JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—In these bail applications, the allegations are of criminal breach of trust and cheating, wherein the complainants allege to have extended payments to the accused in the hope of getting public employment. It may be pointed out that the accused are not government servants so as to examine the case from the point of view of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused are alleged to be posing themselves capable of ensuring employment to the complainants in governmental organisations or public posts. The leading bail application No. 1865 of 2007 was taken up on 11th September, 2007 whereupon an order was passed to the following effect : “Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. A perusal of the F.I.R. which has been lodged by Pradeep Kumar Yadav son of Kishan Yadav clearly states that on the offer made by the accused in the present case he was allured to tender a sum of Rs. 90,000/- each per candidate for being employed in the Army. He also admits that several persons for the said purpose themselves tendered the said amount to the applicant’s husband and the money was transacted through the applicant and his son. The aforesaid admission made in the F.I.R. clearly discloses that an attempt was made by the complainants themselves to obtain employment by fraudulent means. This admission itself amount to a case of criminal offence of having given a bribe. It is strange that after lodging of the F.I.R. no action was taken against the complainant by the investigating agency, inasmuch as they have themselves allegedly abetted the offence. The complainants did not make any attempt to trap the applicant through lawful means. They have rather consciously attempted to obtain employment by offering bribe voluntarily. Let a copy of this order be made available to the learned Government Advocate for forwarding it to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, who shall immediately transmit it to the concerned Police Station for taking necessary action in the matter and an Affidavit be filed within 15 days before this Court. List on 28.9.2007.” 2. Subsequently, the other four applications were also taken up and in bail application Nos. 5072 and 5074, a similar nature of complaint was made that a monetary transaction had taken place for extending benefits of public employment in the Railways. List on 28.9.2007.” 2. Subsequently, the other four applications were also taken up and in bail application Nos. 5072 and 5074, a similar nature of complaint was made that a monetary transaction had taken place for extending benefits of public employment in the Railways. On the same footing are the allegations contained in bail application Nos. 821 of 2007 and 3742 of 2007 wherein employment is sought in the Secretariat of the Government of Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow. The essence of all the complaints is, therefore, failure to get gainful employment sought to be acquired on payment of money in public offices. During the course of arguments the said issue, as to whether the complainants themselves had abetted the offence by making the disclosure as contained in the F.I.R.s or not, that this Court had called upon the State to answer the querries raised vide the aforesaid order dated 11th September, 2007. The matter was listed on 17th September, 2007 when time was sought by the State to file a response. The time sought for by the State was again extended and the matter was directed to come up on 28.9.2007. On the said date, the learned Government Advocate Sri Mahendra Pratap Yadav made a request for a further adjournment and the following order was passed on 28.9.2007 : “Sri Mahendra Pratap Yadav, learned Government Advocate has made a request that since the issue involved in this case as well as in the connected cases are of certain public importance and have wide ramifications, therefore, the matter be adjourned in order to enable the learned counsels to address the Court extensively on this issue. On the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, put up on 4th October, 2007.” 3. Two more adjournments were sought on 4th October, 2007 and finally on 9th October, 2007 whereafter the matter was heard on 11th October, 2007 with the assistance of Sri M.P. Yadav, learned Government Advocate, Sri R.P. Shukla, learned A.G.A. and Sri R.K. Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. whose assistance was commendable in supplying the relevant judgments on the issues raised by the Court. Learned counsel for the applicant also advanced their submissions and urged that the applicants deserve to be granted bail as the offences are triable by a Magistrate and that they are entitled to be released as there was no reason to apprehend that the applicants would misuse their bail as per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. The question raised by this Court in all the cases, as would be evident from the orders quoted herein above is to the effect that the investigating agency failed in its duty to investigate the allegations as per the version of the complainants themselves contained in the F.I.R., where they clearly disclose that they had offered money and had actually paid it to the accused for obtaining public employment in government offices. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether such a disclosure in the F.I.R. indicates the involvement and commission of the offence by way of abetment keeping in view the fact that the complainants themselves informed the investigating agency about their own attempt to obtain employment by dubious methods. Abetment is defined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which is quoted herein below : “107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 5. An abettor under Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code is defined as such : “108. Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 5. An abettor under Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code is defined as such : “108. Abettor.—A persons abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. Explanation 1.—The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act. Explanation 2.—To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused. Explanation 3.—It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. Explanation 4.—The abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also an offence. Explanation 5.—It is not necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy that the abettor should concert the offence with the person who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed.” 6. The punishment for abetment is provided in Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code as under : “109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment.—Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence. Explanation.—An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment.” 7. To understand the genesis of this query a brief summary of the F.I.Rs. Explanation.—An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment.” 7. To understand the genesis of this query a brief summary of the F.I.Rs. in all the five cases would be necessary. In bail application No. 1865 of 2007, the allegation contained in the F.I.R. is to the effect that the complainant Pradeep Kumar Yadav along with Jitendra Singh, Shailendra Singh and Kuldip Singh settled a deal with one person who posed himself as Col. Narang (accused Tapan Kumar Chakravarti) and his wife Gopa Chakravarti (depicting herself to be an Additional District Magistrate) and they paid a sum of Rs. 90,000/- each to the accused and their son Abhijai Chakravarti (Vikas Chandra Chakravarti) and thereafter they kept on running after them but they failed to get employment whereafter they came to understand that they have been cheated. It is also disclosed in the F.I.R. that they enquired about them and their fake personalities and then upon some persuasion one of the accused Gopa Chakravarti issued a cheque of Rs. 40,000/- which also bounced. They failed to get their money back and also any employment whereafter the F.I.R. was lodged on 19th January, 2007. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the State stating therein that the applicant is not entitled for bail as there is ample evidence to hold that the applicant and her husband have cheated the complainants. 8. In bail application No. 5072, the allegations are that the complainant had been allured for getting employment in the Railways for which he had paid Rs. 1,60,000/- whereafter the complainant therein was taken to Delhi by the accused for medical examination and was shown two or three documents upon which his signatures were obtained with a promise to provide a joining letter. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that gradually after a lapse of two years the complainant came to know that the Railways had not issued any such letters nor any advertisement had been made and that the accused had indulged in cheating whereafter the F.I.R. was lodged on 25th April, 2006. 9. In bail application No. 5074, the allegation is somewhat similar with a further allegation that the co-accused had issued a cheque of Rs. 9. In bail application No. 5074, the allegation is somewhat similar with a further allegation that the co-accused had issued a cheque of Rs. 1,60,000/- to the complainant but it was dishonoured whereafter the bail application of the applicant was rejected by the court below. In the bail application namely 821 of 2007, the allegations are of making payment to the tune of Rs. 52,000/- to Rs. 55,000/- each for getting gainful employment in the U.P. Government Secretariat and in bail application No. 3742 of 2007, the allegations are that the accused posing himself to be the nephew of the Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh extorted about Rs. 2,50,000/- for extending benefits of gainful employment as a class IV employee and the F.I.R. names 20 more people who had offered somewhat similar amounts ranging between Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/- for obtaining similar appointments. 10. The narration of the aforesaid facts, therefore, would reveal that the allegations underlying these F.I.Rs. are to the effect, that for the purposes of gaining public employment, the complainants had been allured and when they failed to achieve their ends they lodged these criminal cases for prosecuting the accused on the ground that they have been cheated. The disclosures in all the F.I.Rs. indicate that the payments were being made consciously by all the complainants for getting themselves gainfully employed in public offices. These were not incidents of gaining any private employment. The employment to the posts for which the payments were being made were of posts in government offices. All such posts have to be filled up in accordance with rules and the manner prescribed for filling up all such posts. In spite of this, a pecuniary transaction was consciously entered into by the complainants with the accused knowing fully well that this was being done to ensure public employment. It was only after they had failed in their attempt to get employed that the complaints were made and the F.I.Rs. were lodged. 11. The question which is to be considered is that in case the complainants would have succeeded in getting employment there is a probability, and a strong probability, that the complainants would have never lodged any complaint and would have got away with gainful employment. Thus, there is a disclosure of adopting an unlawful method which prima facie can be termed as an extraneous consideration for obtaining employment. Thus, there is a disclosure of adopting an unlawful method which prima facie can be termed as an extraneous consideration for obtaining employment. To the best of the knowledge of the Court and which has not been disputed by the learned counsels during the course of arguments, no public employment or employment in any government office is contemplated through such monetary transactions. 12. Enlistment and recruitment to government services are not obtained through counters run by private persons. They are subject to rules enacted under Statutory legislations. They cannot be bartered or purchased. Neither can they be availed by gambling at employment casinos like the one alleged to be managed by the accused. The very intention to gain such an employment is through a wrongful method i.e. by extending benefits of payment on an allurement of assurance to occupy a public office. It is aid that money makes the mare go. Money facilitates life in many spheres, but it is also a cause for greed. This temptation tends to corrupt the mind of a person for a variety of reasons. In the present context it is being employed as a vehicle by the complainant to seek employment which is an immediate greed to secure himself financially throughout life. The accused is doing it for a short-term gain. But the fact remains that it is greed on both sides with a corrupt mind. 13. The complainants and the accused have jointly launched themselves in gambling. One for a guaranteed public employment the other for unlawfully enriching himself. To gamble is to risk possessions on some chance or contingency. The question is can public employment be a subject matter of such speculative contingencies which may ultimately turn out to be unlawful. The disclosure in all the F.I.Rs. is to the effect that the complainants were induced to believe the offer at the initial stage and, therefore, they voluntarily agreed to make payments. It was only when the transactions failed that the complaints were lodged. No attempt appears to have been made in between to inform any authority or undertake any legal process which may establish even prima facie that the complainants were under a bona fide belief that whatever they were doing was in good faith and lawful. This is, however, subject to evidence in trial and the observations of this Court are not to prejudice the complainant’s cause. 14. This is, however, subject to evidence in trial and the observations of this Court are not to prejudice the complainant’s cause. 14. There is no dispute that all the complainants are of the age of majority and are of sound mind. They are unemployed youths seeking employment. However, their methods of seeking employment prima facie does not appear to be lawful. What is to be examined is the extent of their participation in the commission of the offence by the accused and the claim of innocence as urged by Sri R.P. Shukla, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State. Whether the acts of the complainants were bona fide and in good faith or were they intentional with some element of mens rea is a serious and genuine doubt which, in the opinion of the Court, ought to have been noticed and investigated by the investigating agency. 15. The information tendered by the complainants concludes with a grievance against the accused. However, the genesis of the grievance lies in the pecuniary transaction which is the basis of the complaint itself. After all, what was the intent and purpose for which the money had been advanced by the complainants and what was the reason for them to believe that whatever they were doing was lawful, legal or bona fide. The act of giving money for public employment was apparently voluntary. What did the complainants do and what genuine efforts were made by them to ascertain that whatever they were doing was bona fide or genuine. It is these aspects which are required to be investigated in order to find out as to whether they were innocent or they were acting bonafidely. 16. The monetary contribution of the complainants is acknowledged in the F.I.R. itself. Whether this contribution was in lieu of a lawful purpose or was it intended as a “bribe” to purchase employment deserves to be investigated. The minimum which was required to be done was an investigation into the conduct of the complainants as well, before the investigation concluded. The reason for this is simple. Whether this contribution was in lieu of a lawful purpose or was it intended as a “bribe” to purchase employment deserves to be investigated. The minimum which was required to be done was an investigation into the conduct of the complainants as well, before the investigation concluded. The reason for this is simple. The Investigating Agency had been informed in terms of Section 154, Cr.P.C. read with Section 157, Cr.P.C. of the commission of an offence and, therefore, it was the obligation of the investigating agency to have probed into the conduct of the complainant as well to find out and form an opinion about the alleged innocence and bona fide of the complaints. Paragraphs 104 to 128 of Chapter XI of the U.P. Police Regulations obliges the investigation officer to find out every fact that is available and also record his inference on the collected evidence. It is to be a thorough investigation and not a mere observance of formalities. 17. This opinion does not stem from a mere robust opinion but also from a perusal of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code where the words wrongful gain (Section 23), reasons to believe (Section 26) voluntarily (Section 39), offence (Section 40) and illegal (Section 43) have been defined. Taking that into consideration, the aforesaid definitions one has to form an opinion about the conduct of such complainants. 18. The word innocence means something which is not harmful or intended to cause harm and is trustworthy. It connotes the attitude which is neither malignant and is free of any wrong intent. To find out as to whether the offence was one of mere cheating and inducement or it was an offence which involved the deliberate participation of the complainants also, the investigating agency ought to have probed this aspect as well. The needle of suspicion in such matters, does point towards the facilitator of the crime as well. There are a variety of crimes in which the investigating agency undertakes an immediate probe into the conduct of the informer for example where a husband murders his wife and himself proceeds to the police station to lodge an F.I.R. in order to cover up his guilt projecting himself to be innocent. 19. There are a variety of crimes in which the investigating agency undertakes an immediate probe into the conduct of the informer for example where a husband murders his wife and himself proceeds to the police station to lodge an F.I.R. in order to cover up his guilt projecting himself to be innocent. 19. In the instant case, the disclosure in the F.I.R. is in the shape of an information which leaves no room for doubt that the complainant himself alleges payment of money for public employment. The complainant has no doubt in his mind that the accused has cheated him and, therefore, it can be reasonably presumed that the complainants understand what amounts to cheating. If that be so, then the complainant will be presumed to be aware of the consequences of such an offence i.e. the offence is something which is unlawful and might be punishable under law. The complainant can, therefore, also be presumed to have facilitated and contributed towards the commission of the offence as without these links, the accused, who is the alleged offender, would not have been able to cheat the complainant. Had there been no passing off of the pecuniary consideration, there would have been no cause for the complaint. To presume that the complainant was innocent would amount to judging a cause without investigation. 20. The investigating agency upon a probe can arrive at its own opinion in order to decide as to who are the accused for the purpose of framing of charges and prosecution, but they are obliged to investigate. This is the minimum obligation which has to be discharged by the investigating agency. In the instant cases, it is not the case of the State that this aspect was probed into namely the conduct of the complainants of being either innocent or having not voluntarily paid money. As a matter of fact, the investigating agency or the prosecution does not appear to have made any effort that would shed light on this aspect of the matter. The reason for emphasis for investigation on this issue is because of the fact that no law acknowledges obtaining employment by unlawful methods. Rampant bribery in this field and subsequent disclosure of such acts leave no room for doubt that this aspect also deserves to be investigated. The reason for emphasis for investigation on this issue is because of the fact that no law acknowledges obtaining employment by unlawful methods. Rampant bribery in this field and subsequent disclosure of such acts leave no room for doubt that this aspect also deserves to be investigated. This is necessary because the police is not only obliged to investigate but it is also obliged to prevent the commission of an offence. Chapter 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as other preventive measures have been provided obliging the police or the investigating agency to be vigilant in such matters and make attempts to prevent the commission of any cognizable offence. 21. Such actions are acts of corruption coupled with the criminal intent with which they are committed. Should not the Courts undertake necessary measures under the law for the remedy of any such possible wrong or should it be a silent spectator. The court in such a situation might be criticised for sinful abdication when speech is the solemn obligation. In my opinion, the system which is paralysed by corruption has to be compelled to walk. Such efforts have to be made by the Court to regenerate confidence in the public. Such deliberate and compounded actions of fraud being perpetrated cannot be allowed to continue as the Court cannot allow this sanctuary of fraud to perpetrate any further. After all, justice is to rectify and not to ruin the rule of law. There is to be a presumption of good faith no doubt, but once a person discloses information that indicates his possible participation as well, then such a person is equally a suspect unless he is able to establish that he is not guilty and was acting in a bona fide manner. Even if the evidence is doubtful or inconclusive, yet an investigation is necessary where the involvement is such as it would be difficult to sequestrate investigation at the very inception stage itself. 22. It is when the investigating agency is set into motion in true spirit that such involvements come to light. It is truthful investigation which is required to be done as it should be remembered that investigation throws light at every aspect of the commission of offence like sunlight which acts as the best disinfectant. Investigation is a process which dispels darkness and exposes truth. It is truthful investigation which is required to be done as it should be remembered that investigation throws light at every aspect of the commission of offence like sunlight which acts as the best disinfectant. Investigation is a process which dispels darkness and exposes truth. In the instant cases, the doubt itself has been cast by the disclosure made by the complainants. 23. It is not necessary that in every case there has to be an aggrieved person for the investigation to set into motion. Take, for instance, that an unclaimed body is lying on the streets. There is no one to make a complainant yet the investigating agency is obliged to swing into motion in order to complete the formalities of investigation and appropriate reporting. Can it be said that the commission of an offence always requires an aggrieved person. The answer is obvious. The investigating agency and the police authorities on their own are entitled to undertake the investigation once they receive an information as the words used in Section 157, Cr.P.C. are clearly to the effect that the officer-in-charge shall swing into action on the basis of either information received or otherwise. 24. The traditional approach towards investigation, therefore, requires a re-orientation, inasmuch as, the purpose and object of creation of such institutions under our Constitution is to ensure justice in every sphere of life. It is the solemn duty of the State to protect its citizens against any crime which is against society. It is for this reason that the State becomes a prosecutor, the moment some offence is committed. 25. As a matter of fact, such cases should not catch the legal circles by surprise merely because the Society is now used to such scandals. The Supreme Court has time and again cautioned the State machinery in the following words : “Tightening and toughening and crushing down such inglorious remnants to defraud people should be immediately responded or else it may result in grave consequences.” It is also stated, “The refuges of corrupt transactions have to be felled and any such surviving issue has to be detonated. The sacred grove of fraudulent transactions have to be logged down. The unholy water course of fraud has to be transformed into a pure stream of hope.” 26. Any such event that disturbs Society has to be neutralised. The sacred grove of fraudulent transactions have to be logged down. The unholy water course of fraud has to be transformed into a pure stream of hope.” 26. Any such event that disturbs Society has to be neutralised. It has been again said, “The road of freedom and democracy is full of pot holes of corruption. Corruption is a gorgon with which we are battling and it grows a new head for every head that is chopped off.” 27. It is rightly said that truth is simple but falsehood is complicated. It is the duty of the investigating agency to unravel falsehood. To presume innocence in such matters would be giving a go by to the aged old saying that ignorance of law excuseth no man. This is not the function of law. Crimes that are not detected are the false ones that continue to be worth committing by criminals. It is, therefore, necessary that the investigating agency is vigilant enough to secure the larger interest of Society and to see that the rule of law prevails. 28. If such investigations are undertaken, then not only unscrupulous elements like the accused would be punished but also attempts to “purchase public employment” would be prevented. After all, those who are providing a catalyst, have also to be dealt with as they are posing equal if not greater threats to Society. Such offences if not nipped in the bud are likely to encourage repetitions by unemployed youth and their ambitious guardians. Many a times it has been reported that precious jewellery, land and valuable possessions are either sold or bartered for gaining such benefits. Not only this, one can even possibly imagine the commission of other offences like loot, theft and dacoity for raising money to obtain secured jobs. One does not know as to where will all this lead to, but once it is brought to the notice of those concerned including the constitutional guardians, then immediate surgery can be the only possible choice. To wait and watch might be more fatal. This should allay all apprehensions in the minds of those who think that people may not come forward to lodge such informations. They will come but at the right time. The information no doubt will be given by those who consider it their duty to serve the interest of the Society. 29. To wait and watch might be more fatal. This should allay all apprehensions in the minds of those who think that people may not come forward to lodge such informations. They will come but at the right time. The information no doubt will be given by those who consider it their duty to serve the interest of the Society. 29. Offences under The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, can be tried thereunder vis-a-vis public servants. One provision of the said Act, however, deserves to be noticed, namely Section 24 quoted below : “Statement by bribe giver not to subject him to prosecution.—Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a statement made by a person in any proceeding against a public servant for an offence under Sections 7 to 11 or under Section 13 or Section 15, that he offered or agreed to offer any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing to the public servant, shall not subject such person to a prosecution under Section 12.” 30. However, the situation in the present case is entirely different. Here the complainants have applied their pecuniary resources to gain an advantage, i.e., to ensure public employment. Having failed in their attempt to achieve their ends, they have informed the police about their inducement and the alleged act of cheating. The nature of this participation and the method adopted does not absolve them nor can they be presumed to be innocent without investigation of their conduct. In case they had informed the authorities from beforehand or they had conducted themselves with prior intimation to bonafidely curb any such attempt, then they might be entitled to protection under the law and may stand in the category of informers. But having attempted and failed in their concious attempt to crystallise the deal for gaining public employment, there does not appear to lie any claim for protection under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. To take an example, if some person has invested money with another person for the commission of an act which may amount to an offence, and asks for refund of such money on account of non-fulfilment of such a promise, then in such an event such a person can be subjected to investigation and prosecuted as an accomplice. 31. To take an example, if some person has invested money with another person for the commission of an act which may amount to an offence, and asks for refund of such money on account of non-fulfilment of such a promise, then in such an event such a person can be subjected to investigation and prosecuted as an accomplice. 31. One will have not to go too far to search the meaning of the word “accomplice”. The said expression has been explained very succinctly in a Lahore High Court judgment Ismail v. Emperor, AIR (34) 1947 Lahore 220, as follows : “The expression ‘accomplice has not been defined in the Evidence Act, but there can be little doubt that it means a person who knowingly or voluntarily cooperates with or aids and assists another in the commission of a crime.” 32. It is to be remembered that persons who are involved for detecting such crimes may not be accomplices. A spy or a decoy legitimately planted for the purposes of apprehending an offender may not be an associate in the crime. Accomplice is one, who is a partner in a crime and an associate in guilt as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Shankar alias Gauri Shankar and others v. State of T.N., (1994) 4 SCC 478 . The class of abettors as defined under Sections 107 and 108 are a class of accomplices. A person, who acts as an accessory simple and who is not in any way concerned in the original offence cannot be classified as an accomplice. As held by the Madras High Court in Rama Swami Gowden v. Emperor, (14) MLJ 236, accomplice signifies a guilty associate in crime and is a person who sustains such a relation to the criminal act that he could be jointly charged with the accused. Thus, an apparent abettor may not be a real abettor. A person, who is compelled or coerced to offer a bribe, may be a suspected accomplice entitled for pardon but a person who has willingly and voluntarily offered money for some advantage and is capable of understanding that advantage, then in such an event he is a person, who deserves to be investigated and in some cases also liable to be prosecuted. The Gauhati High Court in the case of Kamini Kumar Deb Barman v. State, AIR 1971 Tripura 26, has held that a distinction may, therefore, well be drawn between cases where a person offers a bribe to achieve his own purpose and where one is forced to offer bribe under threat of pecuniary loss or harm or under coercion. Persons falling under the latter category can hardly be called accomplices as they were only victims of the coercive measures to which they were subjected and not willing participants in the commission of the offence. The distinction, therefore, has to be drawn between a victim of the offence and a willing participant in the same. Take the instance of a trap witness who makes a show of offering bribe like a decoy in order to help the authorities spontaneously with a sense of citizen’s duty to bring to book a dishonest person. Such a trap witness is not an accomplice in the sense of an abettor. His act is not a participatory act in the commission of an offence with a criminal intent, rather he is an aid to investigation and collection of evidence for the purposes of prosecution. 33. At this juncture, it will be relevant to refer to Sections 306 and 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code which offers pardon to an approver. It is here that the word accomplice has to be understood in the sense as used therein. An accomplice is also acknowledged as a competent witness as per Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act which is quoted hereunder : “133. Accomplice.—An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.” There aspects vis-a-vis the status of the complainant has also to be investigated and examined. 34. It is, thus, the duty of the investigating agency as well as of the courts to unravel the nature of participation and decide as to whether such person deserves to be prosecuted or not. The police on its own cannot, however, absolve itself of its duty and obligation to investigate this aspect of the offence as is involved in the present set of cases. The courts on their part have the power to order reinvestigation under Section 173 (8) in case the situation so demands. The police on its own cannot, however, absolve itself of its duty and obligation to investigate this aspect of the offence as is involved in the present set of cases. The courts on their part have the power to order reinvestigation under Section 173 (8) in case the situation so demands. The complainant or the informant may not have any right to object to any such reinvestigation at the pre-cognizance stage. The courts will also have to examine as to whether the informant or the complainant can claim privity keeping in view the law of limitation prescribed under Sections 467 to 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The courts can proceed to examine the matter even during the pendency of the trial after examining the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and proceed to summon any person who may appear to be an accused including the complainant under Section 319, Cr.P.C. The rights of such a person, therefore, would not stand to any prejudice as the person will have full opportunity at all the aforesaid stages to have a say by disclosing the reality and set up any possible defence that may be available to such a person. Thus, throughout the investigation as also during the pendency of the trial there would be every opportunity for such a complainant to offer his explanation. This, however, as already indicated herein above, does not in any way allow the investigation agency to surrender its jurisdiction to investigate the crime and abetment thereof. 35. In a matter arising out of Section 165 (A) of Indian Penal Code as it then stood, the Supreme Court speaking through Hon. Mr. Justice H.R. Khanna in the case of Mohandas Lalwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2679 (para 19) had to say as under : “19. Before we part with this case, we would like to observe that as long as an impression exists that corruption is prevalent and that unless one pays to somebody things are not done, there would be always persons who would feel the urge to offer bribe. Bribe would be offered not only to get an undue favour but also to avoid unnecessary harassment and to see that no obstruction or delay is caused in getting the most legitimate work done. Bribe would be offered not only to get an undue favour but also to avoid unnecessary harassment and to see that no obstruction or delay is caused in getting the most legitimate work done. To prevent the repetition of crimes like the one of which the appellant has been found guilty, it is necessary to inculcate a general feeling that things are done in due course uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. It would be unfortunate that, rightly or wrongly, an impression were to exist that without payment of illegal gratification, things would not be done........” 36. The aforesaid observations were in respect of the offering a bribe to a government servant. In the instant cases, it is a matter of money grubbing by those who pretend to offer employment and offer of such money by those who want to gain employment by hook or by crook. The punishment for such an abettor of such an offence has been defined under Section 109, IPC. The Supreme Court in the case of Ranganayaki v. State, (2004) 12 SCC 521 (para 11) held as under : “11. Under Section 109 the abettor is liable to the same punishment which may be inflicted on the principal offender: (1) if the act of the latter is committed in consequence of the abetment, and (2) no express provision is made in IPC for punishment for such an abetment. This section lays down nothing more than that if IPC has not separately provided for the punishment of abetment, as such, then it is punishable with the punishment provided for the original offence. Law does not require instigation to be in a particular form or that it should only be in words. The instigation may be by conduct. Whether there was instigation or not is a question to be decided on the facts of each case. It is not necessary in law for the prosecution to prove that the actual operative cause in the mind of the person abetting was instigation and nothing else, so long as there was instigation and the offence has been committed or the offence would have been committed if the person committing the act had the same knowledge and intention as the abettor. The instigation must be with reference to the thing that was done and not to the thing that was likely to have been done by the person who is instigated. The instigation must be with reference to the thing that was done and not to the thing that was likely to have been done by the person who is instigated. It is only if this condition is fulfilled that a person can be guilty of abetment by instigation. Further the act abetted should be committed in consequence of the abetment or in pursuance of the conspiracy as provided in the Explanation to Section 109. Under the Explanation an act or offence is said to be committed in pursuance of abetment if it is done in consequence of (a) instigation, (b) conspiracy, or (c) with the aid constituting abetment. Instigation may be in any form and the extent of the influence which the instigation produced in the mind of the accused would vary and depend upon facts of each case. The offence of conspiracy created under Section 120-A is bare agreement to commit an offence. It has been made punishable under Section 120-B. The offence of abetment created under the second clause of Section 107 requires that there must be something more than mere conspiracy. There must be some act or illegal omission in pursuance of that conspiracy. That would be evident by Section 107 (secondly), “engages... in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy”. The punishment for these two categories of crimes is also quite different. Section 109, IPC is concerned only with the punishment of abetment for which no express provision has been made in IPC. The charge under Section 109 should, therefore, be along with charge for murder which is the offence committed in consequence of abetment. An offence of criminal conspiracy is, on the other hand, an independent offence. It is made punishable under Section 120-B for which a charge under Section 109 is unnecessary and inappropriate. [See Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.)] Intentional aiding and active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment.” 37. The upshot of the entire discussion made herein above is that if such an attempt is made then it has to be viewed with suspect and the minimum that is required to be done, is a proper investigation into the conduct of such persons who knowingly and wilfully have indulged into purchase of public employment. 38. The upshot of the entire discussion made herein above is that if such an attempt is made then it has to be viewed with suspect and the minimum that is required to be done, is a proper investigation into the conduct of such persons who knowingly and wilfully have indulged into purchase of public employment. 38. The learned Government Advocate Sri Mahendra Pratap Yadav has, however, taken an objection to the issuance of any orders by this Court while considering the grant of bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He contends that the Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 439, Cr.P.C., may not be able to travel beyond the scope of prayer of bail of the accused and which may also likely prejudice the cause of the complainant or the informant. The aforesaid contention of the learned Government Advocate has to be countenanced in the light of the powers conferred on this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. It is true that while disposing of an application under Section 439, Cr.P.C. the Court is required only to examine the prayer in the light of the well established norms for grant of bail keeping in view the provisions of Chapter XXXIII of the Criminal Procedure Code. Nonetheless, this Court, while examining a case for grant of bail, has to necessarily read the F.I.R. and then proceed to make up its mind as to whether the accused is entitled for release or not. While examining the F.I.R. if it comes to the notice of the Court that the matter deserves to be probed into for the purposes of reaching the truth then it cannot be said that the Court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction in observing something which ought to have been observed by the investigating agency or by the concerned court. However, there is another argument on behalf of the learned Government Advocate which deserves to be noted at this stage. The complainant or the informant is not before this Court and is unrepresented in the sense that he has no knowledge of these proceedings under Section 439, Cr.P.C. This, according to learned Government Advocate, may call for an observance of the minimal rules of principles of natural justice. The complainant or the informant is not before this Court and is unrepresented in the sense that he has no knowledge of these proceedings under Section 439, Cr.P.C. This, according to learned Government Advocate, may call for an observance of the minimal rules of principles of natural justice. Keeping this in view, this Court is of the opinion that in the event the investigating agency or the concerned court proceeds to exercise its discretion keeping in view the observations made herein above then in that event the complainant or the informant will not stand to prejudice as he will be investigated before any charge is proposed against him and he will have an opportunity to explain his conduct even before the concerned court. Apart from this, in the event the complainant or the informant comes to the conclusion that his rights are being prejudiced in any way, he always has the protection of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. apart from the other remedies that are available to him under the Criminal Procedure Code. It is for this reason that it is necessary to clarify that the observations made herein above are only with a view to caution the investigating agency and the Court not to abdicate their duty of investigating the conduct of such complainant who, according to their own disclosure in the F.I.R., have voluntarily and knowingly attempted to obtain gainful employment. This Court is, therefore, well within its jurisdiction to render its opinion at this juncture in respect of a possible gap in the investigating process which might be necessary in view of the disclosure made in the F.I.R. itself. The objection, therefore, taken by the learned Government Advocate may not withstand the test of scrutiny vis-a-vis the powers of this Court which are inherent under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Such powers can be invoked in case the necessity of law so requires. In my opinion, the time has come when both the investigating agencies and the subordinate Courts should be sounded and be called upon to discharge their duties which they are obliged to perform in law keeping in view the nature of the alleged offence which in todays context has gained immense proportions. In my opinion, the time has come when both the investigating agencies and the subordinate Courts should be sounded and be called upon to discharge their duties which they are obliged to perform in law keeping in view the nature of the alleged offence which in todays context has gained immense proportions. It need not be repeated that news reports are replete in such instances and scams relating to employment find their mention time and again very frequently and some of them are also found to be true. It is the duty of this Court to alert every one concerned with the administration of justice to curb any such menace. 39. Accordingly, a copy of this order may be made available to the learned Government Advocate for transmitting it to the Principal Secretary (Law) and the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, for proper observance of duties prescribed under law particularly by the investigating agencies. A copy of this order shall be dispatched by the Registrar at Lucknow to the concerned courts where the respective trials in these matters are pending to be placed on record of the said cases by the concerned Judge. It shall be open for the concerned courts to decide their respective course of action keeping in view the aforesaid observations without prejudice to the rights of the complainant or the informant. It is also clarified that the observations made herein above are only to clarify the position of law which in no way would prejudice rights or the defence, if any, of the complainant or the informant. ———