JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the order of conviction dated 10.3.1986 passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jodhpur in Criminal Sessions Trial No. 18/79, the appellant preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed before me. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused appellant and learned Public Prosecutor I have scrutinised the evidence on record and re-appreciated the evidence on record. 3. The prosecution story as appears from re-appreciation of the evidence is that : A written complaint was filed in the office of the Addition Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption, Jodhpur on 9.10.1975 that the accused has demanded a bribe of Rs. 100/- and therefore, a trap as provided by the Anti Corruption Act of 1947 be laid. Accordingly, a trap was laid. A case was registered against the accused and on completion of the investigation the accused was prosecuted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The prosecution examined as many as 11. witnesses in support of the case to prove the prosecution case, whereas five witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused as defence witness to prove that the accused did not commit any offence. On appreciation of the evidence as led by the party the learned Special Judge came to the conclusion of guilt and convicted the accused as aforesaid. It is this order of conviction, which is assailed by this appeal. 4. The defence witnesses as put up by the accused was that there was a drive of collecting the land revenue and the accused was collecting the land revenue. The complainant owned the land revenue of Rs. 147/- and he was used that occasion to left a false trap against the accused. The defence witness corroborates this aspect. 5. Scrutiny of the prosecution evidence discloses that the prosecution has failed to prove even the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. Merely because the hand of the accused was found phenophthalien powder, the accused cannot be found guilty of causing illegal gratification. The evidence of the complainant in relation to demand is not trustworthy. Three witnesses of the prosecution in relation to trap have been declared hostile. Merely because the hand of the accused was found phenophthalien powder, the accused cannot be found guilty of causing illegal gratification. The evidence of the complainant in relation to demand is not trustworthy. Three witnesses of the prosecution in relation to trap have been declared hostile. In such circumstances, the evidence of the prosecution as also of the defence doubt arise in the mind of a reasonable man that the prosecution has not come with the entire case. In such circumstances, it is not safe to convict the accused. 6. In the result, therefore, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The accused is already on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******