Appellant, Chuni Lal Koul, has been convicted by learned Special Judge Anti-corruption, Jammu, vide its judgment dated 29.1.1996 under section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 BK and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. The appellant was further convicted for offence under section 161 RPC and sentenced to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, however, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and in default of making the payment of fine, the appellant was ordered to further undergo imprisonment of six months on both the counts. Aggrieved by the judgment and order aforesaid, propounded by learned Special Judge Anti-corruption, Jammu, the appellant has impugned its correctness in this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, enumerated from record, in nutshell, is that the accused-appellant, while posted as Patwari at Hardu Ichloo, Tangmarg, has demanded Rs. 1000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant, Wahab Ganai, for issuing him revenue papers for sale of land, which, according, to the complainant, belonged to his nephews, Gulla Ganai and Ama Ganai and who needed the same for its sale in favour of Shamas, Farooqi, prosecution witness. It is further alleged by the prosecution that, as a consequence of demand having been made, Wahab Ganai, complainant, filed a complaint with the Vigilance Organisation, Srinagar, as a result of which FIR No. 24 of 1985 came to be registered against the accused for commission of offence under section 5(2) P.C. Act, 2006 BK, read with Section 161 RPC. A team was constituted, headed by Deputy Superintendent of Police (Investigating Officer), Mohd Sayed. The raiding party, besides other members, also included an independent witness, namely Gh. Mohd Shah, Deputy Director, Accounts and Treasuries. After observing the usual formalities, the team proceeded to the spot and the money, demanded by the accused as illegal gratification, was recovered from his possession. After recording the statements of witnesses and on the conclusion of the investigation, challan was presented against the accused in the court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Srinagar, which later on, stood transferred by the High Court to the court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu. 3. On the allegations aforesaid, the accused was charged for commission of offences under Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section l61 RPC vide order dated 25.4.1986. 3. On the allegations aforesaid, the accused was charged for commission of offences under Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section l61 RPC vide order dated 25.4.1986. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge when read over and explained to him. The trial court, after recording evidence adduced by the prosecution in sustenance of the charge, put all the circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence to him, in his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C and hearing the parties, held the accused guilty and convicted him vide the judgment impugned dated 29.1.1996. 4. Mr. P.N. Raina, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused, at the threshold, has challenged the legality of the judgment passed by the trial court on the ground that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification and further recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the accused by convincing and reliable evidence and this renders the judgment and consequent order of sentence unsustainable in law. Whereas Mr. B. S. Salathia, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, has, stated that the trial court has dealt with every aspect of the matter and all the essential ingredients have been proved by the credible testimony of the witnesses, examined by the prosecution during trial, and, thus, the judgment impugned does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual, that requires interference in appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties in detail and minute examination of facts has also been done, touching the matter in controversy. 6. In order to prove offences under section 5(2) read with section 5 (1) (d) of P.C. Act, and section 161 RPC, the ingredients, which are incumbent upon the prosecution to be proved conclusively, are: A/ Whether the accused was posted and working as public servant at the time of commission of offence; B/ While acting as such public servant, he demanded illegal gratification for doing an official act; and C/ That for doing such act, he obtained for himself or for some one else, illegal gratification of a pecuniary advantage. 7. It is, therefore, required, to be proved by the prosecution, by convincing and reliable evidence, that the amount accepted by the accused as illegal gratification, was recovered from his possession. 7. It is, therefore, required, to be proved by the prosecution, by convincing and reliable evidence, that the amount accepted by the accused as illegal gratification, was recovered from his possession. As regards the first ingredient, it is not disputed that the accused was working as a public servant. It. is with respect to the ingredient, B and C above that the prosecution had a burden of proving the demand, acceptance and recovery of the illegal gratification and for which they have examined host of witnesses, star amongst them being complainant, Wahab Ganai, Gh. Mohd Shah (independent, witness P. N. Pandita, SI Abdul Rehman (constable) and Mohd Syed Dy. Superintendent of Police. 8. As regards the ingredient of demand for illegal gratification made by the accused, the trial court has itself found that there was no other witness to the statement made with respect to the demand. It would, however, be corroborated by the statement of PWs Gulla Ganai and Ama Ganai. It is further found in the judgments impugned of the trial court that as the shadow witness, Abdul Rehman did not went to first floor of the building, where the accused was alleged to have been sitting in a room, when the complainant went with the tainted money to. handover the same to the accused, on his demand the purpose of there being a shadow witness was practically lost as he could not witness as to what had transpired between the complainant and the accused. The complainant, in his evidence, which stand reflected in the judgment, has unambiguously stated that he directed Abdul Rehman not to accompany him in the compound of the house. In his statement, PW Abdul Rehman, deposed that "what has transpired between the Complainant and accused, he does not know. That the bribe amount was also not handed over to the accused by the complainant in his presence. That the place where he was standing and the members of the raiding party were standing on one side was at some distance." It is thus a case in which it is proved by the prosecution itself that there was no witness to the demand and handing over of the alleged money by the complainant Wahab Ganai to the accused. This is what has been accepted even by the trial court itself. This is what has been accepted even by the trial court itself. As demand and acceptance are co-related to the recovery and as the recovery of the tainted money is proved to be doubtful, corroboration, as has been found by the trial court from the statements of prosecution witnesses, Gulla Ganai and Ama Ganai, once appreciated in the totality of the evidence, would only prove that there was no corroboration forthcoming from aforesaid two witnesses. The statements of PWs Gulla Ganai and Ama Ganai with respect to the demand are so sketchy, unconvincing and unbelievable that it could never be termed as evidence, much less corroborative, for the alleged demand having been made of the illegal gratification by the accused from the complainant. 9. According to PW Gulla Ganai, they needed the documents for sale of a garden to Shamas-u-Din Farooqi, a resident of Srinagar. It is further in his evidence that he sent his brother Mohd Ganai to the accused to obtain the papers and the accused went alongwith his brother to the garden as the documents were to be delivered on this spot and in the garden itself, accused demanded Rs. 1000/- from his brother Mohd Ganai. Mohd Ganai, admittedly, is not a witness. It is also in the statement made during Cross examination of PW Gulla Ganai that, in fact, mutations have been attested, as mutation Nos. 195 and 269, in the name of Shamas Farooqi and Parveen Rashid. It is, as such, clear that the version of prosecution witnesses, namely, Gulla Ganai and Ama Ganai, of having made a demand for revenue papers for sale of their land in favour of Shamas Farooqi and Parveen Rashid, does not turn out to be correct and instead what has been proved by mutations EXP-D is that land in question has been mutated under Agrarian Reforms Act soon after the suspension of the accused-appellant, in which Shamas Farooqi and Parveen Rashid are shown to be tenants of land cultivating the same in Kharif 1971. In order to avoid executing a sale deed, which was banned under law, the convenient mode of effecting illegal mutation, to be achieved, was in connivance with the revenue officer/official. In order to avoid executing a sale deed, which was banned under law, the convenient mode of effecting illegal mutation, to be achieved, was in connivance with the revenue officer/official. As Gulla Ganai does not say anything with regard to the demand having been made by the accused-appellant to him or to the prosecution witness Ama Ganai, his second brother, he, on facts, is not corroborating the statement of complainant Wahab Ganai with regard to the demand. Instead, if one would peruse the statement of Gulla Ganai, it would be amply clear that the source from where Rs. 1000/- which is alleged to have been paid to the accused-appellant as bribe was obtained, is not satisfactorily explained. So is the finding returned by the trial court that the source of alleged money, which is stated to have been paid as illegal gratification, has not been satisfactorily explained, while relying upon the testimony of these witnesses, notwithstanding the character and nature of their evidence. The observation of the trial court in this regard is as under:- "In view of the aforesaid contradictory evidence of PW Gulla Ganai and Umar Ganai a discrepancy has crept in as to from where this amount of Rs. 1000/- was raised and who had paid the same to Wahab Ganai." 10. As such, there is no corroboration extracted from the statement of PW Gulla Ganai for balled assertion of the complainant Wahab Ganai with respect to the demand. 11. Another evidence, relied by the trial court, is the statement of PW Ama Ganai, alongwith evidence of PW Gulla Ganai, to corroborate the testimony of the complainant with regard to the demand of illegal gratification. PW Ama Ganai, in his evidence, deposed that he and PW Gulla Ganai went to the accused-appellant many a times and asked him for measurement of the land. It is further extracted from his evidence that accused had one time came to him but he did not make the measurement nor issued Intikhab but demanded Rs. 1000/- and thereafter they entrusted this matter to their maternal uncle Wahab Ganai. They paid Rs. 1000/- to Wahab Ganai for making the payment to the accused. If this witness has to be believed that demand of Rs. 1000/- and thereafter they entrusted this matter to their maternal uncle Wahab Ganai. They paid Rs. 1000/- to Wahab Ganai for making the payment to the accused. If this witness has to be believed that demand of Rs. 1000/- was made by the accused-appellant, then same could have been safely said for measurement and issuance of Intikhab only, where as the evidence of PW Gulla Ganai is to the effect that he sent his brother Mohd Ganai to the accused-appellant, whereupon the accused-appellant went to the garden itself and demanded Rs. 1000/- from Mohd Ganai, then the statement of Ama Ganai to that extent is belied. The story of demand of Rs. 1000/- as gratification by the accused-appellant in the garden, as found in the testimony of PW Gulla Ganai, has been made only with a purpose to show as if they required the revenue papers for land which was allegedly being sold by Gulla Ganai and Ama Ganai. It was also stated that the land, for which the revenue papers were required, did not fall in the definition of Agrarian Reforms Act and thus was capable of being sold. However, by the very fact that PW Ama Ganai has not supported Gulla Ganai in saying that the demand was made by the accused-appellant from their third brother Mohd Ganai, who is not a witness, and instead of taking a stand that demand was made for measurement of the land and Intikhab and without saying as to where and when the same was made, would show that there was no corroboration coming or possible for the statement of complainant, with respect to the demand. This material aspect of the case seems to have been overlooked by the trial court, particularly, when the evidence with respect to the source of alleged bribe money is not forthcoming and lacking. Even the significance of the documents EXP-D, being mutation Nos. 195 and 269, has not been considered by the trial court and trial court has overlooked the case projected by the accused-appellant in cross examination, in the shape of questions to PW Gulla Ganai, which have been reproduced in the judgment by the trial court, that two brothers and the complainant, in fact, wanted that land should be mutated in the name of Shamas Farooqi, which was being refused by the accused-appellant. This renders the basic fabric of the prosecution case unbelievable inasmuch as it has not been proved by reliable and convincing evidence that document were needed for sale of land. 12. Thus, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the essential ingredients of demand of illegal gratification, made by the accused-appellant, from the complainant or doing an official act. Though a vain attempt seems to have been made by the prosecution to bring the factum of demand relying upon the evidence of PWs Gulla Ganai and Ama Ganai, but their evidence does not support the complainant in material particulars to bring home beyond reasonable doubt that a demand of Rs. 1000/-, as bride, was made by the accused-appellant, for doing an official work while acting as a public servant. 13. As regards the acceptance of bribe of Rs. 1000/- by the accused-appellant, the trial court has relied on the statement of the complainant, Wahab Ganai, coupled with the alleged recovery. 14. Once the statement of the complainant, Wahab Ganai, is read in sequence, a completely different picture would emerge. It is in the statement of complainant, Wahab Ganai, that after reaching Hardu Ichloo, they went to Darvesh Pora, where they left their Jeep. The complainant further deposed that he along with Constable Abdul Rehman went to the accused-appellant. Complainant directed Abdul Rehman not to accompany him in the compound of the house. It is also in his statement that accused-appellant had asked him whether he has brought the money, where upon the complainant told that he has. He gave money to the accused-appellant which the latter counted with his right hand and kept it in his left side pocket. It would thus be clear from the statement of the complainant that he has tried to show that there was none present in the room where the accused-appellant was allegedly working, when the complainant entered the room with the tainted notes. The witness, however, has declined to answer the questions, which have been noted down by the trial court and extracted in the judgment. When confronted with the statement made under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C, before the Police, the complainant tried to accept both the statement, one made before the Police and the other in the court during the trial. The witness, however, has declined to answer the questions, which have been noted down by the trial court and extracted in the judgment. When confronted with the statement made under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C, before the Police, the complainant tried to accept both the statement, one made before the Police and the other in the court during the trial. Whereas on the other hand, trial court has returned finding, by relying on the statement of PW Gh. Mohd, that there were two persons present, in the room when the complainant entered the room. The trial court further has observed that those two persons were very material witnesses for the case of the prosecution and had they been, examined, they could have proved sufficient corroboration to the evidence of complainant, Wahab Ganai. (This makes it abundantly clear that when there were some persons present in the room when the complainant handed over the alleged money to the accused-appellant, what prompted the complainant not to say so in his statement. This certainly goes to the very basis of credibility of the witness and makes the entire prosecution case redolent with doubts and suspicion. If the statements of Investigating Officer and independent witness, Gh. Mohd Shah, are read with care and circumspection, it would show that not only two persons were sitting in the room when the complainant paid the alleged money as bribe to the accused-appellant, but there had been more than four persons sitting there PW Gh. Mohd Shah, independent witness, in his evidence has deposed that while they, i.e., rest of the raiding party, were waiting for the signal of the shadow witness, two persons happened to pass their way who informed them that the work had been done and bribe money had been paid and it was thereafter that raiding party, as per PW Mohd Syed (I.O), on receiving the Signal from the shadow witness, Abdul Rehman, entered the room. In his cross examination, Mohd Syed, Investigating Officer has unambiguously stated that, in fact there were one or two persons present and sitting in the room when they entered the room, but as soon as the raiding party entered the room they went out. The statement of not only the Investigation Officer but as also of Gh. Mohd Shah, independent witness, has been accepted by the trial court to be correct. The statement of not only the Investigation Officer but as also of Gh. Mohd Shah, independent witness, has been accepted by the trial court to be correct. Had it been a fact that money had been paid and accepted by the accused-appellant, there was no occasion for the Investigating Officer not to have contacted and recorded the statements of those persons, who were present in the room, and thereafter present them in the court, being most material prosecution witnesses. The trial court has also recorded a finding that it was proved by the prosecution evidence itself that there were independent witnesses present in the room when the complainant, Wahab Ganai, allegedly handed over the bribe money to the accused-appellant. It is further held by the trial court in its judgment that, had such witnesses been examined, they would have sufficiently corroborated the evidence of the complainant, Wahab Ganai, but the Investigating Officer, instead of examining them and citing them as prosecution witnesses allowed them to go without making any effort to locate them, knowing that they are material witnesses to prove the prosecution case, for the reasons best known to him and not for this Court to speculate. This speaks the volumes about the conduct of the Investigating Officer and fairness in the investigation. 15. It is a settled proposition of law that with-holding of independent material witness, without any plausible explanation by the Investigating Officer, seriously affects the credibility of the prosecution case. Therefore, the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant, Wahab Ganai, as regards the handing over of the bribe money to the accused-appellant, particularly when the independent, witnesses were available but not examined by the Investigating Officer and their evidence having been withheld without any reasonable explanation, does not satisfy the test of credibility, being contradictory to what he has stated before the Police in his statement under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C, does not inspire confidence in the court and renders the prosecution case highly doubtful. On the sole testimony of the complainant, which is neither straightforward nor convincing and reliable and materially contradicts the other witnesses examined by the prosecution, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved the ingredients of acceptance of bribe by the accused-appellant beyond any pale of doubt. 16. On the sole testimony of the complainant, which is neither straightforward nor convincing and reliable and materially contradicts the other witnesses examined by the prosecution, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved the ingredients of acceptance of bribe by the accused-appellant beyond any pale of doubt. 16. As regards the recovery of tainted money, it may be pointed out that the most crucial ingredient of a successful trap lies in satisfactory recovery of the bribe money from the accused. It is in the statement of complainant, Wahab Ganai, that, when Dy. S.P., Mohd Syed, leading the raiding party, entered the room, he asked the accused-appellant to raise his hands. The accused appellant, as per the complainant, was further asked to take out the money which he had received and accused-appellant took out the money with his right hand. The Dy. S.P. asked the accused-appellant to count the currency notes but he remained silent. There upon the Dy. S.P counted the currency notes. Such is the statement reflected in the judgment to have been made by the complainant. The aforesaid statement, so extracted, has been made in examination-in-chief, by the complainant. Whereas in cross examination, the complainant, Wahab Ganai, has categorically stated that it was accused-appellant who himself produced the money. About the complainant the trial court has also made observations in its judgment that he declined to answer the questions put to him during cross-examination. Another important question, put to the complainant during cross examination, related to his statement made under section 161 Cr.P.C wherein he was alleged to have said that he produced 10 currency notes of Rs. 10- each, even though the complainant has denied having made such a statement, yet there is statement made by the complainant under section 161 Cr.P.C wherein bribe money was shown to be Rs. 100/- of Rs 10/- each. The complainant has also refused to accept the presence of Shah Sahib, as a witness and he has referred to the presence of a Magistrate, it has not been made clear by the prosecution in re-examination of the complainant that by reference to the Magistrate, whom he was indicating as there is no Magistrate, whom he was indicating as there is no Magistrate figuring in the list of witnesses. The seizure memo prepared and exhibited as EXPW 4/3, with respect to alleged recovery of currency notes, does not show as to who has made the search of the person of the accused-appellant at the time of recovery. As the complainant has made the statement that the money has been taken by the accused had himself, it would, as such, be a case that the accused had himself taken out the money and there upon money was counted by the Dy. S. P. and seized. Whereas Gh. Mohd Shah, allegedly having witnessed the recovery, has stated in his statement that Dy. S.P made the personal search of the accused-appellant and recovered the tainted notes and to this effect, his statement is extracted by the trial court in its judgment. The third witness, PW Ahmad Khan, in his evidence, stated that the Anticorruption people asked the accused-appellant to get up and enquired as to whether he has received the bribe money but the accused lost wits and the S.P or Dy. S.P took out the money from the upper pocket of the shirt of the accused-appellant. This witness, as such, has said nothing about the raising of the hands nor has he said like PW Gh. Mohd Shah and unlike the complainant, Wahab Ganai, that accused took out the money himself. 17. Similarly, PW P.N. Pandita, Sub Inspector, who, as per the Investigating Officer, was the scribe of EXPW 4/3, has also in his statement said that it was the Dy. S.P who conducted the search of the accused-appellant and took out the tainted money form the left side pocket of the shirt of the accused which he was wearing. As against his, Dy. S.P, Mohd Syed, Investigating Officer, in his statement, categorically stated that the money was recovered from the right pocket of the shirt of the accused-appellant, which he was wearing. It makes it abundantly clear that the Investigating Officer has consciously not made any statement with respect to the crucial fact as to whether he recovered the tainted money or not and instead has made a statement, general in character, that the bribe amount was recovered from the right pocket of the shirt of the accused-appellant. Once the statement of the complainant, as one set, prosecution witnesses P. N. Pandita, Gh. Once the statement of the complainant, as one set, prosecution witnesses P. N. Pandita, Gh. Mohd Shah and Nissar Ahmad, as second set, and Mohd Syed, as third set, with respect to the recovery is compared, the picture that emerges is: A/ Complainant says that money was got out by the appellant-accused himself form his left pocket whereupon same was counted and seized. B/ Evidence provided by second set of witnesses says that money was recovered from the left pocket by personal search of the accused-appellant by the Dy. S.P and there after seized. C/ Whereas Mohd Syed, I.O, stated that the money was recovered from right pocket of the shirt of the accused-appellant. 18. The different evidence provided by the different sets of witnesses, when taken in its totality, leads to the only conclusion that the evidence, in proof of the fact of recovery of the tainted money, is highly insufficient unsatisfactory, unbelievable and unconvincing to prove the recovery beyond any shadow of doubt. 19. As the factum of recovery is another essential ingredient to prove the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, there has to be satisfactory and truthful evidence, available on record, which in the present case is altogether missing 20. In a criminal case, it is always incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by convincing, reliable and cogent evidence, so as to hold him guilty and record his conviction. Where there is only sole eye-witness, conviction may be recorded against the accused, provided the evidence tendered by such witness is regarded as honest and truthful. But prudence requires that some corroboration should be sought in support of the solitary witness, who is complainant. This becomes more necessary when the evidence of material witnesses has been withheld by the Investigating Officer, without any plausible cause and satisfactory explanation. Straightforward and trustworthy evidence, of course, needs no corroboration, but in the instant case, the evidence provided by the complainant is in contradiction with what has been stated by the independent and other witnesses examined by the prosecution. In view of the above indicated inconsistencies, found in the testimony of the complainant and the independent and other witnesses, examined by the prosecution, it will be extremely unsafe and hazardous to convict the accused. In view of the above indicated inconsistencies, found in the testimony of the complainant and the independent and other witnesses, examined by the prosecution, it will be extremely unsafe and hazardous to convict the accused. Discrepancies, found in the testimony of the witnesses and the complainant, go to the root of the matter and shake the very basic version of the witnesses, particularly, when all important factors do not echo in favour of the narrated witnesses. Further, the veracity of a witness is judged not solely from his individual statement but from his testimony taken in conjunction with all other facts brought out in the course of the testimony. 21. An overall assessment of the matter that emerges from the evidence of the prosecution during trial, it is undisputedly gatherable that conviction is based more on probabilities than on evidence proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The main ingredients of the charge under section 161 RPC, are that; 1. That the accused was a public servant; 2. That he must be shown to have obtained from any person any gratification, and 3. The gratification should be other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to the person. 22. When the first two ingredients are proved by evidence, then a rebuttable presumption arises in respect of the third ingredient. In absence of the proof of the first two facts, the presumption does not arise. On mere recovery of certain money from the person of an accused without the proof of its payment by or on behalf of some person to whom official favour was to be shown, the presumption cannot arise. This view has been taken by the Apex Court in Sita Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1992 SC 1432. 23. The prosecution has not made any attempt to secure any witness from amongst the locality or even from the building where the landlord and other people were also residing. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot safely be said that the accused-appellant demanded bribe. 23. The prosecution has not made any attempt to secure any witness from amongst the locality or even from the building where the landlord and other people were also residing. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot safely be said that the accused-appellant demanded bribe. Under these circumstances, I am unable to agree with the findings of the trial court that the prosecution has established the charge of demand and acceptance of bribe with ultimate recovery of tainted money from the accused-appellant. 24. It is well settled that in the absence of evidence regarding demand of bribe, the appellant-accused cannot be held guilty on the basis of the evidence, unworthy of acceptance. After going through the entire evidence, I am of the view that there is no acceptable evidence to prove demand and acceptance, of the bribe money within the meaning of Section 161 RPC. 25. In case Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1979 SC 1408, it was held by the Apex Court as under:- "In a case of bribery, mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable." 26. When the witnesses, including the complainant, as in this case, make totally inconsistent and contradictory statements with respect to main substratum of the case, their testimony becomes un-reliable and unworthy of credence and no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses. 27. Further, in Raghubir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 91, the Apex Court, while dealing with the Officers in Anti-corruption department, to secure independent and respectable witnesses of raid, held as under:- "The officers functioning in the anti-corruption department must seriously endeavour to secure really independent and respectable witnesses so that the evidence in regard to raids 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. They should insist on observing this safeguard for the protection of public servants against whom a trap may have been laid. In the present case the search witnesses were interested witnesses and, therefore, their evidence with regard to giving of bribe and the recovery of the amount from the person of the accused was not relied upon." 28. They should insist on observing this safeguard for the protection of public servants against whom a trap may have been laid. In the present case the search witnesses were interested witnesses and, therefore, their evidence with regard to giving of bribe and the recovery of the amount from the person of the accused was not relied upon." 28. Taking global view of the matter, based on the entire gamut of evidence on record, I am of the considered view that if crime has to be punished, gossamer web of niceties must be yield to realistic appraisal. 29. In the circumstances discussed above in detail, it is held that sufficient material has been brought out in the case to merit interference in appeal. 30. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed, setting aside the conviction of the accused-appellant and acquitting him of the offences, with which he stands charged. The accused-appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled in resultant thereof.