JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 14.9.1982 passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 1/1978 convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant under section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 to under 6 months R.I. for each and a fine of Rs. 250/- in each offence, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's S.I. concurrently, on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and also canvassed before me. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and learned Public Prosecutor, I have scrutinised the record and reappreciated the evidence on record. 3. On reappreciation of the evidence on record, it is found that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the fact of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. The accused was Food Inspector at the time when the incident is alleged to have taken place. The sample of milk was taken by the accused 15 days prior to the date of incident of demanding the bribe and it was found that the milk was not adulterated. 4. The statement of PW 4 Kanheya Lal, PW 5 Gajanand Sharma, PW 6 Ram Lal and PW 7 Vishnu discloses that they could not hear what was the talk between the accused and PW 3 Uka Ram. There is thus, uncorroboration of the allegation of Ulm Ram regarding demand of bribe and acceptance of the same. 5. The explanation given by the accused that the amount of Rs. 700/- was returned to the witness is not inconsistence of the evidence on record. In such circumstances, the entire evidence of the prosecution becomes doubtful. 6. Reliance was placed by the judgment of the Supreme Court of India recorded in 1981 Cr.L.J. page 741 wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that uncorroborated testimony of those trap witnesses is not always shape to rely on convicting a person under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 6. Reliance was placed by the judgment of the Supreme Court of India recorded in 1981 Cr.L.J. page 741 wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that uncorroborated testimony of those trap witnesses is not always shape to rely on convicting a person under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Apart from the provisions of law the fact that in the present case the sample of milk was found unadulterated, it was found to have been taken 15 days prior to the date of demand and the talk between the accused and the trap witnesses regarding demand and payment of bribe was not heard by four of the witnesses examined creates reasonable doubt regarding veracity of the statement of prosecution witnesses as also regarding the correct manner the incident is occurred giving rise to a doubt regarding reasonableness to the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge. 7. Taking into consideration all these facts, I am of the view that benefit of doubt must go to the accused in the present case and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 8. In the result the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction and the sentences arc set aside. The bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******