JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the order of conviction dated 18.10.1984 passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Udaipur in A.C.D. Case No. 2/81, convicting the accused under Section 161 I.P.C. and 5(1)(d) 2 P.C. Act, this appeal is preferred 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 the learned Public Prosecutor, I have scrutinised the record and re-appreciated the evidence on record. 3. On re-appreciation of the evidence, the prosecution case as disclosed is that accused-appellant asked for illegal gratification for accepting the application and sanctioning the pay bill of the complainant who is Nurse in the Primary Health Centre, Gangrar. On a complaint to this effect, the Police investigated into the matter and charge-sheeted the accused. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Judge came to the conclusion of guilt as aforesaid and sentenced the accused as mentioned above. It is this order of conviction and sentence which is challenged in this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed before me. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, it is found that following irregularities have been committed by the learned Sessions Judge in arriving at the conclusion of guilt for which his order cannot be sustained. The irregularities or illegalities committed are - (i) The defence version has not been considered; (ii) Existence of previous enmity as admitted by the complainant not considered; (iii) Existence of loan transaction between the complainant and the accused admitted yet not considered and; (iv) This defence was immediately disclosed to the Investigating Officer, yet he-did not investigate into the question of existence of the loan, repayment of which was made at the time when the trap was led. 4. The learned Sessions Judge should have seen that in view of the circumstances so immerging from the record when the existence of loan transaction between the complainant and the accused is not disputed and the existence of previous enmity is also not disputed, the possibility of the complainant inimically reporting against the accused to the Police and getting the trap led cannot be ignored. The entire circumstances in which the trap was led or the allegation of acceptance of bribe are made, serious doubt arose in the mind of a reasonable man as to whether it was the case of corruption or vindication of personal animosity when such circumstance immerges from the evidence on record. In my opinion, conviction under section 161 read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 may not be proper. 5. In the result, therefore, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction is set aside. Bail bonds, if any, are hereby cancelled.Appeal Allowed. *******