Judgment RAKESH SAKSENA, J. ( 1. ) Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 4th July, 2005 passed by Special Judge (C. B. I.), Jabalpur in Special Case No. 4/ 2003 convicting him under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1000/- and rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 2000/- on each count respectively. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. ( 2. ) Prosecution case is that on 29-10-2002 accused/appellant was working as Personnel Officer in Amlai Open Cast Mines (in short OCM), South Eastern Coalfield Limited (in short SECL), Sohagpur Ares. It is said that accused demanded Rs. 3000/- as bribe from complainant Pradeep Kumar Shukla (PW5) for issuing Labour Payment Certificate (hereinafter referred to as LPC) for the payment of wages of security guards of Maruti Security and Personnel Services (hereinafter referred to as MSPS) for the month of June, 2002. MSPS was a security agency, which had entered into a contract with SECL since the year 2001 for security of the property of SECL. For payment of wages to security guards and other employees of MSPS, a certificate about the payment of wages of the labours was required to be issued by an officer of SECL for certificate that the wages of employees were being paid as per the requirement and that just payment was received by the security guards of MSPS. It is said that accused was required to issue the LPC to MSPS for the payment of wages of the month of June 2002 Pradeep Kumar Shukla (PW5) was working as security supervisor in MSPS and was representing it for the purpose of obtaining the labour payment bills of security guards of MSPS of Sohagpur Area of SECL. On 29-10-2002, when Inspector of CBI, Jabalpur Shri S. M. S. Chouhan (PW10) was camping at Shahdol, Pradeep Kumar Shukla (PW5) submitted a written complaint (Ex. P/5) to him stating that accused Sanjay Kumar was demanding Rs. 3000/- for issuing the LPC for the month of May, 2002 without which the payment of wages for the month of June 2002 of the security guards of MSPS was held up. On the basis of aforesaid complaint (Ex. P/5), Inspector S. M. S. Chouhan (PW10) started investigation. P/5) to him stating that accused Sanjay Kumar was demanding Rs. 3000/- for issuing the LPC for the month of May, 2002 without which the payment of wages for the month of June 2002 of the security guards of MSPS was held up. On the basis of aforesaid complaint (Ex. P/5), Inspector S. M. S. Chouhan (PW10) started investigation. He decided to lay a trap on Sanjay Kumar for catching him red-handed. On 29-10-2002, he summoned two officers from New India Assurance Company, Shahdol viz. S. K. Dwivedi (PW2) and Bhupat Kishore (PW3) at Hotel Surya, Room No. 203 at about 4 p. m. where the team of CBI was staying. S. K. Dwivedi (PW2) was the Development Officer and Bhupat Kishore (PW3) was Administrative Officer in New India Assurance Company, Shahdol. When these witnesses reached hotel, they were introduced to complainant Pradeep Kumar Shukla (PW5). They read the complaint Ex. P/5 made by Pradeep Kumar Shukla and after verifying the authenticity of the complaint, signed on it. ( 3. ) Demonstration of pre-trap proceedings was done and Pradeep Kumar Shukla was asked to give the currency notes, which were to be delivered to accused by way of bribe. He handed over 30 notes of denomination of Rs. 100/-, totalling Rs. 3000/-. Numbers of the notes were recorded in pre-trap memorandum Ex. P/6; phenolphthalein powder was applied to the said notes and the notes were kept in the left pocket of the shirt of Pradeep Kumar Shukla. Pradeep Kumar Shukla was asked to not to touch these notes unless they were to be handed over to accused on his demand. S. K. Dwivedi was directed to accompany Pradeep Kumar Shukla as a shadow witness and was instructed to hear the talks taking place between accused and the complainant and to give a signal after the tainted money was handed over to accused. Bhupat Kishore (PW3) was instructed to accompany the trap team and to watch the proceedings. ( 4. ) The trap party with Pradeep Kumar Shukla proceeded on two vehicles for the residence of accused. Accused at that time lived at Sanjay Nagar, Amlal Zet hostel Room No. 12. Bhupat Kishore (PW3) was instructed to accompany the trap team and to watch the proceedings. ( 4. ) The trap party with Pradeep Kumar Shukla proceeded on two vehicles for the residence of accused. Accused at that time lived at Sanjay Nagar, Amlal Zet hostel Room No. 12. Pradeep Kumar Shukla and S. K. Dwivedi went to the room of accused and after about 15 minutes, at about 9.30 p. m. S. K. Dwivedi (PW2) came out of the room and gave signal to the trap party by igniting a cigartte with matchstick. The members of the CBI team entered Room No. 12 of Sanjay Kumar. Inspector S. M. S. Chouhan (PW10) and another member of the team caught the wrists of both the hands of Sanjay Kumar and gave their introduction and informed him that he was caught for taking bribe of Rs. 3000/- from Pradeep Kumar Shukla. Pradeep Kumar Shukla and S. K. Dwivedi informed that Sanjay Kumar had kept the notes in the left pocket of his shirt. Bhupat Kishore (PW3) took out the currency notes from the said pocket and tallied numbers of the notes with the numbers noted in the pre-trap memorandum. The notes were seized and sealed in an envelope Hands of Sanjay Kumar were washed with sodium carbonate solution whereby the colour of the solution turned pink. The pocket of the shirt from which the currency notes were recovered was dipped in sodium carbonate solution, which gave pink colour. The solution was sealed and seized shirt was also wrapped in a paper and sealed. Hands of complainant were also washed with sodium carbonate solution and solution was sealed in a bottle. After completing the trap proceedings, Inspector S. M. S. Chouhan (PW10) recorded the post-trap memorandum Ex. P/7 which was signed by the members of the trap party. Some documents were seized from the office of SECL/OCM vide seizure memo Ex. P/9. FIR of the incident Ex. P/20 was recorded and investigation of the case was conducted by Paneer Salwam, CBI Inspector (PW9). He recorded the statements of witnesses and collected the relevant documents and obtained the sanction from Naresh Kumar Sharma (PW4), Chief Managing Director. Reports of Central Forensic Science Laoborty, New Delhi (in short CFSL) in respect of seized solutions were received. P/20 was recorded and investigation of the case was conducted by Paneer Salwam, CBI Inspector (PW9). He recorded the statements of witnesses and collected the relevant documents and obtained the sanction from Naresh Kumar Sharma (PW4), Chief Managing Director. Reports of Central Forensic Science Laoborty, New Delhi (in short CFSL) in respect of seized solutions were received. Though presence of phenolphthalein in the solution was found positive in other solution, but in Ex-E the solution obtained after washing the pocket of the shirt of accused did not show the presence of phenolphthalein. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. ( 5. ) Accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. He filed his statement under Section 233 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that the whole episode was concocted by the officers of MSPS on false grounds. According to him, he never demanded money from Pradeep Kumar Shukla for issuing LPC after the month of April 2002. There was no ground for him to issue LPC as from that time payment of the labours was being made through the Bank for which LPC was not required. The requirement of grant of LPC was for verification that the employees of MSPS were being paid their wages, but since from April 2002 the employees of MSPS were being paid through Bank, there was no justifiable ground for issuing LPC. ( 6. ) Prosecution, to substantiate its case examined ten witnesses viz., Lal Singh (PW1), S. K. Dwivedi (PW2), Bhupat Kishore (PW3), Naresh Kumar Sharma (PW4), Pradeep Kumar Shukla (PW5), Yogendra Tiwari (PW6), Avinash Sarkar (PW7), Barmeshwar Singh (PW8), Paneer Salwam (PW9) and S. M. S. Chouhan (PW10). Accused also in his defence examined two witnesses viz. Sanjay Amte (DW1), Manager of Hotel Surya, Shahdol and Lakhwinder Singh (DW2), an employee of MSPS. Complainant Pradeep Kumar Shukla (PW5) did not support the prosecution case by denying the demand of money by the accused. However, learned trial Court relying on the evidence of other prosecution witnesses held the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. ( 7. ) Shri Anil Khare, learned counsel for the appellant contended that accused/appellant was falsely implicated in the case. The case was concocted at the instance of officials of MSPS. However, learned trial Court relying on the evidence of other prosecution witnesses held the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. ( 7. ) Shri Anil Khare, learned counsel for the appellant contended that accused/appellant was falsely implicated in the case. The case was concocted at the instance of officials of MSPS. There was no occasion for demand of any money from complainant Pradeep Kumar Shukla for issuance of LPC, as from April 2002 labour payment of MSPS was being made through the Bank. The officers of MSPS had made four complaints to CBI against the officers of SECL. In all the aforesaid complaints, the alleged amount of bribe was said to be Rs. 3000/-. All the said complaints were made at Surya Hotel on 29- 10-2002. He contended that it was not established from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that any demand was made by the accused. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses in that regard was inconsistent, discrepant and contradictory. Complainant Pradeep Kumar Shukla (PW5) himself did not say that any demand was made by the accused. Almost all the prosecution witnesses including the complainant admitted that at the relevant time no LPC was required to be issued since payment of wages of the employees of MSPS was being made through Bank since June 2002. He further contended that trap witnesses viz. S. K. Dwivedi (PW2) and Bhupati Kishore (PW3) were not independent witnesses. Their evidence was inconsistent and contradictory. At the time of passing of the alleged money, S. K. Dwivedi (PW2) had already left the room where the transaction is said to have taken place. He further contended that from the report of CFSL, it was clear that the pocket of the shirt of accused in which the tainted currency notes were allegedly kept did not contain traces of phenolphthalein. The evidence of sending the shirt again for test of phenolphthalein was suspicious. There was no evidence on record to indicate that the said seized shirt of accused was kept intact. The seal by which the shirt was sealed in the packet was not handed over to any independent person to rule out the possibility of tampering. The explanation given by the accused was probable and reliable and was substantiated by the prosecution witnesses itself apart from the evidence of defence witnesses. The seal by which the shirt was sealed in the packet was not handed over to any independent person to rule out the possibility of tampering. The explanation given by the accused was probable and reliable and was substantiated by the prosecution witnesses itself apart from the evidence of defence witnesses. On the contrary, Shri Jayant Nikhra, learned counsel for CBI, contended that the evidence of prosecution witnesses was reliable and sufficient to bring home the accusation against the accused. Complainant Pradeep Kumar Shukla (PW5) did not support the prosecution case because he had been sacked from the job. There was evidence on record to indicate that LPC was required to be issued for the month of May 2002. He contended that the evidence of S. K. Dwivedi (PW2) and Bhupat Kishore (PW3), who were independent witnesses, was trustworthy. It was estsblished from the report of CFSL that the tainted currency notes were accepted by the accused and kept in the pocket. There was nothing on record to indicate that the shirt of accused was tampered with by anybody. He contended that even if the complainant did not support the prosecution case, the accused could be convicted if the offence was proved by other evidence on record. He justified the finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court. ( 8. ) We heard the learned counsel of both the sides at length and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence and material on record carefully. ( 9. ) It is not disputed by the appellant that he was working as Senior Personnel Officer in OCM of South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Sohagpur Area and was a public servant. ( 10. ) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant had an opportunity to make demand of bribe from the complainant. Since the LPC was not required to be issued at the relevant time because the payment of wages of the employees of MSPS was being made through Bank. It was necessary to find out if there was any motive for payment of bribe in the fact situation of the present case. ( 11. ) Lal Singh (PW1), who was working as Accountant in OCM, SECL deposed that he had the file of MSPS containing the bill of wages (Ex.P/1) pertaining to period 1-6- 2002 to 30-6-2002. The payment voucher of the bill (Ex. ( 11. ) Lal Singh (PW1), who was working as Accountant in OCM, SECL deposed that he had the file of MSPS containing the bill of wages (Ex.P/1) pertaining to period 1-6- 2002 to 30-6-2002. The payment voucher of the bill (Ex. P/3) was also in the file. Bill Ex.P/1 was presented to Area Manager of OCM by MSPS on 1-7-2002. It was received in the Finance Department on 4-8-2002. The value of the bill was Rs. 1,11,103/-. This bill was forwarded to Finance Manager Avinash Sarkar and was paid as per payment voucher Ex.P/3. He admitted that since the month of April 2002 the payment of the wages of the employees of MSPS was being done through the Bank, therefore, no LPC was required. He categorically stated that he knew accused Sanjay Kumar since about last 3 years. He was a good worker and his papers were always found correct. ( 12. ) Avinash Sarkar (PW7), Deputy Finance Manager of SECL explained the necessity of LPC. According to him, the certificate was required for verification that the payments to labours were being made correctly. It was a certificate to the effect that the payment of wages was made before the officer concerned. The certificate was used to be issued by the personnel officer. At the time of occurrence accused Sanjay Kumar was working on the post of personnel officer. This witness too admitted that LPC was not necessitated after the direction about the payment through Bank was issued. Referring to letter Ex.P/15, written by Area Security Officer of SECL, it was deposed by him that the bill Ex.P/14 was lying with the Accounts Department for want of LPC for the month of May 2002, however, this letter indicated that the payment to the staff/workers engaged by the concerned agency was being made through Bank from the month of April 2002, therefore, the payment for the month of June, 2002 may be released and necessary certificate could be submitted after collecting the required documents for the month of May 2002. This was done because the concerned agency was pressing hard for the payment in view of Deepawali festival. This gives some indication that the payment of wages of the concerned agency i.e. MSPS were being made through the Bank from the month of April 2002. This was done because the concerned agency was pressing hard for the payment in view of Deepawali festival. This gives some indication that the payment of wages of the concerned agency i.e. MSPS were being made through the Bank from the month of April 2002. This witness further deposed that in respect of bill Ex.P/14 he had sought advice from the Finance Department by sending a note Ex.P/17 as to what should have been done as the LPC from the month of May, 2002 was not found, whereupon Mr. Barmeshwar Singh, Deputy Finance Manager had directed him to obtain the LPC from the concerned officer. In this regard, the evidence of Barmeshwar Singh (PW8) is also significant. Barmeshwar Singh (PW8) deposed that he had found the bill correct, therefore, he had recommended for concurrence for the payment. He deposed that in the document Ex.P/17, the then Assistant Finance Manager Mr. D. Chatterjee had directed him to obtain LPC. This direction was signed by Area Finance Manager Shri D. Chatterjee. ( 13. ) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though this endorsement was made on Ex.P/17, but the Area Finance Manager Shri Chatterjee was not examined by the prosecution before the Court, therefore, this note cannot be made use of for holding that LPC was required at the relevant time, especially in view of the fact that Barmeshwar Singh (PW8), Finance Manager in cross-examination himself admitted that since April, 2002 the payment of labours was being made through Bank, therefore, no LPC was required. He admitted that letter Ex.D/4 dated 14-12-2001 was issued by Chief General Manager (Personnel and Administration) that only one time extension for a period of three months for making payment to Security Personnel of DGR Sponsored Security Agencies in cash was approved by the competent authority, however, they were informed that further payment to security personnel engaged by the Agencies will be made only through Bank by the concerned Security Agency. This witness deposed that by letter Ex.D/8 dated 2-4-2002, Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Sohagpur Area had directed the officers of MSPS that they were allowed one time extension for three months only in the month of December 2001 and it has advised them for getting the Bank account opened for all their employees so that payment of March 2002 payable in April 2002 could be made through Bank but they did not inform the management whether the same had been opened or not. In the said circumstances, the management shall be compelled not to allow them to make payment to their employees in cash and assurance was sought that the accounts were opened at the earliest so that the payment of the month of March 2002 could be released to their employees through Bank. Barmeshwar Singh (PW8) admitted that a letter Ex.D/9 was written by Chief General Manager, Sohagpur Area to CMD, SECL, Bilaspur on 8-2-2003 in reference to a petition filed by MSPS in the High Court. In Ex. D/9, it was indicated by the Chief General Manager that order to make payment through Bank was issued in the month of December 2001, which was extended up to April 2002. In between this, the MSPS adopted all efforts to avoid Bank payment with no results. They expressed so many problems in opening the Bank Account, but they reluctantly and half-heartedly responded and after long persuasion the payment could be made through Bank from April 2002. It was also expressed in the said letter that MSPS Management was so greedy for money that they assigned the management of the Company to those persons, who were arrogant and could threaten guards to extract money from their salary, but due to payment made through Bank, they were not getting chance and as such they were annoyed and frustrated. This witness admitted that he heard many times that the officers of MSPS misbehaved with the officials of SECL. ( 14. ) In the light of the evidence of aforesaid witnesses when we examine the evidence of complainant Pradeep Kumar Shukla (PW5), it seems that accused Sanjay Kumar refused to give him LPC because it was not required. He stated that when he met accused for obtaining LPC, he told him that he would not give LPC because it was not required and that he had no role for getting his bill paid. He stated that when he met accused for obtaining LPC, he told him that he would not give LPC because it was not required and that he had no role for getting his bill paid. This witness admitted that though he made a complaint to CBI that Sanjay Kumar was demanding money, but in fact he had not asked for any money. He admitted that the labour payment for the month of May 2001 was done by his company through Bank. In para 17 of his statement, he denied that in the month of October, 2002 accused asked him that if he wanted to get his bill passed early, he will have to pay for it. Though the fact that accused did not make any demand from him was omission in his police statement, yet his categorical statement before the Court that accused did not ask money from him casts serious doubt over the prosecution story that he demanded bribe for issuing LPC. ( 15. ) In Jagdish Chandra Makhija v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1990 MPLJ 239 , it has been held that in a trap case when initial part of the story of demand and offer is found to be untrustworthy, testimony of the complainant cannot be accepted. In assessing the evidence of a witness, the background of the prosecution story should be kept in mind. Where the complainant seems to have no regard for the truth and admitted that he made a false complaint under the pressure of his officers, his testimony cannot be accepted. In cross- examination, complainant admitted that the officers of his Company had decided that three officers of SECL viz. S.K. Singh, Ajay Singh and Sanjay Kumar should be trapped. He was asked to get accused Sanjay Kumar trapped. He disclosed that while writing the complaint application he told to Yogendra Tiwari (PW6) that Sanjay Kumar did not make any demand from him. Yogendra Tiwari (PW6) asked him to write as he instructed. He admitted that he made the complaint because he could not disobey the direction of his senior officer. It was Yogendra Tiwari who had taken him to CBI officers. Complainant admitted that since in the month of March 2002 the labour payment was being made through Bank, therefore, LPC was not required. ( 16. He admitted that he made the complaint because he could not disobey the direction of his senior officer. It was Yogendra Tiwari who had taken him to CBI officers. Complainant admitted that since in the month of March 2002 the labour payment was being made through Bank, therefore, LPC was not required. ( 16. ) Yogendra Tiwari (PW6), Chief Executive Officer of MSPS, deposed that in the month of October, 2002 Pradeep Kumar Shukla informed him that the payment of the bill for the month of June 2002 was not being made because accused was not issuing LPC for the month of May 2002 and for issuing the same he was demanding bribe of Rs. 3000/-. According to him, he then advised Shukla to make a report to CBI. In cross-examination, this witness was confronted with his police statement Ex.D/3 wherein these facts were not disclosed by him. In view of these material contradictions his evidence does not inspire confidence. Learned counsel for the CBI argued that even if the complainant did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile, since he admitted his signatures on the complaint, the complaint Ex.P/5 proved the demand made by the accused. He further argued that the demand was also proved by the fact that complainant admitted before Yogendra Tiwari (PW6), S. K. Dwivedi (PW2) and Bhupat Kishore (PW3) that accused demanded bribe of Rs. 3000/-. We are afraid that this argument of learned counsel cannot be accepted. Evidence of S. K. Dwivedi (PW2) and Bhupat Kishore (PW3) that Pradeep Kumar Shukla admitted before them that accused demanded bribe cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the complainant himself deposed that the false complaint was made by him under the pressure of the officers of his Company. Apart from that the complaint Ex.P/5 cannot be treated as substantive evidence. ( 17. ) In Suresh Kumar Shrivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1994 MPLJ 30 : 1994 Cri LJ 3738, it was held that the complaint cannot be treated as substantive evidence. It contained only a "former statement" of the complainant that accused had demanded money from him for showing favour to him. "Former Statement" could either be used to corroborate under Section 157 of the Evidence Act of the complaint given in the Court or to contradict his evidence under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. It contained only a "former statement" of the complainant that accused had demanded money from him for showing favour to him. "Former Statement" could either be used to corroborate under Section 157 of the Evidence Act of the complaint given in the Court or to contradict his evidence under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. When complainant did not support the story that demand was made by accused, there was no substantive evidence or deposition of the witness before the Court, it would be wrong on the part of the trial Court to base a decision on what was merely a "former statement" of a witness contained in the complaint. ( 18. ) In view of the above discussion, we feel compelled to hold that it was not established beyond reasonable doubt that accused had an occasion to issue LPC that could have given him an opportunity to make a demand of bribe and to the complainant the occasion to offer the same. ( 19. ) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence of receipt of bribe money by the accused has not been established beyond the reasonable doubt. Whole episode was manufactured under conspiracy by the officers of security agency who entertained grudge against the officers of SECL for various reasons. The trap was arranged with the connivance of the officers of CBI who had assembled in hotel Surya at Shahdol. According to him, the explanation given by accused immediately at the time of trap and in the written statement submitted by him before the trial Court that he was falsely implicated under conspiracy was reasonable and probabe under the circumstances of the case. S. K. Dwivedi (PW2), who was summoned as an independent witness from New India Insurance Company, deposed that he with Bhupat Kishore had reached Surya Hotel at 4.00 p.m. where he met CBI Inspector Chouhan and complainant Pradeep Kumar Shukla. After verification of the complaint from Pradeep Kumar Shukla, he saw the demonstration conducted by the CBI Inspector. Under the instruction of CBI Inspector, he went with Pradeep Kumar Shukla as a shadow witness to Zet hostel in Sanjay Nagar where accused was residing. Other members of the trap party stayed at some distance from the building and he and Pradeep Kumar Shukla went at the house of accused. Pradeep Kumar Shukla introduced him as his new incharge. Under the instruction of CBI Inspector, he went with Pradeep Kumar Shukla as a shadow witness to Zet hostel in Sanjay Nagar where accused was residing. Other members of the trap party stayed at some distance from the building and he and Pradeep Kumar Shukla went at the house of accused. Pradeep Kumar Shukla introduced him as his new incharge. There had been some talks about the pending bills of the Company. Thereafter accused enquired from Pradeep Kumar Shukla whether he had brought the money. Pradeep Kumar Shukla took out the money from his pocket and gave it in the right hand of the accused who kept it in his left side pocket of the shirt. According to him, accused assured him that his work shall be done. S. K. Dwivedi then went out and ignited a cigarette for giving signal to the trap party. Trap party came in the room and Inspector S.M.S. Chouhan caught hold of the hands of accused. According to this witness, accused uttered that "he committed mistake". Thereafter Bhupat Kishore took out money from the pocket of accused. The hands and the pocket of accused from which the currency notes were taken out when washed with sodium carbonate turned pink. Numbers of the notes also tallied with the numbers of the notes, which had been given to complainant. Similar facts were deposed by Bhupat Kishore (PW3), however, he deposed that when CBI officer enquired from the accused as to where he had kept the bribe money, accused could say nothing. Bhupat Kishore admitted that he himself had not seen the complainant delivering money to accused. Both the aforesaid witnesses stated that the pocket of the shirt of accused was washed and the pink solution of sodium carbonate was seized. But when we turn to the evidence to complainant Pradeep Kumar Shukla (PW 5), we find that he deposed that when he and S. K. Dwivedi went in the room of accused and asked him for passing the bill, accused asked them to come in the office next day. He took out Rs. 3000/-from his pocket and wanted to give the same to accused but he refused to accept it. At the time when he offered money to accused, S. K. Dwivedi left and went out of the room. He took out Rs. 3000/-from his pocket and wanted to give the same to accused but he refused to accept it. At the time when he offered money to accused, S. K. Dwivedi left and went out of the room. According to complainant, when he insisted to give money, accused tried to return the same and, therefore, he kept the money on the bed and at that moment CBI team reached there and caught the hands of accused. Complainant stated that when Inspector Chouhan asked the accused that he had taken bribe, accused replied that he was falsely implicated. ( 20. ) Learned counsel for the State contended that complainant Pradeep Kumar Shukla was declared hostile, therefore, his evidence was unworthy of reliance. According to him, the acceptance of bribe money by accused was established by the fact that hands of the accused and pocket of his shirt contained traces of phenolphthalein, which was established by Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) report. Contrary to it, learned counsel for the accused contended that the fact that the tainted money was kept in the pocket by the accused was belied by the result of CFSL test in respect of the solution of the pocket, as it was found to be negative for the phenolphthalein test. CFSL report is Ex. P/33. Since for the first time CFSL report in respect of the solution of the pocket was found negative, the shirt was again sent for test of presence of phenolphthalein powder and a fresh report Ex. P/32 was received, according to which, presence of phenolphthalein was confirmed in the pocket. ( 21. ) Learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the second test report was not reliable. When the solution collected after washing the pocket of the shirt at the spot did not contain traces of phenolphthalein, it was highly improbable that the shirt would still contain the phenolphthalein at later stage. He argued that though it has been stated by the prosecution witnesses that the shirt was sealed at the spot, yet there was no evidence on record to indicate that the shirt was kept in safe custody and the seal with which it was sealed was also kept in safe custody of any independent person. The trap was conducted on 29-10-2002 whereas the shirt in question was received by CFSL on 3-2-2003. He placed reliance on Mohd. The trap was conducted on 29-10-2002 whereas the shirt in question was received by CFSL on 3-2-2003. He placed reliance on Mohd. Aman v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1997 SC 2960 ): (1997 Cri LJ 3567) where, in regard to the period of custody of empty cartridge with the police, it was held that inordinate delay in sending the same for examination to ballistic expert raised doubt and gave rise to suspicion. There was delay of only 5 days but in those circumstances, it was held by the Apex Court that there was no justifiable reason for the delay. In Mahmood v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( AIR 1976 SC 69 ): (1976 Cri LJ 10) Apex Court held that after sealing the parcel of any article, the seal should not remain with the investigating agency. This principle was also followed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Vijay Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( 2004 (4) MPLJ 543 : (2005 Cri LJ 299) and Ganesh alias Ganesha alias Ganesh Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh (ILR (2008) MP 3026). ( 22. ) The fact that initially the pocket of the shirt did not give traces of phenolphthalein and susbequently the phenolphthalein test gave positive result, in our opinion, throws considerable doubt about the presence of phenolphthalein in the pocket of accused. This circumstance militates against the prosecution version that the accused received the tainted currency notes and kept it in his pocket. In these circumstances, the evidence of complainant that accused refused to accept money and, therefore, he kept it on the bed seems probable. It is also probable that when complainant insisted and accused refused to accept the bribe money, the hands of accused might have come in contact of tainted currency notes. In the above fact situation, the explanation furnished by accused that the officers of MSPS in connivance with the officers of CBI arranged a false trap, appears probable. ( 23. ) Learned counsel for the accused, referring to the evidence of Sanjay Amte (D.W. 1), argued that the whole episode was a frame up. On 20-10-2002, M. S. Chouhan, C. L. Patel, B. R. Prabhakar and Vinayak Dubey had come in his hotel Surya at Shahdol. Room No. 201 was took in the name of V. Joshi and in this room 5-6 persons had stayed. On 20-10-2002, M. S. Chouhan, C. L. Patel, B. R. Prabhakar and Vinayak Dubey had come in his hotel Surya at Shahdol. Room No. 201 was took in the name of V. Joshi and in this room 5-6 persons had stayed. Lakhvinder Singh (DW 2) deposed that he along with his boss Yogendra Tiwari and Mr. Joshi had reached Surya hotel. Two persons from CBI who were in civil dress had accompanied them from Bhopal. Shakeel Ahmed, Advocate who was legal advisor of Maruti Security Company was also with them. Yogendra Tiwari had asked Mr. Gautam, Mr. Shukla and Joshi to write three complaints and had given money. When complainant Pradeep Kumar Shukla had told that accused had not demanded money, Yogendra Tiwari had asked him to do what he said. These facts find corroboration from the evidence of Pradeep Kumar Shukla (P.W. 5) who deposed that on 29-10-2002 when he had gone to hotel Surya he had met Finance Manager Vinod Joshi and Devnath Gautam in one room. Chief Executive Yogendra Tiwari and former manager Lakhvinder Singh and Shakeel Ahmad were also present. According to him, officers of the company had decided to get three persons viz. S. K. Singh, Ajay Singh and Sanjay Kumar trapped. He was asked to get Sanjay Kumar trapped though Sanjay Kumar never made any demand from him. He disclosed that Yogendra Dixit had introduced him to CBI people. ( 24. ) In State of Madhya Pradesh v. J. B. Singh ( AIR 2000 SC 3562 ) : (2000 Cri LJ 4591), Supreme Court observed that so far as payment is concerned, once complainant himself did not support the prosecution case, there is no material to establish the alleged payment said to have been made by complainant to the accused pursuant to the alleged demand. Therefore, all the necessary ingredients of the offence under S. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under S. 161,I.P.C. not having established, the order of acquittal is justified. Therefore, all the necessary ingredients of the offence under S. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under S. 161,I.P.C. not having established, the order of acquittal is justified. In Sita Ram v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1975 SC 1432 ) : (1975 Cri LJ 1224) Apex Court held that when story of demand of bribe by the accused from the complainant was not proved and even the story of payment of money by the complainant was not established beyond reasonable doubt, the rule of presumption engrafted in S. 4(1) could not be made use of for convicting the accused. In Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Administration) ( AIR 1979 SC 1408 ) : (1979 Cri LJ1087), Apex Court held that in the case of bribery, mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. In Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra (2002 AIR SCW 16) : ( AIR 2002 SC 486 ), Apex Court observed "It is too well settled that in a case where the accused offers an explanation for receipt of the alleged amount, the question that arises for consideration is whether that explanation can be said to have been established. It is further clear that the accused is not required to establish his defence by proving beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution, but can establish the same by preponderance of probability." Similar view was expressed by the Apex Court in case of Ganga Kumar Shrivastava v. State of Bihar ( (2005) 6 SCC 211 ) : ( AIR 2005 SC 3123 : 2005 Cri LJ 3454). ( 25. ) After scanning and analyzing the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we are unable to hold that prosecution was successful in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that there was any occasion for the accused to have demanded bribe from the complainant for issuing the LPC. It was not proved beyond doubt that at the relevant time such a certificate was required for payment of wages of the employees of MSPS, since the payment of wages of MSPS was already being made through the Bank. Apart from that, complainant Pradeep Kumar Shukla (P.W. 5) himself did not support the prosecution version and categorically stated that no demand was made by the accused. Complaint (Ex. Apart from that, complainant Pradeep Kumar Shukla (P.W. 5) himself did not support the prosecution version and categorically stated that no demand was made by the accused. Complaint (Ex. P/5) could not have been treated as substantive evidence in the absence of evidence of its maker. Complainant himself admitted that the complaint Ex. P/5 was made by him under coercion of the officers of his company. In view of his admission, the evidence of other independent witnesses viz. S. K. Dwivedi (P.W. 2) and Bhupat Kishore (P.W. 3) was rendered of no use. Apart from the above facts, the fact that for the first time sodium carbonate solution in which the pocket of the shirt of the accused was dipped negatived the presence of phenolphthalein, created doubt about the acceptance of bribe money by the accused. Besides that, the conduct of CBI Inspector S. M. S. Chauhan (P.W.10) seemed to be suspicious. He could not say as to how long he had stayed in Surya Hotel. He could even not explain whether he was staying for one day, two days or three days. According to him, no information was given to people of Shahdol that he was staying at Shahdol and if anybody wanted he could have contacted him. It is suspicious that how the complainant approached to him for arranging trap. Inspector Chouhan even did not inform and obtain any instruction from the Superintendent of Police, CBI for taking any action against the accused. These facts clearly smack of some kind of underhand dealing and connivance with the officers of Maruti Agency. ( 26. ) In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we hold that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside on the ground that the findings of fact and appreciation of evidence are vitiated as the evidence adduced by the prosecution fell short of the test of reliability and acceptability and as such, it was not safe to convict the accused-appellant. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and acquit the appellant for the charges levelled against him. ( 27. ) Appeal allowed.