JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J.: Lovkesh Garg, the present appellant, is the son of original appellant Kanta Parkash Garg, who has died during the pendency of this appeal Lovkesh Garg has been granted leave to appeal to continue the present appeal by order dated 7.5.1997 of this court. Late Kanta Parkash Garg (hereinafter called the appellant) had filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 20.11.1992, passed by Special Judge -II, Sirmaur District at Nahan whereby he was convicted of offence under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3500/-. Since he deposited the fine in cash in the Court no further order for sentence in default of payment of fine was passed. 2. The matrix of the prosecution case is that on 23.3.1986 Ramesh Kumar (PW-2)and Jagdish Chand (PW-4), shopkeepers, from Paonta Sahib Bazaar came to the residence of Shri R.S.Gupta (PW-1), the then Sub Divisional Magistrate, Paonta Sahib and complained that the appellant, who was the then Food Inspector, was demanding a bribe of Rs. 700/- from them. They further told that the appellant had visited their shop in the morning of 23.3.1986 and gave ultimatum that if the amount of Rs. 700/- was-not paid to him on or before 2 P.M. on that day he would lift a sample of food articles from their shop and flour mill and get them punished under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act., They also stated that during the earlier position of the appellant as Food Adulteration Act. They also stated that during the earlier posting of the appellant as Food Inspector at Paonta Sahib he had taken 40 K.Gs. of Basmati Rice from them and had not paid price thereof and also that the appellant had threatened them that he would lift a sample of food article from their shop and flour mill whenever they raise demand of the price of said Basmati Rice. According to them, the sample previously drawn by the appellant from their shop was found upto standards by the Public Analyst and they could not be challenged 3. J -On receipt of the complaint Shri R.S. Gupta_________called Shri Moti Ram Thakur, the then Dy. S.P., at his residence and entire matter was brought to his notice by Ramesh Kumar and Jagdish Chand (PWs. J -On receipt of the complaint Shri R.S. Gupta_________called Shri Moti Ram Thakur, the then Dy. S.P., at his residence and entire matter was brought to his notice by Ramesh Kumar and Jagdish Chand (PWs. 2 and 4).Thereafter, on the asking of Dy. S.P. Moti Ram Thakur, two local witnesses, namely, Ram Partap (PW-3) and one Shri Mohtu Ram were brought by Ramesh Kumar and Jagdish Chand and in their presence the trap money of Rs. 700/- in the form of currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination were produced by Jagdish Chand_________to Shri R.S.Gupta, who appended his signatures on these currency notes and Dy. S.P. Moti Ram Thakur prepared memo Ext. PA in respect thereof which was signed by Shri R.S. Gupta and Ram Partap as; witnesses. The currency notes were handed over to Ramesh Kumar by Dy- S.P. Moti Ram Thakur with instructions that he would come to the residence of appellant and hand over the money to him and thereafter give signal Jagdish Chand who would be standing outside the residence of the appellant, who would give further signal to the raiding party and the raid would follow." This plan made by Dy. S.P. Moti Ram Thakur was implemented and as soon as the raiding party got the signal from Jagdish Chand it reached the residence of the appellant and on entering the room where the appellant was sitting on a cot and reading a book Dy.S.P. Moti Ram Thakur introduced himself to the appellant and expressed his resolve to conduct search of his person as well as. his residence. The appellant was also informed of his right to conduct prior" Search of Moti Ram Thakur in order to rule out the possibility of his planting any incriminating material either on the person of the appellant or in the residence of the appellant. Accordingly, the search was made and the trap money was recovered from the drawer of the table lying just close to the table on which the appellant was sitting, and taken into possession by recovery memo Ext. PD which was signed by Shri R.S.Gupta and other witnesses. 4. During trial, Shri R.S.Gupta, Ramesh Kumar, Jagdish Chand, Ram Partap and Dy. S.P.Moti Ram Thakur were produced as witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case. PD which was signed by Shri R.S.Gupta and other witnesses. 4. During trial, Shri R.S.Gupta, Ramesh Kumar, Jagdish Chand, Ram Partap and Dy. S.P.Moti Ram Thakur were produced as witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case. Witnesses Sunil (PW-8) and G.R. Pun (PW-9) have proved the fact that the appellant had been posted as Food Inspector at Paonta Sahib at the relevant time. Witnesses Dharmeshwar Singh (PW-5) has deposed that the premises where the raid was conducted and the appellant was caught red handed for having accepted the bribe were in exclusive possession of the appellant for a period 0/ about 5/6 months from February, 1986. Sanction order Ext. PW-10/A has been produced and proved by Shri Ajay Prasad (PW-10); the then Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Constable Naseer Khan (PW-6) had taken Rukka Ext. PC to the Police Station, Paonta Sahib from the spot and M.H.C. Kishori Lai (PW-7) had recorded F.I.R. Ext. PB on the receipt of said Rukka and received parcel containing currency notes Ext. P-l to P-7. 5. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant had admitted in reply to Questions No.4 and 5 that he was posted as Food Inspector at Paonta Sahib on the day of occurrence. He had further admitted his presence in the premises where the raid was conducted but his version was that he had gone there to see his Peon, who was to come there from Nahan, as per his instructions. Accordingly to the appellant, he had gone there casually to call his Peon and as soon as he had entered the building he was caught by the raiding party and taken to Police Station under duress and was forced to sign on a cloth and other papers. He had denied the remaining part of the prosecution story. In respect of prosecution sanction his defence was that it was drafted by the District Attorney and was signed by the sanctioning authority, Shri Ajay Prasai (PW-10) mechanically. According to him, the prosecution witnesses’ when interested witnesses as the two informants, namely, Ramesh Kumar and Jagdish Chand were son-in-law and father -in-law respectively and Ram Partap was their tenant at the time of occurrence. According to him, the prosecution witnesses’ when interested witnesses as the two informants, namely, Ramesh Kumar and Jagdish Chand were son-in-law and father -in-law respectively and Ram Partap was their tenant at the time of occurrence. He has also stated that the officials of the Milk Federation were also having grudge against him as he had drawn (sample of milk from the Federation which was found to be adulterated for which the Officials of the Federation were punished. His further defence was that he was falsely implicated in the present case as he was the only Food Inspector who used to draw samples from the shops of informants Ramesh Kumar and Jagdish Chand as and when he was posted at Paonta Sahib. He has also stated that only a week prior to the occurrence he had drawn sample from the shop of Ramesh Kumar and Jagdish Chand when they had threatened him to face the consequences in the presence-of two persons, namely, Rajinder and Dev Raj: In defence the appellant had Produced two witnesses, namely, Shri Harparkash Thakur (DW-1) then the Superintendent in the office of Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and Ramesh Kaushik (DW-4), the then Dealing Assistant, Establishment Branch of the office of Chief Medical Officer, Sirmaur at Nahan in-order to prove That the sanction order Ext. PW -10/A was got prepared from The concerned District Attorney. 6. On the basis of evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was posted as Food Inspector Paonta Sahib, Sub Division at Paonta, sahib on 23.3.1.988 and, also that he had admitted his presence in the premises in question at, the time of raid as well as the allegations of the informants Ramesh Kumar and Jagdish Chand that he had drawn samples of food articles from their shop prior to the occurrence. Relying upon the statement of Dharmesh-war Singh (PW-5) the trial court has come to the conclusion that premises, where the raid was conducted and trap money was recovered, was in exclusive possession of the appellant. Further, on the basis of evidence of official witnesses Shri R.S.Gupta, Dy.S.P. Moti Ram Thakur and independent witness Ram Partap besides that of informants Ramesh Kumar and Jagdish Chand the trial Court has further come to the conclusion that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution sanction Ext. Further, on the basis of evidence of official witnesses Shri R.S.Gupta, Dy.S.P. Moti Ram Thakur and independent witness Ram Partap besides that of informants Ramesh Kumar and Jagdish Chand the trial Court has further come to the conclusion that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution sanction Ext. PW-10/A has also been found to be legal and valid. In the result, the appellant was convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment, which is under challenge in the present appeal. 7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The first point raised by learned counsel for the appellant that sanction Ext. PW -10/A was given by the competent authority Shri Ajay Prasad (PW-10) Mechanically without applying his mind in view of the admitted fact on record that draft sanction order was prepared by the District Attorney is without any substance. From the statement of Harparkash Thakur (DW-1), Ramesh Kaushik (DW -2), produced by the appellant and even from the statement of Dy. S.P. Moti Ram Thakur, it is proved on record that draft sanction order was prepared by the District Attorney but from the categorical statement of the competent authority Shri Ajay Prasad (PW-10) that he had accorded sanction after going through the relevant record of the case produced before him and after due application of mind, which statement is not shattered in cross-examination, no infirmity can be found in the sanction order Ext. PW-10/A. 8. In Mohd Iqbal Ahmad v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1979 SC 677, it is held that in order to prove that sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after it was satisfied that the case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence either (1) the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction should be produced or (2) evidence aliunde to show that the facts were placed before the sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it should be produced. Following this judgment in a later judgment in R.S.Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, (1984) 2 SCC 183, it has been reiterated that the authority entitled to grant sanction must apply its mind to the facts and other evidence before according sanction as grant of sanction is not an idle formality but a solemn and sacrosanct act which removes the umbrella of protection of government servant against frivolous prosecutions and the aforesaid requirements must therefore be strictly complied with before any prosecution could be launched against the public servants. These principles are reiterated by learned Judge of Supreme Court in State of Bihar & Anr. V. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC. 222 and has further explained that:- "The object of obtaining sanction is that the authority concerned should be able to consider for itself the material before the I.O., before it comes to the conclusion that the prosecution in the circumstances be sanctioned or forbidden. To comply with the provisions of Section 191 it must be proved that the sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence charged. It is desirable that the facts should be referred to on the face of the sanction. Section 197 does not require the sanction to be in any particular form. If the facts constituting the offence change are not shown on the face of the sanction title open to this prosecution, if challenged, to prove before the court that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority. It should be clear from the form of the sanction that the sanctioning authority considered the relevant material placed before it and after a consideration of all the circumstances of the case it sanctioned the prosecution." In the present case from the sanction order as well1 as from the statement of sanctioning authority Shri Ajay Prasad (PW-10), the sanction Ext. PW- 10/A has been proved and it comes true on the touch-stone laid down by these authorities of Supreme Court. 9. The second point raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial of the appellant is vitiated as no question was put to him while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that Rs. 700/-wasgiventohimasbribe by Ramesh Kumar which he had put in his drawer wherefrom it was recovered lateron. This submission though looks impressive but is without any-force. 700/-wasgiventohimasbribe by Ramesh Kumar which he had put in his drawer wherefrom it was recovered lateron. This submission though looks impressive but is without any-force. It is correct that this question was not asked from the appellant in so Many terms but from Question No.9 and 10 and also from the charge for which the appellant was being tried he not only knew the allegations of accepting bribe of Rs. 700A from Ramesh Kumar but had sufficient opportunity to explain it, therefore, he is not prejudiced in any manner by not putting this question directly to him and the trial is not vitiated. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited one Judgment of Calcutta High court in Ranjit Mondal & Sajal Barui v.State 1997 Cri. L.J. 1586 wherein the following guidelines/principles regarding the framing "of questions by the trial court under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. have been culled out by referring to a catena of decisions of Supreme Court in which these-guidelines and principles have been settled :- "(i) Proper warning to the accused m accordance with Jaw should be given before his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C." (ii) The Court must be satisfied whether the accused is in a position to understand the questions and in this case it should be considered that the accused persons are school going teenagers: (iii) The questions must not be in the nature of cross-examination to fill, up the lacuna of the prosecution case, the questions should not be such as will subject an accused person to admission. (iv) Irrelevant questions should not be asked to confuse the accused person. (v) Questions should be put in such manner that it can be answered properly. (vi)Such questions should not be asked in which the accused is liable to be prejudiced. (vii) Rolled up questions containing several questions in lengthy form cannot be asked. (viii) Circumstances appearing from the evidence against an accused should be put in simple way." 10. (v) Questions should be put in such manner that it can be answered properly. (vi)Such questions should not be asked in which the accused is liable to be prejudiced. (vii) Rolled up questions containing several questions in lengthy form cannot be asked. (viii) Circumstances appearing from the evidence against an accused should be put in simple way." 10. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition raised by learned counsel for the appellant that circumstance, in respect of which accused is not examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, has to be exluded from consideration and cannot be used against him but in order to vitiate the trial for not putting i such circumstances to the accused it should be so material that it goes to the j root of the prosecution case and by not putting it to the accused to give him an | opportunity to explain, his defence is - prejudiced and the very purpose of recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is defeated. The recent judgment of Supreme Court in Ghulam Din Buch & Ors. v. State of J & K, (1996) 9 SCC 239 cited by learned counsel for the appellant reiterates this proposition but it does not apply to the facts and circumstances of present case as discussed above. 11. The third point raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that serious doubt is cast on the prosecution case in view of the two circumstances on record (i) that original complaint made by Ramesh Kumar and Jagdish Chand to Sub Divisional Magistrate, R.S.Gupta, is not brought on record and (ii) Pritam Singh, Peon of the appellant, who was present in the premises at the time of raid was not examined. It is correct that Ramesh Kumar and Jagdish Chand have stated in their cross -examination that a written complaint was made by them to Shri R.S. Gupta, Sub Divisional Magistrate and it has not been brought on record but it is not a material circumstance in view of the other facts and circumstances on record that on hearing the complaint of the informants Shri R.S.Gupta, Sub Divisional Magistrate, sent for Dy. S.P. Moti Ram Thakur, who recorded the statement of Ramesh Kumar Ext. DB on the basis of which F.I.R. Ext. PB was recorded, However, in their cross - examination both R.S. Gupta, Sub Divisional Magistrate and Moti Ram Thakur, Dy. S.P. Moti Ram Thakur, who recorded the statement of Ramesh Kumar Ext. DB on the basis of which F.I.R. Ext. PB was recorded, However, in their cross - examination both R.S. Gupta, Sub Divisional Magistrate and Moti Ram Thakur, Dy. S.P. have stated that they did not remember whether any written complaint was made by Ramesh Kumar and Jagdish Chand informants. So far the presence of one Pritam Singh, Peon of the appellant, in the premises, where raid was conducted, is concerned; it is admitted by Ramesh Kumar and Jagdish. Chand in their cross -examination whereas it is denied by Dy. S.P. Moti Ram Thakur and was not remembered by Shri R.S. Gupta, Sub Divisional Magistrate. Be that as it may, if the evidence of Pritam Singh, Peon, was material the appellant could produce him as his witness if the prosecution had failed to produce him. 12,- For showing that what kind of evidence is required in a trap case, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon some judgment of Supreme Court and High Courts,______________ which will be discussed hereinafter. In Ram Parkash Arora v. The State of Punjab, 1972 Cri.L.J. 1293, the learned Judges of Supreme Court relying upon their earlier judgment in Stale of Bihar-v. Basawan Singh AIR 1958 SC 500 have held that the evidence of interested and partisan witnesses who are concerned in the success of the trap must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness and in a proper case the court may look for independent corrobration before convicting the accused persons. 13. In Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab) 91fi Cri L.J. 172; the learned Judges of Supreme Court have observed that:- "We must take this opportunity of impressing on the officers functioning in the anti-corruption department to insist on observing this safeguard as zealously and scrupulously as possible for the protection of public servants against whom a trap may have to be laid. They must seriously endeavour to secure really independent and respectable witnesses so that the evidence in regard to raid inspires confidence in the mind of the Court and the Court is not left in any doubt as to whether or not any money was paid to the public servant by way of bribe: And further in Paragraph -11 that:- We may take this opportunity of pointing out that it would be desirable if in cases of this kind where a trap is laid for a public servant, the marked Currency notes, which are used for the purpose of trap, are treated with phenolphthathalein powder so that the handling of such marked currency notes by the public servant can be detected by chemical process and the Court does not have to depend on oral evidence which is sometimes’ of a dubious character for the purpose of deciding the fate of the public servant. It is but meet that science - oriented detection of crime is made a massive programme of police, for in our technological age nothing more primitive can be conceived of than denying the discoveries of the sciences as aids to crime suppression and nothing cruder can retard forensic efficiency than swearing by traditional oral evidence only, thereby discouraging liberal use of scientific research to prove guilt." In Har Bharosey Lal v. State of U.P., 1988 Cri. L.J. 1122, a learned Judge of Allahabad High Court was dealing with a case in which bribe money Was recovered not from the person of the accused but from the drawer of his Table and observed that:- "The possibility that somebody or the complainant himself surreptitiously might have kept the said notes in the appellants drawer cannot be ruled out If the recovery of the signed note was not made from the person of the appellant but was made from his drawer, much more clinching evidence was required to have been furnished by the prosecution which is lacking in this case. The actual passing of the bribe was not witnessed by this witness as he was standing outside the office. He has admitted that according to his plan he was not at a place from where be could either see the appellant accepting the bribe or could over hear the talks between the appellants and the complainant. The evidence and the complainant. He has admitted that according to his plan he was not at a place from where be could either see the appellant accepting the bribe or could over hear the talks between the appellants and the complainant. The evidence and the complainant. The evidence of this witness is also not sufficient to prove the prosecution case against the appellant." In Ayyasami v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1992) 1 SCC 304, the learned Judges were dealing with a-case under Section 5(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on the allegation that bribe money of Rs.100/- was Recovered from the drawer of accused by raiding party and observed in Paragraph-2 that:- "There is no independent-evidence to show that the appellant demanded Rs. 100/- as bribe from the complainant. The chemical solution did not inculpate him. The money was recovered from the drawer. There is no evidence apart from the complainant to show that the money was placed in the drawer by the complainant. Under the circumstances, we agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction is based more on probabilities than on the evidence proving the guilt against him beyond reasonable doubt." In the same terms are the observations of Orissa High Court in P.Vasudeva Rao v. The State of Orissa. 1978 Cri. L.J. 1396. These are:- "Where a public servant is charged with the offence of acceptance of bribe and the marked currency notes which are used for the purpose of the trap arc not treated with phenolphthalein powder so that the handling of the notes by the public servant can be detected by the chemical process and the witnesses secured by the vigilance officers to witness the giving of notes to and recover} of the same from the public servant are not local and independent persons but are interested persons on inimical terms with the public servant the charge cannot be said to have been established." 14. In the light of the ratio of these judgments of Supreme court and High Courts, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that in the present case currency notes used for the purpose of trap were not treated with phenolphthalein powder to prove that these were recovered from the appellant and it was he who had put it in the drawer of the table lying by the side of the cot on which he was sitting at the relevant time. Learned counsel further submits that it has come in the evidence of all the trap witnesses that after receiving the signal by Ramesh Kumar first Dy.S.P. Moti Ram Thakur entered the room and thereafter the other members of the police party followed him but admittedly none of them had given their search except Dy. S.P. Moti Ram Thakur, as such, the possibility of either of them putting the bribe money in the drawer is not ruled out. He has also argued that since the bribe money was found from the drawer of the table the possibility of Ramesh Kumar putting it there and thereafter giving signal to his father-in-law Jagdish Chand, who in turn gave signal to the police party, cannot be ruled out. This argument of learned counsel for the appellant has force and cannot be rejected in view of the fact that admittedly no witness has been produced, who had seen Ramesh Kumar, informant, handing over the bribe money to appellant, who had further placed it in the drawer which is the crux of the prosecution case. If fact as per the prosecution story at the time the handling over of bribe money to the appellant nobody was present except the informant Ramesh Kumar. Had the currency notes been treated with phenolphthalein powder it would have been proved that the appellant had received them m his hands and then placed them in the drawer and in that case the presence of any independent person witnessing the handing over of the bribe money would have not been material. Further, had bribe money been material. Further, had bribe money been recovered from the person of appellant in the presence of reliable witnesses the case would have been different In these circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that the bribe money was recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant. Further, had bribe money been material. Further, had bribe money been recovered from the person of appellant in the presence of reliable witnesses the case would have been different In these circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that the bribe money was recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant. In this view of the matter as well as the fact that appellant has not denied his presence at the time trap -was laid by the raiding part and trap money was allegedly recovered, it is immaterial whether the appellant was residing in the said premises, where he had come to see his Peon. Pritam Singh, who was to come from Nahan, as per his instructions, 15. Another point raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that out of the two public witnesses one Mohtu Ram was given up and Ram Partap (PW-3) was produced but he being tenant of Jagdish Chand informant at the relevant time cannot be termed as independent. This court finds that though suggestion in this regard was put to Ramesh Kumar, Jagdish Chand and Ram Partap but they have not admitted it. It is also pointed out that instead of brining independent witnesses from the locality where the premises were situated in which trap was laid Dy. S.P. Moti Ram Thakur had asked Ramesh Kumar and Jagdish Chand to bring witnesses of their choice who had brought Ram Partap, who was, admittedly, having his shop in the neighborhood of these informants, and the other witnesses Mohtu Ram, who was, admittedly, a crippled person and could not effectively join raid. This submission is also not of much consequence in view of the above finding arrived at by this Court that even if the prosecution story in respect of laying of trap and recovery of trap money from drawer is believed the appellant cannot be connected with the crime of accepting bribe money unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had received bribe money from Ramesh Kumar and had placed it in the drawer which has been answered in negative. 16. 16. Therefore, the result of above discussion is that the present appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment dated 20.11.1992, passed by Special Judge -II, Sirmaur District at Nahan, is set aside whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3500/-. Since the appellants is no more the relief of his acquittal stands abated. However, legal representatives of the appellant have been permitted to continue this appeal, therefore, the amount of fine deposited by the appellant in the Court of Special Judge -II, Sirmaur District at Nahan, at the time of announcement of the impugned judgment be refunded to them.