JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - The Appellant stands convicted u/s 5(1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 or the Indian Penal Code (vide the judgment and order dated 17.7.1995 passed by learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur in T.R. Case No. 18 of 1991) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years on each count and sentences are to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the Appellant was a public servant being the Secretary of Co-operative Land Development Bank, Panposh. Chitaranjan Nanda (P.W. 1) was retrenched from the service of that bank as a peon on 1.6.1988. He had some arrears due to him from the bank on account of which he approached the Appellant for making payment. The Appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 300/- from him as illegal gratification for the purpose. P.W. 1 expressed inability to pay such high amount and ultimately the deal was finalised at Rs. 200/- to be paid to the Appellant on 2.7.1988. P.W. I, however, instead of paying the gratification reported the matter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Rourkela. Accordingly, a trap was laid against the Appellant who was ought red-handed while accepting the bribe of Rs. 200/- from P.W. 1. 3. The plea of the, Appellant was not to denial. His case is that P.W. 1 had taken a loan of Rs. 50/- from him and another sum of Rs. 150/ from Profulla Kumar Swain, Accountant of the bank and on the date of occurrence he repaid the said amount (Rs. 501- plus Rs. 150/-) to him and it was not a case of acceptance of bribe. 4. In support of its case prosecution examined seven witnesses. P.W. 1 was the retrenched peon and was the decoy. P.W. 2. was the Stenographer of the Collectorate, Sundargarh, who had accompanied P.W. 1 to the office of the Appellant on the date of occurrence. F.W. 3 was a junior Clerk in the office of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhubaneswar who produced the file dealing with grant of sanction for prosecution of the Appellant. P.W. 4 was the president of Panposh Co-operative Land Development Bank. P.W. 5 was the Additional Commercial Tax Officer, who was one of the members of the raiding party. P.W. 6 was the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, who accorded sanction to prosecute the Appellant. P.W. 4 was the president of Panposh Co-operative Land Development Bank. P.W. 5 was the Additional Commercial Tax Officer, who was one of the members of the raiding party. P.W. 6 was the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, who accorded sanction to prosecute the Appellant. P.W. 7 was the Investigating Officer. The Appellant examined Prafulla Kumar Swain as D.W. 1 in support of his defence. 5. P.W. 1 is the main witness in the case, He stated that while serving as a peon in Pan posh Co-operative Land Development Bank, he was retrenched from service on 1.6.1988. As he was not paid his bonus and other dues from the Co-operative Bank, he met the Appellant for payment of the arrears some days after his retrenchment. The Appellant asked him to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- for clearance of his arrear dues and another sum of Rs. 3001- for his reinstatement in service. He expressed his inability to pay the entire amount and accordingly the deal was struck at Rs. 200/- to be paid to the Appellant on 2.7.1988. P.W. 1, however, instead of paying the amount to the Appellant, approached the Vigilance Police, Rourkela by lodging a written report (Ext. 1). On being asked by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), P.W. 1. went to his office on 1.7.1988 at about 9.30 A.M. In the A.M. In the vigilance Office, R.K. Mahakud (P.W. 2), additional C.T. O. (P.W. 5) and other police officials wore present. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) introduced P.W. 11 to the aforesaid persons. He (P.W. 1) explained to them the circumstances leading to the demand of bribe by the Appellant. He produced Rs. 200/- (four numbers of fifty rupee G.C. notes). The Addl. C.T. O. (P.W. 5) noted down the numbers in a chit and kept the same with him. The G.C. notes were treated with the powder and were handed over to him to pay the same to the Appellant on demand. The Stenographer of the Collectorate (P.W. 2) was instructed to accompany P.W. I and to see the payment of bribe money to the Appellant and give signal to the raiding party. P.W. 1 first entered inside the office of the Appellant where he was sitting alone. P. W: 2 stood near the door to over-hear their conversation. The Stenographer of the Collectorate (P.W. 2) was instructed to accompany P.W. I and to see the payment of bribe money to the Appellant and give signal to the raiding party. P.W. 1 first entered inside the office of the Appellant where he was sitting alone. P. W: 2 stood near the door to over-hear their conversation. When the Appellant demanded the money, he paid the tainted money which he held in his hands. After signal was given, the Vigilance raiding party immediately rushed into the office of the Appellant and challenged him why he had received the bribe money from P.W. 1. The Appellant fumbled and admitted acceptance of the bribe money from P.W. 1. His fingers were dipped into water-like solution which turned pink. The numbers of the trained G.C. notes were compared with those recorded in the chit which tallied. This witness (P.W.I) was cross-examined but nothing substantial was brought out in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. P.W. 2 in his evidence corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1. There is no reason as to why he would depose against the Appellant. In the cross examination he stated that he did not here the conversation between P.W. I and the Appellant regarding demand of bribe money. This statement does not in any way help the Appellant. He (P.W. 2) stated that after P.W. I indicated payment of bribe money by him to the Appellant, he gave signal to the raiding party. P.W. 5 was the A.C.T.O. who headed the raid. In his evidence he corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 in material particulars. According to him when the Inspector of Police (vigilance) disclosed his identity to the Appellant and challenged him to have received bribe from P.W. I he (appellant) fumbled. He was thoroughly cross-examined and nothing was brought out to discredit his evidence. P.W. 4 was the president of Co-operative Land Development Bank, Panposh. He stated that after the Appellant was trapped by the Vigilance Police, he was called by them. Accordingly, he came to the office room of the Appellant and found the Appellant holding four numbers of fifty rupees G.C. notes in his right hand. P.W. 1, A.C.T.C. and the Vigilance Police staff were present in the room. The G.C. notes hold by the Appellant were seized and he was a witness to the seizure vide Ext. 4.11. 6. Accordingly, he came to the office room of the Appellant and found the Appellant holding four numbers of fifty rupees G.C. notes in his right hand. P.W. 1, A.C.T.C. and the Vigilance Police staff were present in the room. The G.C. notes hold by the Appellant were seized and he was a witness to the seizure vide Ext. 4.11. 6. Law is well settled that although a trap witness is not an approver, he is certainly an interested witness in the sense that he is interested to see that the trap laid by him succeeded. He could in the circumstances be quoted with a partisan witness. His evidence is not a tainted one. If it is found reliable and trust worthy, it can be accepted without corroboration. 7. At this stage, let me consider the explanation of the Appellant with regard to the tainted four numbers of fifty rupees G.C. Notes. As already indicated, his defence was that P.W. I had taken loan of Rs. 200/ - (Rs. 50/- from him and Rs. 150/- from prafulla Kumar Swain) and he repaid that amount on the date of occurrence. Prafulla Kumar Swain was examined as D.W. 1 on behalf of the Appellant. He deposed that P.W. 1 borrowed a sum of Rs. 150/- from him. On 2.7.1988 at about 1.15 P.M. the Appellant sent for him to receive Rs. 150/- towards repayment of the loan which was handed over to him by P.W. 1 It is not understood why P.W. 1 would repay the loan of D.W. I to the Appellant listed of repaying the same directly to D.W. 1. In the cross-examination, D.W. 1 admitted that he had talked with P.W. I on the date of occurrence at about 11 a. m., but he did not tell him anything. If P.W. 1 had taken loan of Rs. 150/from D.W. 1 the former could have definitely told him in the morning that he was going to repay the amount, but he did not say anything about it. It was brought out in his evidence that he was not in the room of Appellant when the detection took place and he went inside the room only after completion of the trap. In view of the aforesaid, the plea of the Appellant that the amount of Rs. 200/- was repaid by P.W. 1 is not acceptable. It was brought out in his evidence that he was not in the room of Appellant when the detection took place and he went inside the room only after completion of the trap. In view of the aforesaid, the plea of the Appellant that the amount of Rs. 200/- was repaid by P.W. 1 is not acceptable. M/s explanation in this regard obviously is an after-thought. 8. I have carefully and thoroughly perused the evidence of P. Ws. 1,2 and 5 and I am of the opinion that their evidence does not suffer from any infirmity. They are reliable and trust worthy witnesses. The money received by the Appellant on 2.7.1988 was not due to him as a legal remuneration. He had received the same from P.W. 1 as bribe. As he explanation offered in this regard is not acceptable, his conviction u/s 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 or the Indian Penal Code Cannot be faulted with. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case I am however inclined to reduce the sentence to one year on each Court which are to run concurrently. With the aforesaid modification of sentence the appeal is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed