Anita Chaudhary, J.This appellant has assailed the judgment dated 19.10.2000, passed by the Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib who convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year along with a fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo imprisonment for 3 months. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 7 of the Act. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

2. The appellant was a Assistant Treasurer in the Treasury Office at Amloh. Avtar Singh, complainant wanted to sell his land for Rs. 33,000/- to his brother. The complainant contacted a deed writer who asked him to get stamp paper worth Rs. 2,000/- for executing the sale deed. The complainant went to the treasury office on 26.05.1998 and met the appellant. The complainant presented a form along with Rs. 2,000/- for purchasing non-judicial stamp papers. The appellant demanded Rs. 100/- more. The complainant wanted to know why the additional amount was being demanded, upon which the accused told him that it was for his "Chai Pani". The complainant asked him as to whether he would issue a separate receipt for Rs. 100/- on which the accused retorted that no receipt can be issued. The complainant came out of the office saying that he did not have Rs. 100/- with him. The accused kept the form and the amount of Rs. 2,000/- with him and directed the complainant to get Rs. 100/- on the next day and take the stamp papers. The complainant returned to his village where his sisters husband Avtar Singh, resident of village Dadheri had also come. The complainant disclosed about the demand of Rs. 100/- made by the treasury officer. On the following day, the complainant and his brother-in-law contacted DSP Vigilance and FIR Ex. P5 came to be registered. A trap was laid. The complainant was handed over a currency note of Rs. 100/-. The numbers of the currency note were noted and Memo Ex. P6 was prepared. The DSP gave a demonstration to the complainant to show the effects of phenolphthalein powder and demonstration memo Ex. P7 was prepared. Avtar Singh was nominated as a shadow witness who was to hear the conversation. The complainant was directed to give the signal once the money had passed over.

3. DSP Ranjit Singh who was to organize the trap went along with raiding party for Amloh. The complainant and shadow witness went inside while the other members of the party remained outside. The accused was sitting at the counter. As soon as the complainant reached him, the accused asked him if he had brought his fee. The complainant answered in the affirmative and presented the tainted currency note. The accused took the note and kept it on his table and issued the stamp papers and also obtained the signatures in the stamp paper sale register. Meantime, the shadow witness gave the appointed signal and the raiding party reached inside. The DSP introduced himself to the accused and caught the accused from the wrists. Thereafter, hands of the accused were washed in sodium carbonate solution but the colour of the water did not change. Then again the hands of the accused were washed in the solution one after the other and the colour turned slightly pink. The accused then picked up the currency note of Rs. 100/- from the table and handed it over to the DSP. The numbers of the currency notes were matched and the same tallied. The currency note was taken into possession vide memo Ex. P9. All the memos which were prepared, were attested by the complainant and the shadow witness.

4. Sanction for the prosecution was taken and report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was presented. The Special Judge, finding a prima-facie case, framed the charges against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses in support of its case. Constable Karamjit Singh-PW1 tendered affidavit Ex. P1. Sohan Singh, Treasury Officer-PW2 proved documents Ex. P2 to P4. Complainant Avtar Singh appeared as PW3 and reiterated his version as mentioned in the complaint. PW4-Avtar Singh, shadow witness also supported the prosecution story. Remaining witnesses proved documents in their evidence.

6. The accused in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. abjured the trial and stated that he was innocent, he denied that he had demanded or accepted any bribe. He also denied the recovery of any tainted amount from him. He gave his own version and stated that there was a litigation between Harvinder Kaur and Rajinder Pal Singh and he was close to Harbans Singh Bhangu, father of Harvinder Kaur and was assisting him in the litigation while Avtar Singh had purchased a property from Rajinder Pal through the collusive decree despite a stay order and Avtar Singh wanted possession of the land which Harvinder Kaur was objecting. He stated that the complainant had not come to him on 26.05.1998 and he only came on 27.05.1998. He deposed that when the amount for purchase of the stamps was handed over, he found that there was one note in excess and he returned the same to the complainant and made the entry in the register and when he placed the register for signatures before the complainant, the complainant placed the currency note on the table and the complainant started to sign the entry and at that moment, the police came in and DSP lifted the note from the table. He stated that the incharge of the security guard was present at that time and he had seen the DSP lifting the note from the table. He stated that the local Stamp Vendors, Deed Writers and Members of the Bar had reached at the spot and he had told the DSP that he had been falsely implicated but the DSP did not listen.

7. In defence, the accused had examined Chhinder Pal Kaur-DW1 who brought the register from the office of the Sub Registrar to prove that the sale deed was executed by Rajinder Pal on 02.07.1998 and proved its copy Ex. D1. Jai Krishan, APRO-DW2 brought the summoned record and proved copies of the newspaper cutting Ex. D2 & D3. Kehar Singh, Advocate and Notary Public-DW3 stated that he had given the information to Bhushan Kumar, Press Reporter which was published in the newspaper and he had told the report that a false case had been registered. He stated that he was also the Vice President of the Bar. Dharam Singh, Retired Head Constable-DW4 incharge of the security guard posted at the treasury stated that he was present near Swaran Singh and 4-5 persons were standing in a queue to purchase the stamp papers and Avtar Singh was standing in the queue to purchase stamp papers and Avtar Singh gave a voucher and a bundle of note for purchase of stamps and Swaran Singh after counting the notes returned one note as it was in excess and the stamp papers were supplied and Swaran Singh entered the same in the register and handed back the extra note but Avtar Singh threw the note on the table and became busy in signing the register when the police arrived. He stated that no writing work was done on the spot and they took the accused away. Sushil Kumar, Stamp Vendor-DW5 proved the resolution Ex. D4 signed by all the stamp vendors. Takhwinder Singh, Document Writer-DW6 proved his signatures on the resolution Ex. D5. Harbans Singh Bhangu, Retired BDPO-DW7 came in support of the version given by the accused in the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

8. Documents Ex. D11 and Mark-D12 were tendered in evidence.

9. After considering the evidence and the material on record, the Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib convicted and sentenced the appellant which has already been noticed above and is assailed in this appeal.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant had contended that in a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond shadow of any reasonable doubt and the principles of introducing a shadow witness is to have a independent person who is not interested witness. It was urged that the shadow witness and the complainant are related to each other and that casts serious doubt to the veracity of the prosecution case and the PW4 Avtar Singh is not a partisan witness. It was urged that it was too providential to believe that the brother-in-law of the complainant would be present at his house on the day the demand was made. It was urged that it was difficult to accept that a person would purchase stamp paper for execution of a sale deed without their being an agreement to sell nor the complainant had obtained the copies of the Jamabandi which normally are applied before hand. It was urged that accused has spelled out the motive in his defence which gets support from the defence witnesses and the possibility of false case cannot be ruled out and the Court has to examine whether the defence is more probable. It was urged that the government had come out with a scheme of rewarding Rs. 25,000/- to trap corrupt officials and may be the temptation of Rs. 25,000/- may have impelled the complainant to get a trap laid. It was urged that the complainant handed an extra hundred rupee note alongwith the amount and there were witnesses who have vouched that the accused had returned the money and it was lying on the table from where the DSP had picked it up. It was urged that any one can trap government official in the manner in which the sequence of events have taken place and such traps can be manipulated. It was urged that the entire formalities were not carried out on the spot. It was urged that in a trap case, the trap witnesses are introduced witnesses who are concerned with the success of the trap and qualitatively their testimony is inferior to that of an ordinary interested witness and the evidence has to be worthy of credence. Reliance was placed upon Amrik Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2005(4 RCR(Criminal) 310, Harnek Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 403 and Khilli Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan,

11. In response, the State counsel appearing for the State of Punjab had submitted that the prosecution had proved its case in all material aspects and the case against the appellant stands fully established. Therefore, there is no reason to set aside or interfere with the order of conviction.

12. It is settled that in a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the cases under the Corruption Act, the Court has to be more careful as the trap witnesses are interested witnesses who are always interested in the success of the trap.

13. The Honble Apex Court in Satpal Vs. Delhi Administration, 1976 SCC (Cri.) 160 [LQ/SC/1975/379] had held that trap witnesses are interested witnesses concerned with the success of the trap and qualitatively their testimony is inferior to that on an ordinary interested witness. Besides, it was observed that corroboration of such interested witness from independent source is essential where witnesses have poor moral fibre with bad antecedents and have motive to remove the accused from their way. Corroboration of another trap witness, who was a police official was held not to be sufficient.

14. In The State of Bihar Vs. Basawan Singh, the Honble Apex Court had held that the correct rule is this: if any of the witnesses are accomplices who are praticeps criminis in respect of the actual crime charges, their evidence must be treated as the evidence of accomplices is treated; if they are not accomplices but are partisan or interested witnesses, who are concerned in the success of the trap, their evidence must be tested in the same way as other interested evidence is tested by the application of diverse considerations which must vary from case to case, and in a proper case, the Court may even look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person. If a Magistrate puts himself in the position of a partisan or interested witness, he cannot claim any higher status and must be treated as any other interested witness.

15. As already noticed above, allegations in the complaint were that Avtar Singh wanted to sell his land to his brother for Rs. 33,000/- and he met a deed writer who told him to purchase stamp papers worth Rs. 2,000/- which was required for drafting the sale deed and for that purpose, he went to meet the Assistant Registrar in his office and presented a form along with a sum of Rs. 2,000/- when the accused demanded Rs. 100/- more. The complainant did not want to pay that amount and returned home. His sisters husband, Avtar Singh, resident of another village had come to see him and the complainant disclosed about the demand and his intention not to pay. The next morning, they contacted the vigilance office and a trap was laid. The question is whether the statement of the complainant and the shadow witness regarding the demand and recovery can be accepted where the shadow witness is a family member of the complainant. A family member who does not reside with the complainant and had no reason to be present in the house of the complainant that evening. The shadow witness lives in another village. There are some more circumstances which cause a doubt on the prosecution case and are required to be noticed.

16. The case of the complainant is that he was to sell his land to his brother for which he needed the stamp papers. The question would be whether a person would sell land to his own brother by way of a registered sale deed and to top it all, the complainant by then had not obtained the copy of the Jamabandis. The complainant had mentioned in his complaint that he needed money for construction of his house and therefore, he had made an agreement to sell 2 1/2 Kanals of land out of 5 Killas of land to his brother for a sale consideration of Rs. 30,000/-. No agreement to sell was placed on record. The complainant disclosed in his statement in the Court that no writing had taken place nor any agreement had been entered into but explained that it was executed later on. He had stated that till his statement in the Court no sale deed had been executed. All this assumes significance. There are some other circumstances which create a doubt which may now be noticed. According to the complainant, he did not know the accused and he found his name only on that date but he left the money with him and returned home saying that he would come back the next day. No person in normal circumstances would leave the money with a stranger without taking a receipt. It is also found from the application Ex. P-12 that there is a cutting on the date for which there is no explanation. There is over-writing on the date.

17. There is yet another circumstance though it may not be of much consequence but assumes significance and casts a shadow upon the prosecution case. There is no explanation why the currency note which was smeared with phenolphthalein powder was not initialed. In every trap case, the trap witnesses are interested witnesses and they are concerned with the success of the trap and it has been held on numerous occasions that their testimony is inferior to that of an ordinary witness and the Courts expect corroboration from independent sources.

18. In the present case, there is no independent evidence to show that the appellant had demanded Rs. 100/- as bribe from the complainant. The shadow witness is the brother-in-law of the complainant who would naturally be interested in the success of the case and cannot be called an independent witness. His presence in the house of the complainant that evening by chance is another co-incidence. It has come in evidence that both the complainant and the shadow witness were aware of a scheme floated by the government under which a reward of Rs. 25,000/- had been announced to trap corrupt officials. It could be the temptation of reward which had impelled the complainant and the shadow witness to plan a trap.

19. The next circumstance which requires to be noticed is that there is a discrepancy in the statement of the witnesses as to the place from where the recovery of currency note was made. Some of the witnesses have stated that currency note was lying on the table but the others have stated that it was found lying under the files and the accused had taken out the same and had handed it over to the DSP. There is evidence that when the hand wash was taken, the colour of the water did not change and the hands were dipped again and thereafter, colour had changed slightly pink. The investigating officer did not offer himself for personal search. In this context, a Division Bench of this Court in State of Haryana Vs. Sudesh Kamal, 1991(2) RCR 641, had found the prosecution version about the payment of Rs. 100/- by the complainant therein to the accused or the acceptance of such illegal gratification by the accused to be not free from doubt as apart from other circumstances it had come in the evidence that the person who allegedly conducted the personal search of the accused was not searched at all before he conducted the search of the accused.

20. For the fore going reasons, it is evident that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, in my view, the learned Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib erred in recording the finding of guilt against the appellant. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. The fine paid will be refunded. Lower Court record be sent back.