JUDGMENT 1. - Criminal appeal No. 319/1985 is filed by the State against the acquittal of Daya Ram whereas criminal appeal No. 132/1985 is filed by the accused Chetan Ram, both of them having been prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. At the relevant time, Daya Ram was working as Revenue Inspector and Chetan Ram as Patwari. It is alleged that they demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 500/-. The defence being that, it was paid towards rent of land. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have scrutinised the record and reappreciated the evidence on record. 3. The prosecution story as it emerges from reappreciation of the evidence is that; on 21.5.1978 a written report was submitted by P.W. 3 Vedhraj and P.W. 6 Mewa Ram to the Dy. S.P., Anti Corruption Department, Barmer. As per this report, the accused Chetan Ram, Patwari and Daya Ram, Revenue Inspector demanded bribe of Rs. 1000/-in connection with mutation. On refusing the bribe, both have rejected the mutation. Tehsildar Shiv vide his order dated 17.5.1978, directed to mutate the land. The complainant Mewa Ram and Ved Raj served the order of Tehsildar on Chetan Ram, thereupon Chetan Ram said them that Revenue Inspector Daya Ram is in Banner, therefore, after getting approval from him, he will mutate the same. As per Exhibit P/7, accused Chetan Ram took the complainants to Barmer, where Chetan Ram and Daya Ram demanded Rs. 500/- as bribe from them. On submitting, this information, Narayan Singh started proceedings for trap against the accused. He called two witnesses namely Bhagwana Ram and Shankar Lal and in their presence, he gave five notes of Rs. 100/- by making initial of his signature on them and gave to Ram Singh after mixing them in phenolphthalein powder with a direction that the complainant Vedraj should give these notes to the accused. He also sent the witnesses Bhagwana Ram and Shankar Lal behind the complainant and he himself put out of site and was waiting for signal of the witnesses and after receiving signal, he went to the house of Chetan Ram and caught hold him red handed. 4. He also sent the witnesses Bhagwana Ram and Shankar Lal behind the complainant and he himself put out of site and was waiting for signal of the witnesses and after receiving signal, he went to the house of Chetan Ram and caught hold him red handed. 4. On 28.12.1978 allegation was levelled against Chetan Ram under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and 5(1)(kha) read with Section 5(2) and allegation against Daya Ram under Sections 165(k), 161, 5(1)(gha) read with Section 5(2). Both of them denied the allegation and claimed for trial. 5. It will be seen from re appreciation of the evidence that the learned trial Judge has seriously erred in convicting the accused Chetan Ram when on the same set of evidence, acquitted Daya Ram. Even otherwise, the complainant has in his testimony, accepted that the money was paid towards the rent that is also the defence of accused Chetan Ram in his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that there is no denial of this defence by the complainant and taking into consideration the overall evidence as appreciated by the trial court. I think it incorrect on the part of the trial court to convict Chetan Ram. The appeal of Chetan Ram is liable to be accepted. 7. In the result, the appeal of Chetan Ram is accepted and allowed. His conviction is set aside. The appeal against the acquittal of Daya Ram is dismissed. Bail bonds of Chetan Ram are cancelled.State Appeal Dismissed, Appeal of Accused Allowed. *******