VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 156
403
made. Trust begets trust and the higher officers of the Indian Police,
especially in the Special Police Establishment, deserve better
credence.
(156)
(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Secs. 7, 13(1)(d)
(B) Trap — evidence of Investigating Officer
(C) Trap — evidence, of ‘stock witnesses’
Police officials cannot be discredited in a trap case
merely because they are police officials; nor can
other witnesses be rejected because on some other
occasion they have been witnesses for the
prosecution in the past.
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab,
AIR 1974 SC 1024
The accused, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police attached
to Police Station, Raman, was prosecuted for an offence under section
5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
(corresponding to sec.13(2) read with sec. 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988)
as a result of a trap. The Special Judge convicted the accused and
sentenced him to two years R.I. and a fine of Rs.500. The High
Court confirmed the conviction and affirmed the sentence.
The Supreme Court referred to the defence contention that
police witnesses in trap cases are suspect and that persons who
have been prosecution witnesses more than once are stock witnesses
and drew attention to their decision in Som Parkash vs. State of
Delhi: AIR 1974 SC 989 where they held that Police officials cannot
be discredited in a trap case merely because they are police officials,
nor can other witnesses be rejected because on some other occasion
they have been witnesses for the prosecution in the past. The
Supreme Court observed that there is no reason to disbelieve the