JUDGMENT: On the basis of the suo motu F.I.R. registered by the Inspector of Police, C.B.I., Madras, Navaneethakrishnan, who was working as a travelling ticket examiner, was trapped, while he had received a sum of Rs.50 as illegal gratification from one Sudhakaran, an officer in the Indian Overseas Bank, on 23.12.1986 for allotting two bethers in the running train of Bangalore Mail in between Madras and Arakonam. On charge sheet being filed after obtaining sanction, the trial Court convicted the said Navaneethakrishnan for the offences under Sec. 161, Indian Penal Code and Sec.5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year with a fine of Rs.500 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months respectively. Challenging the same, the Navaneethakrishnan has preferred this appeal before this Court. 2. The minimal facts leading to the conviction are given below: "(a) H.E. Hussain, was the Inspector of Police, C.B.I., Madras during 1986. Navaneethakrishnan, the appellant a travelling ticket examiner working in the railway, used to demand money as bribe from the passengers for allotment of berth in the reserved compartments. Though P.W.4 received such information from several passengers, they did not incline to report the matter to the vigilance, as they were interested to continue their journey. Therefore, P.W.4 left with no option but to set up a trap to find out the truth of the information against the appellant, registered the case containing the abovesaid information under Sec. 161, Indian Penal Code. Ex.P-5 is the First Information Report. (b) P.W.2 Sudhakaran, was working as an officer in the Indian Overseas Bank, Madras. P.W.3 Jayaraj was working as an Inspector in the office of the Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation, Madras. P.W.4 contacted both the offices and requested to send the above officials in order to participate in the trap in acting as decoy witnesses to find out the truth of the information. Accordingly, both P.W.2 and P.W.3 came to the office of P.W.4 on 23.12.1986 at about 6.30 p.m. (c) After explaining the gist of the complaint, P.W.4 handed over two second class open tickets which were purchased from the booking office, Madras Central for journey from Madras to Bangalore. Those tickets are M.Os.1 and 2. Accordingly, both P.W.2 and P.W.3 came to the office of P.W.4 on 23.12.1986 at about 6.30 p.m. (c) After explaining the gist of the complaint, P.W.4 handed over two second class open tickets which were purchased from the booking office, Madras Central for journey from Madras to Bangalore. Those tickets are M.Os.1 and 2. Then, he smeared phenolphthalein powder on five 10 rupees currency notes and the significance of the phenolphthalein test was explained to the witnesses. He also gave another Rs.24 (M.O.4 series) to be paid as reservation charges for two berths. Then, mahazar was prepared, signed by P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4. P.W.2 was instructed to approach the accused in the railway coach who was managing the train No.7 in Bangalore Mail and to pay Rs.24 towards the reservation charges and to pay the other Rs.50 smeared with phenolphthalein powder to be paid to the accused only on demand as bribe. P.W.3 was asked to accompany P.W.2 to watch the conversation between P.W.2 and the accused. All these things were incorporated in the mahazar Ex.P-2. (d) Then, the decoy witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3, P.W.4, the Inspector of Police along with police party went to Madras Central Station. On reaching the station, P.W.4 pointed out the accused to P.W.2. Then, P.Ws.2 and 3 went to the accused and requested for two second class sleeper berths. The accused said that no vacant berth was available. P.Ws.2 arid 3 were standing there itself. After sometime, the accused called P.W.2 and told him that if he pays Rs.25 per berth, he would provide him two berths. P.W.2 agreed for the same. Therefore, he asked both of them to come to ‘F’ coach of the train Bangalore Mail. At 10.30 p.m. The train started. When it was nearing Arakkonam Junction, the accused went to P.W.2 and informed him that they had been allotted two sleeper berth Nos.25 and 26. He collected Rs.24 from P.W.2 towards reservation charges. Few minutes later, the accused called P.W.2 aside and demanded the bribe amount of Rs.50 for two berths. Accordingly, P.W.2 paid the smeared currency notes of Rs.50 the accused, who counted and kept the same in the inner pocket of the uniform shirt. (e) The train halted at Arakkonam junction at about 11.00 p.m. P.W.2 and P.W.3 got down from the train and gave the pre-arranged signal to the Inspector of Police. Accordingly, P.W.2 paid the smeared currency notes of Rs.50 the accused, who counted and kept the same in the inner pocket of the uniform shirt. (e) The train halted at Arakkonam junction at about 11.00 p.m. P.W.2 and P.W.3 got down from the train and gave the pre-arranged signal to the Inspector of Police. At that time, the accused was seen on the platform walking towards the ‘G’ coach. Then, P.W.4, went near the accused and revealed his identity. He asked him whether he got the money. The accused became afraid and preplexed. Then, he was taken inside the ‘F’ coach. There, both the hands were subjected to phenolphthalein test. The Sodium Carbonate solution turned into pink colour when the accused dipped his fingers of both the hands in the solution. Then, at the request of P.W.4, the accused produced the tainted money of Rs.50 from his right side inner pocket of uniform shirt. When it was verified with the mahazar, it was found that the currency notes tallied. Then, P.W.4, recovered other reservation coupons, excess fare, tickets, etc. from the accused. (f) Thereafter, in the train itself, the mahazar was prepared, signed by the officers as well as the accused. The copy of the mahazar was given to the accused. Ex.P-3 is the mahazar. Then, the accused was asked to continue the duty. P.W.4 and other witnesses and police party got down at Jolarpet and sent the flash message to the railway authorities through the Station Master, Jolarpet regarding the trapping of the accused. (g) Thereafter, the further investigation was taken up by P.W.5 Joseph Ponnoly, another Inspector of Police. He examined witnesses in this case and sent a report to the railway authorities for according sanction to prosecute the accused. After obtaining sanction on 25.5.1987, he filed the charge sheet on 13.6.1987 against the accused for the offences under Sec. 161, Indian Penal Code and Sec.5(l)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. (h) During the course of trial, the prosecution examined on its side P.W. 1 to P.W.5 filed Exs.P-1 to P-7 and marked M.O.1 to M.O.13. On the side of the defence, Ex.D-1 was marked. (i) When the incriminating materials were put to the accused in the questioning under Sec.313, Criminal Procedure Code, he stated that he is innocent and a false case was foisted against him. On the side of the defence, Ex.D-1 was marked. (i) When the incriminating materials were put to the accused in the questioning under Sec.313, Criminal Procedure Code, he stated that he is innocent and a false case was foisted against him. He filed a written statement stating that he did not demand any money from P.W.2 and he collected the berth charges only. When got down at Arakkonam, P.W.2 tried to put some currency notes in his pocket. But, he prevented and threw it back and at that time, police officers came and took him into the compartment where he explained that he did not receive any bribe. (j) The trial Court after analysing the materials available on record, found the accused guilty for the offences referred to above and convicted him thereunder. Hence, this appeal." 3. Mr. Gopinath, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would take me through the entire evidence and make the following submissions: "The trap conducted by P.W.4 is illegal, in view of the fact that P.W.4, the Inspector Police cannot investigate merely on the basis of the suo motu First Information Report without getting any complaint from the third party with reference to the demand of the bribe under Sec. 154, Criminal Procedure Code. P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are working in different departments cannot be said to be independent witnesses, since they are interested in the success of the trap, which was arranged by P.W.4, who himself gave the tainted money and tickets to P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 would disclose that there are various contradictions with reference to the preparation of mahazar Ex.P-3 in the train and also in respect of the place where they got down in order to come back to Madras. It is the case of the accused that the money was thrust into the hands of the accused by P.W.2 and the same was prevented by the accused by removing the said notes and throwing it on the platform. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is that the accused received the money and put it in the inner pocket of the shirt of the accused. The said shirt has not been subjected to test and the same has not been produced. The Chart seized from the accused has not been produced. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is that the accused received the money and put it in the inner pocket of the shirt of the accused. The said shirt has not been subjected to test and the same has not been produced. The Chart seized from the accused has not been produced. The correct designation of the accused has not been mentioned in Exs.P-2 and P-3, the mahazars, whereas the First Information Report would contain the clear details of the designation. But, this First Information Report reached the Court belatedly. Therefore, the First Information Report cannot be construed to be genuine one. In regard to the trap, private witnesses, namely, the passengers who were in the compartments were not examined. P.W.2 admittedly, belongs to vigilance department in I.O.B. Therefore, he has given a false evidence in order to support the C.B.I. P.W.3 also cannot be believed as a true witness, since he was a stock witness and he had stated in some other case that he did not know anything about this case. This was marked as Ex.D-1. Therefore, in the absence of the reliable and credible evidence, the conviction imposed upon the appellant is liable to be set aside, especially when the whole trap is illegal." 4. Arguing contra, Mr.E. Jacob R.Daniel, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for C.B.I., would contend that there is no bar for Police Officer, P.W.4 the C.B.I. Inspector to record the information received by him in the form of a complaint and Sec. 157, Criminal Procedure Code, would permit him to conduct investigation on the basis of the reliable information received by him and consequently, he continued, the investigation after registering the information in the form of complaint and laid the trap with the help of P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are independent witnesses and ultimately, he found out the truth that the accused used to demand money from the passengers and collected the said money as bribe from P.W.2 for allotment of two berths. Therefore, the conviction is perfectly justified. 5. The counsel for the parties would cite a number of authorities in support of their respective pleas. 6. Let us now first take up the question as to whether the trap conducted by P.W.4 is in accordance with law or not. 7. Therefore, the conviction is perfectly justified. 5. The counsel for the parties would cite a number of authorities in support of their respective pleas. 6. Let us now first take up the question as to whether the trap conducted by P.W.4 is in accordance with law or not. 7. In the present case, there is no dispute in the fact that P. W.4 registered the suo motu complaint as First Information Report, stating that he received the reliable information from several passengers that the accused as a T.T.E. of the reserved coaches has been demanding and accepting Rs. 25 as bribe for allotment of each berth. Relating to the source of information, clear details have been given in the First Information Report Ex.P-5 itself. According to Ex.P-5 no passenger was ready to prefer a complaint due to the urgency to go to their destination. Therefore, P.W.4, the Inspector of Police made an enquiry about the reputation of the accused and came to know that his integrity was unsatisfactory. Under those circumstances, P.W.4 recorded the said reliable information in Ex.P-5 and registered the case in R.C.No.87 of 1986 under Sec. 161, Indian Penal Code. It is also mentioned in the First Information Report that he obtained orders from the higher authorities, since the complainant in this case is Inspector of Police, S.P.E., C.B.I., himself. 8. Sec. 154, Criminal Procedure Code, would provide for the registration of complaint on information in cognizable cases. But, this section would envisage that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence shall be reduced to writing by the officer in charge of police station and shall be read over to the informant and after getting his signature the copy shall be given to him. 9. In the instant case, P.W.4, the Inspector of Police, S.P.E., C.B.I., had registered the case under Sec. 161, Indian Penal Code. Therefore, this information Ex.P.S. recorded by P.W.4 cannot be construed to be the document registered under Sec. 154, Criminal Procedure Code and, however, the same can be regarded as a document registered under Sec. 157, Criminal Procedure Code. 10. In the instant case, P.W.4, the Inspector of Police, S.P.E., C.B.I., had registered the case under Sec. 161, Indian Penal Code. Therefore, this information Ex.P.S. recorded by P.W.4 cannot be construed to be the document registered under Sec. 154, Criminal Procedure Code and, however, the same can be regarded as a document registered under Sec. 157, Criminal Procedure Code. 10. Under Sec. 157, Criminal Procedure Code, if there is an information given to the person in charge of a police station from an authentic source relating to the commission of a cognizable offence or subjective of a reasonable suspicion that an cognizable offence has been committed, then the investigation can commence on the registeration of a case on such information . It further provides that such an information in the form of a report shall be forthwith sent to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence and shall proceed in person to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender. 11. Therefore, though this information may not be considered to be the registration of a case under Sec. 154, Criminal Procedure Code, it could certainly be considered as First Information Report which can be registered as a First Information Report under Sec. 157, Criminal Procedure Code. 12. The condition which is sine qua non for recording a First Information Report is that there must an information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence. It is therefore, clear that if any information disclosing cognizable offence is received by an officer-in-charge of a police station, then he can suo motu register the information in the form of a report and send the same to the higher officials and to the Court concerned and commence with the investigation. 13. This view of mine on the basis of Sec. 157, Crl.P.C., is supported by the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Crl.L.J. 527 and the Madras High Court in Rajeswar v. State, 1992 Crl.L.J. 661. Therefore, the trap laid by P.W.4 with the help of the officers P.W.2 and P.W.3 in pursuance of the registration of a First Information Report cannot be said to be illegal. 14. Therefore, the trap laid by P.W.4 with the help of the officers P.W.2 and P.W.3 in pursuance of the registration of a First Information Report cannot be said to be illegal. 14. Let us now come to the aspects of the evidence relating to the demand of the bribe and receipt of the same. 15. Relating to this, we have got the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. P.W.3 during the relevant time was working as an Officer of the Indian Overseas Bank, Central Branch, Madras. P.W.3 at the relevant period was working as Head Clerk in the E.S.I. Corporation, Madras. According to them, they obtained permission from their respective officers, went to the C.B.I. Office, Shastri Bhavan on the request made by P.W.4, the Inspector of Police. P.W.4 explained the nature of the complaint to both of them. He handed over two tickets M.Os.1 and 2 for the journey from Madras to Bangalore. He also gave Rs.24 as reservation charges. Then, P.W.4 conducted demonstration of phenolphthalein test by smearing on the ten rupees currency notes numbering five and after after explaining the significance of the test handed over the same to P.W.2. P.W.2 was specifically instructed to give Rs.50 to the accused only when demanded as bribe for allotment of berths. Accordingly, P.W.2 and P.W.3 came to the Central Railway Station. On accused being pointed out, P.W.2 and P.W.3 approached the accused and requested for two berths. Though initially the accused said that no berth was available. Later on he told P.W.2 that he could allot the same, only if Rs.25 for each berth is given to him. For this, P.W.2 agreed. Then, they were asked to get into ‘F’ coach. While the train was running, the accused Rs.24 from P.W.2 as reservation charges and allotted berth Nos.25 and 26. Then, P.W.2 was taken aside and the bribe of Rs.50 was demanded. At that time, as per the instruction given by P.W.4, P.W.3 also accompanied and overheard the conversation. At that time P.W.2 removed the tainted money of Rs. 50 and handed over the same to the accused, who, in turn, received and kept it in the inner pocket of the uniform shirt. While the train stopped at Arakkonam, P.W.2 got down from the train and gave the pre-arranged signal to the police officers, who were travelling in the next coach. 50 and handed over the same to the accused, who, in turn, received and kept it in the inner pocket of the uniform shirt. While the train stopped at Arakkonam, P.W.2 got down from the train and gave the pre-arranged signal to the police officers, who were travelling in the next coach. At that time, the accused was found walking in order to get into ‘G’ coach. Then, P.W.4 accosted the accused and revealed his identity and asked whether he got the money from P.W.2 for allotment of berths. When he got perplexed and stated that he received the same, he was taken inside the compartment. 16. These things have been clearly spoken to by P.W.2 and P.W.3. Admittedly, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have never seen the accused earlier. No enmity was suggested to P.Ws.2 and 3. Though P.W.2 would state that he got down at Walajah in order to come back to Madras, the mahazar Ex.P-3 prepared in the train would show that P.W.2 and P.W.3 along with the police party went up to Jolarpet and they got down at the station only after signing the mahazar Ex.P-3 which was made ready at about 1.25 a.m. on 24.12.1986. 17. As a matter of fact, in the mahazar, both P.W.2 and P.W.3 put their signature by writing the date as 24.12.1986. According to the prosecution, the trap was laid and the accused was caught on 23.12.1986 at about 11.05 p.m. The detailed mahazar was prepared after the phenolphthalein test which was conducted on the fingers of the accused was over. The mahazar which was prepared between 11.05 p.m. on 23.12.1986 and 1.25 a.m. on 24.12.1986 would clearly show that all these witnesses and officials got down at Jolarpet railway station only after putting their signature in Ex.P-3. 18. Therefore, the statement by P.W.2 that he got down at Walajha itself is purely a mistake. P.W.3 and P.W.4 would categorically state in support of Ex.P-3 that they got down at Jolarpet only. So, the mistake of P.W.2 in regard to the place where he got down, cannot be a ground to reject the entire case of prosecution. 19. It is true that P.W.3 would admit that he had given a statement in another Court, while deposing his evidence, that he did not know the details of that case. So, the mistake of P.W.2 in regard to the place where he got down, cannot be a ground to reject the entire case of prosecution. 19. It is true that P.W.3 would admit that he had given a statement in another Court, while deposing his evidence, that he did not know the details of that case. But in the re-examination, it was elicited that statement Ex.D-1 was made by him stating that he did not know the details about the further action taken by the police in that case. Moreover, P.W.4 would clarify that Ex.D-1 statement given by P.W.3 would not relate to the trap case and the same is with regard to some other cases. As such, it cannot be stated that P.W.3 is a stock witness for the C.B.I., in corruption cases. 20. The reading of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 would clearly reveal that they approached the accused and agreed to give the amount as bribe and then only, they were allowed to enter into ‘F’ coach and for allotment of two berths 25 and 26, the accused received the amount of Rs.50 from P.W.2. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to indicate that their evidence is not credible and they have given false evidence in order to support the police. 21. In Gum Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1024, the Supreme Court held that the Court is not entitled to reject the evidence of trap witnesses merely because they are Government servants, who in the course of the duty or even otherwise might have come into contact with the investigating officer. There is no need to view their evidence with suspicion. Their evidence cannot be rejected merely because they are called in to associate themselves with the investigation as they happened to be available. 22. Acquaintance with the police by itself would not destroy a man’s independent outlook. In a society where police involvement is a regular phenomenon many people would get acquainted with the police. But as long as they are not dependent on the police for their living or liberty or for any other matter, it cannot be said that those are not independent witnesses. In a society where police involvement is a regular phenomenon many people would get acquainted with the police. But as long as they are not dependent on the police for their living or liberty or for any other matter, it cannot be said that those are not independent witnesses. If the police in order to carry out official duties, have sought the help of any other person, who happened to be the Government servant, he would not forfeit his independent character by giving help to police officer. Every citizen of India including the Government servant must be presumed to be an independent person until it is proved that he was a dependent of the police or any official for any purpose whatsoever. These principles have been laid down by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Zakaullah, (1998)1 Crimes. 58. 23. In the light of the above principles, there is no difficulty in holding that P.W.2 and P.W.3 are not only trustworthy witnesses but also independent witnesses who do not depend upon the police for anything. That apart, their evidence is completely corroborated by Exs.P-2 and P-3. Hence, the evidence in respect of the demand and receipt of bribe is clearly acceptable and as such, the same shall be held to be proved. 24. Before dealing with the evidence relating to the recovery from the accused, it would be worthwhile to refer to Sec.4(l) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 25. As held in the earlier paragraphs, the prosecution proved that the illegal gratification was demanded and the same was received by the accused. 26. Where it is proved that a gratification has been accepted, the presumption under Sec.4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 shall at once arise. It is a presumption of law and it is obligatory on the part of the Court to raise it in every case brought under Sec.4. The words ‘unless the contrary is proved’ mean that the presumption raised under Sec.4 has to be rebutted by proof and not by bare explanation which may be merely plausible. The required proof need not be such as is expected for sustaining a criminal conviction; it need only establish a high degree of probability. 27. The words ‘unless the contrary is proved’ mean that the presumption raised under Sec.4 has to be rebutted by proof and not by bare explanation which may be merely plausible. The required proof need not be such as is expected for sustaining a criminal conviction; it need only establish a high degree of probability. 27. In the light of the above settled law as laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Assam v. Krishna Rao, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 28, it is to be necessarily held that in the present case, the presumption under Sec.4 of the Act would definitely arise. 28. Now, we shall consider whether the presumption has been rebutted by establishing the defence on the basis of the materials available on record by the accused at least by the preponderance of probability. 29. The case of the defence is one of thrusting. According to the counsel for the appellant, in a case of thrusting the presumption would not arise. He would cite the decision in Banshi Lal Yadav v. State of Bihar, 1981 Crl.L.J. 741 (S.C.) in order to substantiate the above contention. 30. The reading of the said decision would not show that mere statement given by the accused in the questioning under Sec. 313, Criminal Procedure Code that currency notes were thrust in his pocket would straightaway rebut the presumption under Sec.4(1) of the Act. 31. It is true that before presumption can be raised, the burden is on the prosecution that the accused has received the amount as gratification other than legal remuneration. If the accused when examined under Sec. 313, Criminal Procedure Code, stated that currency notes were thrust in his pocket, that statement by itself without anything more is not sufficient to satisfy the necessary ingredients of Sec.4(1) that the accused received the amount as gratification so as to be able to raise the presumption. 32. The above proposition is a well settled one. But, in this case, it cannot be stated on the strength of the above proposition that mere statement that the money was thrust in his pocket would be enough to hold that prosecution case cannot be accepted. 33. 32. The above proposition is a well settled one. But, in this case, it cannot be stated on the strength of the above proposition that mere statement that the money was thrust in his pocket would be enough to hold that prosecution case cannot be accepted. 33. As already stated, it has been clearly proved by P. Ws.2 and 3, who at the material time were holding responsible position in the Indian Overseas Bank and E.S.I. Corporation respectively, categorically stated that the accused demanded the amount as bribe for allotment of berths and received Rs.50 from P.W.2 and put it in his shirt pocket after counting the same. 34. Once this is established, the defence story that P.W.2 thrust the money can be said to be patently unproved. Consequent upon such proof, the presumption under Sec.4(1) of the Act would operate. Admottedly, the accused did not rebut the presumption in this case. On the other hand, he wants to escape by saying that it was a case of thrusting and as such, he need not rebut the presumption. 35. In the light of the above factors, let us consider the evidence of the witnesses relating to the recovery of the amount from the accused. 36. It is the case of P.W.4, the Inspector of Police that on noticing the pre-arranged signal from P.W.2 at Arakkonam Station. P.W.4 went near the accused and disclosed his identity and asked him whether he received the money from P.W.2 for allotment of two berths. Immediately, the accused became preplexed and told P.W.4 that he received the same. Thereafter, he was taken inside the ‘F’ coach where the phenolphthalein test was conducted on both of his hands. 37. According to P.W.4, the test conducted on both the hands proved positive. This fact would corroborate the evidence of P.W.2 and P. W.3 that soon after receipt of the money, the accused counted the notes with both the hands and put it in the inner pocket of the uniform shirt. Thereafter, the Inspector requested the accused to produce the bribe amount. Then, the accused removed the tainted money of Rs.50 from the inner pocket of the uniform shirt and handed over the same. Along with that, all the other documents were seized by P.W.4. Thereafter, the Inspector requested the accused to produce the bribe amount. Then, the accused removed the tainted money of Rs.50 from the inner pocket of the uniform shirt and handed over the same. Along with that, all the other documents were seized by P.W.4. This aspect of the evidence had not only been spoken to by P.W.4 but also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 and P. W.3, who are the independent witnesses. 38. In this context, it would be very relevant to note that the accused admitted both in the suggestion put to the witnesses in the cross-examination and in the written statement filed by him in Sec. 313, Crl.P.C., questioning that P.W.2 and P.W.3 were travelling in the train and P.W.2 was allotted two berths on receipt of the berth charges. A suggestion was put to P.W.2 that when the accused was getting down from the compartment at Arakkonam. P.W.2 attempted to thrust the money into his pocket. No other suggestion was put to him. The said suggestion is as follows: As stated above, this suggestion was denied. 39. While P.W.1 was cross-examined, a suggestion was put to him that when the money was thrust into the pocket of the accused, the accused threw it on the floor and the said was money was picked up by P.W.2 and P.W.3 and handed over it to the police party. The suggestion is as follows: 40. Admittedly, the second limb of suggestion was not put to P.W.2. It is also suggested to P.W.3 that for all the amounts recovered from him by the police, the accused gave accounts. This suggestion is quite contrary to the other suggestions put to P.W.2 and P.W.3. 41. It is also to be pointed out that a different suggestion has been put to P.W.4, the investigating officer which is as follows: “It is not correct to say that P.W.2 attempted to thrust the tainted money into the hands of the accused and at that time we caught hold of the accused by the platform at Arakkonam railway station.” So, the reading of the above suggestion would make it clear that the case of the defence, while P.W.4 was cross-examined, is that when P.W.2 attempted to thrust the money into the hands of the accused, the police caught hold of the accused. 42. 42. However, in the written statement filed by the accused, some more details, which have not been suggested to the witnesses have been given. The relevant para of the written statement is as follows: “When I got down at Arakkonam in order to go to to the ‘G’ coach, at the platform, P.W.2 tried to put some currency notes in my pocket. I prevented and I threw it back, questioning him the purpose for doing it. At that time, few persons came and P.Ws.2 and 3 took the currency notes from the floor and gave it to the police. The police officials took me into the compartment, I explained them that I have not received any bribe from P.W.2 or any one, which can be verified from the passengers available in the compartment from whom I have allotted berths.” 43. Therefore, the different stand taken by the accused with regard to the story of thrust at different statge would clearly show that the case of the defence theory is not only improbable but also false. 44. One thing to notice is that there is no necessity for P.W.2 to thrust the money into the pocket of the accused for foisting a false case against him. It is also to be noted that there is no reason for P.W.4 to state that the amount was recovered from the accused from his pocket. 45. As a matter of fact, the evidence about the test conducted on the fingers of both the hands which proved positive and the recovery of the money from the accused who removed it from the inner pocket of the uniform shirt has been clearly spelt out by P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4. On the other hand, the story of the defence about thrusting cannot at all be believed as there is no material to establish the same. Besides the same is contradictory with improved version at every stage. 46. Much was said about the failure on the part of the police officer to conduct test on the pocket of the uniform shirt. As pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the shirt pocket also should have been subjected to test. Besides the same is contradictory with improved version at every stage. 46. Much was said about the failure on the part of the police officer to conduct test on the pocket of the uniform shirt. As pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the shirt pocket also should have been subjected to test. But P.W.4 would explain the reason as to why he had not conducted text by stating that after trap was over, he wanted the accused to continue his duty on that night so that the passengers of the coach may not suffer. 47. Even assuming that this explanation given by P.W.4 may not be correct, the failure to conduct test on the shirt pocket will not in any way affect the prosecution case, since both the hands were tested and same proved positive. This shows that the accused had received the money and counted the same by using both the hands and then put the same in his pocket. 48. If the story of the accused that since the amount was thrust into his pocket, he removed it and throw it on the platform is true, the Sodium Carbonate solution need not turn into pink colour when the fingers of both the hands were dipped in the solution. Moreover, the suggestion itself would indicate that money was thrust into his pocket. Therefore, failure to subject the pocket to test would not stand in the way in believing the prosecution case on the basis of the other materials produced by the prosecution. 49. It was also argued with reference to the non-production of the chart which had been seized. There is no dispute in the fact that the chart was seized by P.W.4 and initially the same was produced before the Court and subsequently, it was withdrawn for the purpose of the investigation. But during the course of trial, the said document was not produced. Though I feel that the documents which had been seized in this case should have been produced before the Court to mark as one of the exhibits on the side of the prosecution, 1 am not able to conclude that non-production of the said document by the prosecution was with the mala fide purpose. 50. It is the admitted case of the accused that P.W.2 and P.W.3 were allotted berths by the accused. 50. It is the admitted case of the accused that P.W.2 and P.W.3 were allotted berths by the accused. It is also the case of the accused that he received the money as berth charges from P.W.2. Therefore, the failure to mark chart as one of the exhibits by the prosecution would not go to show that the prosecution purposely suppressed the document with ulterior motive. 51. Under those circumstances, the minor discrepancies pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellant and the failure to examine some passengers or to produce some documents cannot be the ground to hold that the prosecution case is untrue. On the other hand, this Court would emphatically hold that the evidence of the trap witnesses, namely, the responsible officers of the Bank and E.S.I. Corporation (P.W.2 and P.W.3) and the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W.4) who is also equally responsible who wanted to find out the real truth of the reliable information that he received can be accepted as true, as in my view, their deposition is unimpeachable, which would conclusively prove that the transaction in which the accused was trapped was true. 52. In view of the above discussion, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant are justified and the same are liable to be confirmed and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the custody of the appellant to undergo the remaining period of sentence.