(1) THIS appeal by special leave is directed against an order of acquittal recorded by the High Court of Madras dated 30th October, 1992. The Trial Court (Special Judge), Tiruchirapalli tried the respondents for offences under S. 161 I.P.C. and under S. 5 (2) read with S. 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and vide Judgment and order dated 15th October, 1986 convicted and sentenced them for the said offences. They were sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. (2) WE have perused the judgment of the High Court and our attention has also been drawn to some parts of the evidence. In our considered opinion, the view taken by the High Court, cannot be said to be even unreasonable, let alone perverse. The very factum of demand of bribe and the circumstances under which the said demand was made, as alleged by the prosecution, is suspect. (3) ACCORDING to the prosecution case it was respondent No. 1 who detained public Witness s. 2 and 3 at the police station, stating that unless Gemini (PW-7), who was wanted in another case of distilling illicit arrack, was produced, they would not be released.Public Witness -3 was, however, let off with a direction to bring Gemini (PW-7) to the police station, and, in the meanwhile,Public Witness -2 was detained at the police station.Public Witness -3 returned to the police station and reported to respondent No. 1 that public Witness -1 who also was running a licensed arrack shop, and public Witness 2 could help him to secure public Witness -7 Gemini.Public Witness -7, Gemini was thereafter identified and apprehended by the police party. PWs 2 and 3, according to the prosecution case, despite the earlier assurance of being released, were, however, not released even after presence of Gemini,Public Witness -7 had been secured. (4) THE very fact that demand of bribe was allegedly made initially to secure release of PWs. 2 and 3, becomes suspect once we consider the manner in which the prosecution case has unfold itself. (5) THAT apart, it is an admitted case that the amount of Rs.4,000/-, tainted money, which is alleged to have been demanded, was recovered from under a pair of trousers from the cot in room No. 19 at Tilak Lodge by the trap party. (5) THAT apart, it is an admitted case that the amount of Rs.4,000/-, tainted money, which is alleged to have been demanded, was recovered from under a pair of trousers from the cot in room No. 19 at Tilak Lodge by the trap party. According to respondent No.1, he was in the bathroom and, when he came out, he found public Witness s. 1,2 and 3 sitting on the cot when the raid party suddenly appeared and picked up the amount of Rs.4,000/- from under the pair of trousers. The fact that PWs. 1, 2 and 3 were already sitting on the cot where the pair of trousers was lying from underneath which the amount was recovered is not disputed. Under these circumstances, it does probabilise the defence version given by the respondents that bribe money was planted by public Witness s. 1, 2 and 3, who were engaged in illicit distillation and sale of arrack, to falsely trap the respondents, who were serving in the Prohibition Wing of the police, by placing the amount under the trousers of respondent No. 1. (6) IN our opinion, the prosecution failed to prove the case against respondents beyond a reasonable doubt and we need not, detain ourselves to discuss other evidence or even the effect of negative phenolphthalein test. This appeal must fail. It, accordingly, is dismissed. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.