CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) THE instant appeal is filed by the accused who had suffered conviction and sentence by the judgment dated 6-7-1993 passed in C. C. No. 146 of 1991 by the Court of Special Judge, metropolitan Area, Bangalore City. In filing the appeal, the accused had challenged the conviction and sentence. ( 2 ) I heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri K. Appa Rao and the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri B. H. Satish appearing for the respondent-State. I have also perused the case records including the case records of the Court below in c. C. No, 146 of 1991. ( 3 ) THE case in brief of the prosecution is as follows:the appellant was charge-sheeted in C. C. No. 146 of 1991 for the offences punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 7 read with Section 13 (l) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'p. C. Act') by the karnataka Lokayukta Police before the learned Special Judge, metropolitan Area, Bangalore City (hereinafter referred to for convenience as the 'special Judge' ). The charge being framed and read over, the appellant pleaded not guilty of the same. To prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution had examined as many as 9 witnesses, P. Ws. 1 to 9 and further got marked 50 documents as at Exs. P-1 to P-50 and further marked 8 M. Os. as per M. Os. 1 to 8. The appellant was also examined by the learned Special Judge under Section 313 of the Code of criminal Procedure. The appellant had not produced in his defence any evidence either oral or documentary before the learned Special Judge. ( 4 ) THE c 3 of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant being a public servant working as First Division Assistant in the office of the Regional Transport Officer, West Division, rajajinagar, Bangalore during the year 1990, demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 1007- from one p. W. 1-Subramanyam for showing him certain official favour in effecting change in the R. C. book with regard to transaction of sale of a scooter bearing registration No. CKE 1648 to his name from the former owner one K. S. Parameshwar and the appellant did it on 25-7-1990 and thereby committed the above offences. 1007- from one p. W. 1-Subramanyam for showing him certain official favour in effecting change in the R. C. book with regard to transaction of sale of a scooter bearing registration No. CKE 1648 to his name from the former owner one K. S. Parameshwar and the appellant did it on 25-7-1990 and thereby committed the above offences. To elaborate the material particularities, it is stated that P. W. 1-Subramanyam purchased the above said Bajaj scooter from its previous owner, C. W. 4-Parameshwar. The R. C. book and the relevant papers for change of name from the name of parameshwar to the name of P. W. 1-Subramanyam are at Exs. P-5 to P-7. P. W. 1 submitted his application, Ex. P-8 on 23-7-1990 along with relevant papers-R. C. book and the relevant forms-Exs. P-9 and P-29 to the R. T. O's Office, West Division, rajajinagar, Bangalore. As stated above, the appellant was working as a First Division Assistant in the said Office and was dealing with such applications for change of entries in the R. C. Book. That P. W. 1-Subramanyam met the appellant on 23-7-1990 and enquired with him about his application for change of entries in the R. C. Book and P. W. 1 asked the appellant as to when he should go over to the Office of the appellant, to get the R. C. Book entries changed. It appears that the appellant informed P. W. 1-Subramanyam that he had to pay a bribe of Rs. 150/- to the appellant and that he would get the r. G, entries changed in his name on the same day. That P. W. 1 pleaded with the appellant that he was not having the money with him. That the appellant therefore informed P. W. 1 that r. G. Book entries would not be changed unless he paid him the money demanded by him. That P. W. 1 pleaded his inability to pay the sum, whereupon the appellant enquired P. W. 1 as to how much money he had with him at that time and at that, P. W. 1 replied that he had Rs. 20/- only. That the appellant had collected the said sum of Rs. 20/- from P. W. 1 and instructed him to bring the balance amount on the day next. 20/- only. That the appellant had collected the said sum of Rs. 20/- from P. W. 1 and instructed him to bring the balance amount on the day next. When P. W. 1 pleaded with the appellant his inability to bring the balance sum, the appellant instructed him to meet him on 25-7-1990. It appears that P. W. I was not willing to pay any such bribe money to the appellant and he therefore approached the Karnataka lokayukta with his complaint dated 25-3-1990 as at Ex. P-l. That P. W. 8-Dy. S. P. on receiving the complaint as at Ex. P-l from P. W. 1 registered a case in Crime No. 16 of 1990 as against the appellant and forwarded the F. I. R. as per Ex. P-18 to the jurisdictional Court and further handed over the further investigation of the case to the Lokayukta Inspector-P. W. 9. That P. W. 9 thereafter condupted Phenolphthalein test before p. W. 1 and he had also secured panchayatdars one rangaswamy-C. W. 2 and another by name Venkateshappa, P. W. 2 to demonstrate as to how the trap would be operated against the appellant and further to know whether he would accept the bribe from P. W. 1 as alleged in the complaint. That for this purpose, M. O. 1-currency note of Rs. 100/- was produced by P. W. 1 before P. W. 9 and others and it was treated with phenolphthalein powder and thereafter, P. W. 1 verified its number and denomination and it was kept in the pocket of the complainant-P. W. 1. That, because P. W. 2 had touched the currency note-M. O. 1, his hands were washed with sodium carbonate solution and it turned into pink colour and the samples and the resultant solution were collected in" two different bottles in the presence of the panchayatdars. It was explained to P. Ws. 1 and 2 and others that if any person were to come in contact with the phenolphthalein powder applied to m. O. 1 and that if that part were washed in sodium carbonate solution, similar results would occur. That precautions were taken by the Inspector-P. W. 9 to know whether P. W. 1 had any cash or material. 1 and 2 and others that if any person were to come in contact with the phenolphthalein powder applied to m. O. 1 and that if that part were washed in sodium carbonate solution, similar results would occur. That precautions were taken by the Inspector-P. W. 9 to know whether P. W. 1 had any cash or material. That P. W. 1 was instructed to handover M. O. 1-currency note to the appellant only on his demand of bribe and p. W. 2 was instructed to accompany P. W. 1 to watch as to what happened in the Office of the appellant. An entrustment mahazar was also prepared as per Ex. P-3 on the same day at about 12. 00 noon and certain articles were seized under the mahazar. That P. Ws. 1 and 2 and other members who participated in these proceedings washed their hands in the bowls and the articles which were used for conducting phenolphthalein test were also washed. It appears that P. Ws. 1 and 2 and another person C,w. 2-Rangaswamy, P. W. 9 and his staff members went to the Office of the appellant at Rajajinagar. ( 5 ) THAT P. Ws. 1 and 2 at the first instance went into the Office of the appellant while P. W. 9 and others followed them and stood at a safe distance to watch. That P. Ws. 1 and 2 went inside the office of the appellant, it appears that P. W. 1 had been instructed to flash a signal by wiping his face with the kerchief if the accused had accepted the bribe money-M. O. 1 from him. That when P. Ws. 1 and 2 went inside the Office of the appellant, he was sitting near the Reception table and P. W. 1 asked the appellant about his papers and the appellant informed him that the papers were ready and that thereafter he got up from his chair, came to the side and asked P. W. 1 whether he had brought the money. For that, P. W. 1 replied the appellant in the affirmative. The appellant asked him to give the amount. Then p. W. 1 took out M. O. 1-currency note of Rs. 100/- and gave it to the appellant and that the appellant took M. O. 1-currency note of Rs. 100/- in his right hand and kept it in his right side pant pocket. The appellant asked him to give the amount. Then p. W. 1 took out M. O. 1-currency note of Rs. 100/- and gave it to the appellant and that the appellant took M. O. 1-currency note of Rs. 100/- in his right hand and kept it in his right side pant pocket. That P. W. 1 thereafter came out and flashed the signal as instructed earlier and then P. W. 9 and other members of the trap party as originally planned entered the Office of the appellant and apprehended the appellant. That P. W. 9 conducted the phenolphthalein test to know whether the appellant had received M. O. 1-currency note from P. W. 1. That each of the hands of the appellant were separately washed in separate sodium carbonate solution prepared at that place and that the solution in which right hand fingers of the appellant were washed, the solution turned into rose colour, whereas the solution in which the left hand fingers of the appellant were washed, the solution did not produce any change of colour. That the resultants of the solution were collected in two separate bottles and sealed and further subjected to mahazar. When questioned by the P. W. 9, the appellant took out M. O. 1-currency note from his right side pant-pocket and he produced the same before P. W. 9. That the number on M. O. 1 tallied with the number on the currency note noted earlier in Ex. P-3 and that m. O. 2-pant of the appellant was also got removed and the inner lining of the pant pocket was washed in sodium carbonate solution and the same also turned into rose colour. That the resultant solution was also collected in yet another bottle and sealed and subjected to mahazar. That the relevant file relating to the change of R. C. Book entries regarding the scooter of P. W. 1 as at Ex. P-11 was also collected from the appellant and the same was containing the papers as at Exs. P-5 to P-35. That the inward register as at Ex. P-14 was also collected and other relevant papers-Exs. P-36 to P-38 were also collected from the r. T. O's Office by P. W. 9. That the material objects and the relevant papers were seized by P. W. 9 by conducting trap mahazar as per Ex. P-5 to P-35. That the inward register as at Ex. P-14 was also collected and other relevant papers-Exs. P-36 to P-38 were also collected from the r. T. O's Office by P. W. 9. That the material objects and the relevant papers were seized by P. W. 9 by conducting trap mahazar as per Ex. P-4 in the presence of the accused, panchayatdars and the Lokayukta staff. That sketch of the scene of occurrence was also got prepared by P. W. 9 through P. W. 4-Assistant Engineer, P. W. D. , No. 4 Building sub-division, bangalore and the same is as at Ex. P-12. That the seized articles were sent to chemical examiner through P. W. 5. That p. Ws. 3 and 6 who are the officials in the R. T. O. Office were also examined by P. W. 9 to know the duties entrusted to the appellant at the relevant point of time and the manner and the time within which the appellant had to attend to the work. That p. W. 5 was examined. The P. W. 7 stated that he brought back m. Os. 1 to 8 from the Chemical Examiner's Office as per the instructions of his Official superiors. That P. W. 9 submitted his report to his Official superiors after completing the investigation to seek sanction order from the Commissioner of Transport under whom the appellant was then working and he obtained the sanction order according sanction to prosecute the appellant and the same is at Ex. P-44. On completion of the investigation, p. W. 9 filed the charge-sheet into Court as against the appellant. ( 6 ) THE defence of the appellant as against the above case of the prosecution is one of total denial. But the appellant by filing written statement had come up with his case in defence. That suggestions were also made to P. Ws. 1 and 2 by the defence during the cross-examination. While denying that the appellant demanded and accepted the bribe or illegal remuneration from p. W. 1, the appellant had stated that while he gave acknowledgement to him, he had folded the same and that P. W. 1 had kept a currency note of Rs. 1 and 2 by the defence during the cross-examination. While denying that the appellant demanded and accepted the bribe or illegal remuneration from p. W. 1, the appellant had stated that while he gave acknowledgement to him, he had folded the same and that P. W. 1 had kept a currency note of Rs. 100/- in the acknowledgement so, folded and immediately after seeing the currency note, the accused was constrained with fear and he kept it in the right side pant pocket and immediately the Lokayukta Police apprehended him and he also contended that the file relating to the scooter of P. W. 1 bearing registration No. CKE 1648 was put up before the higher authorities on 23-7-1990 itself and therefore, there was no reason for him to demand or accept the illegal gratification. The appellant had also denied that he was in the habit of demanding and accepting the illegal gratification from anybody and much less he received any sum from P. W. 1 as alleged against him by the prosecution. ( 7 ) THAT the learned Special Judge had set out the following points for his determination. "1. Whether the accused was a Public Servant as on 23-7-1990 and 25-7-1990? 2. (a) Whether the accused was in charge of the work and the papers relating to the transfer of the name of p. W. 1 in the R. C. from the previous owner in regard to the vehicle CKE 1648? 2. (b) If so, whether he demanded Rs. 150/- from P. W. 1 to attend to such official work in favour of P. W. 1?2. (c) Whether the accused on 23-7-1990 agreed to receive rs. 120a instead of Rs. 150/- from P. W. 1 for attending such work?2. (d) Whether the accused accepted Rs. 20/- from P. W. 1 as the part payment out of Rs. 120/- which he had agreed to receive from him as part payment to attend to such work?3. Whether receipt of Rs. 20/- by the accused from P. W. 1 as part payment was legal remuneration and if not whether it was gratification to discharge his official act in changing the entries in the R. C. in regard to the said vehicle?4. (a) Whether on 25-7-1990 the accused demanded illegal gratification from P. W. 1 in his Office at about 1. 20/- by the accused from P. W. 1 as part payment was legal remuneration and if not whether it was gratification to discharge his official act in changing the entries in the R. C. in regard to the said vehicle?4. (a) Whether on 25-7-1990 the accused demanded illegal gratification from P. W. 1 in his Office at about 1. 00 p. m. to attend to his official work in regard to the change of R. C. entry of the said vehicle?4. (b) If so, whether he received Rs. 100/- from P. W. 1 to attend to such work?4. (c) Whether the accused was entitled to Rs. 100/- from p. W. 1 to discharge his official duties in regard to change of R. C. entry of the vehicle?5. Whether Rs. 100/- received by the accused from P. W. 1 was the gratification other than legal remuneration?6. Whether the defence of the accused is true and probable?7. Whether the prosecution has proved the conduct of the accused in receiving illegal gratification of Rs. 20/- on 23-7-1990 and Rs. 100a on 25-7-1990 would amount to criminal misconduct within the meaning of section 13 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act?8. (a) Whether the prosecution has proved the offence against the accused as per the charges beyond reasonable doubt?8. (b) If not, what offence is established by the prosecution against the accused?9. Whether the orders of sanction to prosecute the accused obtained by the prosecution is legal and valid?10. What order regarding disposal of material objects?11. What order?" ( 8 ) THE learned Special Judge on appreciation of evidence both oral and documentary and further considering the material produced marked as the Exhibits, had recorded his findings on the above points as hereunder :"point No. 1 yes. Point No. 2 (a) yes. Point No. 2 (b) yes. Point No. 2 (c) yes. Point No. 2 (d) yes. Point No. 3 it was illegal gratification. Point No. 4 (a) yes. Point No. 4 (b) yes. Point No. 4 (c) no. Point No. 5 yes. Point No. 6 no. Point No. 7 no. Point No. 8 (a) partly under Section 7 of P. C. Act. Point No. 8 (b) offence punishable under Section 7 of P. C. Act. Point No. 9 yes. Point Nos. 10 and 11 as per final orders". Point No. 4 (b) yes. Point No. 4 (c) no. Point No. 5 yes. Point No. 6 no. Point No. 7 no. Point No. 8 (a) partly under Section 7 of P. C. Act. Point No. 8 (b) offence punishable under Section 7 of P. C. Act. Point No. 9 yes. Point Nos. 10 and 11 as per final orders". ( 9 ) ULTIMATELY, the learned Special Judge in passing the impugned judgment and sentence convicted the appellant and further sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- or in default to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 7 and Section 13 (l) (d) of the P. C. Act. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant while taking me through the fact? of the case and further the evidence on record submitted that the appellant is innocent of the charge levelled against him and further that he was the victim of circumstances in the hands of the complainant-P. W. 1. Adverting to the complaint filed by P. W. 1, Sri Appa Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no iota of truth therein. He further submitted that P. W. 1 had visited the Office of the appellant on 23-7-1990 with a request that the R. C. book entries be changed in respect of Bajaj cub Secoter bearing registration no. CKE 1648 from the previous owner Parameshwar to the name of P. W. 1 and that the appellant asked P. W. 1 to go over to his Office on 25-7-1990 when the complainant-P. W. 1 stated to have pleaded his inability to give bribe amount. Hence, Sri Appa rao argued that if that is so, question of P. W. 1 to go over to the office of the appellant on the day with the bribe sum did not arise at all. The submission of Sri Appa Rao is therefore that the demand of bribe by the appellant and tendering of the same by p. W. 1 on the day did not arise and the same was only a conspiracy hatched by P. W. 1 with no good reason. The submission of Sri Appa Rao is therefore that the demand of bribe by the appellant and tendering of the same by p. W. 1 on the day did not arise and the same was only a conspiracy hatched by P. W. 1 with no good reason. He further submitted that the learned Special Judge did not appreciate the conduct of the appellant, that the appellant being in charge of the transfer of R. C. Book in respect of the scooter in question had attended to the application of P. W. 1 in a very normal course and he had put up the same before his Section Head-P. W. 3 and further upon her perusal and attendance of the case file, the same was moved by P. W. 3 to the A. R. T. O.-P. W. 6. He further submitted that the change of entry in the R. C. Book in question would arise only after the approval by the A. R. T. O.-P. W. 6 and not earlier. Yet another point the learned Special Judge did not consider according to Sri Appa Rao is that P. W. 1 had not collected his R. C. Book from the appellant and as such, question of his tendering the bribe money to the appellant did not arise at all. He further submitted that P. W. 1 being the complainant is very much interested in framing the appellant in the false charge and that he is therefore a totally interested witness. It is also his submission that P. W. 2-Venkatesh is the person who had assisted him in the trap conducted by P. W. 9-the Police inspector of Lokayukta at the instance of P. W. 1 and as such, p. W. 2-Venkatesh cannot be construed as an independent witness. According to Sri Appa Rao the status of P. W. 2- venkatesh is also as that of an interested Witness as he was very much interested in the prosecution as he also desired that the trap laid as against the appellant was successful. The complaint of Sri Appa Rao before this Court is that there is no independent witness examined by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant. He pointedly argued that it is not as if no independent witness or witnesses were available in a busy place as that of the r. T. O's Office where the appellant was working. The complaint of Sri Appa Rao before this Court is that there is no independent witness examined by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant. He pointedly argued that it is not as if no independent witness or witnesses were available in a busy place as that of the r. T. O's Office where the appellant was working. According to Sri appa Rao, the very circumstances that the prosecution had neither cited nor examined any independent witness or witnesses go to show that the prosecution case is one unbelievable. ( 11 ) SRI Appa Rao had also argued before me that the prosecution had not secured the local witnesses for the mahazar drawn for seizure of M. O. 1-currency note and the same is in violation of Section 100 of Criminal Procedure Code. The above point is canvassed by him for the reason that the trap witness-P. W. 2 and yet another were collected by P. W. 9 from the nearby Offices of the Office of P. W. 9 and therefore he submitted that the said witnesses were not collected by the prosecution from the locality. ( 12 ) SRI Appa Rao therefore prayed that the impugned judgment recording conviction and sentence as against the appellant be set aside by allowing the instant appeal. In support of the argument, Sri Appa Rao cited the following decisions: rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Another v State of Vindhya pradesh, major E. G. Barsay v State of Bombay , maha Singh v State (Delhi Administration , lachman Dass v State of Punjab , criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1984, dated on 21-1-1987-a decision rendered by a Single Judge of this Court. I am going to advert to the relevant decisions out of the above decisions when I am going to discuss the evidence on record. ( 13 ) AS against the above argument of Sri Appa Rao, the learned High Court Government Pleader-Sri B. H. Satish on the other hand argued that the instant case in hand is a red-hand case and therefore he submitted that there is nothing for the appellant to complain before this Court to resort to the instant appeal. Sri Satish further submitted that in the cross-examination either of P. W. 1 or P. W. 2 the appellant got elicited anything to disbelieve their evidence. Sri Satish further submitted that in the cross-examination either of P. W. 1 or P. W. 2 the appellant got elicited anything to disbelieve their evidence. He further submitted that the appellant did not challenge the evidence of p. Ws. 3 and 6-the Office Superintendent and the B. R. T. O. , the prosecution had examined in support of their case. He further submitted that the evidence of P. W. 1 is totally corroborated by the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 9 and further by the evidence of p. Ws. 3 and 6. Sri Satish further submitted that the above decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant are having no application to the instant case in hand. He therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed and the impugned judgment recording conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special judge as against the appellant be confirmed by this Court. ( 14 ) THE learned Government Pleader in support of his argument had cited the following decisions: durand Didier v Chief Secretary, Union Territory of Goa , sunder Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh , hastimal Kothari v Commercial Tax Officer, Intelligence I, south Zone, Bangalore. In Durand Didier's case, supra, in para 8 of the judgment, the supreme Court observed that the witnesses if were not secured from the vicinity of the place of seizure is immaterial and the same may be an irregularity, but not affecting the legality of the proceedings. The discussion thereto in para 8 of the judgment reads as follows:"8. After the appellant was secured by the Police, P. W. 7 directed P. W. 4 to bring two pancha witnesses. Accordingly, P. W. 4 brought two witnesses from a place which is according to P. W. 7 within a distance of 1 km and according to P. W. 5 at five minutes walking distance. Much argument was advanced by the learned defence Counsel that these two witnesses were not the respectable inhabitants of that locality; that they were readily willing and obliging witnesses to the Police and that there is deliberate violation of the statutory safeguard. This argument cannot be endured for more than one reason to be presently stated. The appellant was secured in the midnight near the Police outpost. It clearly transpires from the records that these two witnesses are not outsiders but residents of the same area, namely Colva. This argument cannot be endured for more than one reason to be presently stated. The appellant was secured in the midnight near the Police outpost. It clearly transpires from the records that these two witnesses are not outsiders but residents of the same area, namely Colva. Except seeking some bare suggestions that both the witnesses were regular and professional witnesses nothing tangible has been brought out in the cross-examination to discredit the testimony of P. W. 1. This Court, while considering a similar contention in Sunder Singh's case, supra and Tej bahadur Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, has observed that if pancha witnesses are not respectables of the same locality but from another locality, it may amount only to an irregularity, not affecting the legality of the proceedings and that it is a matter for Courts of fact to consider and the supreme Court would not ordinarily go behind the finding of facts concurrently arrived at by the Courts below". In Sunder Singh's case, supra, in para 9 of the judgment, the supreme Court observed as follows:" (D) Criminal Procedure Code (1898), Section 103 irregularities in search Failure to call respectable persons of locality to witness search. Assuming that the witnesses who actually witnessed the search were not respectable inhabitants of the locality, that circumstance would not invalidate the search. It would only affect the weight of the evidence in support of the search and the recovery. Hence at the highest the irregularity in the search and the recovery, in so far as the terms of Section 103 had not been fully complied with, would not affect the legality of the proceedings. It only affected the weight of evidence which is a matter for Courts of fact and the Supreme Court would not ordinarily go behind the findings of fact concurrently arrived at by the Courts below. Similarly, the fact that malkhana register and the seizure list were not all written in the same ink and therefore were not above suspicion are again matters for courts of fact". In Hastimal Kothari's case, supra, in para 3 of the said judgment, the learned Single Judge of this Court held as follows:" (3) The word 'locality' in Section 100, Criminal procedure Code in contradiction to a city, town or village, is a limited, narrow and localised area. In Hastimal Kothari's case, supra, in para 3 of the said judgment, the learned Single Judge of this Court held as follows:" (3) The word 'locality' in Section 100, Criminal procedure Code in contradiction to a city, town or village, is a limited, narrow and localised area. Where the panch witnesses were not members of the locality, there is contravention of Section 100, Criminal procedure Code. But the same does not vitiate the search and seizure Hanuman Traders v The Commercial Tax officer, Intelligence-li, Bangalore. " ( 15 ) NOW, I come to the decisions cited before me by the learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri Appa Rao in support of his case in para 12, supra. Out of the above decisions, I feel, the following decisions are worth referring to: major E. G. Barsay's case, supra, with reference to the evidence of a trap witness, in para 40 of the judgment, the supreme Court held as follows:"though a trap witness is not an approver, he is certainly an interested witness in the sense that he is interested to see that the trap laid by him succeeded. He could at least be equated with a partisan witness and it would not be admissible to rely upon his evidence without corroboration. His evidence is not a tainted one; it would only make a difference in the degree of corroboration required rather than the necessity for it. Though the Court rejects the evidence of the witness in regard to some events either because that part of the evidence is not consistent with the other parts of his evidence or with the evidence of some disinterested witnesses, the Court can accept the evidence given by the witness in regard to other events when that version is corroborated in all material particulars by the evidence of other disinterested witnesses". In the case of Lachman Dass, supra, in a case of uncorroborated statement of complainant and circumstantial and documentary evidence, the Supreme Court held as follows:"accused an Accountant in Municipality, was charged for receiving ten rupee note as bribe from a municipal contractor. Accused, being entrusted with the work of scrutinising bills submitted by the contractor, had reduced the amount of bills substantially. Case of the complainant i. e. , Contractor, was that the accused demanded him rs. Accused, being entrusted with the work of scrutinising bills submitted by the contractor, had reduced the amount of bills substantially. Case of the complainant i. e. , Contractor, was that the accused demanded him rs. 10/- and threatened that on his failure to pay the amount, bill would be further scrutinised and reduced. The accused accepted receipt of Rs. 10/- but his defence was that he had actually deducted Rs. 8. 12 p. for making good the over-payment already made to the complainant and has returned Rs. 1. 88 p. to him. The record of the municipality as well as the evidence of three witnesses including the Executive Officer of the Municipality supported the defence case. The Trial Court convicted the accused for taking bribe depending on the sole evidence of the complainant and the High Court maintained the conviction though the evidence of the Executive Officer was not disbelieved. Held, as the conviction was based on the sole evidence of the complainant who had reason to harm the accused, having reduced the bills substantially, and as there was nothing to show why the Executive Officer should give false evidence in order to extricate the accused, conviction of the accused should be set aside. Circumstantial and documentary evidence created room for doubt that the defence version was probably true and the statement of the complainant could not be accepted without corroboration. Decision of Punjab High Court, Reversed". Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1984, dated on 21-1-1987 : This is a case wherein the offence committed was under Section 161, indian Penal Code and Section 5 (l) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In the said case, while setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned sessions Judge, the learned Single Judge of this Court held that the complainant therein having been released on bail on his agreeing to pay Rs. 200/- as bribe, he was guilty of the offence under Section 161, Indian Penal Code and that the bribe given as provided under Section 165-A of Indian Penal Code who agreed or promised to bribe to have a favour from a public servant was guilty of the offence of abatement and as such, he was an accomplice. The learned Single Judge further held that p. W. 10-Dy. The learned Single Judge further held that p. W. 10-Dy. S. P. in charge of anti-corruption cell having registered a case and issued F. I. R. , it was his duty to collect evidence as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint and instead of doing so, P. W. 10 in the said case had thought of laying a trap and such a trap could not be held to be a legitimate trap, because it was the duty of the Police Officer as provided under Section 149, Criminal Procedure Code to prevent commission of the offence to the best of his ability by interposing for the purpose of preventing the commission of such cognizable offence and as such, he was also guilty of the offence as that of the complainant P. W. 2. The learned Single Judge further held that under the said circumstances, P. W. 10-Deputy s. P. in the said case was no way better than the accomplice and independent corroboration was therefore necessary. I have gone through the said decision carefully and it appears to me that the set of facts in the said case and the set of facts in the instant case in hand are totally different and therefore it appears to me that the same is not applicable to the case in hand. In the case cited before me decided by the learned Single Judge of this court, the trap was laid by the Deputy Superintendent of police-P. W. 10. It is stated that P. W. 2-complainant had gone first to give the bribe without he being accompanied by the trap witness and that on the signal being made to P. W. 10-Deputy superintendent of Police, he, his raid party accompanied by the panch witnesses entered the house of the P. S. I. whereas in the instant case, the complainant-P. W. 1 was made to accompany the trap witness-P. W. 2 independently on his own and it is only after the appellant asked the bribe amount, P. W. 1 tendered the bribe, equally witnessed by the trap witness-P. W. 2 and it is thereafter, on completion of that act, P. W. 1 came out of the office, gave a signal to the Investigating Officer-P. W. 9 by wiping out his face by kerchief as originally planned. In that view of the matter, I do not think the above decision cited before me is of relevance to the case. In this context, I feel it proper to advert to the decision in Gian Singh v State of Punjab, to the effect that the Police Officials cannot be discredited in a trap case merely because they are Police Officials, and yet another decision in Hazari Lal v State (Delhi Administration) , on the point that there is no rule of prudence which has crystallised into a rule of law, nor indeed any rule of prudence, which requires that the evidence of Police Officer who laid a trap in a bribery case should be treated on the same footing as evidence of accomplices and there should be insistence on corroboration. In the said decision, the Supreme Court had also dealt with the relevancy and veracity of a panch witness and further the proof of passing of bribe money by circumstantial evidence. In Gian Singh's case, supra, the Supreme Court held as follows:"index Note: (B) Evidence Act (1872), Section 133 bribery case Trap witness Police Officials credibility (X. Ref: Prevention of Corruption Act (1947), section 5 (1) (d) (X. Ref: Indian Penal Code (1860), section 161 ). Brief Note. (B) Police officials cannot be discredited in a trap case merely because they are Police Officials, nor can other witnesses be rejected because on some other occasion they have been witnesses for the prosecution in the past. Basically, the Court has to/view the evidence in the light of the probabilities and the intrinsic credibility of those who testify. Som Parkash v State of Delhi, followed". In Hazari Lal's case, supra, the Supreme Court held as follows:" (B) Criminal Trial Appreciation of evidence evidence of Police Officer who laid a trap Evidentiary value of. There is no rule of prudence which has crystallised into a rule of law, nor indeed any rule of prudence, which requires that the evidence of a Police Officer who laid a trap in a bribery case should be treated on the same footing as evidence of accomplice and there should be insistence on corroboration. There is no rule of prudence which has crystallised into a rule of law, nor indeed any rule of prudence, which requires that the evidence of a Police Officer who laid a trap in a bribery case should be treated on the same footing as evidence of accomplice and there should be insistence on corroboration. In the facts and circumstances of a particular case a Court may be disinclined to act upon the evidence of such an Officer without corroboration, but, equally, in the facts and circumstances of another case, the court may unhesitatingly accept the evidence of such an officer. It is all a matter of appreciation of evidence and on such matters there can be no hard and fast rule, nor can there be any precedential guidance. (C) Criminal trial Panch Witnesses Status in life, how far relevant for judging veracity. The argument that persons holding clerical posts and the like should not be called as panch witnesses, as they could not be called independent, is untenable. The respectability and the veracity of a witness is not necessarily dependent upon his status in life and it cannot be said that clerks are less truthful and more amenable than their superior Officers. (D) Prevention of Corruption Act (III of 1947), Sections 4 (1), 5 (1) (d) and (2) Passing of money Proof presumption under Section 4 (1) When arises. It is not necessary that the passing of money should be proved by direct evidence. It may also be proved by circumstantial evidence". ( 16 ) IN view of the above two decisions of the Supreme Court, I do not find relevancy and application of the said decision of the learned Single Judge to the instant case in hand either. ( 17 ) HAVING heard both sides, the point for my consideration now is whether the impugned judgment recording conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge now under challenge in the instant appeal can in any way be termed as erroneous to be interfered with by this Court in the instant appeal. ( 17 ) HAVING heard both sides, the point for my consideration now is whether the impugned judgment recording conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge now under challenge in the instant appeal can in any way be termed as erroneous to be interfered with by this Court in the instant appeal. ( 18 ) AT the threshold, I should point out that as submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader, the instant case is a red-hand case, wherein the appellant was caught immediately after taking the bribe by the Investigation Officer and his party and that was preceded by the offer of bribe by P. W. 1 as demanded by the appellant and the said act of demand by the appellant and offer of the bribe after that demand by P. W. 1 was well heard and noticed by P. W. 2-trap witness and the evidence of P. W. 1 thereto is well corroborated by the evidence of trap witness-P. W. 2. The phenolphthalein test of the right hand wash and the wash of the right hand side pant-pocket where the appellant kept the phenolphthalein tainted M. O. 1-currency note of Rs. 100/- also tested positive with the resultant solution turning into rose colour. ( 19 ) YET another circumstance the learned Special Judge had based his reasoning for the conviction is the unchallenged evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 6 who are the Official superiors of the appellant working as the Office Superintendent and A. R. T. O. respectively in the Office of the appellant to the effect that it was the appellant who was in charge of the entries in the R. C. Book of the Scooter of P. W. 1 and that Ex. P-11 is the Office note prepared with regard to the application of P. W. 1 and on the reverse of Ex. P-ll, the appellant had made note regarding the change of R. C. and that P. W. 3 made an endorsement in the red ink with regard to cancellation of hire purchase and further to transfer the ownership of the R. C. in favour of P. W. 1 and that p. W. 3 had stated that P. W. 6 had approved her note and that the appellant had received the transfer case papers from P. W. 1 on 23-7-1990 by signing in the concerned Register Ex. P-14 as per Ex. P-14 as per Ex. P-14 (a) and that he had also prepared the note sheet on the same day and submitted it to P. W. 3 through Office assistant as per Ex. P-15 and that Ex. P-15 is also in the handwriting of the appellant and the Office Superintendent, P. W. 3 and that the same was approved by the A. R. T. O.-P. W. 6 as per Ex. P-15 (c) and passed the orders thereto on 24-7-1990 and that P. W. 6 had also categorically stated that after passing the orders, he had sent back the relevant papers to the appellant who made necessary entries in Ex. P-5-R. C. Book and submitted it to P. W. 6 who in turn signed it as per Ex. P-5 (a) and sent it back to the appellant on 24-7-1990. ( 20 ) THE above facts in fact had not been challenged in the cross-examination of P. W. 6 or for that matter P. W. 3 and even in the statement recorded by the learned Special Judge under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant had admitted that P. W. 1 had submitted his application for change of r. C. Book entries to his Office on 23-7-1990 with regard to the change of R. C. in respect of Bajaj Scooter CKE 1648 and further more in the written statement filed by the appellant by way of his defence, he had categorically admitted that he was in charge of such a work and he did attend to such work. ( 21 ) IN that view of the matter, it is clear that the prosecution had established that P. W. 1 had given the case papers to the office of the appellant for change of R. C. entries in relation to his Scooter CKE 1648 and that the appellant in charge of attending to such job, dealt with the papers relating to the application of P. W. 1 for transfer of the vehicle in question. ( 22 ) HAVING gone through the evidence on record it does not appear to me that there is anything to be found fault within the impugned judgment recording conviction and sentence as against the appellant to resort to the instant appeal. ( 22 ) HAVING gone through the evidence on record it does not appear to me that there is anything to be found fault within the impugned judgment recording conviction and sentence as against the appellant to resort to the instant appeal. ( 23 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant very strenuously argued that P. W. 9 being the Investigating Officer is an accomplice and his evidence cannot be believed without there being evidence of an independent witness. It is for that reason he had cited the unreported decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1984 dated on 21-1-1987, upon which he had placed strong reliance. As observed by me, the said decision is of no assistance at all to him in the instant case. As a matter of fact, in the instant case, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 is also corroborated by the evidence of p. Ws. 3 and 6-the independent witnesses and further by the evidence of Investigating Officer-P. W. 9. In my considered view, this is a red-hand case and a successful trap case, well organised by P. W. 9 at the instance of the complainant-P. W. 1. The learned special Judge had also equally dealt with the case ably and passed a speaking and well reasoned judgment. I totally agree with the same. ( 24 ) IN that view of the matter, I hold that the impugned judgment recording conviction and sentence as against the appellant is just and proper and there is no error in it. ( 25 ) IN the result, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same is therefore dismissed. --- *** --- .