JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the order of conviction dated 7.5.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge for Anti Corruption Cases, Bikaner in Sessions case No. 1/90 convicting the accused appellant under section 7 of Anti Corruption Act, 1988 to one year R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further 3 months R.I. and under section 12(1)(d)(ii) of Anti Corruption Act, 1988 to two years R.I. this appeal is preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have scrutinised the record and have reappreciated the evidence on record. 3. Learned counsel for the accused contended after the evidence was reappreciated that there is no evidence on record to prove the demand of illegal gratification by the accused as also there is no proof of acceptance of the amount. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the learned trial Judge has not taken into consideration at all the defence as raised by the accused persons. 4. The incident alleged to have taken place in presence of two motbirs (informants) one was Murari Lal and second was Vijay Kumar Sethi. The prosecution has not examined Vijay Kumar Sethi and Murari Lal has been examined as PW-3 and is declared hostile. There is, therefore, no independent evidence on record to prove that the accused demanded illegal gratification or accepted the sum on demand. The prosecution has not given any reasonable explanation as to why Vijay Kumar Sethi was not examined nor is there any other evidence forthcoming on the basis of which it could be held that the demand and acceptance has been proved by the prosecution. 5. Reliance was placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR. 1974 SC 218 for the proposition that there should be independent and trustworthy corroboration of evidence of trap witnesses. The learned counsel contended that in view of the fact of non-examination of Vijay Kumar Sethi and Murari Lal PW-3 being declared hostile, in this case also there is absence of independent trustworthy corroboration of complainant and applying the ratio of said judgment of the Supreme Court. In this case also, the finding of guilt is Liable to be interfered with. In this case also, the finding of guilt is Liable to be interfered with. The learned counsel then pointed out yet another judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1973 SC 498 where the Supreme Court has observed thus: "(They) were interested and partisan witnesses. They were concerned in the success of the trap and their evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any interested witness and in a proper case the Court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused per-son." 6. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that even if the evidence as accepted by the learned trial Judge is considered acceptable enough to sustain a conviction. The conviction in the present case cannot be maintained for the reasons of non-consideration of the defence version. In this case, the defence as raised by the accused was that he had already prepared receipts for payment due to the Government from the complainant but the complainant did not agree to the amount of payment due and therefore, receipts were not handed over to the complainant on the date of incident. The complainant having agreed to the sum due from him to the State tendered the money and it was accepted as tendered towards Government due by the accused. Thus, explaining the acceptance of rub phenophthalein powder, the defence version on record in the shape of those receipts made out in favour of the complainant for the amount due to him from State. In view of the fact that the defence is plausible explanation of the circumstances incriminating in nature, the explanation which is favourable to the accused is liable to be accepted even if it is assumed that the evidence was positive in favour of the prosecution. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court reported in Criminal Law Reporter (Raj.) 1981 page 78. On this ground alone, the order of conviction is liable to be set aside.In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction is set aside. The accused is already on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******