JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order of conviction passed by learned Special Judge (A.C.D.), Jodhpur in criminal case No. 17/79 whereby, the learned Judge has convicted the accused under section 161 I.P.C. and 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, I have scrutinised the record and re-appreciated the evidence on record. 3. The prosecution story as disclosed on re-appreciation is that on 13.7.1976, a complaint was filed in the Office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption, Jaipur, Rural that the complainant desires to entrap a corrupt Government servant. This complaint does not mention the name of the Government servant who allegedly demanded bribe. However, immediate action on this complaint was taken up, a trap was laid and the petitioner was trapped. On the complaint of further investigation, the petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 161 of the I.P.C. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to prove its case and it was countered by the accused producing five witnesses to establish his non-involvement in the crime. 4. It is clear from the first information report that it does not mention the name of the any person. A perusal of the FIR would show that there is no mention whatever of demand being made by a public servant. There is no mention of the sum demanded, there is no mention of reason by which the bribe was demanded and yet a trap has been laid. Even after the trap was executed and the money of Rs. 50/- was recovered, the evidence is not enough. The money was recovered not from the possession of the accused but it was taken from under a transistor lying in the almirah. Thus, even the recovery of the tainted money is not recovered from the possession of the accused, a total appreciation of the evidence for the prosecution as also for the defence raises several doubts regarding exact nature of the transaction as to whether accused was at all involved in the matter of bribery and if so, the prosecution has reasonably proved the charges of accepting bribe. In my opinion, the evidence as led by the prosecution is grossly insufficient, there is no evidence of demand by the accused, there is no mention of demand by the accused in the complaint, even the name of the accused is not stated in the complaint F.I.R. In such circumstances, the entire process of laying the trap and accosting the accused is liable to be viewed doubtfully and in the event of existence of such doubt, conviction is not permissible. 5. In the result, therefore, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction is set aside. The accused is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged. He is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal Allowed - Conviction set aside. *******