VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

200 DECISION - 7
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.
The Supreme Court held that the Magistrates should not be
employed by the police as witnesses of police traps. The
independence of the judiciary is a priceless treasure to be cherished
and safeguarded at all costs against predatory activities of this
character and it is of the essence that public confidence in the
independence of the judiciary should not be undermined by any such
tactics adopted by the executive authorities.
The Supreme Court held that the witnesses are not a willing
party to giving of bribe to accused but were only actuated with the
motive of trapping the accused. Their evidence cannot be treated as
the evidence of accomplices. Their evidence is nevertheless the
evidence of partisan witnesses who were out to entrap the accused.
The evidence can not be relied upon without independent
corroboration.
The Supreme Court observed that where the witnesses 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
accused with the numbers of the notes which had been handed over
to the person who gave the bribe when the raid was being organised
and it was at that stage that they figured in the transaction their
evidence could certainly not be impeached as that of partisan
witnesses.
The Supreme Court held that the circumstances 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 supported the conclusion
that the accused was guilty of the offence under sec. 161 I.P.C.