K. D. SHAHI, J. Both these revisions have been filed against the order dated 13th May, 1998 passed by Sri S. K. Pandey, Special Judge, Ami Corruption (Central) U. P. Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 39 of 1996 State v. Udai Narain and another dis missing the application of the revisionists for discharge under Section 239, Cr. P. C. 2. Since both the revision arise out of one order dated 13th May, 1998 in Case No. 39 of 1998 and in both the cases com mon questions of law and facts are in volved, both these cases have been taken together for disposal. 3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length at the admission stage itself. 4. The charge-sheet filed against both the revisionists is under Sections 8,10,13, (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Preven tion of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 120- E is not an independent offence. This sec tion is not to be read in isolation. It is to be read in relation to the main offence. Under the Scheme of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 a person who gives bribe is not an accused. Only the person who agrees to accept or attempts to obtain bribe is an accused. In this particular case, in one word, the case of the prosecution is that the revisionist Abdul Aziz Reshamwala (here-in-after called reshamwala) gave a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lacs) to Udai Narain accused to get favour in a seizure case for the release of a sum of Rs. 21. 23. 050/- by Jaipur Custom Authority pending before Sri K. P. Singh, the then Collector, Custom and Central Excise at Jaipur. The scheme of the Act shows that under Sections 7, 10, 11, 12 and 13 only public servants are to be punished. Reshamwala is not at all a public servant. Under Section 8 a person who takes gratification in order to influence public servant is guilty. Reshamwala has not taken any gratification. He is said to have given gratification. Therefore, not only on facts but even on imagination no case is made out against Reshamwala. I have not to decide whether any other offence on earth is made out against Reshamwala or not. His application of discharge was fit to be allowed only on this ground that he is not a public servant and he has not taken any gratification or bribe. I have not to decide whether any other offence on earth is made out against Reshamwala or not. His application of discharge was fit to be allowed only on this ground that he is not a public servant and he has not taken any gratification or bribe. 5. Now the case remains against Udai Narain for which brief facts of the case are to be given. A sum of Rs. 21. 23. 050/- was seized from Reshamwala by the Custom Authorities of Jaipur where the matter was pending before Sri K. P. Singh, the then Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur. Udai Narain was posted as Addi tional Collector, Custom and Central Ex cise at Lucknow during the period of al leged trap. It is said that on 8-11-1993 at 4. 30 p. m. plane of Indian Airlines landed at Lucknow Airport. Earlier an informa tion was received by Sri N. P. Tewari, Dy. S. P. that an illegal deal was to be made between Reshamwala and Udai Narain. N. P. Tiwari made an entry in the G. D. at Sr. No. 10 dated 8-11-1993. The substance of the information illegal deal has not been recorded in the copy of the G. D. However, on this information, that Reshamwala is to land from Flight No. 1c 695 and Udai Narain was to receive him, N. P. Tewari arranged a trap. Udai Narain was there with his Fiat Car and also white Ambas sador Car of the department. Reshamwala came out from the Aircraft. Udain Narain received him in the lobby. They wished each other and Udain Narain said "hello Mr. Aziz Bhai, how are you". On this Aziz replied that he was so but under tension owing to Jaipur matter. Reshamwala was carrying a Briefcase with him. He enquired from Udai Narain where and how to proceed as he had got a return journey ticket booked for 9-11-1993. Reshamwala also said that he wanted to explain every thing to him (Udai Narain ). Udai Narain told that he had brought his personal Car in which he would take him to his place. The two other officials, accompanying Udai Narain, were asked to go in Ambas sador Car. Udai Narain and Reshamwala seated themselves in the back seat of the Fiat Car. Briefcase of Reshamwala carry ing currency notes remained with Resham wala himself. Udai Narain told that he had brought his personal Car in which he would take him to his place. The two other officials, accompanying Udai Narain, were asked to go in Ambas sador Car. Udai Narain and Reshamwala seated themselves in the back seat of the Fiat Car. Briefcase of Reshamwala carry ing currency notes remained with Resham wala himself. At this stage, N. P. Tewari decided to intercept the Fiat Car. There was rush at the Airport. Therefore, the trap party proceeded a few yards away and stopped the vehicle. Reshamwala produced his visiting-card. The brief-case was with Reshamwaia. He was then asked to open his brief-case and in the brief-case a file and bundle was found. The bundle was of the. currency notes and both the accused persons were taken into custody. The currency notes were signed by the Trap Officer. Reshamwala told that he has taken this money for the purchase of a Car with the help of Udai Narain. Then, on further queries, it revealed that he had brought this amount of rupees two lacs to make payment to Udai Narain as demanded by him for which he was in touch with Udai Narain for last about six months. Udai Narain had allegedly telephoned him about a weeks age at his residence to come at Lucknow with the case-papers and rupees two lacs so that the matter of Jaipur case could be settled. 6. There is nothing on record to show that what was the earlier dealing between the parties and what was earlier settled between the parties. Parties means reshamwala and Udai Narain. There is neither anything on record to show that any witness has heard any statement that K. P. Singh has agreed to take a sum of rupees two lacs through Udai Narain to do favour to Reshamwala nor is there any thing on record to show that Udai Narain had assured that if he is given a sum of rupees two lacs he will get the matter set tled. The entire evidence rests on the statement of Reshamwala but, to his good luck, the prosecuting agency has made Resham wala an accused in the case and not a witness. Confession of an accused to the police authorities is not at all admissible in evidence. That is not to be read and that is only to be unknown away. The entire evidence rests on the statement of Reshamwala but, to his good luck, the prosecuting agency has made Resham wala an accused in the case and not a witness. Confession of an accused to the police authorities is not at all admissible in evidence. That is not to be read and that is only to be unknown away. Confession to a police officer is meaningless. 7. The other evidence is the recovery of rupees two lacs alongwith the case file of Jaipur case from Reshamwala. Thai perse is no proof of any fact that Udai Narain had demanded and Reshamwala had agreed to give a sum of rupees two lacs as bribe to Udai Narain. Reshamwala is said to be an established businessman having business including the Industries and Hotel at Bombay and Soorat. He is an income- tax and wealth-tax payee. Not only he, his wife and son both are income tax payees. It is not a strange phenomena that such a big businessman is going with a sum of rupees two lacs in his briefcase. If the passengers of Aeroplane are searched, more than half out of them can be found with an amount of rupees two lacs. This amount is very paltry sum for such a businessman who may spend huge amount in only residing and sleeping in 5-Stars hotels only in one day. There is nothing to suggest that any other amount was recovered from Reshamwala on his personal search. A person who is coming from Bombay and is such a big businessman may ordinarily take a sum of rupees two lacs with him for his journey and stay expenses etc. There is no case that somebody else was to meet his journey expenses and expenses of stay at Kanpur and Lucknow. Merely because he had a file with him and merely because Udai Narain is a Custom Officer it cannot be presumed or inferred that this money was only for giving bribe. 8. As the law is, even an attempt to get such Rooney is an offence, money has not actually passed to Udai Narain, transac tion has not yet completed, Reshamwala came and sat in the Car of Udai Narain, kept the money with him, Udai Narain neither attempted to take the brief case nor asked Reshamwala to pass over the money to him. Even if there was any preparation on behalf of the parties it shall not come within the definition of attempt unless some overt act has been done by Reshamwala to pass the money to Udai Narain and Udai Narain attempted to lake that money. Mere preparation in itself is not punishable. It is admitted case that Reshamwala has still to explain everything to Udai Narain. 9. It was argued by the learned coun sel for the prosecution that both the par ties were to proceed to Kanpur and there they had to talk. It means that the deal was not yet finalized. The matter was yet to be talked upon and modes and modalities were still to be worked out how to get the Jaipur case resolved. 10. The question is whether Udai Narain was in a position to get the case resolved. If he was not in a position, naturally Reshamwala was not 3 fool to give this money to Udai Narain. In this context, Reshamwala says that he had no such talk. Udai Narain says that he was not in a position to influence K. P. Singh and the statement of K. P. Singh is that Udai Narain had never talked with him. Udai Narain had worked with him for only about six months. K. P. Singh had got no family terms with him. K. P. Singh never visited the house of Udai Narain nor did he know his wife. Inquiry in Jaipur case has not yet been completed. K. P. Singh has been transferred from Jaipur and has been posted as Chief Vigilance Officer, Bombay Port Bombay. K. P. Singh further stated that as far as he remembered Udai Narain had once talked on telephone but the talk was of general nature. He never talked K. P. Singh about the release of currency notes. He never requested him for any favour to be shown for releasing the above said currency notes. K. P. Singh never knew Reshamwala. He had never seen him nor met him. K. P. Singh has stated that he was neither to take money for himself nor he was to do any favour to Reshamwala nor there was any talk for the release of cur rency notes in favour of Reshamwala. 11. K. P. Singh never knew Reshamwala. He had never seen him nor met him. K. P. Singh has stated that he was neither to take money for himself nor he was to do any favour to Reshamwala nor there was any talk for the release of cur rency notes in favour of Reshamwala. 11. The only evidence which can be said to be independent evidence is state ment of some witnesses before whom Udai Narain and Reshamwala talked in the ar rival lobby. That evidence on the face of it is a false evidence. According to Aircraft Act, Rules and Instructions issued there under, particular Rule 78 a Government aerodrome shall not be open to use by any member of the public. Under Rule 78-A, admission tickets for entry into Govern ment aerodromes are necessary and no person has any authority to enter in the terminal building of any Government Aerodrome or part of such building or any other area in such aerodrome unless he holds an admission ticket valid for entry therein. It is not the case of the parties that Udai Narain was posted at the Airport. Neither Udai Narain nor any of the so called witness have got any authority to enter into the arrival lobby and to have heard the talk. The entry itself is banned, Admittedly, there was no ticket with any of the witnesses or Udai Narain or even with the trap party. There is no case of the prosecution that they entered the arrival lobby by force or with the consent of any Airport Authority. 12. The second fact which goes beyond imagination is that a person who is coming out of the aircraft, in the presence of several hundred persons will immedi ately start talking about bribery publicly so that it may be heard by others. Needless to say that these types of talks are always done in isolation. 13. There is also no witness to say that K. P. Singh had agreed to take money through Udai Narain. The charge-sheet shows that Udai Narain either accepted or attempted to accept the money for himself or for K. P. Singh. The prosecution is also not sure whether the money was to be taken by Udai Narain or K. P. Singh or by both of them. The charge-sheet shows that Udai Narain either accepted or attempted to accept the money for himself or for K. P. Singh. The prosecution is also not sure whether the money was to be taken by Udai Narain or K. P. Singh or by both of them. The only witness in the case are Reshamwala and K. P. Singh but Reshamwala has been made accused. He too has retracted with his alleged confes sion which, at any point of time, cannot be admissible even if he had not retracted, K. P. Singh had totally denied to have been in any way, associated with this dealing. Udai Narain would not have accepted the amount for himself because in no way he could have released the money. K. P. Singh also had been transferred at the relevant date from Jaipur. He too could not have passed any order. There is no case of the prosecution that Udai Narain had a talk with any third person and for him he has agreed to take money. 14. The case of the prosecution is that Udai Narain has taken or attempted to take this amount not for himself but for K. P. Singh. Udai Narain could not have taken this amount for himself because he had not to decide the case. Thus everybody says that there was no talk, deal or settle ment to take or give the bribe of rupees two lacs for the release of the above said cur rency notes by K. P. Singh but it is the prosecution which says that an offence has been committed because Reshamwala alighted from the Aeroplane along with the case file of Jaipur and a sum of rupees two lacs in his briefcase. This is a first case of its type that there was no taking of money but the trap has been laid. 15. Accused persons are not to ad duce evidence at this stage. There may be thousands of reasons of friendship be tween Reshamwala and Udai Narain. Their mere sitting and going together is no offence. Reshamwala had got a case in the Custom Department and Udai Narain is the Custom Officer in itself is no offence. There is absolutely no evidence to connect either Udai Narain or accused Resham wala with the guilt of any nature as enumerated in the charge-sheet 16. Their mere sitting and going together is no offence. Reshamwala had got a case in the Custom Department and Udai Narain is the Custom Officer in itself is no offence. There is absolutely no evidence to connect either Udai Narain or accused Resham wala with the guilt of any nature as enumerated in the charge-sheet 16. Both the parties have referred a number of case law on the subject but, in my view, these rulings are not at all neces sary to be referred because the facts, as revealed, in no way set out any offence. 17. There is yet another fact which shows that the entire trap is mala fide and without jurisdiction and the accused per sons cannot be tried. Under the provisions of Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Estab lishment Act, 1946 under which authority the present trap has been laid, the police officers of Delhi Police Establishment (ad mittedly the trap party of this estab lishment) had no power or jurisdiction to lay trap in the territory of Uttar Pradesh without the consent of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. It is conceded, during the course of argument, that no such consent has been obtained in this case. The trap itself is, therefore, without jurisdiction and vitiates the entire proceedings and on such proceedings the accused cannot be prosecuted. 18. Both the revisions (Crl. Revision No. 177 of 1998-Udai Narain v. State, and Crl. Revision No. 225 of 1998 Abdul Aziz Reshamwala v. State are hereby allowed and both the revisionists, Udai Narain and Abdul Aziz Reshamwala, are hereby dis charged under Section 239, Cr. PC, as claimed. 19. Let a copy of this order be placed in the file of Crl. Revisions No. 225 of 1998 Abdul Aziz Reshamwala v. State. Honble Virendra Saran, J.-The above judgment of Honble K, D. Shahi, has been pronounced by me under Rule 1 (3) of Chaplev VII of Allahabad High Court Rules in Honble K. D. Shahi, J. is permanently sitting at Allahabad and is not available in Lucknow. Revision allowed. .