JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.2.1994, passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bilaspur in Special Case No.3/87, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Section 161 of the IPC and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (henceforth 'the Act of 1947') and sentenced him to undergo S.1. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 2 ½ months on each count. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The judgment of the trial Court is challenged on the ground that without there being any proof of motive or reward of acceptance or recovery of alleged illegal gratification, the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant under those sections. 3. It is not disputed that on the date of incident i.e. on 11.12.1984, the accused/appellant was posted as Sub Inspector at Belgahna Police Chouki under Police Station- Kota, District Bilaspur. 4. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that one Janakram Porte, lodged a report on 9.11.1984 at Police Chouki, Belgahna against the complainant Chaturi Singh (PW-12) and other 5 accused. The matter was investigated by a Head Constable. According to the complainant, one Constable Sheetaldas Manikpuri came and told him that if he wants to close that case, he has to pay Rs.1200/-. The complainant and 4 other accomplices namely Ramlal, Rambali, Kalanath and Bidhansingh collected money and gave Rs.1200/- to Mukund Singh who in turn had paid the said amount to' Constable Manikram. Thereafter, on 07.12.1984 Sub Inspector-appellant came to village and called complainant and five other persons and informed them to pay Rs.12001for closing that case. As the complainant Chaturi Singh did not want to give illegal gratification, therefore, they wrote a complaint Ex.P/3 and went to Office of Special Police Establishment and submitted the complaint. On this, Janardhan Singh Thakur, Dy. Collector and J.P. Sinha, Naib Tehsildar were called and they were introduced to the complainant who give them Rs.1200/-. Number of currency notes was written in Panchnama. The currency notes in sum of Rs.1200/- were layered with phenolphthalein powder. Necessary chemical test of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate was demonstrated and preliminary panchnama was prepared and after that trap was arranged. Number of currency notes was written in Panchnama. The currency notes in sum of Rs.1200/- were layered with phenolphthalein powder. Necessary chemical test of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate was demonstrated and preliminary panchnama was prepared and after that trap was arranged. The layered currency notes were given to the complainant and he was directed that money should be given to the appellant only on demand and after giving that money he shall give signal to the trap party. The complainant accompanied by trap party went to Belgahana and then complainant with one Rarnlal was sent to give money. The complainant went inside the house of the appellant and signalled after coming out and spending 10 minutes inside. Thereafter, immediately the trap party rushed. Seeing the trap party, the appellant shut the door from inside and after making many efforts, the door was not opened by the appellant. The complainant stated that after taking money, the appellant put that money in a bag and went inside the house and shut the door. After few minutes, the appellant came out wearing with fungi, baniyan and shawl and told that he came from tour. When he was asked about Rs.1200/- he denied and told that he had not taken any money. Despite search being effected, no cunency notes were made available. Then colour less solution of Sodium Carbonate was prepared and hands of the accused were put in the solution, which became pink. It was sealed and seizure was made. The black bag was also recovered from the table of the appellant and in that bag also search was made, but money was not found in that bag also. Then the papers which were kept inside the bag and the bag were dipped in the next prepared solution of Sodium Carbonate, which became pink, which was also seized. On being asked, the appellant told that he had not taken any money from the complainant. Despite all efforts being made, the trap party could neither recover the phenolphthalein powdered cunency notes from the possession of the appellant nor from the house of the appellant. Thereafter, Istagasa was prepared and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded and necessary seizures were made. The seized articles were sent for its chemical examination. Dehati Nalishi was prepared and after reaching Police Station, F.I.R. was lodged and investigation commenced. 5. Thereafter, Istagasa was prepared and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded and necessary seizures were made. The seized articles were sent for its chemical examination. Dehati Nalishi was prepared and after reaching Police Station, F.I.R. was lodged and investigation commenced. 5. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. On 31.8.87, when the Special Judge was posted by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, the case was made over to that Court. 6. The learned Special Judge, framed charge under Section 161 of the IPC and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section (5)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against the accused/appellant and read over and explained it to him. The accused/appellant abjured the guilt and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 7. The learned Special Judge has, after evaluation of the evidence available on record and hearing the counsel for respective parties, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as above. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the trial Court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification and there is no proof of seizure of money, therefore, no case is made against the appellant and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. He also argued that evidence of Chaturi Singh was not corroborated by any other evidence of members of the trap party and independent witnesses. Therefore, the testimony of members of the trap party should not be relied on. In that regard, he placed reliance on Som Prakash Vs. State of Punjab-1, Ayyasami VS. State of Tamil Nadu-2, A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala-3, and State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede-4. 1. 1992 Cri.L.J.490 2. 1992 Cri.L.J. 608 3. 2009 AIR SCW 3994 4. 2009 AIR SCW 5411 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and argued that the evidence of trap officers can be relied on even without corroboration. In this case the evidence of trap officers is corroborated by the Complainant Chaturi Singh and that no animosity was shown by the appellant after being nabbed by the trap party. Reliance in the matter of State of U.P Vs. Zakaullah-5 and State of Gujarat Vs. Raghunath Vamanrao Baxi-6. 5. In this case the evidence of trap officers is corroborated by the Complainant Chaturi Singh and that no animosity was shown by the appellant after being nabbed by the trap party. Reliance in the matter of State of U.P Vs. Zakaullah-5 and State of Gujarat Vs. Raghunath Vamanrao Baxi-6. 5. AIR 1998 SC 1474 6. AIR 1985 SC 1092 11. It is not disputed that at the rime of incident the appellant - Jagatnarayan was posted as Sub Inspector in Belgahna Police Station and he was a Government servant and lawful permission was taken for his prosecution. It is also not disputed that a case was registered against the complainant and 5 others on the report of Janakrarn Porte. 12. Ex.P.3 is the report written by Madanlal Tiwari P.W.3 on the instructions of Chaturi Singh P. W. 12 and that report was given to Commissioner who called M.K. Hiradhar, D.S.P. (Vigilance) P.W.13 and D.L. Markam, D.S.P. (Vigilance) and Inspector Gond and asked them to make arrangements for trap party. Trap party consisting of M.K. Hiradhar P.W.13, J.P. Sinha P.W.9, Kalanath P.W.8, Laxmi Prasad Pandey P.W.7, Brij Bihari Mishra P.W.5, Shivji Singh P.W.2, D.L Markam (now died) and Janardhan Singh Thakur (Deputy Collector) was arranged. According to the evidence of M.K. Hiradhar P.W.13, Chaturi Singh P.W.12, J.P. Sinha P.W.9, Brijbihari Mishra P.W.5 and Shivji Singh P.W.2, it is c1earthat receiving report from Chaturi Singh, amount ofRs.1200/- in denomination of Rs.100/- each was taken from Chaturi Singh and those currency notes were layered with Phenolphthalein powder and colour less solution of sodium carbonate and reaction of Phenolphthalein was demonstrated and that solutions were seized. Number of currency notes was written in preliminary panchnama and the complainant Chaturi Singh was instructed to give those notes on demand to the appellant while putting those notes in his pocket and thereafter the trap party arrived at Belgahna. All the above facts were proved by the above witnesses. 13. It is evident from the testimony of Chaturi Singh P.W. 12 that one case was registered by the appellant on the report of Janakram Porte against him. Bidhansingh, Ramsingh, Kalanath and Aran Singh and for that one Constable Sheetaldas Manikpuri has asked them an amount ofRs.1200/- to close the case against them and that amount was given to him. 13. It is evident from the testimony of Chaturi Singh P.W. 12 that one case was registered by the appellant on the report of Janakram Porte against him. Bidhansingh, Ramsingh, Kalanath and Aran Singh and for that one Constable Sheetaldas Manikpuri has asked them an amount ofRs.1200/- to close the case against them and that amount was given to him. Thereafter, the appellant came to their village and again asked a sum ofRs.1200/- from Chatun Singh to close the case. For that, they gathered and collected money but they do not want that sum to the appellant. This fact is also proved by Kalanath P. W.8, Mukund Singh P. W.6 and Madanlal Tiwari P. W.2 who wrote the complaint. 14. The fact that when the members of trap party reached Belgahna took their position to nab the appellant and for that complainant Chaturi Singh was sent to the appellant to offer that money is also corroborated by the testimony of Shivji Singh P. W.2, J.P. Sinha P. W. 9, Chaturi Singh P.W. 12 and M.K. Hiradhar P.W. 13. 15. It is also evident from the testimony of Chaturi Singh P. W. 12 that as soon as he reached police chouki at that time the appellant was found in police chouki and the appellant demanded money from the complainant upon which he gave those currency notes kept in his pocket and signalled the trap party. The trap party rushed towards police chouki and after seeing the trap party the accused appellant immediately entered inside the house and bolted the door from inside and did not open the door for some time despite efforts being made by the trap party. It is also evident from paragraph 5 of his testimony that the complainant alone himself went to the appellant and gave those Phenolphthalein powder layered currency notes. 16. After few minutes thereafter, the appellant came to police chouki wearing fungi, baniyan and shawl. The trap party asked him about the money given by the complainant whereupon he denied. The door of the house was later on opened and trap party entered the inside and searched and the money was not found anywhere. Thereafter, the hands of the accused appellant were dipped in colour less Sodium Carbonate which became pink. The trap party also found one black bag containing some papers. The door of the house was later on opened and trap party entered the inside and searched and the money was not found anywhere. Thereafter, the hands of the accused appellant were dipped in colour less Sodium Carbonate which became pink. The trap party also found one black bag containing some papers. All the above facts revealed that the testimony of J.P. Sinha P.W.9 and M.K. Hiradhar P.W.13, who were the members of the trap party, is supported by the testimony of complainant Chaturi Singh P.W.12 and the demonstration of chemical procedure. 17. It is also evident from the testimony of Chaturi Singh that one black bag was found on the table and after taking illegal gratification, those currency notes were put amongst papers in black bag, which was seized vide Ex.P.9, and that bag and papers therein were also dipped in colour less Sodium Carbonate solution which also became pink and this fact is corroborated by M. K.Hiradhar P.W.13 and J.P. Sinha P.W.9. 18. M.K. Hiradhar P. W.13 also stated that Chaturi Singh told him that the appellant took money and put it in black bag and after giving money he gave signal and as soon they (trap party) reached, the appellant bolted the door from inside. 19. Thus, it is clear from the testimony of Chaturi Singh P.W.12, M.K. Hiradhar P.W.13 and J.P. Sinha P.W.9 that complainant Chaturi Singh P.W.12 gave bribe money to the appellant, which he put in black bag and after seeing the trap party he bolted the door instantly from inside. It is also evident from these witnesses that after few minutes he came out wearing lungi, baniyan and shawl and told that he just came from tour. After that the room was searched and bribe money was not found anywhere. The hands of the appellant and black bag and also papers therein were dipped in the colour less solution of Sodium Carbonate which turned pink. All these facts are proved by other witnesses also. 20. It is also clear from the evidence of Chaturi Singh P. W.12, Bhukhan Das P. W.4, Mukund Singh P.W.6 and Kalanath P. W.8 that one case was registered against them by one Janakram Porte and in order to close the case against these persons the appellant demanded illegal gratification. 21. All these facts are proved by other witnesses also. 20. It is also clear from the evidence of Chaturi Singh P. W.12, Bhukhan Das P. W.4, Mukund Singh P.W.6 and Kalanath P. W.8 that one case was registered against them by one Janakram Porte and in order to close the case against these persons the appellant demanded illegal gratification. 21. It is also emerged from the testimony of Madanlal Tiwari P. W.3 that he wrote the complaint on the instructions of Chaturi Singh. So far as the money demanded by the appellant and given by the Chaturi Singh is concerned, it is evident from the statement of Chaturi Singh P.W.12 that as soon as he entered the room, the appellant demanded money which was given by the complainant and thereafter gave signal to the trap party. According to Chaturi Singh, the appellant after taking that money put it in black bag, which fact is also corroborated by M.K. Hiradhar P.W. 13 and J.P. Sinha P.W.9 that the black bag was seized and chemical test was done and in chemical solution the bag and papers therein became pink thereby meaning that the appellant demanded money and that money was given by the complainant Chaturi Singh P.W.12. 22. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that no Currency notes were recovered from the appellant nor in his house nor at least in black bag, and therefore, he is entitled to release is unacceptable. No doubt money was not recovered from the appellant nor in his house and in black bag but after considering the entire evidence, the circumstances that as soon as the currency notes ofRs.12001- (hundred rupees denomination each) were handed over to the appellant and the bribe-giver also saw that those Currency notes were kept in black bag would show that the appellant accepted the bribe and put the same in that bag. After handing over that money the complainant came out and signalled the trap party and after receiving the signal the trap party immediately rushed to the spot and after seeing the trap party the appellant bolted the door from inside would also show the conduct of the appellant that no doubt he demanded and thereafter accepted the bribe money from the complainant. These facts are also proved by the witnesses i.e. M.K. Hiradhar and J.P. Sinha. These facts are also proved by the witnesses i.e. M.K. Hiradhar and J.P. Sinha. More over, no explanation was forthcoming from the appellant that why he bolted the door from inside. 23. In his statement under Section 113 Cr.P.C. upon a question being asked about the black bag, he admitted that black bag and papers therein, which was seized vide Ex.P.9, belonged to him and did not deny that bag and papers therein belonged to him. Thus, it can be safely inferred that the appellant has accepted bribe money. It is also pertinent to mention here that after seizure, when the bag and papers kept in it after dipped into colour less solution of Sodium Carbonate then it became pink, has not been stated anything about this. It is also to be noted that when the appellant after spending few minutes came out told the trap party that he just came from tour but no Roznamchasanha was produced in which it is mentioned that he is on tour and the place he has gone. The above circumstance goes against the appellant. A person can make a false statement but the circumstances cannot speak lie. Thus, the above circumstance proved the guilt of the accused. 24. In State of U.P Vs. Zakaullah-5 (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the evidence of trap officers could be relied on even without corroboration. In State of Gujrat Vs. Raghunath Vamanrao Baxz-6 (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that in criminal cases evidence of witnesses especially Government Servants and police officials cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that they are Government Servants who, in due course of their duties or even otherwise, might have come into contact with investigating officers and who might have been requested to assist the investigating agencies. In the present case also, the prosecution has successfully led the evidence of trap officers like M.K. Hiradhar, J.P. Sinha and that of complainant Chaturi Singh and proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable on facts and circumstances of the present case and does not help the appellant. 25. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable on facts and circumstances of the present case and does not help the appellant. 25. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence led by the prosecution in its entirety, I am of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has not erred in believing the evidence of witnesses produced by the prosecution and thus rightly convicted the appellant under Section 161 of the IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947 and awarded sentence thereof. 26. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.