C. P. SEN, J. ( 1 ) - The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent Ramdas Rai for the offence under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, by the Special Judge, Bhopal. ( 2 ) AT the relevant time the respondent Ramdas Rai was the ticket examiner in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in its Depot at Bhopal. The complainant Madhusudan Sharma was a Conductor in that Depot. On 18-2-1976 the bus of the complainant was checked by the respondent and 12 passengers were found traveling without tickets. The; respondent seized the relevant documents and, reported the matter against the complainant for taking necessary action by the Depot Manager. The prosecution case is that thereafter the respondent approached the complainant and asked him to pay a bribe of Rs. 100/- for dropping the proceedings and also asked him to make monthly payments so that the respondent would not check his bus in future. As the complainant had no intention to pay the bribe, he submitted a written report Ex. P-I to the Supdt. Vigilance Department. A trap was arranged on 27-4-76. It was arranged that the complainant would hand over 5 notes of Rs. 20/- each which were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and were handed over to the complainant after preparing Panchnama Ex. P-2 wherein note numbers were also noted. It was arranged that the amount would be paid by the complainant to the respondent in Barkheda bus-stop. Somehow, the amount could not be paid on that day and so another trap was arranged on 28-4-76. A Panchnama EX. P-3 was prepared. How it was arranged that the mark notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder would be handed over to the respondent at his house in Sahjanabad, Bhopal. After handing over the notes a signal has to be given to the trap party and then the respondent would be apprehended. So the complainant accompanied by Ramesh Chand Jha went inside the house of the respondent. The trap party consisted of Dy. Collector Naresh Chandra Choubey (PW 7), Inspector K. K. Shrivastava (PW 5), Inspector Pali and other persons waited outside. The complainant went inside and handed over the amount of Rs. 100/- and then came out and gave a signal. So the complainant accompanied by Ramesh Chand Jha went inside the house of the respondent. The trap party consisted of Dy. Collector Naresh Chandra Choubey (PW 7), Inspector K. K. Shrivastava (PW 5), Inspector Pali and other persons waited outside. The complainant went inside and handed over the amount of Rs. 100/- and then came out and gave a signal. The trap party rushed inside and washed the hands of the complainant and the respondent with a mixture of Sodium Carbonate in water and the mixture turned pink. The respondent had already kept the notes on Sofa-set, which are seized as per seizure memo Ex. P-21. Then a report Ex. P-23 was made about the trap. After taking the sanction for the prosecution of the respondent he was charge sheeted. His defence is of denial and false implication by the Conductor Madhusudan Sharma as he has checked him number of time for taking passengers without tickets. He did not demand any money nor, demanded monthly payments. Since he had already submitted his report to the superiors it was not within his power to help the complainant thereafter. The case is concocted and the notes were planted on his Sofa by the Raiding party. He is innocent. ( 3 ) THE learned Special Judge, on appreciating evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution story about trapping the respondent and of accepting Rs. 100/- as bribe, is of a doubtful nature. There were several cases reported against the complainant Madhusudan Sharma by the respondent and also by other ticket examiners which were pending before Depot. Manager for taking necessary action. In the circumstances, the respondent could not help the complainant in the matter after reporting the cases to his superiors. Madhusudan Sharma was anxious to somehow trap the respondent and for that purpose he took the help of dismissed Conductor Rameshchand Jha. The report Ex. P-I is said to have been made on 23-2-76 to the Suptd. of Vigilance, but it has not been explained as to why no action had been taken till 27-4-76. In the report Ex. P. 1 or in the evidence there is no mention as to where and when the amount was demanded by the respondent. There is no independent corroboration to the statement of Madhusudan Sharma. It has not been explained as to what happened to the trap arranged on 27- 4-76. In the report Ex. P. 1 or in the evidence there is no mention as to where and when the amount was demanded by the respondent. There is no independent corroboration to the statement of Madhusudan Sharma. It has not been explained as to what happened to the trap arranged on 27- 4-76. There is also no explanation as to how another trap had to be arranged on 28-4-76. The complainant stated that he had visited the house of the respondent on the evening of 27-4-76 and what prevented him in paying the amount to the respondent at that time. The prosecution has not examined Ramesh Chand Jha to corroborate the complainant. The evidence of the complainant and the other trap witnesses is discrepant on material particulars. Inspector Pali was the first man to go inside the room, but he has not been examined. Dy. Collector Naresh Chandra Choubey (PW 7) could not have seen the notes in the hands of the respondent. It appears that the notes were seized from the Sofa that is evident from the seizure memo Ex. P-21. The cash of the hands of the respondents was only slightly pinkish while Naresh Chandra stated it was whitish. For all these reasons the prosecution story has been disbelieved, and the respondent has been acquitted. It appears that the notes were seized from the Sofa that is evident from the seizure memo Ex. P-21. The cash of the hands of the respondents was only slightly pinkish while Naresh Chandra stated it was whitish. For all these reasons the prosecution story has been disbelieved, and the respondent has been acquitted. ( 4 ) THE Supreme Court in G. B. Patel v. State of Maharashtra1, has held as follows: The dictum of the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. Emperor2, and a bead-roll of decisions of this Court have firmly established the position that although in an appeal from an order of acquittal the Powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet, as a rule of prudence, it should to use the words of Lord Russel of Killowen -always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the Trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at the trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. Where two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the evidence on record, the High Court should, as a matter of judicial caution; refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the Court below. In other words, if the main grounds on which the Court below has based its order acquitting the accused, are reasonable and plausible, and cannot be entirely and effectively dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the acquittal. ( 5 ) AFTER having perused the record and heard the parties at length. I am of the opinion that no case is made out for interfering in order of acquittal. It has come in evidence that the complainant Madhusudan Sharma (PW 1) was being proceeded against 9 cases for pilferage i. e. taking passengers without tickets as per Exs. P-5 to P-13, out of which cases P-9 to P-12 were defected by the respondent. It has come in evidence that the complainant Madhusudan Sharma (PW 1) was being proceeded against 9 cases for pilferage i. e. taking passengers without tickets as per Exs. P-5 to P-13, out of which cases P-9 to P-12 were defected by the respondent. The complainant was attached to the line on 22-2-76 as the respondent had already submitted his report against the complainant and he could not have helped him thereafter. So it is doubtful that he would have demanded bribe and the complainant would have agreed to pay the same. It further appears that on 7-4-76 the complainant was again found taking 16 passengers without tickets. Thereafter to save his skin he thought out a plan to trap the respondent and took the help of a dismissed conductor Ramesh Chand Jha. The complainant claimed that he had made a report Ex. P-I to the Suptd. of Vigilance on 23-2-76. His report does not bear any date. In the report it is not mentioned as to when and where the amount of bribe was demanded. The trap was arranged 2 months thereafter on 27-4-76. There is no explanation of this delay in arranging the trap. The trap was arranged as per Panchnama Ex. P-2 on 27-4-76. But the prosecution is silent as to what happened on that date. The complainant claimed that he did not find the respondent at the Bankheda bus-stop and so he went to his house that evening. The respondent would have taken the notes then and there and would not have asked him to come on the next day. On the next day another trap was arranged as per Panchnama Ex. P-3. The complainant stated that he had been to the house of the respondent before he went the trap party at 4-30 P. M. The handing over of the notes by the Complainant to the respondent has not been corroborated by any independent witnesses, Rameshchand Jha has not been examined. It is proved that the notes were seized from the Sofa and not from the respondent. The wash of his hands slightly turned pinkish. It has come in evidence that the hands of Dy. Collector Naresh Chandra Choubey was washed first and the glass was kept in a bag containing phenolphthalein powder. It is proved that the notes were seized from the Sofa and not from the respondent. The wash of his hands slightly turned pinkish. It has come in evidence that the hands of Dy. Collector Naresh Chandra Choubey was washed first and the glass was kept in a bag containing phenolphthalein powder. Whatever that be, it cannot be said that the conclusions of the learned Special Judge are not reasonable or plausible on the basis of the evidence on record. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY the appeal fails and it is dismissed. The bail bonds of the respondent the discharged. Appeal dismissed. .