JUDGMENT : C.R. DASH, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.12.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur, Ganjam in convicting the appellant for the offences punishable U/Ss. 13(2) r/w Section 13(I)(d) & Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short The P.C. Act ) and sentencing him to R.I. for one year for the offence punishable U/S. 13(2) r/w Section 13(I)(d) of the P.C. Act and further sentencing him to suffer R.I. for six months for the offence U/S. 7 of the P.C. Act directing the sentences to run concurrently. 2. At the relevant time, the appellant was working as Progress Assistant in Baliguda Block. The complainant was a beneficiary under the IRDP Scheme of Baliguda Block and his name was sponsored to the State Bank of India, Baliguda for sanction of loan of Rs.19,000/- for starting a cloth store. It is alleged in the written complaint dated 04.03.1998 presented to the D.S.P., Vigilance, Berhampur by the complainant that, while recommending the name of the complainant to avail the aforesaid loan benefit, the present appellant demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- for processing the application for recommending his name. However, the name of the complainant was recommended for availing the loan admittedly by the Block Development Officer and on 13.02.1998, he got the first installment of the loan. It is further alleged that on 13.02.1998 itself, the appellant reiterated his demand of Rs.1,000/- towards bribe, but the complainant expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount. On 26.02.1998, the complainant received the second installment of loan of Rs.5,000/-. After the complainant got the second installment of the loan amount, the appellant went to the house of the complainant and told his wife to inform the complainant to give him the demanded bribe. The complainant, however, did not fulfill the demand of the appellant. On 04.03.1998, the appellant again went to the house of the complainant and searched for him, but he was absent. The appellant told his wife in absence of the complainant that, she should inform the complainant to come to the Block Office on 05.03.1998 with the amount of Rs.500/-, which the complainant had to give to him. On 04.03.1998, the appellant again went to the house of the complainant and searched for him, but he was absent. The appellant told his wife in absence of the complainant that, she should inform the complainant to come to the Block Office on 05.03.1998 with the amount of Rs.500/-, which the complainant had to give to him. It is further alleged that, the appellant told the wife of the complainant that, if the bribe amount is not paid within the aforesaid period, his further installments will be blocked. The complainant, instead of paying the bribe, lodged a written report with the D.S.P., Vigilance, Berhampur vide Ext.9. The D.S.P., Vigilance, after receipt of the written report, made preparation and laid the trap. Investigation was taken up into the matter after the trap and after completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet was submitted against the appellant. 3. The defence plea is one of complete denial. The appellant, in his statement recorded U/S. 313 Cr. P.C., has specifically stated that, while he was busy in purchasing goods in the market, suddenly the complainant came and forcibly put some money into his pocket, which he immediately threw. 4. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses to bring the charges to home. P.W.5 is the complainant/Decoy, P.W.1 is the accompanying witness, who was arranged to overhear the talk between the appellant and the complainant and to signal the raiding party, when the bribe is accepted. P.Ws. 2 and 7 are the official witnesses, who had witnessed the preparation and seizure etc. P.W.3 is the Head Clerk of the Block Office, Baliguda, P.W. 6 is the sanctioning authority, P.W.4 is the D.S.P., Vigilance, with whom, the written complaint vide Ext.9 was lodged by P.W.5, P.W.7 is an Official witness to the trap and P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer. 5. There is no dispute by the defence that the appellant is a public servant and, at the relevant time, he was working as Progress Assistant in Baliguda Block. The defence plea being to the effect that, the complainant forcibly put some currency notes into the shirt pocket of the appellant, while he was busy in marketing, detection of Phenolphthalein from his pocket wash, is quite natural. The further defence plea being to the effect that, the appellant threw the money bringing it out from his pocket, Phenolphthalein from his hand wash was detected naturally. The further defence plea being to the effect that, the appellant threw the money bringing it out from his pocket, Phenolphthalein from his hand wash was detected naturally. But this Court has to see how far such circumstances are incriminatory in nature on the face of the evidence adduced. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant impugns the findings of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance on the following grounds :- (i) The complainant- P.W.5 having ipse dixit stated in the cross-examination that, after some days of the trap, he received the final installment of loan and there being further evidence to the effect that, after sanction of the first & second installment, the Bank authorities had visited his proposed shop to see the progress of work, it is to be held that, no work was pending with the appellant so far as the loan application of the complainant (P.W.5) is concerned on the date, the trap was laid and, therefore, there was no occasion for the appellant to demand any bribe from the complainant for doing such work. (ii) There is no evidence to show that, there was any prior demand or demand at the time of acceptance of bribe and the most important witness on this aspect, i.e., the wife of the complainant has not been examined. (iii) No independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove the demand of bribe, as alleged. (iv) The evidence of the complainant has not been corroborated by any other witness and even by the accompanying witness- P.W.1. 7. Learned counsel for the Vigilance Department per contra submits that, in a trap case, except the Decoy and the accompanying witness, there cannot be any other independent witness to be examined on behalf of the prosecution and in the present case, though the accompanying witness- P.W.1 has turned hostile, he has corroborated the complainant- P.W.5 in material particular. There is no ground therefore to disbelieve the prosecution case. It is further contended by the Department that, there is evidence to show that, the demand was made by the appellant prior to the forwarding of letter for availing the loan, but the bribe money must have been paid afterwards. There is no ground therefore to disbelieve the prosecution case. It is further contended by the Department that, there is evidence to show that, the demand was made by the appellant prior to the forwarding of letter for availing the loan, but the bribe money must have been paid afterwards. It is further submitted that, Phenolphthalein having been found from the hand wash and pocket wash of the appellant, it is to be held that, the appellant had accepted the bribe and legal or compulsory presumption is available to be drawn against the appellant to incriminate him U/S. 7 of the P.C. Act. 8. Rival contention of the parties can be resolved by proper appreciation of evidence adduced on record. It is found from the impugned Judgment that, learned Special Judge, Vigilance has relied on each and every prosecution witness to return the finding of the conviction without appreciating their evidence in proper perspective. 9. From the evidence of P.W.5 and other evidence, let me first fix the place of detection or the spot, where the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe had happened in between the appellant and the complainant. The complainant-P.W.5 in para- 5 of his examination-in-chief has testified that, at about 11 a.m., he along with the accompanying witness- P.W.1 first proceeded to the Office of the appellant ; as the appellant was absent in his Office, he came to his residence & found that the appellant was also not present in his residence ; while returning from the residence of the appellant on the way near Lamp, the appellant called him, when he went to the appellant, he was talking with another person ; the appellant did not take the tainted G.C. notes from him at that place ; then he took him towards the Tahasil Office; as many employees were present near the Tahasil Office, the appellant did not also accept the tainted G.C. notes from him there; then he took him towards the back side of Saloon of Prafulla Dakua and accepted the tainted G.C. notes from him. After accepting the tainted G.C. notes, the appellant kept the amount in his chest shirt pocket. 9.1. After accepting the tainted G.C. notes, the appellant kept the amount in his chest shirt pocket. 9.1. P.W.1- accompanying witness in para- 3 of his examination-in-chief has testified that, he along with the complainant went to the Block Office, where the appellant was found absent in his Office, so they returned back and while proceeding towards the market, on the way, found the appellant and at the sight of the complainant, the appellant talked with him and thereafter both of them went towards a lane in front of the Tahasil Office P.W.2, who was a member of the raiding party, has not stated about the spot of detection. P.W.4- D.S.P., Vigilance, who is the head of the raiding party, in para- 4 of his examination-in-chief has testified that, the place of detection is near the betel shop close to the Block Office and in his cross-examination, he has testified that, the place of detection is a market place. He thereafter in his cross- examination has testified that, due to the pocket wash, there was no stain in the pocket of the appellant. P.W.7, who is also a member of the raiding party, has testified that the complainant- P.W.5 & the accompanying witness- P.W.1 went to the Office of the appellant, but as they did not find him there, they went in search of him and ultimately found him in a bank of Baliguda. The appellant-P.W.5 & P.W.1, while returning from the said bank, on the way near Jolly Club, P.W.5 handed over the tainted G.C. notes to the appellant. 10. From the evidence of all the witnesses, it is manifestly clear that, each is pointing to a different spot so far as detection is concerned. All the members of the raiding party, who have been examined as witnesses as discussed (supra) have testified that, getting the signal from the accompanying witness-P.W.1, they had rushed to the spot. But the accompanying witness, who has turned hostile, has not whispered a single word regarding giving of signal. 10.1. The complainant-P.W.5 himself in para- 6 of his cross-examination has testified that, his loan application was forwarded by the B.D.O. to the State Bank of India, Baliguda Branch, where the bank authorities paid the amount to him after scrutinizing the loan application and he received the last installment of Rs.10,000/- after the trap. 10.1. The complainant-P.W.5 himself in para- 6 of his cross-examination has testified that, his loan application was forwarded by the B.D.O. to the State Bank of India, Baliguda Branch, where the bank authorities paid the amount to him after scrutinizing the loan application and he received the last installment of Rs.10,000/- after the trap. Such evidence of P.W.5 coupled with the evidence to the extent that, before hand, he had already received two installments and the bank officials had visited his proposed cloth shop to see progress of work there, it cannot be held that, any work of the complainantP.W.5 was pending with the appellant by the time the trap was laid. It is clear from the evidence of the witnesses that, B.D.O. is the authority, who is to forward the application form of the beneficiaries to the bank and the bank is the authority to release the loan installment-wise after verifying the progress of work in the proposed place of business of the beneficiary. When the complainant-P.W.5 had therefore received the first & second installments before the trap and he received the last installment after the trap, it cannot be held that, the appellant had not processed the application of the complainantP.W.5 for getting any illegal gratification. Had the appellant not processed the application in time, the complainant P.W.5 would not have received the loan amount as stated by him. Further, the appellant or the authorities of the Block had no role to play so far as release of successive installments of loan by the bank is concerned. It was complete jurisdiction of the bank only. There is also no evidence regarding the earlier demand, the wife of the complainant P.W.5, before whom the demand is stated to have been made being an important witness, has been withheld by the prosecution and the evidence of P.W.5 regarding prior demand is also shaky. From the evidence of P.W.5 and other witnesses, it cannot be held that, there was also immediate demand by the appellant before acceptance of the alleged bribe money. 11. If all the aforesaid evidence in their totality are taken into consideration, the prosecution case becomes doubtful and I am constrained to hold that, the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of demand and acceptance of alleged bribe money by the appellant. 11. If all the aforesaid evidence in their totality are taken into consideration, the prosecution case becomes doubtful and I am constrained to hold that, the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of demand and acceptance of alleged bribe money by the appellant. Only on the basis of recovery of tainted money from the possession of the appellant and detection of Phenolphthalein in the hand wash and pocket wash of the appellant, the appellant cannot be incriminated U/S. 7 of the P.C. Act especially in view of the nature of shaky evidence as discussed (supra) and the defence plea, which is in the nature of competing probability to the extent that, when the complainant/ P.W.5 put some G.C. notes forcibly into the pocket of the appellant while he was busy in marketing, he immediately threw it away. 12. In view of the discussions (supra), I am constrained to hold that, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge. Accordingly, the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below are setaside and the appeal is allowed.