Sharma, J - (1.) THIS is an appeal by Kishan Dayal against his conviction by the learned Session Judge (Special Judge) Kotah u/s 161, IPC. He has been sentenced to one year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- and indefault to further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.
(2.) THE prosecution story is that the accused was a Head Constable in-charge of police station Khatoli in Dec, 1954. On or about 18th December, 1954 he sent Noor Mohd. constable to call Nandlal Mahajan of village Bagli to the said police station. Nandlal did not accompany Noor Mohd. to Khatoli at that time but promised to go to Khatoli on the next market-day which was to fall on the next Tuesday, that is, 23rd December, 1954. On 23rd December, 1954 Nandlal went to police station Khatoli in the company of Motilal Patel of Bagli, (hereinafter to be referred to as Patel ). THE accused was found there. He told Nandlal that he had abducted a Brahman woman of Bagli whose name was Lakhi. Nandlal denied the allegation. THE accused however persisted and a demanded a sum of Rs. ]50/- for hushing up the matter. Nandlal had to agree and promise to the amount on the next market day. On coming back from Khatoli Nandlal went to one Bhuramal a congress man, of village Gothra and told him all that had happened between him and the accused. THEreafter some time about the 28th December, 1951 Nandlal with Bhuramal went to Swaimadhopur taking six notes of the total value of Rs. 150/- along with him. Of these notes one was of the value of Rs. 100/- and five of the value of Rs. 10/-each. Leaving Nandlal at Sawaimadhopur. Bhuramal proceeded to Jaipur and contacted Sri Lalit Narain. S. P. , Anti Corruption Department and told him all that had passed between the accused and Nandlal, Sri Lalit Narain issued an order Ex. P. 5, dated ;28th December, 1954 to Sri Motilal, Dy. S. P. Anti Corruption Department directing him to go to the spot and do the needful. Moti Lal Dy. S. P. (hereinafter to be referred to as the Dy. S. P.) then left for Sawaimadhopur in the company of Bhuramal and some of the members of his staff with the order Ex. P. 5. At Sawaimadhopur the Dy. S. P. met Nandlal who put up a report before him which is dated 29th December, 1954 and is Ex. P. 3 on the record and handed over the hundred rupee note to him. It is Art. 1 on the record. THE Dy. S. P took that note to Sri Shishram, S. P. , Sawaimadhopur and got it initialled by him and kept it with his ownself. Nandlal returned on foot to his village Bagli and the Dy. S. P. with Bhuramal and his staff and the note Art. 1 proceeded in a car to Khatoli. Nandlal in the company of the Patel also reached Khatoli and met the Dy. S. P. and his party on 30th December, 1954. THE Dy. S. P. handed over the signed currency note Art. 1 to Nandlal after preparing the memo Ex. P. 2 for the purpose of handing it over to the accused. Nandlal was told that after the note had been delivered, he should make a signal so that the police party might know that the note had been delivered to the accused. Nandlal in the company of Patel then went to deliver that note to the accused who was found in the company of the Circle Inspector concerned. THE note could not therefore be delivered to the accused at that time and Nand Lal along with Patel returned to the Dy S. P. and told him that no opportunity could be found to deliver the note to the accused and that he would go again in the evening to nana it over to the accused. Ac about dusk time Nandlal with Patel went to Noor Mohd. constable and asked him to take him to the accused. Noor Mohd. told Nandlal that that was not the proper time to see the accused, and asked Nandlal to see him next morning, as the Circle Inspector was to leave in the night. Nandlal and the police party had to stay at Khatoli in the night. Next morning, that is, on 3st December, 1954 when Nandlal was sitting at a temple known as Mdtaji-ka-temple, the accused and Noor Mohd. were brought by Patel to that place Nandlal thereupon handed over the note Art. 1 to the accused. THE accused asked him why he was paying Rs. 100/- only and not the agreed sum of Rs. 150/- whereupon Nandlal replied that he was able only to procure that amount. THE accused put that note Art. 1 in the upper front pocket of his khaki coat which he was wearing at that time and asked Nandlal to go away. In the meanwhile on a signal made by Patel the police party came up to the accused and asked him to deliver the hundred rupee note Art. 1 which he had taken from Nandlal. THE accused at first tried to put off but on the insistence of the police party he had to take out and hand over the note to the Dy. S. P. A recovery memo was prepared and it is Ex. P. 4 on the record. THE recovery was made in the presence of Gopilal Brahman and Chagganlal Maha-jan who were procured by the police party to witness the search. THEy attested the recovery memo Ex. P. 4. THE accused was arrested and sanction u/s 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was obtained from the D. I. G. P. , Udaipur Range to prosecute the accused. THEreafter the accused was prosecuted u/s 161, IPC in the court of the learned Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Kotah. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses. Nandlal P. W. 4 is the complainant himself. P. W. 1 is Shri Sultan Singh D I. G. P, who had sanctioned the prosecution of the accused. Akbar Khan P. W. 2 and Chagganlal P. W. 3 are the witnesses of the delivery of the note Art. 1 by the Dy. S. P. to Nandlal on 30th December, 1934 at Khatoli. Gopilal P. W. 6 and Chagganlal P. W. 7 are the witnesses of the recovery of note Art. I from the pocket of the accused and are also the attesting witnesses of the recovery memo Ex. P. W. 4 Motilal P. W. 5 is the witness of the alleged demand of illegal gratification by the accused from Nandlal and also about the recovery of the note Art. 1 by the police party from the pocket of the accused. Bhuramal P. W. 8 is the Congressman of Gothra who obtained the order Ex. P. 5 from Shri Lalitnarain and went in the company of the Dy. S. P. first to Sawaimadhopur and then to Khatoli and is also the witness of the recovery of the note Art. 1 from the pocket of the accused. P. W. 9 is Sri Shishram Sharma, the then S. P. of Sawaimadhopur who initialled the note Art. 1. P. W. 10 is Shri Lalit Narain, S. P. Anti Corruption Department who issued order Ex. P. 5 to the Dy. S. P. to go to the spot and do the needful and to lay a trap. P. W. 11 is the last witness and he is Shri Motilal Dy. S. P. The accused denied the charge and pleaded that the case had been falsely brought against him through the instigation of Shri Bhuramal who was a relation of Seth Meghjiwala of Khatoli who had enmity with the accused. He examined two defence witnesses, one of them was Noor Mohd. constable and the other was Subabkhan Head Constable, Police Station, Khatoli, who proved certain reports in the diary of the said police station. Learned Sessions Judge took P. W. 4 Nandlal and P. W. 5 Motilal Patel to be accomplices and P. W. 6 Gopilal, P. W. 8 Bhuramal and P. W. 11 Motilal Dy. S. P. to be partisan witness and held that Chagganlal P. W. 7 was an altogether disinterested witness. It appears from his judgment that in his view the evidence of Nandlal, Patel, Gopilal, Bhuramal and Dy. S. P. would not have been sufficient without independent corroboration but he held that their evidence being corroborated by the evidence of the independent witness Chagganlal, it was sufficient to bring the guilt home to the accused. He consequently convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned in the opening part of this judgment. The accused has come in appeal. I have heard Sri V. P. Tyagi on behalf of the appellant who has very ably argued the case and Sri G. B. Bhargava, Deputy Government Advocate who has with equal ability placed his argument on behalf of the prosecution. Sri Tyagi argued that the learned trial court itself has not considered the evidence of Nandlal, Bhuramal, Patel, Gopilal and the Dy S. P. to be sufficient for conviction of the accused. There was no documentary evidence to show that any report had been made against Nandlal regarding the alleged abduction of Mst. Lakhi. For that there was the oral evidence of Nandlal and Patel only who have been held to be accomplices by the learned trial court itself. There was no satisfactory evidence on the record that there was any complaint against Nandlal about the abduction of Lakhi. There was therefore no foundation for the demand of any bribe by the accused. It was argued that there was discrepancy between the statements of Nandlal and Patel regarding the demand of illegal gratification by the accused. Nandlal has said that the matter was settled between Patel and the accused and that Patel told him what amount had been agreed to for hushing up the matter, whereas Patel has stated that the talk about the demand was directly between the accused and Nandlal, It was argued that it has been proved that there was some ground for grievance against the accused to the Maghjiwala Seths of Khatoli who were related to Bhuramal and that the whole eases had been manufactured through the machination of Bhuramal. It was argued that the learned Sessions Judge has relied mainly on the evidence of Chhaganlal P. W. 7, but the said witness too was not an altogether disinterested witness. According to his evidence he was summoned by the police party at about 5 a. m. on the date of the occurrence to Gopilal's place and that he went there and from that time right upto the alleged recovery of the note Art. i he was in the company of the police party. He was therefore also an interested witness. Reliance was placed upon the rulings of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Shivbahadur Singh vs. State of Vindhya Pradesh (1) in order to show that witnesses like the witnesses in this case including Chhaganlal P. W. 7 Were no more than partisan witness and therefore on their evidence conviction was unjustified. Learned counsel also cited the following rulings 1 - In re M. S. Mohiddin (2), Bijailal vs. The State (3 ). Learned counsel also emphasised the point that Patel Stated that after the note had been taken out from the pocket of the accused it fell down on the ground, but this is denied by other witnesses. The evidence about the recovery of note was therefore discrepant and should not have been believed. On behalf of the State it was argued by Sri Bhargava that none of the prosecution witnesses can be taken to be an accomplice. The demand for illegal gratification came from the accused and it was under pressure that Nandlal consented to pay him the sum of Rs. 150/ -. From the subsequent conduct of Nandlal it is quite clear that he was not a willing party to pay the bribe and had only to promise to pay it so that he might not be illegally detained. As soon as he was free, he sought the assistance of Bhuramal to bring the accused to took. He cannot therefore be said to be an accomplice. Patel also cannot be said to be accomplice because he simply stood as a surety for Nandlal to get his release for the time being. It was argued that at best all that can be said so far as Nandlal is concerned is that he was a partisan witness. It was argued that the view of the learned Sessions Judge that Gopilal was a partisan witness was not correct. Gopilal had no interest in the success or failure of the trap laid out against the accused. He was simply asked to witness the payment of illegal gratification to the accused and the recovery of the amount which might be paid to the accused. The mere fact that he was present at the time the currency note Art. 1 was given by the Dy. S. P. to Nandlal would not turn this witness into a partisan witness. It was argued that in the most important part of this case, that is the delivery of the currency note Art. I to the accused and its recovery from him, the evidence of other witnesses, who might be taken to be partisan witnesses, was corroborated by the evidence of the independent witnesses Gopilal P. W. 6 and Chhaganlal P. W. 7. The evidence of Nandlal and Patel that the amount was demanded on account of the alleged abduction of Lakhi is corroborated by the report Ex. P. 3 made by Nandlal to the Dy. S. P. at Sawai Madhopur. The fact of the recovery of the note from the accused also makes the evidence of Nandlal and Patel that the amount was demanded from Nandlal on account of the alleged abduction of Lakhi believable. There was therefore sufficient evidence on the record to prove that the accused had obtained the note Art. 1 as illegal gratification. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in order to show that none of the witnesses in this case could be called an accomplice and that Gopilal and Chhaganlal could not be taken as partisan witnesses by any observations of their Lordships in the said rulings. Learned counsel also cited a ruling of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramjanas Singh vs. State of Bihat (4) in order to show that a strap like the one laid in the present case could neither be considered to be an illegitimate trap nor the sort of trap which was condemned by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rao Shivbahadur Singh's case. Learned counsel also relied upon a ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ramchand Tolaram Khatri vs. The State (5) in order to show that the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Rao Shivbahadur Singh has not laid down any such principle that the witnesses like Gopilal and Chhaganlal P. Ws. 6 and 7 respectively in this case should be taken to the partisan witnesses. As regards the discrepancy pointed out between the statements of Patel and other witnesses as to what happened to the Art. 1 immediately after its being taken out of the pocket of the accused, it was argued that that was not a material discrepancy and did not affect the broad fact that Art. 1 was recovered from the pocket of the accused. As regards the discrepancy between the statements of Nandlal and Patel as to with which of them the settlement about the payment of bribe was made, it was argued that it was not a material discrepancy. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel, and have very carefully gone through the record of the case and the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both the parties. The most important ruling produced in this case is that of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rao Shivbahadur Sing's case cited above. In that case Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh, who was the then Minister of Commerce and Industries in the State of Vindhya Pradesh, demanded some illegal gratification from Nagindas Mehta who was sent to Rewa, capital of Vindhya Pradesh to represent Sir Chinubhai, who in turn represented the Panna Diamond Mining Syndicate for the extension of the lease to carry on diamond mining operations. When informed by Nagindas, Sir Chinu Bhai did not approve of the idea of giving a bribe and suggested that Nagindas should lay a trap for catching the accused. One Pannalal who was the Field Manager of the Panna Diamond Mining Syndicate, was also trying on behalf of the Syndicate in the matter of the extension of the lease. This Pannalal was informed that the accused Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh was leaving for Delhi on 4th April, 1949 and that he should go to Bombay and send Sir Chinu Bhai to Delhi to meet him there. A telegram was also sent to Sir Chinu Bhai by the accused to meet him at Delhi on 7th, 8th or 9th April, 1949 for talks regarding Panna Diamond Mining Syndicate. In response to this Sir Chinu Bhai sent a telegram replying that his Personal Assistant Nagindas and Pannalal were reaching Delhi on 9th April, 1949. Nagindas and Pannalal reached Delhi and there Nagindas contacted the I. G. P. of the Special Police Establishment on the morning of 10th April, 1949 and told him how the accused was coercing him to pay bribe. The I. G. P. referred Nagindas to one Pt. Dhanraj, Superintendent, Special Police Department and Nagindas told him the whole story and it was then decided to lay a trap for the accused. Nagindas had no money with him and was neither able to send for it from Bombay. The bribe demanded was sum of Rs. 26,000/ -. This amount was procured by the Super intended, Special Police Establishment himself and after taking down their numbers, Pt. Dhanraj in the company of Pannalal, Nagindas and Sri Shantilal Ahuja, Additional District Magistrate went to the Constitution House, Delhi where the accused was staying. Nagindas with the bundle of notes went inside the suite of rooms occupied by the accused who took him to his bed-room and after closing the door which connected the bedroom with the sitting room where Pannalal was waiting, the accused handed over the resumption order to Nagindas and Nagindas handed over the currency notes of Rs. 25,000/- to the accused. Pannalal then made a signal and the police party along with Shri Shantilal Ahuja rushed into the sitting room and asked the accused to hand over the currency notes which he has taken as a bribe from Nagindas. After some hesitation the accused was made to hand over the currency notes to Pt. Dhanraj. On inquiry by Sri Ahuja as to how he came into the possession of the said notes, the accused stated that that was the amount which had remained as a balance out of Rs. 40,000/-which he had brought from his home. In the meanwhile two respectable witnesses, Sri Gadkari and Shri Perulakar were brought to the bedroom of the accused by the police. The accused repeated the same statement and gave the same explanation before these two witnesses which he had given and made before Shri Ahuja and Pt. Dhanraj a little while before. Nagindas was searched in presence of these two witnesses and the two copies of the order, which had been given to him by the accused, were recovered from his person. The numbers of the notes were tallied with the numbers of the notes in the list prepared by the police party in the presence of Shri Gadkari and Shri Perulakar and after the seizure of certain minor things from the bed-room of the accused, he was arrested. At the trial the defence taken by the accused was a denial of the prosecution case and it was suggested that the currency notes recovered from the bed-room were some how planted there by Nagindas. Their Lordships considered the evidence of Nagindas and Pannalal to be the evidence of partisan witnesses although not of accomplices. Their Lordships observed as follows : - "it must be said however that neither Nagindas nor Pannalal nor as a matter of fact Sir Chinubhai their principal was a willing party to the giving of the bribe to the appellant No. 1 (Rao Shivbahadur Singh) and were only actuated with the motive of trapping the appellant No. 1. Their evidence therefore could not be treated as the evidence at accomplices. Their evidence was nevertheless the evidence of partisan witnesses who were out to entrap the appellant No. 1. A perusal of the evid ence of Nagindas and Sir Chinubhai leaves in the mind the impression that they were not witnesses whose evidence could be taken at its face value. " (Page 327 para 11 (2) ). Their Lordships did not consider the evidence of Pt. Dhanraj and others of the Special Police Establishment to be worthy of credit without independent corroboration in the circumstances of the case and observed as follows : "pt. Dhanraj and the Special Police Establishment were also willing tools in the hands of Nagindas. They thought that there was a great opportunity of trapping appellant No. 1 who was an important person occupying the position of the Minister of Industries in Vindya Pradesh and they did not want to miss the opportunity and there fore procured the moneys even though Nagindas was not in a position to do so. It almost appears as if they were out to oblige Nagindas and brought about a situation whereby through the instrumentality of Nagindas they got at the appellant No. 1. " (P. 328 para 12 (4) ). About the evidence of Sri Shantilal Ahuja, Additional District Magistrate also their Lordships made the following observation : - "not only was the police force requisitioned in the organising of the raid but they also enlisted the aid of Shantilal Ahuja, the Additional District Magistrate who took down the statement of Nagindas, searched his person, prepared a memorandum of the notes which were handed over to him and actually accompanied the raiding party to the Constitution House. The Additional District Magistrate was thus made a member of the raiding party itself and was reduced to the position of a witness. The evidence of the police witnesses as also of the Additional District Magistrate thus was tainted as that of partisan witnesses and no corroboration could be derived by Nagindas from the evidence of these witnesses. " (P. 328 para 12 (5) ). Thus all the four witnesses mentioned above were, according to their Lordships, partisan witnesses and their evidence required corroboration by independent evidence. In that case it was not denied that the currency notes of Rs. 25,000/- were found inside the bedroom of the accused by the police at the time of its raid. The only question to be determined was whether those notes were surreptitiously planted there or were accepted by the accused as a bribe. It was the evidence of Sri Gadkari and Sri Perulakar that the accused had claimed the currency notes of Rs. 25,000/- as his own being the balance out of the money which he had brought from his home when he came to Delhi. It also appears to have been the evidence of these witnesses that on the numbers of the notes being tallied and his explanation in that behalf being asked for by the police authorities, the accused was confused and could furnish no explanation in regard thereto. Their Lordships believed these two witnesses as perfectly independent witnesses and held that their evidence sufficiently corroborated the evidence of other witnesses whom their Lordships considered to be partisan witnesses and it was consequently found that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- was accepted by the accused as a bribe. Their Lordships observed as follows with respect to the evidence of Sri Gadkari and Sri Perulakar : - "they came on the scene after the whole affair was practically over and the stage had been reached when it was necessary to compare the numbers of the notes which had been recovered from the bedroom of the appellant No. 1 with the numbers of the notes which had been handed over to Nagin-das when the raid was being organized. It was at that stage that they figured in the transaction. Their evidence could certainly not be impeached as that of partisan witnesses. " (P. 328 last para of para 12)
(3.) THEIR Lordships condemned the action of Pt. Dhanraj in procuring the amount of Rs. 25,000/- for payment as a bribe by Nagindas to the accused. THEIR Lordships also condemned the practice of involving the Magistrates in such traps and also condemned the conduct of Shri Shantilal Ahuja in lending himself to the police for the purpose of trapping the accused. THEIR Lordships expressed their disapproval as follows - "we cannot however leave this case without expressing our strong disapproval of the part which the police authorities and Shanti Lal Ahuja, the Additional District Magistrate took in this affair. As already observed this offence would never have been committed by the appellant No. 1 but for the fact that the police authorities provided Nagindas with the wherewithal of the commission of the offence, Sir Chinubhai as it appears from the evidence was not in a position to provide Nagindas with this sum of Rs. 25,000/ - or any large sum and in fact in spite of the telephone calls made by Nagindas upon him had not provided any amount beyond Rs. 3,000/- which was meant for the other expenses of Nagindas to him. Nagindas was therefore not in a position to provide this sum of Rs. 25,000/- for payment of the bribe or the illegal gratification to the appellant No 1. But for the adven-titious aid which he got from the police authorities the matter would not nave progressed any further, and Nagindas would have left Delhi empty handed. The police authorities however once they got scent of the intention of Nagindas thought that it was too good an opportunity to miss for entrapping the appellant No. 1 who occupied the position of the Minister of Industries in the State of Vindhya Pradesh They therefore provided the sum of Rs. 25,000/-on their own and handed it over to Nagindas. The police authorities in this step which they took showed greater enthusiasm than Nagindas himself in the matter of trapping the appellant No. 1. It may be that the detection of corruption may some times call for the laying of traps, but there is no justification for the police authorities to bring about the taking of a bribe by supplying the bribe money to the giver where he has neither got it nor has the capacity to find it for himself. It is the duty of the police authorities to prevent crimes being committed. It is no part of their business to provide the instruments of the offence. We cannot too strongly disapprove of the step which the police authorities took in this case in the matter of providing the sum of Rs. 25,000/ to Nagindas who but for the police authorities thus coming to his aid would never have been able to bring the whole affair to its culmination. Not only did the police authorities thus become active parties in the matter of trapping the appellant No. 1, they also provided a handy and an ostensibly independent witness in the person of Shantilal Ahuja, the Additional District Magistrate. Even though he was a member of the judiciary he lent his services to the police authorities and became a limb of the police as it were. The part which Shantilal Ahuja , the Additional District Magistrate took in this affair cannot be too strongly condemned. " (Paras 27 and 28 at p. 334-335) Applying the test laid down for an accomplice and a partisan witdas ness in a case of bribery by their Lordships in the above case, I come to the conclusion that Nandlal P. W. 4 in this case cannot be said to be an accomplice. As observed by their Lordships in para 11 of Shiv Bahadur Singh's case, neither Nagindas nor Pannalal nor Sir Chinu Bhai was a willing party to the giving of the bribe to the accused and were only actuated with the motive of trapping he accused and so their evidence could not be treated as the evidence of accomplices. In the present case Nandlal was not a willing party to the giving of the bribe to the accused. The proposal came from the accused and it was only under the fear of being illegally detained by him that Nandlal apparently agreed to pay him the sum demanded. Soon after his release from the pressure of the. accused, Nandlal contacted Bhuramal and with his help secured the assistance of the Anti Corruption Police in trapping the accused. In Ex. P. 3 Nandlal says that he sought the assistance of the Anti Corruption Police as he had been harassed by the accused. He also said in this document that he did not want to pay bribe to the accused, but wanted to get him arrested. This clearly shows that Nandlal was a together unwilling to pay the bribe demanded by the accused, but gave his seeming consent simply to get away from the accused. So far as Patel is concerned, he was neither to give nor to take the bribe. He conveyed the demand made by the accused and offered to stand as surety when the accused would not let Nandlal go unless he was assured that the bribe demanded would be paid to him. As regards him I will discuss later on in this judgment as to whether he may be taken to be an accomplice or a partisan witness or an altogether disinterested witness. Before proceeding further it would be worthwhile to examine whether the trap laid in this case was a legitimate or illegitimate trap or if legitimate, suffered from the defects which the trap in Shivbahadur's case noted above suffered from. In this case an offence had already been born inasmuch as demand had already been made by the accused for the payment of bribe to him for hushing up the matter of the alleged abduction of Lakhi against Nandlal. It is not a case where the offence had not been born and simply because accused was suspected of accepting bribes, a trap was laid to induce him to accept bribe. The difference between a legitimate and illegitimate trap in the matter of bribery has been clearly brought out in a ruling of the Madras High Court in the case of In Re M. S. Mohiddin (2), referred to above. In that case bribe was demanded by the accused, who was a Train Movement Inspector from a Station Master to cover up any irregularities or derelictions of duties committed by the said Station Master. The Station Master instead of paying him the bribe, which the accused was alleged to call his 'mamools', approached the Special Police Establishment and handed over the notes of Rs. 30/- to be offered as bribe and got their numbers recorded by the police. The notes were delivered to the accused and he was prosecuted for an offence u/s 161, I. P. C. The trap laid in that case was held to be a legitimate trap and the following observations were made - "there are two kinds of traps 'a legitimate trap', where the offence has already been born and is in its course, and 'an illegitimate trap' where the offence has not yet been born and a temptation is ottered to see whether an offence would be committed, succumbing to it, or not. Thus, where the bribe has already been demanded from a man, and the man goes out offering to bring the money but goes to the police and the Magistrate and brings them to witness the payment, it will be 'a legitimate trap' wholly laudable and admirable and adopted in every civilized country without the least criticism by any honest man. But where a man has not demanded a bribe, and he is only suspected to be in the habit of taking bribes and he is tempted with a bribe, just to see whether he would accept it or not and to trap him, if he accept it, it will be 'an illegitimate trap' and, unless authorised by an Act of Parliament, it will be an offence on the part of the person taking part in the trap who will all be 'accomplices' whose evidence will have to be corroborated by untainted evidence to a smaller or larger extent as the case may before a conviction can be had under a rule of Court which has ripened almost into a rule of law. But, in the case of a legitimate trap, the officers taking part in the trap, like P. Ws. 9 to 11, and the witnesses to the trap, like P. W. 8 would in no sense be 'accomplices' and their evidence will not require under the law, to be corroborated as a condition precedent for conviction though the usual rule of prudence will require the evidence to be scrutinised carefully and accepted as true before a conviction can be had. " The evidence of Nandlal P. W. 4 shows that he was called from Bagli by the accused through Noor Mohd. constable and that in pursuance of that call he went to Khatoli on 23rd December, 1954 taking along with him Patel P. VV. 5. The accused threat end the witness that he had abducted Mst. Lakhi. Although the witness denied yet the accused persisted and would not let him go unless he had promised to pay Rs. 150/- as demanded by the accused and furnishing Patel as a surety for the same. The evidence of Patel P. W. 5 also shows that he had gone along with Nandlal to Khatoli on the market day and that when Nandlal reached the police station, the accused charged Nandlal with having abducted a woman. Nandlal denied and told him that he had never abducted any woman, but that the woman, the accused was referring to, had gone to Brindavan after Nandlal had reached there and he came across her only at Brindavan. Nandlal also asked the accused to make an inquiry on the spot as to with whom that woman was living, but the accused said that he would not go out for making any inquiry and that Nandlal should stay there as the accused had a right to detain him and start a case against him. Nandlal still persisted that he had not committed the act charged against him and asked the accused to show him if any report had been lodged against him. The accused however abused Nandlal and asked a constable to put him in the lock up saying that he could detain any body for 24 hours in the lock up. Thereafter the accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 150/- from Nandlal which the latter had to agree to and the witness (Patel) stood as a surety for its payment. On a careful reading of the evidence of these two witnesses, I find that although there are some slight discrepancies in their statements on this point yet as a whole their evidence in this respect bears a ring of truth. These two witnesses were described by Sri Tyagi as accomplices and the lower court has also considered them to be so, but to my mind Nandlal cannot be said to be an accomplice. Nandlal of course was certainly an interested witness, but he was not a willing party to the giving of the bribe to the accused and was only actuated with the motive of trapping the accused. Although he seemingly consented to pay the amount demanded, yet far from taking any steps to quietly pay the amount demanded he approached Bhuramal P. W. 7 and with his assistance brought this matter to the knowledge of the Anti Corruption Police and succeeded in securing the services of the Dy. S. P. for laying a trap against the accused. Applying, therefore, the test laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shiv Bahadur Singh's case referred to above, Nandlal cannot be said to be an accomplice and can be described only as partisan witness. Patel also does not appear to be an altogether willing party to the giving of the bribe to the accused. He was neither to give nor to take the bribe. He only helped Nandlal out of a difficult position by agreeing to stand as a surety for him for the payment of the bribe and thus obtained his release for the time being. However in view of the fact that the amount of bribe was settled by the accused through his instrumentality, some suspicion can be entertained against him that he was not so unwilling regarding the payment of bribe as was Nandlal. For the purposes of this case therefore I may not differ with the learned lower court and may take it that this witness was more or less in the position of an accomplice. His evidence therefore if standing alone might not have been sufficient to prove that the accused demanded bribe from Nandlal. However his evidence in this matter is corroborated by the evidence of Nandlal and is also supported by the statements made in Ex. P. 3 which is a report made fay Nandlal to the Dy. S. P. at Sawaimadhopur In this report the statement when translated into English runs as follows was made: - "this year in the month of Sawan last I had gone to Brindavan Four days after that Lakhi wife of Chatura, caste Brahmin, resident of Bagli, aged 30 years, also arrived at Brindavan having run away from her house. Hazarilal Chaturvedi of Khatoli telling me that she belonged to my village gave her in my custody and told me that I should take her to Bagli. One day after I brought her to Bagli along with other companions of mine and at Madhopur I handed her over to Ramniwas of Bagli and Gopal Brahmin of Jatwari, who had come to Sawaimadhopur in her search, as both these persons were caste fellows and relations of this wife of Chatura. Thereafter I came back to my house. That woman is still with her husband. Thereafter on 23rd December, 1954, the police station in-charge Kishendayalji Heal Constable called me. I appeared before him and he asked me to get into the lock up and told me that he had abducted Chatura's wife a few days back and abusing me as 'sola' told me that he would send me to jail. Then he called me 'lucahha' (scoundrel ). Thereafter he settled for the payment of a bribe of Rs. 150/-through my companion Patel and then he released me on the security of Patel. I have come before you at Sawaimadhopur on account of the worry which has been caused to me by the pressure of Head Sahib and I present before you a currency note of Rs. 100/- No. X/i 193504. I do not want to pay the bribe rather I want that the accused might be arrested, and appropriate proceedings might be taken. " On the above report Ex. P. 6 there is the endorsement of the Dy. S. P. that a currency note of Rs. 100/- No. X/l 193504 was presented before him by Nandlal. The evidence of the Dy. S. P. also shows that he was sent to Khatoli under orders Ex. P. 5 of Sri Lalitnarain, S. P. , Anti Corruption Department and that Nandlal had made a report to him at Sawaimadhopur which is Ex. P. 3 and that a hundred rupee note was delivered by Nandlal to him for laying a trap against the accused and that this note was kept by the witness (Dy. S. P.) for being offered to the accused. Sri Lalitnarain P. W. 10 has also stated that he issued orders Ex. P. 5 to the Dy. S. P. for doing the needful in the matter of the alleged demand of bribe by the Head Constable, police station, Khatoli from Nandlal. All this evidence coupled together leaves no room for doubt that a demand had been made by the accused for the payment of a bribe of Rs. 150/-from Nandlal for hushing up the matter of the abduction of Mst. Lakhi and that Nandlal unwillingly promised to pay the said amount simply to purchase his liberty for the time being and far from having intention to pay it in fact, he wanted to have the accused caught red-handed for his misbehaviour. I am perfectly satisfied that the offence in this case had been born and Nandlal had supplied the amount to be offered as bribe from his own pocket. ;