IMPORTANT POINT
A case of taking illegal gratification by a public servant is difficult to prove by laying a trap, so ordinarily the powder treatment is to be followed. However the law is settled that even the uncorroborated testimony of trap witnesses can be acted upon in case the evidence is available to support the case.

JUDGMENT

Ranganath Misra, J.-This appeal by special leave seeks to assail the conviction of the appellant under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 5(1 )(d) and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act for sbort), and a consolidated sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment. Appellants conviction by the Special Judge, has been upheld in appeal by the Rajasthan High Court.

2. Appellant at the relevant time was a Head Constable attached to the Bhusawar Police Station within the District of Bharatpur. Prosecution alleged that P.W. 2 Ram Swaroop bad given First Information Report of two offences but appropriate investigation was not being done and charge-sheet was not being furnished to the Court. He had approached Shankar Lal, Head Constable attached to the Police Station and had, on demand, paid him some money by way of bribe to expedite submission of the charge-sheet. Shankar Lal got transferred and appellant came in his place. When contacted, appellant also demanded money. P.W. 2 thereupon informed the Anti Corruption Department about the demand and Kastoori Lal, Dy. Superintendent of Police attached to the Anti Corruption Department at Jaipur agreed to lay a trap. Details were fixed up and the trap was laid on March 30, 1969. An amount of Rs. 50/. was to be passed on as the bribe. Five currency notes each of Rs. 10/-denomination with marked initials were made over to P.W. 2 to be given as bribe to the accused. For that purpose Ram Swaroop, P.W. 2, Kastoori Lal, P.W. 6, Prabhu Dayal, a literate Constable attached to the Anti Corruption Department, P.W. 1, accompanied by two Panch witnesses Girdhari, P.W. 3 and Gulji, P.W. 4 came to Bhusawar. Ram Swaroop came to the bus stand adjacent to the Police Station. Bamhi Kumbar, the waterman at the bus stand (D.W. 1) was requested by P.W. 2 to inform the accused at the Police Station that he (Ram Swaroop) had come prepared for the) pnrpose as arranged earlier and accused should come and contact him. Prosecution further alleged that the accused came pursuant to the request and the money was passed on and the payment of bribe was duly detected. In due course sanction was obtained and the case came up for trial before the Special Judge. Prosecution led evidence of 8 witnesses five as indicated above and P.W. 5, the Superintendent of Police (Intelligence), Jaipur; P.W. 7 Kedar Nath, a literate Constable attached to the Bhusawar Police Station and P.W. 8 the Superintendent of. Police, Bbaratpur, who proved sanction for the prosecution. Certain documents were also produced to support the charge. Defence examined four witnesses in support of its stand that the accused had not received any bribe and he was falsely implicated without any basis. The Special Judge accepted the prosecution case and convicted the appellant in the manner already indicated. His appeal to the High Court bas failed.

3. Ordinarily the Supreme Court does not enter into re-appreciation of evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution (See Ram Parkash Arora v. State of Punjab1). It is also true that in the case of Stare of Bihar v. Basawan Singh2, a five Judge Bench of this Court has laid down that if any of the witnesses are accomplices, their evidence is admissible in law but the Judge should indicate in his judgment that he had the rule of caution in mind-namely, the danger of convicting the accused on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice-and give reasons for considering it unnecessary to require corroboration; if. however, the witnesses are not accomplices but are merely partisan or interested witnesses, who are concerned in the success of the trap their evidence must be tested in the same way as any other interested evidence is tested, and in a proper case, the Court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person.

4. There are certain features in this case which appear to have been overlooked both by the trial Cour