JUDGMENT :

RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

1. Prosecution’s case in connection with this appeal appears to be like this.

2. The defecto complainant, who at the relevant point of time was posted as the Commandant, 63 Battalion, of the Border Security Force, at Baishnab Nagar, in district Malda, had received a phone call from the appellant No. 1 on October 29, 2001. Said person had introduced himself and wanted to meet the defacto complainant at BSF post, Gulabganj on October 30, 2001, in the afternoon.

3. When the meeting happened on October 30, 2001, at the said place, the appellant proposed for advancing gratification in lieu of extending favours in a particular way, which according to the de facto complainant was not only unethical but illegal and antinational too. Allegedly, the appellant offered him bribe of an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-on behalf of the syndicate of smugglers, in lieu of allowing the appellant to send Indian goods and cattle to Bangladesh, through the Indo Bangladesh border, illegally. Allegedly the appellant also proposed that the de facto complainant should instruct his subordinates, that is, the officials guarding the BSF outposts at Indo Bangladesh border near Sisani Border Out Post, to illegally allow him free passage on Indian soil, to execute the said activities. Though the de facto complainant had refused such proposal of the appellant, allegedly the appellant strongly insisted the de facto complainant and informed to come to the residence of the de facto complainant at BSF campus Baishnab Nagar, at about 08 hours on November 3, 2001, to pay him the bribe.

4. After this occurrence on October 30, 2001, the de facto complainant immediately wrote his complaint dated October 31, 2001 to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, at Kolkata. Thereafter CBI, after confirming as to the genuinity of the complainant and authenticity of the complaint made by him, decided to come to Farakka to conduct a trap operation for apprehending the appellant No. 1 red-handed. Directions were issued to the de facto complainant to report to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, at Farakka on November 3, 2001 at 05.45 hours.

5. Prosecution’s further case is that, on the stipulated date a total number of eight persons including the CBI officials, officers from NTPC and the de facto complainant formed a team for trapping the appellant. Necessary formalities were done. Pre trap memorandum was prepared, the same was read over and explained to all the other persons, signatures were done and all the team members positioned themselves covertly in and around the place of occurrence, to secretly follow the entire activities. According to the prosecution, appellant being accompanied by the other accused person (now deceased), came to the spot at about 10 hours. There, the said other accused person put out from his possession an amount of Rs. 50,000/-in the denomination of Rs. 500/- and handed the same over to appellant, who had kept the said money on the table, surrounding which the appellant, the other accused person (now deceased) and the de facto complainant were sitting. At that moment all the other person’s, that is, the CBI officials and the NTPC officials showed up from their respective hidden places and the said two persons were apprehended. Seizure was made and post trap memorandum was also prepared. After complying with all the necessary formalities, the team went back with both the appellant and other accused person (now deceased), being arrested. Subsequently, prosecution against them was initiated.

6. The said two persons were tried in the Special (CBI) Court, Bichar Bhawan, at Calcutta, in Special (CBI) Case No. 43/2006, under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During pendency of the trial, the accused person Subash Singha had died. Hence the trial proceeded against t