residential quarter and there he received the tainted amount, kept in the handkerchief and put it in his pant pocket. Curiously, in the cross-examination by the counsel for the appellant, he deposed that the appellant did not ask any bribe and he also did not ask any bribe when he and PW.2 went to his residential quarter, he also did not accept any bribe, but they forcibly gave the amount to the appellant at the instance of his uncle Mirza Hyder Ali Baig. 11. Thus, the evidence of PW 1 suffers from serious infirmities and it consists of material inconsistencies. This court considers P.W.1 to be not a reliable witness and it is not safe to rely on any part of his testimony. PW 2, the brother of PW 1, who was examined on the same day, however, supported the prosecution version. His version is to the effect that on the date of trap at about 12.10 or 12.15 p.m, they reached the Police Station Hadnoor, P.W.1 went inside the police station and returned along with the appellant, and all of them went to the quarter where the appellant asked P.W.1 as to whether he brought the amount, then P.W.1 gave the amount to the appellant, thereafter, he came out and gave the pre-arranged signal.
