assembly would subsequently indulge. In other words, it must be proved in each case that the person concerned was not only a member of the unlawful assembly at some stage, but at all the crucial stages had shared the common object of the assembly at all those stages. There can not be two opinions about this well crystalised principle of law. In other words, it must be proved in each case that the person concerned was not only a member of the unlawful assembly at some stage, but at all the crucial stages had shared the common object of the assembly at all those stages. There can not be two opinions about this well crystalised principle of law. From the evidence recorded in the instant case, it has been amply proved that appellant Dayanand, Constable, who made good his escape from the Out Post had come back alongwith the appellants Bhikha Ram, Dungar, Laxman, Tokha Ram, Prithvi Singh and others, who were armed with lathies etc. that the appellant Ami Lal, H.C. abetted and instigated them to attack on the A.C.D. party, who assaulted the raid party, that Ami Lal also instigated those appellants to snatch away the currency notes from Hardeep Singh, H.C. and those appellants conjointly looted by surrounding Hardeep Singh and that during the scuffle the wrist watch of Teg Baha- dur, Dy.S.P. was also snatched away by one of the appellants. All the appellants forcibly rescued Ami Lal, Head Constable from the custody of P.W.2 Udairaj and took him to the hotel of appellant Laxman, where they stayed till the members of the A.C.D. party left the police Out Post. All these facts manifestly prove that the appellants were members of the unlawful assembly having a common object to deter and prevent those public servants in due discharge of their duties as public servants and by using force and assaulting them at the instance of appellant Ami Lal, those appellants also conjointly committed dacoity and intentionally offered resistance and illegal obstruction and rescued appellant Ami Lal, Head Constable from the custody of Udairaj, where he was lawfully detained for an offence. In such circumstances,the facts of Musakhans case (supra) are clearly distinguishable. (31). Appellant Ami Lal escaped from the custody of P.W.2 Udairaj, Inspector and was arrested on 11.5.1977. The currency notes alleged to have been given to appellant Ami Lal, H.C. by complainant Om Prakash, were thrown away by co-accu- sed Radhey Shyam and since other appellants armed with lathies and Kassi collected outside the police Out Post and formed an unlawful assembly and looted away those currency notes, it was not at all possible for Teg Bahadur, Dy. S.P. to have prepared the memo of recovery of the currency notes and the memo of proceedings Ex.P.11 on the spot, which was prepared later on Railway Station, Sidhmukh. Memo Ex.P.11 was duly signed by motbirs, Teg Bahadur and Udairaj. Since all the material facts were incorporated in the written report Ex.P.17 dated 5.5.77, it was not at all necessary for him to have also appended the copy of Ex.P.11 with the report Ex.P.17. Memo Ex.P.11 was prepared in connection with the A.C.D. case and a carbon copy thereof was submitted by Teg Bahadur, Dy.S.P. to the Inves- tigation Officer of this case on 7.5.77. Hence for non submission of the memo Ex.P.11 alongwith the written report Ex.P.17 is not at all fatal to the prosecution case. (32). Since appellant Ami Lal escaped from the custody of P.W.2 Udairaj, his bushirt could neither be seized nor dipped in the solution of Sodium Carbonate for the detection of Phenolphthalein. Therefore, the prosecution case can not be held to be doubtful on this count. (33). Sarva Shri Pradeep Shah and Vijay Bishnoi have in the alternative submitted that the incident took place on 5.5.77 i.e. about 18 years back, that since then the appellants have suffered lot of mental agony and substantial amount of harassment and financial burden, that their sentences were suspended by this Court under section 389 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, it will now be harsh to send them to jail to serve out the sentence and they should be released on probation of good conduct. Appellants Ami Lal, Head Constable and Dayanand, Constable instead of helping the public servants in discharge of the duties, in order to absolve them from the liability of offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, intentionally prevented and deterred the officials of A.C.D. party, that they collected the villagers and abetted them to commit serious offences punishable under sections 353, 395 and 225 I.P.C. Appellant Ami Lal, H.C. even escaped from lawful custody. Therefore, Ami Lal, H.C. and Dayanand, Constable do not deserve to be released on probation of good conduct. Other appellants are villagers. When Ami Lal, H.C. and Dayanand, F.C. raised alarm and instigated them and to help them other appellants committed the offences for which they have been convicted. Therefore, Ami Lal, H.C. and Dayanand, Constable do not deserve to be released on probation of good conduct. Other appellants are villagers. When Ami Lal, H.C. and Dayanand, F.C. raised alarm and instigated them and to help them other appellants committed the offences for which they have been convicted. Therefore, keeping in view all the relevant factors as also facts and circumstances of this case, I feel that interest of justice shall be secured, if other appellants are given benefit of probation. (34). Hence for the reasons mentioned above, this appeal fails and the conviction and sentence of the appellants Ami Lal, H.C. and Dayanand, Constable are hereby maintained. The learned Sessions Judge, Churu shall immediately issue non-bailable warrants against these appellants to secure their arrest and send them to jail to serve out their sentences. (35). The Convictions and sentences of appellants (1) Bhikha Ram, (2) Doongar, (3) Laxman, (4) Prithvi Singh are also maintained, but instead of sentencing them at once it is directed that they be released on probation, if each one of them executes personal bond for an amount of Rs. ten thousand with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of three years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. (36). The record of the lower court be sent back immediately.