R.P. Dholaria, J.

1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 28.7.2004 rendered by learned Special Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Surat in Special Case No. 13 of 1992.

2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant - Police Inspector received information that police personnel of traffic branch of Surat city, local police and the employees of octroi department of Municipal Corporation are collecting the amount illegal in the name of entry fee and on the basis of the same, he arranged for the trap wherein the appellant accused caught red handed along with the tainted currency notes. Therefore, the complainant lodged the complaint against the appellant accused.

3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the appellant accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

3.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined witnesses and also produced documentary evidences.

3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court.

5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of conviction. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction is required to be reversed, as such.

6. Mr. Shakeel Qureshi, learned advocate for the appellant - original accused has argued that out of the three witnesses who alleged to have viewed the incident, two independent witnesses have turned hostile i.e. decoy punter and the cleaner and only the shadow panch has supported the case of the prosecution to some extent and since this is a decoy trap, the complaint was lodged by Mr. R.C. Rana, Police Inspector after seeking information from the punter, shadow witness as well as cleaner who accompanied at the time of running trap. He submitted that the said Police Inspector Mr. R.C. Rana had received secret information as regards to collection of illegal gratification by the traffic police officials and thereafter, he himself has arranged for the trap, carried out the trap and investigation and he himself lodged the complaint before himself and also filed the charge sheet. He, therefore, submitted that Police Inspector Mr. R.C. Rana has assumed all the roles and therefore entire investigation is tainted and relying upon such investigation, no conviction can be recorded as such. He submitted that PW 2 - Govindbhai Bhikhabhai Patel - punter and PW 3 - Vasantbhai Manjibhai Chaudhary - cleaner who were eye witnesses to the incident and who were independent witnesses were requisitioned by the trapping party had not supported the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile and therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to establish demand and acceptance. He submitted that another police official who was also being seated in the vehicle at the time of trap has not been examined and hence, learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the conviction which is required to be set aside. In support of his submissions, Mr. Qureshi has relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1976 SC 985 (Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan) and 1998 (1) GLH 924 (Kanubhai Kantibhai Patel v. S