JUDGMENT B.K. PATEL, J. — This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.05.1987 passed in T.R. No.21 of 1987 by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur convicting the appellant under Sections 5(1)(d)/ 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short the ‘P.C. Act’) as well as Sec¬tion 161 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the ‘I.P.C.’) and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one month, under Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act and R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 15 days, under Section 161 of the I.P.C. 2. Prosecution case, in nut-shell, is as follows : P.W.1, the informant-decoy had earlier executed work con¬tract of Nuagada-Maliguda road under Nandahandi Block as contrac¬tor at the estimated cost of Rs.10,000/-. When the appellant was paid for the work on 09.01.1985 towards his final bill, he had to pay 5% of the total amount, i.e. Rs.500/-, as bribe to the appel¬lant on his demand. Thereafter, P.W.1 executed the work contract of Bada Daiva¬ta-Nuagada Road at the estimated cost of Rs.5000/-. On completion of the work when he approached the appellant on 25.4.1985 for payment towards final bill, the appellant demanded bribe of Rs.250/- saying that he would pass the bill after P.W.1 paid Rs.250/- to him. Also the appellant is alleged to have threatened P.W.1 that no further work contract would be awarded to him in future unless he paid the amount on 28.4.1985. P.W.1 along with P.W.3, the Sarapanch of Sindhiguda Gram Panchayat, met the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Jeypore, Camp at Nawarang¬pur, on 28.4.1985 and submitted the written report Ext.1 on the basis of which the case was registered and P.W.6, Inspector of Vigilance, Nawarangpur was entrusted with the investigation. In course of investigation, a trap was laid against the appellant and he was caught red handed after he accepted bribe of Rs.250/- (in the shape of one hundred rupee, two fifty rupee, two twenty rupee and one ten rupee denomination currency notes) from the complainant on the same day. The currency notes, which were smeared with Phenolphthalein powder, were seized. The currency notes, which were smeared with Phenolphthalein powder, were seized. The hand wash of the appellant taken in Sodium Carbonate solution was sent for chemical examination which revealed that Phenolphthalein powder was detected in the hand wash of the appellant. On completion of investigation charge sheet for commission of offences under which he stands convicted was submitted against the appellant and he faced the trial accordingly. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and took the plea of denial. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant stated that the seized currency notes amounting of Rs.250/- was his personal money which he had paid to P.W.1 on 22.4.1985 to supply him a cot. As P.W.1 could not supply the cot, he returned the amount on 28.4.1985. 4. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined six witnesses, P.W.1 to P.W.6, and also relied upon documents marked Exts.1 to 11 P.W.1, 2 and 6 have already been introduced. P.W.3 is an independent witness who accompanied P.W.1 to the office of the appellant for paying the bribe. P.W. 4 was working as Head Clerk in Nandahandi Block office. P.W.5 was working as Revenue Officer, Nawarangpur who participated in the trap as Magistrate. No other evidence except examining D.W.1 was adduced on behalf of the defence. 5. The defence plea itself goes to show that the appellant did not dispute to have received from P.W.1 a sum of Rs.250/- on 28.04.1985. Prosecution has led cogent evidence to the effect that the tainted currency notes amounting to Rs.250/-, smeared with Phenolphthalein powder by P.W.6 and handed over to P.W.1 in presence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5, were recovered from the possession of the appellant and that the hand wash of the appellant taken in Sodium Carbonate solution revealed presence of Phenolphthalein powder on chemical examination. However, in assailing the im¬pugned judgment and order, it was contended by the learned coun¬sel for the appellant that there is no evidence, worth acceptance, to conclude that the appellant, as alleged, demanded bribe of Rs.250/- from P.W.1 either on 28.04.1985 or 25.04.1985 in connec¬tion with payment towards final bill for execution of work con¬tract by P.W.1. However, in assailing the im¬pugned judgment and order, it was contended by the learned coun¬sel for the appellant that there is no evidence, worth acceptance, to conclude that the appellant, as alleged, demanded bribe of Rs.250/- from P.W.1 either on 28.04.1985 or 25.04.1985 in connec¬tion with payment towards final bill for execution of work con¬tract by P.W.1. It was contended that only P.W.1 deposed regard¬ing demand made by the appellant prior to 28.04.1985 so far as the demand made by the appellant on 28.04.1985 is concerned, evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 is replete with contradictions and inconsistencies for which evidence of neither deserves acceptance in the absence of independent corroboration. In reply, it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department that evidence of decoy P.W.1 and accompanying witness P.W.3 clearly establishes that on 28.04.1985 the appellant demanded Rs.250/- from P.W.1 as soon as P.W.1 met him in his office. 6. Charge in the case relates to offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the P.C. Act and Section 161 of the I.P.C. which stand repealed. Also, the charge against the appel¬lant is confined to acceptance of bribe on 28.04.1985. Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act provided punishment for criminal misconduct committed by public servant. 6. Charge in the case relates to offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the P.C. Act and Section 161 of the I.P.C. which stand repealed. Also, the charge against the appel¬lant is confined to acceptance of bribe on 28.04.1985. Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act provided punishment for criminal misconduct committed by public servant. The relevant provisions under Sec¬tion 5 of the P.C. Act read : “Section 5 (1) A Public servant is said to commit the offence of crimi¬nal misconduct; xx xx xx xx xx (d) if he, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; xx xx xx xx xx (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine; Provided that the Court may, for any special reasons recorded in writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year.” Section 161 of the I.P.C. laid down punishment for ‘public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act,’ and it read: “Whoever, being or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour to any person, or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or with any local authority, corporation or Govern¬ment Company referred to in Section 21, to with any public serv¬ant, as such, shall be punished with imprisonment of either de¬scription for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” 7. In order to bring home the charge under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act against the accused, the prosecution has to prove that the accused used corrupt or illegal means or that he otherwise abused his position as a public servant and obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advan¬tage. The charge under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act necessarily implies that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 161 of the I.P.C. The demand by the accused of illegal gratification is an essential ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act. In this connection, Balaram Singh v. State of Orissa, 56 (1983) CLT 372, at page 384, may be referred to. In the aforesaid decision of this Court it has also been reiterated that in the case of a legitimate trap, the witnesses to the trap would in no sense be accomplices and their evidence would not require under the law to be corroborated as a condition precedent for conviction though the usual rule of prudence would require the evidence to be scrutinized carefully before being accepted and before an order of conviction is passed. In Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, 1976 S.C.C. (Crl.) 160, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the trap witnesses are interested witnesses concerned with the success of the trap. Qualitatively, their testimony is inferior to that of an ordinary interested witness. The evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the Courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinized with a little care in order to find out whether the story disclosed by their evidence is true and genuine. 8. In the present case, in order to hold the appellant guilty under Sections 5(2) of the P.C. Act as well as Section 161 of the I.P.C., the prosecution is required to prove that the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.250/- from P.W.1 inasmuch as charge under both the heads is confined to the occurrence dated 28.04.1985. 8. In the present case, in order to hold the appellant guilty under Sections 5(2) of the P.C. Act as well as Section 161 of the I.P.C., the prosecution is required to prove that the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.250/- from P.W.1 inasmuch as charge under both the heads is confined to the occurrence dated 28.04.1985. In this connection, P.W.1 alleged that when he met the appellant on 25.04.1985 for payment of final bill of Rs.5,000/- in connection with execution of work contract of Nuagaon-Daibhata Road, the appellant asked him to come to his office on 28.04.1985 and pay him Rs.250/- as bribe for passing the bill. P.W.1 also alleged that the appellant threatened him that he would not pass his bill unless Rs.250 was paid to him. P.W.1 did not assert to have ever gone to the office of the appellant between 25.04.1985 and 28.04.1985. According him, he lodged the F.I.R. Ext.1 on 28.04.1985 before proceeding to the office of the appellant with the tainted money accompanied by P.W.3. P.W.1 alleged that in his office seeing P.W.1 the appel¬lant asked him whether he had brought the bribe. On the appel¬lant’s demand P.W.1 paid the bribe to the appellant who accepted the money and kept in his leather bag. Thereafter, P.W.1 deposed, P.W.3 “instantly gave signal and the vigilance raiding party members rushed inside the office of the “appellant upon which recovery and seizure were affected. Thus, P.W.1 did not whisper a word regarding preparation of his bill or payment of the bill amount on 28.04.1985. While concluding his examination-in-chief, P.W.1 vaguely alleged that he received the money under payment order Ext.6 dated 28.04.1985 ‘but the dated signature of the B.D.O. was given on 27.04.1985 though’ in Ext.6 the appellant had signed on 28.04.1985. However, P.W.1 did not testify in his examination-in-chief at what point of time on 28.04.1985 he received the payment and put his signature Ext.6/1 on Ext.6. In course of his cross-examination P.W.1 stated that on 28.04.1985 bill was submitted and prepared for the work, and that he signed and submitted the bill at about 1.00 P.M. on 28.04.1985, and that the bill amount to Rs.5,000/- was paid to him by the Cashier of the Block Office on 28.04.1985 at about 7.30 P.M. The Cashier has not been examined by the prosecution. Also P.W.1 stated that the measurement and check measurement of the work as per Ext.6 were done on 25.04.1985 and 27.04.1985 respectively. Having so de¬posed, P.W.1 thoroughly contradicted himself by stating. ‘The payment was made on 27.04.1985 as per Ext.6. The amount as per Ext.6 was paid to me on 27.04.1985.’ Though P.W. 1, as has been referred to above, stated to have submitted the bill at about 1.00 P.M. on 28.04.1985, his narration of sequence of events in course of cross-examination goes to show that he had no occasion to be in the Block Office at the stated time. He deposed that at 10.00 A.M. on 28.04.1985 he lodged the F.I.R. at Nawarangpur and at 2.00 P.M. they reached Saruguda Basic School for preparation of the trap which continued for about two hours. In this context, P.W.3 deposed that at about 11.00 A.M. report was lodged by P.W.1 before Inspector of Vigilance, Nawarangpur and contradicted P.W.1 by testifying that the Inspector of Vigilance asked them to attend his office at 4.00 P.M. on 28.04.1985. Accordingly they went to the office of the Inspector of Vigilance at 4.00 P.M. Though P.W.3 deposed that, when P.W.1 met the appellant, the appellant asked him to pay bribe and accordingly P.W.1 paid him Rs.250/- and, thereafter, as per the appellant’s direction the Cashier of the Block Office paid money towards finalization of some pending bills upon which he gave signal to the vigilance raiding party, such assertion was not supported by P.W.1 himself. Moreover, P.W.3 contradicted himself as well as P.W.1 deposing in his cross-examination that after payment towards some bills of the decoy to him by the Cashier P.W.1 paid the tainted money to the appellant upon which he gave signal to the raiding party. Prosecution did not choose to examine the Cashier of Block Office who was stated to be the only person present in the office along¬with the appellant when the trap was laid. P.W.4 the Head Clerk of the Block Office deposed that P.W.1’s bills were checked by a Senior Clerk of the office on 27.04.1985 and as per the case record the bills of the P.W.1 were prepared and paid on 27.04.1985. On perusal of Ext.6 it is found that order for payment of Rs.4712.60 was passed on 27.04.1985 and the appellant had acknowledged receipt of the said amount and not Rs.5,000/- as stated by him. On perusal of Ext.6 it is found that order for payment of Rs.4712.60 was passed on 27.04.1985 and the appellant had acknowledged receipt of the said amount and not Rs.5,000/- as stated by him. The appellant also appears to have endorsed the payment on 27.04.1985. 9. Thus, it is clear that official records including payment order Ext.6 indicate payment on 27.04.1985 of the bill amount in connection with which bribe was alleged to have been demanded. Evidence of P.W.1 on this score was not only contradic¬tory and inconsistent but also evasive. In course of cross-examination he was constrained to admit that bill amount under payment order Ext.6 was paid to him on 27.04.1985. In case P.W.1 had already received the payment on 27.04.1985, the entire prose¬cution case of payment of gratification as a motive to get P.W.1’s bill passed by the appellant is rendered suspicious. There was no reason for P.W.1 to lodge complaint against the appellant or to pay bribe to the appellant on 28.04.1985. Such infirmities in the evidence of P.W.1 and 3 makes the allegation of demand made by the appellant for payment of Rs.250/- as grati¬fication for passing of bill unacceptable. Therefore, the prose¬cution is found to have failed to prove that the tainted money was handed over by P.W.1 to the appellant consequent upon demand made by the appellant in abuse of his position as a public serv¬ant for obtaining pecuniary advantage or gratification for pass¬ing bill of P.W.1. The charge framed against the appellant has not been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to be acquitted. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order are set aside. Appeal allowed.