JUDGMENT R. N. BISWAL, J. : The State assails the judgment and order dated 17.4.1996 passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance) Sambalpur wherein he acquitted the accused-Respondent of the offence under Sections 5(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 161 I.P.C. 2. Bereft of all unnecessary details the prosecution case is that P.W.4 as proprietor of Trayombak Traders, a partnerships farm at Jeypore use to supply door and window frames and shutters to different Government offices including the office of Upper Kolab Development Division, Jeypore. In the month of October 1986 he supplied the aforementioned materials to the office of Upper Kolab Development Division, Bariniput, Jeypore. Accordingly, he prepared bills for payment but the accused-Respondent who was working as Divisional Accountant of the said office objected his bills time and again. On 27.9.1996 when he requested the accused-Respondent to pass the bills he demanded Rs.2000/- as bribe and on further request reduced the amount to Rs.1000/- P.W.4 paid him Rs.500/- and assured to pay the rest of the amount shortly there¬after. The accused-Respondent insisted him to pay the balance amount of Rs.500/- by 6,10,1986 or else he would not pass the bills. Under such circumstances he lodged a written report before the Dy. Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) Jeypore on 5.10.1986 on the aforesaid allegation. As the same revealed a cognizable case, a case was registered against the accused-Respondent for the aforesaid offences. On being directed by the Dy. Superinten¬dent of Police (Vigilance) Jeypore, P.W.10, the Inspector of Police (vigilance) at Jeypore took up investigation and arranged a trap to be laid against the accused and requisitioned the services of the Addl. C.T.O. (P.W.7), Tahasildar, Jeypore and one Jr.clerk of Jeypore Block office (P.W.2). On 6.10.1986 the decoy (P.W.4) produced cash of Rs.500/- in shape of 100 rupees G.C. notes, the B.D.O. and the Addl. C.T.O. noted the number of the currency notes in separate chits and after complying all formali¬ties, P.W.10 instructed P.W.2 to accompany the decoy to Upper Kolab Irrigation Division office to overhear the conversation between the decoy and the accused-Respondent and to see the passing of the tainted G.C. notes to the hands of the latter and on receipt of the same to give signal to them. Accordingly P.Ws.2 and 4 together went to the office of the accused-Respondent and thereafter the raiding party went there. Accordingly P.Ws.2 and 4 together went to the office of the accused-Respondent and thereafter the raiding party went there. At 12.45 p.m. the raid¬ing party getting signal from P.W.2 rushed inside the office of the accused. P.W.10 after disclosing his identity and the identi¬ty of others to the accused-Respondent challenged him receiving bribe from P.W.2 to which he denied. So the raiding party took his palm wash in sodium carbonate solution which changed its colour to pink and the tainted money was recovered from the drawer of the office table of the accused. On 4.9.88 P.W.9 took charge of the case from P.W.10, who after obtaining sanction from the Superintending Engineer Minor irrigation, Berhampur for prosecution against the accused submitted charge sheet. The plea of the accused-Respondent is complete denial of his complicity in the crime. It is his further plea that in his absence P.W.4 was found sitting on a bench near to his table and handling the office record and that he kept the tainted money in his table drawer without his knowledge. Moreover, he took the plea that he had already passed the bills of P.W.4 before the raid was con¬ducted. 3. In order to establish its case prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses as against two by the defence. After assessing the evidence of the witnesses, the trial Court acquit¬ted the accused of the charges and hence this appeal. 4. Learned Addl.Govt.Advocate submitted that when the carbonate solution turned pink after the accused-respondent dipped his hand inside the solution, the trial Court ought to have held that in fact the accused-Respondent received the taint¬ed money as bribe. 5. It is found from the evidence of P.W.2 who accompanied the complainant to the office of accused-Respondent that when they reached at the seat of the accused-Respondent, he was found absent and about two to three minutes thereafter he came to his seat. Both the accused-Respondent and P.W.4 talked for some time but he could not hear the same since he was beyond the ear shot. Soon after P.W.4 nodded his head indicating him to give signal P.W.2 went out and gave the single. It is the specific evidence of P.W.2 that he did not see the complainant giving money to the accused-Respondent. Both the accused-Respondent and P.W.4 talked for some time but he could not hear the same since he was beyond the ear shot. Soon after P.W.4 nodded his head indicating him to give signal P.W.2 went out and gave the single. It is the specific evidence of P.W.2 that he did not see the complainant giving money to the accused-Respondent. During cross examination it was elicited from P.W.2 that P.W.4 sat on a small bench lying on the right side of the table of the accused-Respondent and handled the fly-leaf of some files kept on the table. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the drawer of the table of the accused-Respondent. He further stated that the papers of the drawer were not washed with carbonate solution P.W.1 did not depose anything against the accused-Respondent. P.W.3 turned hostile to the prosecution and did not depose anything against the accused-Respondent. P.W.5 is a witness to seizure of some documents but there is nothing in his evidence to indicate about the kind of documents seized. P.W.6 is a post occurrence witness who being asked by P.W.10 dipped his fingers in a solution but it did not change its co¬lour. P.W.10 gave him some G.C. notes to handle and after han¬dling the G.C. notes when he dipped his fingers in the solution it turned pink. P.W.10 admitted that there were some files on the table of the accused-Respondent by the time the raid was conduct¬ed. As per this evidence when fingers of the accused-Respondent were dipped in the sodium carbonate solution, it turned pink in colour. P.W.8 is a witness to the seizure of the table of the accused-Respondent. So his evidence is of no much importance to the prosecution. P.W.9 only obtained the sanction order for prosecution from the Superintending Engineer, Berhampur and submitted charge sheet as stated earlier. 7. The plea of the accused-Respondent is that in his absence P.W.4 came to his seat and kept the tainted currency notes in the drawer of his table. A part of the plea of the ac¬cused-Respondent is corroborated by P.W.2 who stated that by the time he along with P.W.4 reached near the seat of the accused-Respondent he was found absent in his seat and that P.W.4 sat on a bench lying on the right side of the accused-Respondent. A part of the plea of the ac¬cused-Respondent is corroborated by P.W.2 who stated that by the time he along with P.W.4 reached near the seat of the accused-Respondent he was found absent in his seat and that P.W.4 sat on a bench lying on the right side of the accused-Respondent. After some time when the accused-Respondent came to his seat P.W.4 talked with him but he could not overhear their conversation. It is brought out from the evidence on record that 10 to 12 clerks usually seat in the room where the accused was working. But none of them has been examined in this case. It is also found from the evidence of P.W.2 that while sitting on the bench of P.W.4 han¬dled some files kept on the table of the accused-Respondent. Admittedly none of these files was dipped in carbonate solution. The possibility that while handling those files phenolphthalein powder came in contact with those documents which on being han¬dled by the accused-Respondent came in his contact cannot be ruled out. Under such circumstances, the appeal fails being devoid of merit and is dismissed as such. Appeal dismissed.