S. GUPTE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order of conviction dated 19-5-1981 passed by Sri R. C. Agarwal, the then Special Judge, Deoria convicting the accused appellants Surendra Sahai, and Prabhu Nath under Section 161 IPC and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sri Kishan appellant under Section 165-A IPC and sentencing RI of one year each under each count. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story briefly stated is as follows : The accused appellants Surendra Sahai and Prabhu Nath were working as Reader and Peon respectively of the Court of Consolidation Officer, Kasia, District Deoria. On the instructions of the Superintendent of Police Vigilance Department Gorakhpur, Vigilance Inspector Chandra Shushan Tripathi PW-3 along with Ram Prasad Pathak PW-1 and constable Vijai Shankar PW-4 raided the Court of Consolidation Officer on 29-4-1977 at about 2 p. m. There they found the accused appellant Sri Kishan, who was a litigant giving bribe of Rs. 1-4-0 to Surendra Sahai, Reader and Prabhu Nath Peon. The prosecution claimed that the accused appellant Surendra Sahai, kept one rupee with him and gave four Annas to the accused appellant Prabhu Nath Peon. Prabhu Nath peon ran away from the Court premises the accused appellant Surendera Sahai and Sri Nishan were apprehended on spot and were taken to police station Kasia where Inspector Chandra Bhushan Tripathi lodged first information report Ex. Ka-12. After obtaining proper sanction of the Settlement Officer regarding prosecution of Surendra Sahai and Prabhu Nath, the accused appellants were prosecuted and convicted as aforesaid, hence the appeal. ( 3 ) I have heard Sri. P. N. Misra, learned counsel for the accused appellant and Sri Amarjeet Singh AGA for the State, considered their contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the accused appellants argued before me that the only witness of public Sri Vishwa Nath Tiwari who was examined by the prosecution before the Court below had turned hostile. It was argued that the Court below grossly erred in placing reliance on the testimony of the two police inspectors. It was further argued on behalf of the accused appellants that Sri Vishwa Nath Tiwari had no case before the consolidation Courts. He had, therefore, no occasion to go and witness the occurrence in question. It was argued that the Court below grossly erred in placing reliance on the testimony of the two police inspectors. It was further argued on behalf of the accused appellants that Sri Vishwa Nath Tiwari had no case before the consolidation Courts. He had, therefore, no occasion to go and witness the occurrence in question. The Court below, therefore, grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the accused appellants. ( 5 ) FOUR witnesses of fact, namely, vigilance Inspector Ram Prasad Pathak, PW-1, Vigilance Inspector Chandra Bhushan Tripathi PW-2, Vishwa Nath Tiwari PW-3 and constable Vijai Shankar PW-4 were examined before the Court below. Vishwa Nath Tiwari was an independent eye witness of the occurrence. He stated in the opening sentence of his statement on oath before the Court below that nobody was arrested in his presence in the office of the Consolidation Officer-Kasia. He, however, admitted his signatures upon the recovery memo Ex. ka-1 but maintained that had put his signatures on a blank paper when Sub-Inspector of Police PS Kasia had called him through a constable. He specifically stated that he put his signatures on the alleged recovery memo in the police station and not in the consolidation office. He maintained that he was resident of village Laxmipur, within the police circle of P. S. Kasia. He has specifically denied to have gone to consolidation officer on 29-4-77 for participating in the trap laid in respect of the accused appellants. ( 6 ) NO doubt two inspectors, namely, Ram Prasad Pathak and Chandra Bhushan Tripathi as also constable Vijai Shankar have clearly stated in their statement on oath before the Court below that they had watched the affairs out side the consolidation offices Court since about 11 a. m. and feeling satisfied that the Court Reader was demanding and accepting money from the litigants. At about 1. 45 p. m. Inspector Ram Prasad Pathak PW-1 entered into the Court room and found that the accused appellant Prabhunath peon had called out a case of Kishun Nath Dukhi. On that call Kishan Nath accused appellant went to the accused appellant Surendra Sahai Reader. He asked Sri Kishan Nath that the Consolidation Officer was not there. He asked him to give Bhent (bribe) for giving the date and thereupon the accused Sri Kishun advanced Rs. On that call Kishan Nath accused appellant went to the accused appellant Surendra Sahai Reader. He asked Sri Kishan Nath that the Consolidation Officer was not there. He asked him to give Bhent (bribe) for giving the date and thereupon the accused Sri Kishun advanced Rs. 1-4-0 to accused Surendra Sahai, out of which accused appellant Surendra Sahai took one rupee note with him and he asked Sri Kishan to pay four Annas to Prabhu Nath peon. Thereupon Sri Kishan gave four Annas to accused Prabhu Nath. As soon as the accused appellant Surendra Sahai accepted note of Rs. 1. 00 and kept in his palm, Inspector Ram Prasad Pathak caught Surendra Sahai and Sri Kishan. Inspector Ram Prasad Pathak PW-1 stated that when Vijai Shankar constable tried to apprehend Prabhunath peon, he ran away. He thereafter sent information about this incident to Chandra Bhushan Tripathi, Vigilance Inspector, who was standing outside. 1t would thus be seen that the actual incident of giving and taking bribe did not take place in presence of Chandra Bhushan Tripathi PW-2. When Inspector Chandra Bhushan Tripathi on receipt of information of the corruption prevailing in the consolidation Courts had laid down a trap of the present kind. I fail to understand as to how he allowed the Court peon to run away from the scene of occurrence. When the raid in question was being conducted under the direction of Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell, Gorakhpur, Inspector Chandra Bhushan Tripathi should have taken care to see that the culprits were caught red handed and were not allowed to escape. From the circumstance that the accused appellant Prabhu Nath who was peon working in the Court of consolidation officer and who probably was the most important link and agency in the matter of extracting money from the litigants through the Court reader, was allowed to escape by the two inspectors of vigilance department and a constable and that the poor litigant Sri Kishan was booked up for giving bribe to the Court reader, I, conclude that the entire case of the prosecution was a cooked up one. The circumstance that the independent witness of the public, namely, Vishwa Nath Tiwari PW-3 absolutely turned hostile to the prosecution and the fact that he is said to have put his signatures on the recovery memo under the influence of the sub inspector of P. S. Kasia shows that the entire case was cooked up by the police officers sitting inside the police station. ( 7 ) IT is important to note here that prior conducting the raid in question and arrest of the accused appellant Surendra Sahai, Reader, Inspector Chandra Bhushan Tripathi did not obtain any permission from the Consolidation Officer. The circumstance that the police officers did not care to take consolidation officer or the settlement officer consolidation into confidence before conducting raid in question, casts a doubt upon the bonafides of the evidence of Ram Prasad Pathak PW-1, Vijai Shankar, PW-4 and Inspector Chandra Bhushan Tripathi PW-2. ( 8 ) I should state here that the officers discharging the functions of a Court, be that of consolidation officer or executive Magistrates are authorities superior in law than any of the police officers. For all practical purposes, the Court, Reader and the peon attracted to the Court are paraphernelia and part and parcel of the Court. They discharge their duties under the instructions of the presiding officer. Whereas it is the anxiety of this Court to curb down menace of corruption prevailing in the society or more so in the Courts, and much more than any other authority, yet if the police officers are allowed to raid the Court premises and to arrest officials of the Court without permission or knowledge of the presiding officer of the Court, I am of the opinion that it will set a wrong precedent, because in that event an over enthusiastic police officer may go to the extent of running down the prestige of the presiding officer of the Court, what to say of a Reader or peon. If it was a fact that the Inspector Chandra Bhushan Tripathi had received an information or for that matter Superintendent of police Vigilance Department had received complaints about the corruption prevailing in the consolidation Courts, the appropriate procedure should have been that the matter should have been first discussed at the level of the superior officers of the consolidation Department and after taking the officers of the consolidation department into confidence the Vigilance Inspector Chandra Bhushan Tripathi should have conducted a raid of the kind of the present one. This having not been done, the testimony of Ram Prasad Pathak Vigilance Inspector, PW-1 and constable Vijai Shankar PW-3 who acted under the instructions of Sri Chandra Bhushan Tripathi, Vigilance Inspector does not inspire confidence. Inspector Chandra Bhushan Tripathi having not witnessed the real occurrence of giving and taking the bribe, and he having failed to obtain prior permission from the consolidation authorities for conducting the raid in question, his statement also falls short of credence. ( 9 ) UNDER the circumstances, I find that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below against the appellants is bad in law. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the Court below against the appellants are set aside. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged dated 23/07/1996. ( 10 ) IT is directed that the accused appellants Surendra Sahai, Prabhunath and Shri Kishan shall be set at liberty forthwith, if in custody, unless required in connection with any other case. Incorporated vide order of Court on 6-8-1996. Appeal allowed. .